Called to Congregate: Federal Court Forbids Enforcement of Current Public Gathering Restrictions Against Capitol Hill Baptist Church


Capitol Hill Baptist Church v. Bowser, Mayor of the District of Columbia, No. 20-02710 (TNM).  Order granting preliminary relief entered October 9, 2020.


The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has enjoined enforcement of the District of Columbia’s prohibitions on certain public gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic because those restrictions may be found to violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”) because the rules substantially burden the free exercise of religion and because the District of Columbia has not demonstrated that sweeping pandemic-related measures, designed and enforced unevenly, are the least restrictive means of ensuring public health.

At the outset of the perceived public emergency precipitated by the contagious COVID-19 virus, the Mayor of the District of Columbia promulgated orders restricting public gatherings.  Over time some restrictions have been relaxed, permitting some resumption of restaurant commerce, for example, while others, such as those restricting the size of gatherings, have not been.  And notwithstanding the restrictions, the District has permitted and the Mayor has participated in, sizable protest gatherings.

Capitol Hill Baptist Church believes that its congregants are biblically bound to gather in person weekly, a practice begun in 1978 and continuing until March of 2020, with a brief interruption during the influenza outbreak of 1918.

Capitol Hill Baptist Church has asserted, and a federal district judge has agreed, that the District of Columbia’s current prohibition on indoor or outdoor gatherings of more than 100 persons, even if masked and ‘socially distancing’ substantially burdens congregants’ religious freedoms.

It is no answer, the Court has found, that substitutes for gatherings may exist or that the congregation has left the District of Columbia in order to gather, precluding the attendance of some who are without transportation.  

The “substitution” arguments are unavailing, the court concluded, as they do not fairly demonstrate that the District of Columbia has enacted the least restrictive means of ensuring public health.

The questions to be asked in RFRA review are not confined to generalities but to the impact of burdens on individuals as well as institutions.  

The government cannot meet its burden where it has freely abandoned the very restraints it designed, as where the Mayor participated in large public protests.  

The federal court noted that it has declined to address the question of the applicability of an enhanced standard for mandatory injunctive relief, as the relief requested and granted requires restraint from enforcement which does not compel the government to act.  The court observed that in any case the higher standard, if applied, could be met.

The Court also noted that it has declined to address First Amendment claims at this time because it has proceeded with RFRA analysis.

The Court rejected the District of Columbia’s untimely filings and rejected its argument that the church was itself untimely in seeking judicial relief, as the Court felt that the church ought not be penalized for first attempting negotiation before commencing litigation.

For the removal of doubt, the order is appealable.

The case has attracted a chorus of elected officials as amici, as well as a religious liberty advocacy group, which has compiled a summary of state pandemic restrictions on religious gatherings.

CHBC v, Bowser, Mayor, No. 20-02710_2020 10 09 Memorandum

CHBC v. Bowser, Mayor, No. 20-02710_2020 10 09 Order

CHBC v. Bowser, Mayor, No. 20-07210_34 Senators’ Amicus Brief

CHBC v. Bowser, Mayor, No. 20-02710_ Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Amicus Brief

He Could Have Been a Contender: Attorney Challenges Delaware Constitutional Requirement that Courts Maintain Balance Between Two Major Political Parties


Carney v. Adams, No. 19-309 (S. Ct.)  Oral argument set for Monday, October 5, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.


The Supreme Court’s new term opens tomorrow, October 5, with oral argument concerning a Delaware attorney’s challenge to state constitutional requirements that judicial appointments for several courts be made with party affiliations in mind, such that courts are balanced, or if not balanced, such that only a ‘bare majority’ of one party holds power.

James Adams wishes to become a judge in Delaware but as an independent is frozen out because of the state’s two-party balancing requirements.   

The state asserts that as sovereign its constitution may provide for equitable apportionment among parties in judicial appointments without being overridden by the federal government.  The state also asserts that the Supreme Court’s decisions in anti-patronage disputes permit the course adopted by Delaware for judges are policy makers whose work necessitates party loyalty, unlike employees who do not make policy and who ought not fear termination because of any political party affiliation.  

The state argues that as a preliminary matter Adams cannot sue because he has not been injured by the Constitutional provisions.  He has not actively sought appointment and he cannot inflict injury upon himself in order to create an interest in challenging the judicial appointment provisions.  

Adams believes that he need not seek appointment with full knowledge that he would be rejected so that he can challenge Delaware’s constitution.  Delaware’s position that sovereignty precludes a challenge to its constitution must fail, Adams argues, because the constitution is depriving him of associational rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.   Moreover, there is little merit to the ‘policy maker’ argument, as the very thing that the anti-patronage cases rejected — loss of employment because of party affiliation — does not depend on whether an employee is high level or low level, but on whether party affiliation caused the harm in issue, his failure to be able to become a judge because he is not a partisan.

Delaware takes pride in having enshrined partisan balancing in its constitution.  Preeminent in the law of corporations, Delaware is invested in establishing and maintaining fairness in judicial appointments so that the credibility and reliability of its judiciary will be perceived to be sound.  Delaware argues that the state constitution serves this end and must be permitted to remain as it is.  

Adams insists that the preclusion from a coveted appointment is hardly the “light burden” on free speech that the state contends that it is, but rather creates an unconstitutional categorical exclusion of independent or third party judicial candidates.. 

Carney v. Adams No. 19-309 Brief of Petitioner John C. Carney, Governor of Delaware

Carney v. Adams, No. 19-309 Brief of Respondent James R. Adams

Carney v. Adams, No. 19-309 Reply Brief of Petitioner John C. Carney, Governor of Delaware



Note regarding oral argument.. As restrictions related to the COVID-19 virus remain in effect, and as the Supreme Court remains closed, argument will be conducted telephonically. Although modified to address public health concerns, guarantees of access to the courts have not been abandoned. Oral arguments will be available by livestream audio through C-Span: https://www.c-span.org/video/?469266-1/carney-v-adams-oral-argument

Never Can Say Goodbye: Judge Mulls Dismissing Flynn Proceedings with Room for Prosecution by “A New Administration”


United States v. Michael T. Flynn, No. 1:17-cr-232 (EGS).  Hearing on government’s motion to dismiss on September 29, 2020.



A hearing was held today on the government’s motion to dismiss proceedings against Gen. Michael T. Flynn, and in particular whether the government may deny it, notwithstanding that the government has represented that there is no case against General Flynn.  The court, persuaded that he had discretion to deny the government’s motion to dismiss, wanted to know from counsel where that discretion began and where it ends.  The court mused about whether dismissal might be granted without prejudice, allowing room for further proceedings by  “a new administration,” or, the court quickly added, perhaps in a continuation of the current administration.

The court’s amicus urged the court not to succumb to the importuning of a coordinate branch, stating that the court ought not tarnish its chambers with dismissal because “the President wants Flynn off the hook.”   

With respect to defendant’s arguments that the government sought to create circumstances in which it would appear that Flynn had lied, amicus offered, “Where ya been?  That’s what they do!”  

[JustLawful aside:  Perhaps amicus, by virtue of his experience in the law, and as a judge, has grown deaf to the appearance of such remarks to those who may be unacquainted with investigative pressures.  “That’s what they do!” suggests that, simply by virtue of a thing being done, it were acceptable.  Were this so, of course, there would be no criminal law at all, and while custom and usage go far in the law, custom and usage are always bounded by the Constitution.]

Amicus assured the judge that the judge had done a good job in summarizing the case.  

Counsel for the government argued the law as well as for the moral dignity of the Department of Justice in its prosecutorial functions.  Counsel argued strenuously that prosecutors may cease prosecution on discovery that there was no basis to proceed, and that this was so in this case, as the facts disclosed to the court revealed.  A senior counsel in the U.S. Attorney’s office expressed distress that the office had been accused of behaving with political motivation, assuring the court that the Department of Justice  acts with integrity, and that includes review if a prosecution seems to have gone awry.

Counsel for General Flynn was last in line for the court’s inquiry, which was preceded by the court’s intimating that counsel had behaved unethically in communicating with the Attorney General when initially retained.  In addition,the court was particularly interested in counsel’s contacts with the President, which counsel disclosed.  Thus the threat of bar disciplinary proceedings was made before counsel was permitted to advocate.  

Counsel for General Flynn asserted that there is no basis in law for the court’s appointment of a private prosecutor in this matter in the guise of an amicus, and noted that the court’s intention to orchestrate the possibility of future prosecutions provided yet more evidence of bias, and moved for recusal of the judge, with written motions to follow.

There will be additional filings by counsel for the defendant as well as by the United States, as the court has asked the Department of Justice to look into what was done with evidence concerning texts between an FBI official and a private attorney.

The court took the matter under advisement, noting how voluminous was the record before him. 

 

A Tangled Web Indeed: United States and General Flynn Submit Evidence Supporting Agreed Upon Motion for Dismissal


United States v. Michael T. Flynn, Crim. No. 17-232 (D.  D.C.).  Hearing on government’s motion to dismiss and court’s appointed amicus’ views on further proceedings to be held on September 29, 2020.


Tomorrow the federal court in the District of Columbia will hear arguments about the government’s motion to dismiss the criminal proceedings against General Michael T. Flynn, and will also hear from the court’s selected amicus.  

Months ago the government moved to dismiss charges against General Flynn, asserting that the government did not wish to proceed and also asserting that any statements in issue were not material.  General Flynn agreed. 

Ordinarily prosecutorial determinations not to proceed are granted.  In General Flynn’s case, the court itself balked, opining that General Flynn ought to be found in contempt for making false statements when entering guilty pleas for making false statements.  The court hired an amicus to advise the court, General Flynn filed a petition for mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit where he initially prevailed, but later failed to obtain the writ, and the matter is again before the judge in the District of Columbia.

The United States does not believe that there exists a basis for further criminal proceedings and has, in support of its position, disclosed the unclassified and/or unprivileged portions of an official memorandum (FD-302) documenting an interview with a Federal Bureau of Investigations agent involved in investigating General Flynn. 

The agent reported that his work did not disclose evidence that would support criminal charges against General Flynn.  Moreover, the agent reported that those in charge of the investigation seemed determined to find a basis or bases for not only charging General Flynn but also discrediting President Trump.  

The collusion collision course:  the collusion, in the legal sense,  sought to be substantiated is not the collusion, in the colloquial sense, that has been revealed.  Not only has an agent involved in the investigation provided his statement and opinions, but the government has, at the eleventh hour, disclosed internal Federal Bureau of Investigation electronic discussions and text exchanges between the FBI’s Chief of Counter Espionage and private lawyer Lisa Page.  Both the internal and external exchanges are disparaging, and the commentary between Strzok and Page exchanges vows to defeat their disfavored candidate.

Just Lawful Prognostication:  The Judge assigned to this case, Hon. Emmet G. Sullivan, having recently had the blessing of the federal appellate court to go forward with examining the government’s motion to dismiss, will not take his obligations lightly.  

While the government’s recent public disclosures are embarrassing, this is not a crime, nor are the opinions of a federal agent, however revealing, of the sort that control prosecutions.  

Judge Sullivan is likely to proceed with caution, taking as much time as he sees fit, to issue a ruling, if any, for there is always the possibility that, having gained traction in this way once before, the judge will seek more investigation, hold more hearings, and conduct further review.

U.S. v. Flynn Government’s Supplemental Filing in Support of Dismissal

U.S. v. Flynn Third Supp Supporting Agreed Upon Dismissal

U.S. v. Flynn 248-1 Strzok and Page Texts

U.S. v. Flynn, ECF 248-2 McCabe Handwritten Notes

U.S. v. Flynn, ECF 248-3 Strzok Handwritten Notes

U.S. v. Flynn, ECF 248-4 Strzok Handwritten Notes

Sound at the Time: Federal Court in Massachusetts Upholds Initial Pandemic-Related Eviction Moratorium with Exception for Compelled Referrals to Landlords’ Adversaries


Baptiste, et al. v. Kennealy, et al., No. 1:20-cv-11335 (MLW) (D. Mass.) (September 25, 2020).  Conference concerning future proceedings set for October 2, 2020.  


The court has released a 100 page opinion articulating all of its reasons for concluding that at the time that the statewide prohibition on evictions and eviction proceedings was a valid use of the state’s emergency powers to protect public health.  The court cautioned that under differing tests of constitutional sufficiency the state’s action would not survive constitutional scrutiny and stressed that changed conditions could affect the court’s determination.  The court urged  the governor of Massachusetts to bear the federal and state constitutions in mind when determining, upon the expiration of the emergency measures in mid-October,  whether further prohibition of eviction activity is necessary.

The court struck down the state’s regulation requiring any landlord notifying a tenant of rent arrearages to provide written referrals to tenant advocates to aid in countering the landlord’s position, as such provisions were unconstitutional compelled speech, as held in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, No. 16-1140 (June 26, 2018).  

The court stated that if the state agreed to abandon the regulation, the court would not enter judgment against the state.  

The opinion is encyclopedic in its review of the law applicable to the use of emergency powers, particularly with reference to the Contracts Clause, the Takings Clause and the First Amendment.  This indicates that the court was concerned not only with the opinion of courts of appeals reviewing the opinion but also with respect to the lens of history, noting Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).  

The court stated that it is possible that its denial of injunctive relief will effectively terminate the case but has ordered counsel to confer and to inform the court by October 2 of contemplated further proceedings.

2020 09 25 Baptiste et al v. Kennealy et al. No 11335 (MLW)

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, No. 16-1140 (June 26, 2018)

Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965 (June 26, 2017)

Toyosaburo Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 65 S.Ct. 193, 89 L.Ed. 194 (1944)

Between Friends: Judge’s Selected Amicus Urges Court to Refuse to Dismiss Case Against General Flynn and to Proceed to Sentencing

United States v. Flynn, No. 17-cv-232 (EGS).  Amicus Reply Brief Submitted September 11, 2020.  Oral argument scheduled for September 29, 2020. 

An amicus appointed by the federal judge assigned to proceedings brought by the United States against General Michael T. Flynn opened his reply brief by asserting that General Flynn’s “guilt is obvious.”  Although the government has moved to dismiss the proceedings and the general has concurred, the amicus opines that the government’s acts are simply not done, offering the conclusion that “clear evidence” indicates that the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss was precipitated by “a corrupt and politically motivated favor unworthy of our justice system.”  The amicus believes that the government seeks to reduce the Article III court to a “rubber stamp,” and that the court ought not permit itself to be “sullied” in this way.  Instead, because the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Article III jurisdiction continues until the court has ruled on a prosecutor’s motion to dismiss, and because the court has discretion to inquire into wrongdoing which the amicus asserts has occurred, the court may deny dismissal and proceed to sentence General Flynn.

The court has requested that the parties to the case submit a joint status report with their recommendations for further proceedings, with a proposed briefing schedule and proposed dates for oral argument, not later than September 21, 2020.  

Amicus briefs submitted September 11, 2020 and June 10, 2020, without attachments:

U.S. v. Flynn Amicus Brief September 11, 2020

U.S. v. Flynn Amicus Brief June

Referrals to Potential Adversaries Not Required: U.S.D.C. in Massachusetts Strikes Down Landlord’s Compelled Speech, Opines that Injunctive Relief Will Be Denied, Declines to Opine Further, and Promises a Written Opinion

Baptiste et al. v. Commonwealth, No. 1:20-cv-11335 (D. Mass.). Hearing on September 10, 2020.

_________________________________________________

Today the court declined to deliver an opinion on injunctive relief and dismissal orally, offering that the issues were sufficiently complex that doing so would be ill-advised, and promising to deliver a written opinion, admittedly still in draft.

The court noted that it would deny injunctive relief except that it had found the Commonwealth’s requirement that any landlord notifying tenants of nonpayment must provide referrals to representation was unconstitutional compelled speech under National Institutes of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. ____ (2018). Applying principles of severability, that determination would not extend to other portions of the regulations promulgated in connection with the eviction moratorium enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court noted that much of the law imposing the moratorium would not survive strict scrutiny analysis, but the court is inclined to the view that strict scrutiny analysis is not warranted.

The court indicated that counsel should discuss how they wished to proceed going forward, bearing in mind changed conditions since the beginning of the moratorium and impending state action concerning continuation or cessation of the moratorium on evictions in mid-October.

The court offered that it would deny injunctive relief and that its reasoning on injunctive relief and dismissal would be presented all in one decision. The admonition to counsel to consider the future is some indication that dismissal will not be granted.

The court appeared to be focused on precedent from Chief Justice Stone of the Supreme Court who relied on Justice Holmes for the principle that it is within a court’s purview to consider whether an exigency that prompted state action has ceased to exist. Notwithstanding that the court seemed inclined to the view that the exigencies apparent last spring may no longer be present, the court also indicated fear that any action might be perceived in hindsight as being of a caliber of the now discredited Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).

Still Standing, Yet at a Standstill. Federal Court Lauds Attorney’s Efforts to Call to Account the Kentucky State Supreme Court and Bar Administrative Committee But Decides Federal Relief is Precluded as Either Speculative or Barred by Sovereign Immunity

Doe v. Supreme Court of Kentucky, et al., No. 3:19-cv-236 (JRW).  Memorandum and Order granting dismissal entered August 28, 2020.

Doe sought admission to practice law in Kentucky after having done so successfully in Florida for nine years.  During that time, Doe was diagnosed with a mental health condition.  She agreed to practice with a monitor and complied with clinical recommendations.

Kentucky made multiple inquiries about Doe’s condition, demanding all medical records, convening hearings, requiring over-reaching contractual obligations but finally, after nearly two years, relenting in its insistence on conflating a mental condition with a deficit of character. Doe was admitted to practice.

Doe promptly commenced suit against the state court and bar authorities for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, defamation, and for other wrongs she asserted were inflicted upon her in the course of her pursuit of a license to practice law.

The federal court hearing her case praised her diligence in pursuing her licensure as doing so conferred a benefit not just to her but to the profession and society in general.  Where it is known that attorneys suffer a disproportionately higher incidence of stress, depression, addiction and suicide than others in society, hounding and threats of disqualification by the state and the bar serve only to invite harm, the court observed, as those fearing loss or denial of licensure or the oppression of the state will not seek help, and where help is not sought, some will lose not only their cases but their lives

Nonetheless, the court determined that it could not grant Doe relief.  Prospective relief could not be awarded as it would be speculative.  Other relief requested by Doe, even though she had standing, could not be awarded in federal court because immunity principles forbade doing so.  

Doe v. Supreme Court of Ky. (W.D. Ky. 2020)

Private Property, Public Problems: Landlords Challenge Massachusetts’ Eviction Moratorium in Federal and State Proceedings

Baptiste, et al. v. Secretary of Housing and Economic Development, et al., No. 1:20-cv-11335 (MLW) (D. Mass.).  Oral argument on motions for preliminary injunctive relief and for dismissal or stay held September 2 and 3. 

Matorin and Smith v. Executive Office of Housing and Development, No. 2084CV01134 (Sup. Ct.).  Memorandum and Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction entered August 26, 2020.


Massachusetts’ Eviction Moratorium. In response to the health and economic crisis precipitated by the COVID-19 virus, last spring the Massachusetts legislature enacted a law suspending processes of eviction and foreclosure.  Regulations governing this moratorium forbade many communications between landlord and tenant except as dictated by the state, including advising tenants in obtaining financial and legal aid.  

Originally intended to expire in mid-August, the moratorium has been extended into mid-October.  It is not known whether or for how long the suspension will remain in effect, but it may, potentially, extend up to a year beyond the culmination of the COVID-19 crisis.

The Massachusetts act prohibits initiation of eviction proceedings as well as processes in aid of those proceedings occurring at or after the time the legislation and regulations became effective.  Although it is specifically stated that the moratorium does not relieve tenants of the obligation to pay rent, in practice the measures have been interpreted to permit exactly that.

Landlords Respond. Small landlords have launched state and federal challenges, asserting that the state law and regulations unconstitutionally inhibit property owners’ access to the courts, violate First Amendment rights both by proscribing and prescribing speech, constitute physical and/or regulatory takings, and violate the Contracts Clause.

No injunctive relief in state court, but ruling on motion for injunctive relief in federal court promised for September 9th. Having lost their motion to enjoin the act in state court, this week two days of argument were had in federal court, at the close of which the court invited commentary on issues arising during proceedings.  The federal court has scheduled a hearing on September 9th and has promised a ruling on injunctive relief at that time.  

Private enterprises, not public agencies. Plaintiffs assert that the state has demanded that landlords have been conscripted, without consent and without compensation, to act as state housing authorities by providing free lodging indefinitely to individuals who have no right to be on the landlords’ properties.  Plaintiffs further assert that the moratorium decimates leases and other contracts.  The Commonwealth denies that the landlords face the hardships they described as the state has enacted only temporary measures, the impact of which may be less than landlords perceive.  

Only temporary. The state has responded to plaintiffs’ claims by asserting  immunity and by arguing that the moratorium is a valid exercise of the state’s plenary emergency powers for the general welfare, and that no rights have been deprived or infringed by its temporary measures.  The Commonwealth has argued that no taking has occurred, that there is no right to injunctive relief in takings cases.  

No end in sight. Just as there is no certainty concerning the duration of the eviction moratorium, so too is there no certainty concerning resolution of this litigation, which has attracted the attention of advocacy groups seeking to serve as amici.  

Post argument submissions. Plaintiffs have submitted two post-argument memoranda of law, the first addressing the proper standard of review for deprivations of rights of petition, arguing that scholars perceive that some rights are so fundamental that only strict scrutiny will suffice. 

The Commonwealth’s response is that there can be no deprivation of rights of access to the courts where, in the Commonwealth’s view, there is no underlying case for adjudication.  A temporary interruption of enforcement mechanisms during an emergency works no harm where those remedies will become available when the emergency is over. 

Plaintiffs observe that the emergency is all but over and that the successful implementation of social distancing and other recommendations make the state’s draconian prohibitions unnecessary now if ever they were.  

Plaintiffs point to Massachusetts precedent finding significant deprivations of rights of access to the courts to have occurred over a period of weeks, and that the indefinite nature of the moratorium only enhances deprivations already suffered.  

The Commonwealth has commented on the state’s favorable view of statutory and regulatory severability which would permit the court to excise any portion of the moratorium provisions found to be unconstitutional while leaving the remainder intact.

The Center for Disease Control Weighs In. Plaintiffs point to a newly promulgated federal prohibition on evictions as proof that the state’s measures are needlessly harsh.  The federal measure permits evictions while permitting tenants to avoid eviction by submission of proof of financial difficulty and/or ability to obtain new housing, thus demonstrating that the state’s perceived link between access to the courts and public health is ill-founded.  

Ruling on Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in Superior Court 

2020 08 26 Matorin-v-Commonwealth-of-Massachusetts-Decision-on-Preliminary-Injunction

Memoranda of Law Submitted in Federal Court

2020 07 15 Memorandum of Law in Support of Preliminary Injunction

2020 07 24 Memorandum of Law in Support of Dismissal or Stay

2020 07 25 Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

2020 09 03 Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Preliminary Injunction

2020 09 03 Supplemental Memorandum Addressing Newly Raised Issues

2020 09 03 Supplemental Memorandum Addressing CDC Order

Centers for Disease Control Order

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/04/2020-19654/temporary-halt-in-residential-evictions-to-prevent-the-further-spread-of-covid-19

Hardly Extraordinary: D.C. Circuit Reverses Course and Denies Mandamus, Returning Flynn Case to Trial Court for Inquiry into Government’s Motion to Dismiss


In re Michael T. Flynn, No. 20-5143 (D.C. Cir.) Order and Opinion Denying Emergency Petition for Mandamus entered August 31, 2020.


ICYMI:  Retired General Michael T. Flynn, having served in both the Obama and Trump administrations, was charged with making false statements to federal officers in connection with investigation of foreign involvement in the United States’ 2016 election and related matters.  Gen. Flynn twice entered guilty pleas yet later sought to withdraw those pleas, as exculpatory evidence became available and as the conduct of federal investigators came into question.

The Attorney General requested independent review of the matter subsequent to which the federal government moved to dismiss the charges against Gen. Flynn.  The trial judge retained as amicus a retired judge to aid in determining whether the matter ought to be dismissed, and even if the matter were to be dismissed, whether the trial court might independently hold Gen. Flynn in criminal contempt for perjury.  The court was committed to discerning the foundation for dismissing the case, which would include discovery of the prosecutorial process and hearings.

Gen. Flynn immediately petitioned for a writ a mandamus, which was initially granted.  The trial judge, having been requested by the court of appeals to respond, petitioned for en banc review.  

On Monday, the full complement of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals changed its initial position and denied mandamus relief.  Two judges dissented.

The per curiam opinion.  The majority of the panel concluded that mandamus was not appropriate where the trial court had not yet entered any order concerning the government’s motion to dismiss.  General Flynn could pursue appeal if any ruling were adverse to him, and as such, he had not made a showing that there existed no adequate means of redress.  The separation of powers arguments are speculative and, in the absence of concrete action on the motion to dismiss, cannot support extraordinary relief.  Moreover, the adversities the defendant complained about were not dissimilar from those visited upon other defendants, and unlike many others, the General remained at liberty.  

In addition, the panel majority found no reason to reassign the case to another judge.  The court’s commentary in the course of the proceedings was not unusual and without more cannot support reassignment.  Disqualification based on the trial judge having become a party in the mandamus proceedings could not be supported where the federal court of appeals determined to grant en banc review sua sponte.

Principles only, not politics.  D.C. Circuit Judge Griffith wrote a separate concurrence underscoring that the appellate court concerned itself only with the constitutional and jurisprudential questions presented notwithstanding any public commentary about political matters, including political appointments.

If not now, when?  Judges Henderson and Rao each wrote dissenting opinions and each supported the other’s views.

Circuit Judge Henderson affirmed her view that the initial In re Flynn mandamus ruling and order was correct, and worried that the standard set for reassignment by the panel majority is impossibly high, which will inhibit motions for disqualification that would otherwise be brought. 

The statutory standards for impartiality appear to have been diluted beyond any efficacy where the notion of “leave of court” with respect to prosecutorial motions to dismiss, heretofore liberally construed, now permits scheduling hearings and taking evidence to determine whether leave ought to be granted.  

Flynn’s petition for mandamus would limit the trial judge’s participation in the mandamus proceedings to that which the appellate court might invite, as with the request that the judge reply to the petition.  Rather than accept this limitation, the trial judge disregarded the order of the D.C. Circuit to dismiss the Flynn case and assumed the posture of a party to the litigation by demanding en banc review.  The majority of the panel appears to have sidestepped this concern by announcing that the court had determined that it would proceed to rehearing en banc sua sponte, notwithstanding that an order referenced the non-party judge’s request as the basis for its decision. 

Throughout these proceedings, the trial judge has behaved in a way that causes concerns about impartiality, the judge observed, in that the court offered its “disgust” and “disdain” for Gen. Flynn’s behavior.  The court’s selected amicus — in addition to inviting public participation as amici — was on public record supporting the denial of dismissal.  

Where a trial judge’s participate in mandamus proceedings is by invitation, the trial court’s retention of counsel and behavior as if the judge were a party indicated an opposition to dismissal before the fact.  That the trial court wanted to investigate whether the court itself could conclude that the defendant ought to be held in criminal contempt even if the case were dismissed is an indication that the court itself would pursue the defendant.  

Judge Rao noted that separation of powers principles undergird judicial deference to prosecutor’s motions to dismiss notwithstanding that “leave of court” is sought.  The proceedings envisioned by the trial judge are intended to discover the inner workings of the executive branch, which is not constitutionally appropriate.  Moreover, such an incursion is not necessary in light of the known shortfalls in the government’s conduct with General Flynn.

The contradictory positions assumed by the trial judge are troublesome.  Although the court issued detailed orders about the planned proceedings, counsel at argument before the circuit court stated that the trial judge may not make any findings as a result of the judicial inquest.  This negates the majority’s conclusion that the harm anticipated by petitioner Flynn is “speculative.”

The routine availability of appellate review as a basis for denial of mandamus relief would mean that there would be no extraordinary case warranting mandamus.  “Wishful waiting” is no shield against the harm that judicial involvement in the executive may cause here, particularly where Flynn’s liberty, which the executive no longer seeks to curtail, is threatened by the trial judge’s plan of action. (Slip opinion at 26.)

As ultimately dismissal must be granted and as the judiciary has no power to superintend the executive’s power to direct and to control prosecutions, any denial of dismissal by the trial court would mean mandamus would issue in accordance with precedent.  There is no need to withhold relief where the appellate court would do well to inhibit error. 

Moreover, in light of the known errors of the executive, there is much to be said for permitting self correction and little to be said for further proceedings with the harm that would ensue to petitioner Flynn.  Incarceration is not the benchmark for measuring losses already occasioned and those foreseeable if proceedings continue.

The morass created by this case may not be without instructive value, according to Judge Rao, who concluded:

This case highlights the essential connection between the Constitution’s structure of separated powers and the liberty interests of individuals. While modern administrative government often blurs the separation of powers, at least in criminal cases courts have steadfastly policed the separation of powers, ensuring that a criminal defendant may lose his liberty only upon action by all three branches of the government. By allowing the district court to scrutinize “the reasoning and motives” of the Department of Justice, En Banc Pet. 13 (quotation marks omitted), the majority ducks our obligation to correct judicial usurpations of executive power and leaves Flynn to twist in the wind while the district court pursues a prosecution without a prosecutor. The Constitution’s separation of powers and its protections of individual liberty require a different result. I respectfully dissent. 

2020 08 31 Flynn Mandamus Per Curiam

2020 08 31 Order on Mandamus

2020 08 31 Order on Flynn Mandamus Petition En Banc

Cayuga Nation and Tribal Leader to Appeal Dismissal of Defamation Suit against “Billions” Creators and Showtime Network

Cayuga Nation and Clint Halftown v. Showtime Networks, Inc., Brian Koppelman, Andrew Ross Sorkin, and David Levien, No. 157902/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) Decision granting dismissal entered July 17, 2020.


The Cayuga Nation and tribal leader Clint Halftown sued the creators of Showtime Networks drama “Billions” in defamation, alleging that a female character sharing the same name as Halftown was shown to have engaged in illegal conduct.  The court noted that the Cayuga Nation, as sovereign, could not sue for defamation.  Rather than defamatory content, the fictional Jane Halftown was not shown to be engaged in criminal activity.  Moreover, the court concluded, there was no likelihood that the character in the show, which published a statement in the end credits noting its status as fiction, would be perceived to be the living Clint Halftown. 

To be defamatory, a statement must be “of and concerning” and individual and be recognized or reasonably be interpreted as such.  This is a question of law but where a work is fiction, a court must search for “similarities and dissimilarities” to see whether someone who know the plaintiff would know the plaintiff was being portrayed.  

Consideration might be given to similar name, physical characteristics, family, history, and activities, including recreational activities. 

As libel by fiction is counter-intuitive, requiring denial of defamatory material while asserting similarities with the fictional character, more than superficial similarities must be shown, such that one who knows the plaintiff would recognize the plaintiff in the fictional character.

This cannot be established where the real and fictional characters are, as here, of different genders, there is no history of the plaintiff’s involvement in land deals, and no engagement with novel voting methodologies.

That the real and fictional characters have the same last names and occupations is superficial. A viewer would not be misled, and the closing assertion that the show is fictional only underscored the show’s nature.  

Plaintiffs’ trade appropriation claim failed because the statute applies to persons, not sovereigns, and concerns advertising and trade, not fiction. 

Plaintiffs have appealed the order of dismissal in its entirety.  

157902_2019_Cayuga_Nation_et_al_v_Showtime et al Decision and Order

157902_2019 Cayuga Nation et al v. Showtime et al Notice of Appeal (2020)

Read more

Monitoring the Unblinking Mechanical Eye: Unlimited Static Pole Camera Surveillance of Personal Residence Requires Probable Cause and Warrant Under Massachusetts Constitution, State Supreme Court Concludes

Commonwealth v. Nelson Mora, SJC-12890 (August 6, 2020).

In investigating a drug distribution network, Massachusetts police installed video cameras on telephone and electric poles (“pole cameras”), some of which faced the homes of alleged drug distributors. 

Evidence from the video cameras, as well as other evidence, resulted in indictments.  Several defendants moved to suppress the pole camera evidence and the fruits thereof, arguing that evidence garnered in this way violated Article 14 of the Massachusetts Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  

On interlocutory appeal from denial of defendants’ motion to suppress, the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts concluded that protracted warrantless video surveillance violated the state constitution.  Having done so, the court declined to address the U.S. Constitutional issues.  

The court remanded the case to permit the trial court to determine whether probable cause supported the installation of the cameras surveilling the personal residences from the outset.

How it happened.  A confidential informant identified defendant Mora as a drug dealer. After a staged purchase of drugs, cameras were installed outside Moran’s and another defendant’s houses.  The cameras provided a view of the front of the house as well as the sidewalk and the adjacent street.  The cameras recorded continuously — for five months in Mora’s case –without audio and were static except for the capacity to zoom in and out.  The interior of homes could not be seen and no particular features permitted nighttime surveillance.  

The trial court found the surveillance unexceptional.  The trial judge denied defendants’ motions to suppress because the cameras captured only information in plain public view.  The cameras aimed at a fixed point and were not capable of capturing detailed activities and associations.  Observation of matters on public display traditionally does not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy and does not require a warrant.  The court concluded that pole cameras did no more than that.  

In de novo review of the central question whether the pole cameras’ surveillance were unconstitutional warrantless searches, the Supreme Judicial Court asked first whether there was a search.  A search may be unconstitutional if it intrudes upon an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy, but no such expectation is ordinarily found where the observation is of matters in plain view of the publix. 

Pole cameras have been in use for several decades.  Other courts’ reviews have yielded mixed results. 

The court found it unnecessary to address federal issues and noted that the Massachusetts Constitution may afford more protections than the U.S. Constitution.  The court framed the central question is whether a defendant had a reasonable subjective expectation of privacy and whether society would recognize the expectation as unreasonable.  

The appellate court recognized that defendants had subjective expectations that their homes would not be subjected to extended surveillance.  There was no need to create barriers around the property to obtain constitutional protection.  Such a requirement would make the constitutional resource dependant, and an impermissible result, as the home is a castle no matter how humble.  (Slip Op. at 14.)

What society may recognize as objectively reasonable is a large and difficult question, the court opined, but noted that case law has recognized that extended surveillance without probable cause and judicial supervision is problematic.

Location, location, location…and duration. The duration and location of surveillance matters, the court found, making it possible to extend protection to protracted video recording of houses but not to public places, particularly as surveillance cameras are abundant there and in commercial venues.

The Founders’ Prescience. Protecting the home from government intrusion is the reason that federal and state constitutions were drafted as they were.  The promise that the sanctity of the home will not be needlessly or recklessly breached is historically significant, and the framers may be thanked for a prescience that precludes a contemporary Orwellian state.  (Slip. Op. at 22.)

The argument that pole cameras outside the home catch no more than a police officer might see must faile, as the very inexhaustibility of the machines negates comparison.

As heretofore it has not been thought necessary to obtain a warrant to conduct pole camera surveillance, the Supreme Judicial Court decided that remand to determine whether propane cause for use of the cameras existed at the time of installation, which might be established by review of existing evidence submitted in support of warrants that were obtained or by supplementary evidence if needed.  If probable cause existed for installation of all of the cameras, suppression of evidence must be denied, but if probable cause did not exist, suppression as to the cameras surveilling the homes only may be allowed. 

Commonwealth v. Mora, SJC 12890 (August 6 2020)

  

 

 

 

 

The House of God v. The House of the Rising Sun: Vigorous Dissents Accompany Supreme Court’s Denial of Injunctive Relief Where Nevada Church Alleges Pandemic Measures Restrict Churches More Than Casinos

Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, Governor of Nevada, No. 17A1070 (July 24, 2020).


A rural Nevada church asked the Supreme Court to enjoin state pandemic emergency measures that impose a flat numeric limit on church attendees while commercial entities such as casinos may operate at a percentage of capacity, permitting close contact for extended periods. 

The Supreme Court denied, without opinion, Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley’s request.  Four justices submitted three dissenting opinions. 

Justices Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh would grant relief, given the inexplicable and unsupported discrepancy in treatment between secular and religious gatherings as well as the irreparable harm presumed to flow from deprivation of First Amendment rights.  

The justices observed that while “…a public health emergency does not give Governors and others carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists.”  (Alito dissent, p. 3.)  Particularly as time has passed since the emergency initially arose, and new information may permit revisions, the issue of exigency has diminished while the impact of discrimination against religion has continued unabated.  

The state’s actions fare no better under speech analysis.  While the state may posit that important viewpoints are advanced during permitted public protests, this overlooks the critical truth that the constitution does not permit preferring one viewpoint over another.

Justice Gorsuch wrote a separate dissent, offering his view that the Calvary Chapel case was “simple,” in that “…there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesar’s Palace over Calvary Chapel.”  (Gorsuch dissent, p. 1.) 

Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately in dissent to emphasize that the state offered no plausible justification for its differential treatment of commercial activity and religious gatherings.  .  Justice Kavanaugh presented a primer addressing the nature and sources of religious disputes grounded in real or perceived differences in treatment of religion and other activities, and reviewing precedent addressing these cases.

Just Lawful Observes:  The concern with protracted state invocation of emergency powers permeates the dissent here, a concern that was not as apparent in May of this year, where the Court denied injunctive relief to a California church in a manner deferential to the state’s exercise of emergency powers to inhibit viral contagion during a pandemic.  South Bay United Pentacostal v. Newsom, Governor of California, No. 19a1044 (May 29, 2020). Although there were perceived differences between non-church and church activities, none were found to be inconsistent with the Free Exercise Clause. 

Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak, Governor of Nevada: Denial of Injunctive Relief and Dissenting Opinions. No. 19a1070 (July 24, 2020).

South Bay United Pentacostal v Newsom, Governor of California. No. 19a1044 (May 29, 2020).

 

 

 

Contraception Coverage Redux: Supreme Court Excepts Religious Entities from Certification to Exemption from Mandate

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-431; Donald Trump v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-454 (July 8, 2020).


Justice Thomas wrote for the Court.  Interim final rules relating to the Affordable Care act of 2010 (“ACA”) require that contraceptives be covered in employer sponsored health care plans notwithstanding that the ACA legislation is silent on this point.   The mandatory preventive care provisions of the ACA do not define what preventive care must be covered, leaving it to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide specifics.

The Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury have promulgated exceptions from the contraceptive mandate.   HHS excused itself from the Administrative Procedures Act’s (“APA”) notice and comment provisions, notwithstanding concerns expressed by religious employers.  HHS crafted an exemption for churches and their integrated associates.  

Several years passed in crafting refinements and self-certification for exemptions.  Insurers could provide contraceptive benefits separately to employees of self-certifying exempt entities. Religious entities such as the plaintiffs here objected to this scheme as involving unwanted participation in the contraceptive mandate.  

The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home (“Little Sisters”) argued — but courts disagreed — that exemption self-certification presented just the kind of undue burden on the free exercise of religion that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) was intended to protect.  Petitions for certiorari from several religious entities were remanded when parties appeared to agree that arrangements for separate provision of contraception could be fashioned so as to not require action by the religious groups, and that this would be a satisfactory result.

At the same time, other challenges to the contraceptive mandate were mounted.  Private employer Hobby Lobby Stores prevailed in an as-applied RFRA challenge, causing HHS to redraft its rules. 

HHS was initially unable to draft measures sufficient to satisfy religious objections while fulfilling the contraceptive mandate’s promise to employees.  After several years, HHS promulgated the rules in issue in this case, which expanded the definition of exempt employers, and which relieved employers from participation in the accommodation process, although that process remained available. 

A federal court issued a national injunction against HHS on the date the rules were to have taken effect.  Subsequent to Third Circuit review, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The Supreme Court, engaging in textual analysis, observed that the ACA conferred unbridled discretion on HHS to regulate required, or excluded, health care for women without defining what that care would include or exclude.  Where Congress could have limited this unfettered discretion but did not do so, the Supreme Court would not supply new additions to the statute.  Where no party raised an overbreadth challenge to the delegation, the Supreme Court would not disturb it.

Because the Court concluded that HHS’ discretion was conferred by Congress, the Court did not address whether RFRA compelled or authorized HHS’ action, but the Court noted that it was not improper for HHS to consider RFRA in fashioning regulations, particularly in light of the proceedings relating to to the contraceptive mandate. 

The Court concluded that HHS met the substance of notice requirements and had accepted comments.  The Court refused to require “open mindedness” of HHS, finding no basis for such a requirement in the APA.

Justice Alito, with Justice Gorsuch, concurred.  Justice Alito would extend the Court’s opinion to find that RFRA requires the exemption, thereby precluding arbitrary and capricious challenges on remand.  Justice Alito urged that the Court find finality in its present decision rather than requiring another round of remand. 

HHS’ Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) was given responsibility under ACA to determine what preventive services should be made available.  HRSA determined that contraception should be available, at first exempting only churches but later, following objections and litigation before the Supreme Court, expanding that exception and modifying procedures.

Justice Alito opined that RFRA applies to all government activity and as such, HRSA had to administer the contraceptive mandate in accordance with RFRA.  This is particularly so because the Supreme Court held in Hobby Lobby that the contraceptive mandate may substantially burden religion.  

Justice Alito did not think that Congress has fashioned contraceptive coverage in a way that suggests that Congress considered contraception to be a compelling interest, particularly as the question whether it ought to be provided at all was delegated to the administrative agency.  So many people and situations are exempted that it is difficult to perceive that a compelling interest in the provision of contraceptives exists.  The circular administrative exceptions themselves indicate that the mandate did not concern a compelling interest. 

The issue is whether there is a compelling need for coverage, not convenience.  Even if there were a compelling interest, the least restrictive means test must be satisfied.  Congress could create cost-free contraception if it wished without burdening the consciences of religious entities.  

Although the government must legislate using the least restrictive means to advance compelling interests, the government need not adhere to least restrictive means principles in creating accommodations.  The woman who works for an entity that exempts itself from the contraceptive mandate is not burdened by the employer’s exemption: “she is simply not the beneficiary of something that federal law does not provide.”  (Concurrence, Slip Op. at 18.)

Justice Kagan, with Justice Breyer, concurred in the judgment.  Justice Kagan agreed with the idea of authority to create exemptions but questioned whether reasoned decision making is in place, and notes that the lower courts can address this.  The conclusion that authority was present made it unnecessary to address whether any determination was arbitrary and capricious and that needs to be done.  Reasoned decision making is absent where the scope of the exemption does not fit the problem to be addressed.  The revised rule exempts those who might have no objection to the self-certification accommodation, and fails to protect employees’ access to contraception.  The extension of the exemption to publicly traded entities is questionable as it is difficult to locate conscience interests in such companies.  Why more in addition to religious exemptions were included is not clear, and RFRA does not cover “moral” objections. 

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, dissented.  Justice Ginsburg laments what she perceives to be the Court’s abandonment of balancing beliefs so that no interests are overwhelmed, and fears that the Court has demolished the protections that the Women’s Health Amendment to the ACA, leaving “working women to fend for themselves…” (Dissent, Slip Op. at 2.)

Neither the Free Exercise Clause or FRFA required this result.  The Court has abandoned the accommodations intended to ensure that all interests and objections could be addressed.  Unlike the majority, Justice Ginsburg found no authorization for a blanket exemption in the ACA.  Where heretofore it was agreed that any religious exemption to the contraception mandate would preserve access to contraception, the exemption the Court now embraces places an undue burden on women.  Directing women to seek assistance from available government programs will only further cripple already overburdened programs.  

This process would force women to abandon known caregivers and if forced to pay out of pocket would likely cause women to pay for more expensive coverages.

Even if the self-certification process is sincerely believed to be unduly burdensome, that is not true as a matter of fact or law, as the government need not conduct itself in a way that comports with religious views.  Self-certification relieves religious employers of their objections to obligations and transfers the obligation to the insurer:  this both accommodates the religious employer and facilitates the government’s interest in women’s health care.

The obligation to provide contraception arises from the ACA, not from submission of self-certification of exemption based on religious objection.  A blanket exemption is nowhere consistent with any statute or regulation.  

Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania No. 19-431 and Trump v. Pennsylvania No. 19-454 July 8, 2020

 

 

Sectarian Versus Secular Civil Rights: Supreme Court Permits Church Employers Latitude in Defining Employee Roles and Rights

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267 (July 8, 2020); St. James’ School v. Biel, No. 19-348 (July 8, 2020).


In this challenge to churches’ capacity to determine their own rules of employment, Justice Alito wrote for the Court’s majority; Justices Thomas and Gorsuch wrote separately in concurrence; and Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented.


Teachers at the religious schools in the cases now before the Court have responsibilities similar to those described in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 565 U.S. 171 (2012).   These teachers do not, however, have titles associated with professed religious persons or functions.

Mid-twentieth century precedent established that religious institutions have the capacity to decide matters of church governance without state interference.  Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952).

Here, one elementary school teacher who taught all subjects, including religion, complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) that the school administration’s determination to change her to part-time status was age discrimination.  The other plaintiff claimed discrimination in discharge because of her need for breast cancer treatment.  Both responding employers stated that their decisions were bawsed on employee performance.

The question is how the principles of independence constitutionally assured in church governance apply to church autonomy in employment decisions, in which churches enjoy a “ministerial exception” to otherwise applicable laws for religious positions.  An individual’s role in conveying the church’s mission and the trust conferred on that individual are significant, but the title “minister” in itself will not require exemption nor is it necessary to confer exemption.  Where both teachers in these cases were entrusted with performance of religious duties, the ministerial exception appropriately applies. The determination whether the exception applies cannot be made by rote review of titles and checklists as ultimately a court, unschooled and unskilled in religious matters, must look to what an individual does, not what he or she is called.

The hiring exemption permitting churches to prefer members of their religion in hiring decisions is of a different character than the ministerial exception, and the principle applicable there do not need to be imported to the ministerial exemption.  Judicial inquiry into who is a member of a faith and who is not would impermissibly intrude on a church’s definition of participation.

A rigid formula for characterizing employment as religious is inapt.  “When a school with a religious mission entrusts a teacher with the responsibility of educating and forming students in the faith, judicial intervention into disputes between the school and the teachers threatens the school’s independence in a way that the First Amendment does not allow.”  (Slip Op. at 26-27.)

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch concur.  Justice Thomas asserts that courts must defer to church determinations of what is ministerial, as this is inherently a theological question that cannot be answered by civil law.

Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissent.  The dissenting justices point to the predominantly secular functions performed by the teachers in these cases, their lack of religious training, and the absence of any religious requirement attaching to their positions.  Employers are required to conform to generally applicable laws and Congress has created exemptions where appropriate.  The ministerial exception is judge made law.  Because of its sweep, which would permit religious animus, the exception must be narrow, as it is subject to abuse.  It is to be preferred to make constitutional determinations on a case by case, holistic, basis.  The “functional status” analysis adopted here, focused on what an employee does, rewrites Hosanna-Tabor, making a two justice concurrence in that case into the prevailing opinion.

Where the civil rights of thousands of employees in religious organizations are in issues, analytical vagueness and deference to religious entities determinations invites abuse, permitting religious bodies to determine for themselves what the law is ad absolving the institutions of responsibility for religious animus.  Justice Sotomayor’s application of Hosanna-Tabor would lead to a conclusion contrary to that of the majority.  Biel was a teacher who participated in religious functions with a half day’s training in religious pedagogy. Morrissey-Berru taught various subjects and taught religious matters from a workbook chosen by the church.

Neither plaintiff ought to have bee barred from asserting claims based on a ministerial exception.  Neither was a minister, neither was trained as such, neither had a leadership role in the faith community, and both function predominantly as academic teachers. Depriving them of civil rights based o a small amount of time engaged in religious activity is harsh, especially where no religious reason was proffered for the churches’ acts concerning plaintiffs’ employment.

Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267 July 8, 2020

 

Nine Justices, Six Opinions: Giving Voice to Religion Clause Concerns in Addressing Montana Scholarship Case

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, No. 18-1195, 591 U.S. ____ (June 30, 2020).


That this case prompted the issuance of six opinions suggests there is no shortage of particularized views of the Religion Clauses among the justices.  At best, this can be a sign of healthy disagreement, but at worst, the judges’ divergences disclose an inability to reconcile themselves to the Constitution, to each other, or to both.


What Was In Issue.  Montana enacted a law permitting a modest tax credit for contributions to scholarship organizations which in turn made tuition awards to applicants’ schools, most of which were religiously affiliated private schools.  The Montana law demanded compliance with the provisions of the Montana constitution that forbids public aid to any institution controlled by any religious entity.  Montana Constitution Article X, Section 6(1).  Although disfavored by the state attorney general, the Montana tax authority promulgated an administrative regulation (“Rule 1”) to conform administration of the scholarship program to the state constitution’s ‘no-aid’ provision.  

Uncertain of their children’s scholarship status, parents sought and were granted relief from Rule 1 by a state trial court, which the Montana Supreme Court reversed in 2018.  


The Montana Supreme Court’s View. The state supreme court held that even in the absence of the tax rule, the state constitution prohibited aid to sectarian schools.  Unable to find a workable solution that would save the scholarship legislation without offending the state constitution, the court terminated the program in its entirety.  

The Montana justices agreed that the administrative rule was beyond the tax authority’s power to promulgate, but disagreed on the state and federal constitutional dimensions of the case.  One justice decried needless complexity in current Free Exercise jurisprudence, finding that the scholarship legislation was invalid under the state constitution’s ‘no aid’ provision.  Two justices thought the program acceptable and criticized the court’s invalidation of the legislation where no facial state constitutional challenge had been brought.  Another judge did not see the state constitution as prohibiting the scholarship program but expressed concern that the application of the state court constitution could offend the federal constitution.  


The United States Supreme Court’s Majority View.  In the first of six opinions offered by justices, the majority concluded that where general public programs are available to all, “all” cannot be construed to exclude participation based on religion. 

The majority observed that First Amendment jurisprudence must consider both what is permitted by the Establishment Clause and what is prohibited by the Free Exercise Clause.  Neutral programs that are available to all do not offend the Establishment Clause.  That is particularly so here, where citizens choose how to spend scholarship money.  The Free Exercise Clause forbids preclusion from any government benefit because of faith.  That preclusion is exactly what is in issue in this case.  Strict scrutiny analysis is in order where preclusion is based on religious status.  

This case is distinguishable from an earlier determination that a state could, based on history and tradition, preclude the use of state funds to pursue preparation for professional ministry.  The tradition that supported the prohibition on state funded training for the ministry is ot present in this case, as historic review discloses complexity in approaches. 

The state’s argument that it may act to provide a greater separation between church and state under the state constitution than that provided by the deferral constitution fails because an interest that offends the Free Exercise Clause cannot be compelling.  

Freedom of religion is not advanced by infringing on First Amendment rights, and this is particularly so where choice in whether to access religious education — or not — is denied.  A state might reasonably determine no to engage itself in providing funding to private education, but if a state determines that it will fund private education, it cannot then preclude religious schools from participating.

The majority dispensed with the argument that there can be no free exercise violation where the program in issue is defunct.  The program was a legislative creation invalidated by a court as a remedial measure where no other could be found.  Central to the state supreme court’s determination is its refusal to recognize that the state ‘no aid’ provision violated the federal Free Exercise Clause.  There is no basis upon which to argue that there exists some neutral policy choice or independent state law basis for the state court decision, as its failure to consider the Free Exercise Clause violates the Supremacy Clause. 


Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, issued a separate concurrence.  Justice Thomas decries the “brooding omnipresence” of current Establishment Clause jurisprudence, which dictates that all religions must be treated equally and religion must be treated as equal to non-religion.  The Establishment Clause was intended to inhibit the imposition of any religion by the federal government upon the states.  It is not clear whether the establishment clause was seen as an individual right at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, but even if it was, incorporation would be limited to establishment as it was considered by the founding fathers.

What was understood at the founding was that federal law could not coerce religious orthodoxy and financial support.

The notion that states must be antiseptic respecting religion has no basis in history. Expansive applications of the Establishment Clause cripples the application of the Free Exercise Clause. Ultimately rigid constructions of the religion clauses act as content based restrictions on the government.  Hostility toward religion, or a “trendy disdain” for religion which has given rise to “offended observer” claims, has distorted the proper meanings of the religion clauses.  Preferencing some constitutional rights over others must be reconsidered so as to permit the free exercise of religion to thrive. 


Justice Alito concurred separately.  Apparently somewhat sore because his view that origins considerations cannot always be controlling failed to prevail in Ramos v. Louisiana, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), Justice Alito seized the opportunity presented by Espinoza to note that the application of the “original motivation” view espoused in Ramos would be fatal to any effort to uphold the ‘no-aid’ provision in issue here.  Justice Alito has published a detailed history of historical antipathy toward religion in the United States, with particular contempt toward Catholicism, which was perceived as threatening to public education, and which gave rise to the sorts of ‘no aid’ provisions enacted and later re-adopted by Montana.  


Justice Gorsuch concurred separately.  Justice Gorsuch wrote to express his view that confining considerations of impingement on religious freedoms ought not be limited to religious status, for religious belief is almost always accompanied by religious behavior, which is also worthy of constitutional protection.


Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Kagan, offered a dissenting opinion.  Justice Ginsburg has opined that there can be no Free Exercise Clause violation where the Montana scholarship legislation has been struck down.  The majority’s intimation that the Montana ‘no aid’ provision is itself unconstitutional lacks grounding in federalism principles.  There was no facial challenge before the court making any opinion from the Supreme Court on that issue improper.  

Dismantling the scholarship program worked no injustice on the parents seeking religiously affiliated education for their children, Justice Ginsburg stated, for it left all families on the same footing.  Where all are now without state support for any private education, no discrimination exists.


Justice Breyer dissented, joined in part by Justice Kagan.  Justice Breyer has advocated for comprehensive, case by case considerations of religion clause matters, finding the crafting and application of tests ill suited to develop a sound jurisprudence.  So doing would require more effort, but in his view there is no substitute for sound judgment, which to be informed must consider all that is before the court and all that is implicated by its decision.


Justice Sotomayor wrote a separate dissent.  The Court has committed compound errors, in Justice Sotomayor’s view, as it has answered the wrong question incorrectly.  Once the Montana Supreme Court invalidated the scholarship program, there was no federal Free Exercise Clause question for the Court to decide.  There can be no question of disparate treatment where the purported source of that disparity no longer exists.  The Court has issued a decision intimating facial invalidity when that issue was at no point before the Court.  In so doing, the Court has exceeded its Article III powers and violated federalism principles.  

18-1195 Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue (06_30_2020)

 

You Cannot Take It With You: First Amendment Speech Protections Do Not Reach U.S. Entities’ Foreign Affiliates

Agency for International Development, et al. v. Alliance for Open Society International, et al., No. 19-177 (June 29, 2020).


Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court.  In 2003, the United States determined that certain recipients of federal funding for international public health initiatives must have an express policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act, known as the Leadership Act. 117 Stat. 711, as amended, 22 U. S. C. §7601 et seq.  

In 2013, the Supreme Court agreed with the Alliance for Open Society International (AOSI) that the Policy Requirement, as it came to be known, imposed an unconstitutional condition on AOSI’s First Amendment rights.  

The Policy Requirement remained in effect against AOSI’s separate foreign affiliates, resulting in the present challenge.

The Court acknowledged that foreign citizens in the United States may enjoy some constitutional protections.  The U.S. Constitution may also apply in U.S. territories or places wholly controlled by the U.S. government.  The U.S. may enact legislation granting rights against the U.S. abroad or giving U.S. citizens abroad certain rights, but the government is generally otherwise constrained against attempting to affect activities abroad.

The law traditionally holds that separate corporations have separate rights and responsibilities.  The separate corporations in issue here were incorporated outside the U.S. and, although affiliated, are distinct from the U.S. corporations.  

The Court held that the United States, which. provides more foreign aid than any nation on earth,  may do so by applying conditions such as those in issue here mandating that aid recipients as a matter of policy condemn sex trafficking and prostition.  

Foreign corporations operating abroad enjoy no First Amendment rights.  

In light of both principles, the plaintiffs cannot complain of constitutional error in requiring the Policy Statement of foreign entities. 

Arguments about speech misattribution fail because the cases cited by plaintiffs concern forced affiliations, whie the choice of affiliations here are wholly voluntary.  Plaintiffs are free to affiliate as they please and they may disclaim support for the policy statements that their foreign affiliates must make.

Justice Thomas concurred to restate his discontent with the “forced speech” holding of the 2013 case.  Justice Thomas observed that the Constitution does not compel a viewpoint neutral government nor does conditioning funds tied to affirmations of a belief involve compulsion where entities are free to decide not to apply for or participate in federal funding.  The First Amendment does not protect the conditions in issue at all, without reference to the domestic or international status of the corporation or its affiliates.

Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented, asserting that the First Amendment rights of the U.S. entities and not the foreign corporations are in issue.  By asking the wrong question, they observe, the Court arrives at the wrong answer

Where close affiliates are concerned, answers to questions of compelled speech ought not be distinguished based on whether the affiliated entities are domestic or foreign.  If the government demands speech contrary to the speaker’s message, the mechanism for so doing cannot cure the constitutional infirmity.

The aim of the domestic corporations is to speak abroad. From a structural standpoint, It ought not matter how this is accomplished.  Moreover, the impact of the present decision on U.S. media abroad cannot be disregarded.

The issue of the territorial reach of the U.S. Constitution is of no moment because exploration of the issue comes in response to the wrong question. The speech rights of domestic corporations with respect to closely identified foreign affiliates, not the foreign affiliates in themselves, are in issue.  Additionally, the idea that separate corporations are inviolably so is contrary to law, which can and does at times disregard corporate forms and recognize close corporate relationships.  

U.S. A.I.D. v. Alliance for Open Society No.19-177 S.Ct. June 29 2020

Federal District Court in New York Enjoins Pandemic Precautions Restraining Religious Gatherings

Soos, et al. v. Cuomo, et al., No. 1:20-cv-651 (N.D.N.Y.) (GLS/DJS).  (Order granting injunctive relief entered June 26, 2020).


Since the inception of public health concerns about potential harms should coronavirus (COVID-19) contamination be left unchecked, New York state and city officials have issued not less than seventeen orders dictating who may congregate where and for what purposes.  Religious services fell among the most rigidly curtailed events.

Notwithstanding harms predicted to ensue from close unprotected contact with others, in June mass protests erupted across the United States.

Thousands gathered in New York without official objection.  The governor counseled citizens to be “smart” by practicing social distancing.  It has been reported that, apparently without further elaboration, the Mayor of New York opined that protesting racism presented a “different  question” than did religious events, certain of which he had previously vociferously condemned.

On motion brought by religious leaders, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York declined to find the public health orders to be “neutral laws of general applicability” presumed to be constitutionally sound even if such laws incidentally burden religion.

The state and local course of conduct created de facto exemptions specifically inhibiting the free exercise of religion, the court found.  The court could not identify a compelling interest which would justify any distinction that would permit public gatherings for some purposes but not for religious purposes. Where irreparable harm could be presumed to flow from the prevention of religious free exercise rights, the court enjoined enforcement of any indoor restrictions greater than those imposed on non-essential entities and any outdoor restrictions.  In both indoor and outdoor settings, social distancing precautions are to be employed.

Soos v. Cuomo No. 20-cv-00651 (N.D.N.Y.) Order June 26 2020

 

 

Case Dismissed! Federal Court of Appeals Orders D.C. Federal District Court to Grant United States’ Motion to Dismiss Criminal Case Subsequent to Plea Agreement Admitting False Statements to Federal Bureau of Investigation

In re. Michael T. Flynn, No. 20-5143 (D.C. Cir.) Petition for writ of mandamus granted in part on June 24, 2020.


General Michael T. Flynn was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in relation to contacts with foreign sources.  General Flynn plead guilty to lying to federal officers, testifying under oath that he was in fact guilty and had not been subjected to duress.  Months later the United States moved to dismiss the case against General Flynn, having concluded that any false statements made were not material to any investigation.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia did not look kindly on the United States’ motion to dismiss, and in response invited amici submissions and scheduled hearings to determine whether he ought to find General Flynn guilty of perjury notwithstanding the United States no longer wishing to pursue the matter.

General Flynn’s counsel petitioned the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for a Writ of Mandamus which was today granted in part.   The appellate court has ordered the trial court to dismiss the case, but the appellate court refused to transfer the case to another judge.  In light of these determinations, disputes about the engagement of an amicus to assist the trial judge were rendered moot.


The D.C. Circuit  opined that dismissals of criminal matters rest soundly with prosecutorial discretion.  Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has a limited “leave of court” requirement that is intended to protect against prosecutorial harassment.   United States . Fokker Services B.V., No. 15-1306 (D. D.C. 2016).

The court observed that this is not an extraordinary case in which judicial involvement in dismissal could be warranted.  General Flynn agrees with the prosecution, there is no evidence of harassment, and recently produced exculpatory evidence supports the Department of Justice’s view that the interviews with General Flynn in issue were not material to any prosecution.

Moreover, the appellate court concluded, harm to the prosecution in refusing to dismiss is not speculative, particularly in that the hearings proposed by the trial court would provide a foray into the deliberative processes of the Executive Branch.  It is right to attend to the interests of the Executive Branch, the court found, as the executive is not just any party, but is the branch responsible for criminal prosecutions.  Equally significant is that a trial court’s assumption of a supervisory role over the executive would not be a theoretical breach of the separation of powers, but would chill effective prosecutions.

Further, the trial court’s designation of an advocate for for the prosecution put the two coequal branches of government on a collision course.

The appellate court refused to rewrite the limited “leave of court” provision of Rule 48, F.R.Crim.P. to permit elaborate mic submissions and extensive hearings, finding that “[t]he district court has no mechanism by which it can maintain a prosecution in the absence of the Executive Branch moving forward.”  (Slip. Op. at 14.)

Dismissal cannot turn on what a judge independently thinks in in the public interest.  A court should not second guess except in an extreme case:  extensive, pershpas inquisitorial, inquiry in a non-extreme case would contravene Supreme Court precedent and would be inconsistent with  Article III powers.

The majority countered the dissent’s position that a writ of mandamus cannot issue until the trial court has acted, finding that an actual ruling on the motion to dismiss was not necessary where the court had already invited amici and scheduled hearings.

Dissenting Justice Wilkins opined that the majority wholly misdefies the issue at hand.  The question is not whether a court may deny a Rule 48 motion to dismiss but whether the court is precluded from making any inquiry at all.  The appell majority ruling that the district court overstepped its authority has been followed by the appellate court’s following suit, for there is no basis for the court to issue a writ of mandamus absent a discrete action by the district court.

The dissent found the majority’s reliance on Fokker disengenuous, for in that case, a deferred prosecution agreement, not dismissal was in issue.  Reliance on Fokker, Justice Wilkins found, “transforms dicta into dogma.”  (Slip Op. Dissent at p. 3, Part B).

The dissent expressed fear that the majority has read the public interest out of Rule 48.  The law is not as settled as the majority would say and it is not possible to say that petitioner has no other relief available, where it is clear that it exists.

The dissent offered that there is no reason, even in the absence of explicit authority, that a trial judge cannot enlist assistance in charting its course on a case.

Prosecutorial discretion cannot be made into an impenetrable shield.  The dissent observed that the appellate ruling decimates the discretion that resies in trial court’s concerning motions to dismiss.

This is particularly worrisome, Justice Wilkins found, where but months ago the statements now deemed ‘immaterial’ were said to have gone to “the heart of the government’s case.”  (Slip. Op. Dissent at p. 17).

2020 06 24 Opinion In re Michael T. Flynn

2020 06 24 Order in re Michael T. Flynn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Tale of the Tell All: Federal District Court Refuses to Enjoin Publication Said to Contain Sensitive National Security Information


United States v. John R. Bolton, No. 1:20-cv-01580-RCL Order denying temporary restraining order entered June 20, 2020.


Former National Security Advisor John R. Bolton complied with the pre-publication review process of his account of his days in the Trump administration up to the point when, following required agency review that had provided assurances that his manuscript was free of classified information, counsel for the White House and National Security Council advised that further review was ongoing.

Bolton’s publisher, Simon & Schuster, has printed and distributed Bolton’s book to re-sellers in anticipation of publication on June 23.  Excerpts are currently available online.

The government’s advanced prohibition of publication — “prior restraint” — is anathema to the First Amendment except in limited circumstances.  The publication of classified information harmful to national security interests is one such circumstance, requiring that those accessing such information agree not to disclose or publish such information absent review.

The United States has sought and has been denied an injunction which would temporarily restraining Bolton from full publication.

The United States District Court for the District of the District of Columbia determined that the law governing injunctions no longer permits flexibility or a “sliding scale” approach but demands that all four prongs of the requirements for injunctive relief must be met.  To obtain such relief, a party must demonstrate a substantial likelihood on the merits, that it will suffer irreparable harm if relief is not granted, that there will be no substantial harm to other parties if relief is granted, and that the extraordinary relief sought serves the public interest.

Following in camera review of the United States’ declarations and submissions supporting its position, the court did not look kindly on what it characterized as Bolton’s “gamble” with national security, surmising that Bolton had weighed the financial and publicity benefits of truncating the review process against the costs to the nation and to himself of the possible disclosure of classified information.

The court found the government’s insistence that irreparable harm would ensue if injunctive relief were denied fell short of the mark where the harm to be prevented has in essence already occurred.   Any further harm that the government fears cannot likely be overcome by a grant of a temporary restraining order where the internet would permit worldwide publication in an instant of materials already disclosed.

The court observed that a toothless injunction could hardly cause harm to others and that an award of such relief would only nominally serve the public interest.

While the court’s analysis and conclusions on the matter of injunctive relief disfavored the government, particularly as the court thought little of the request that the court order recall of materials already in the publisher’s and resellers’ possession, the court did not hesitate to proffer his prediction of the merits:  “[d]efendant Bolton likely jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information in violation of his national security obligations.”  (June 20th Order, Docket No. 27, at p. 6.)

The court recited potential costs if Bolton loses on the merits are not insignificant:  loss of profits, exposure to criminal liability, and harm to national security.

Justlawful observation:  A federal district court does not have time and may lack the inclination to explore institutional ramifications when ruling on a time-sensitive motion for a temporary restraining order.  Suffice it to say that it remains to be debated what ends, positive and negative, the classification of information serves, and what institutional erosion may occur where former officials determine of their own accord what processes will be respected, and what conditions will be abandoned, particularly in service of self interest.

This is not to say that the government wears a ten-gallon white hat in this case.  The government may not be on solid ground if it seeks to preclude embarrassment accompanying publication, and this is a widely held public perception of the government’s position.  Publication of embarrassing information may diminish the United States and its President in the eyes of the world, but without more this cannot be a true national security concern.  Moreover, the bureaucratic obstreperousness perceived in the imposition of additional hurdles to publication diminishes the justification for the extant exception to the constitutional prohibition of prior restraints.

Nonetheless, the court included in its considerations the reality that classification and security interests are not necessarily the subject of single source review, particularly where the author “was entrusted with countless national secrets and privy to countless sensitive dealings.”  (June 20th Order, Docket No. 27, at p. 6).  It is in this that the government’s extension of the review process may stand on firmer ground.

United States v. John R. Bolton No. 20-cv-01580-RCL Order June 20 2020

 

 

 

 

 

Time and Tide and Textualism: Supreme Court Holds “Sex” in Civil Rights Act Includes Orientation and Transexual Status

GERALD LYNN BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, No. 17-1618; ALTITUDE EXPRESS, INC., ET AL. v. MELISSA ZARDA AND WILLIAM ALLEN MOORE, JR., CO-INDEPENDENT EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF DONALD ZARDA, No 17-1623; R.G. & G.R. HARRIS FUNERAL HOMES, INC. v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,ET AL., No. 18-107 (June 15, 2020)


Today the United States Supreme Court held that interpretation of the statutory language of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, compels the conclusion that sexual orientation and transexual status, inextricably bound to sex, are within the meaning of the statute prohibiting discrimination because of sex.

The decision will undoubtedly be hailed as a great victory for rights activists while the opinion of the majority and the opinions of the dissenting justices will undoubtedly provide grist for the jurisprudential mill for years to come.

Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, observed that what Congress foresaw when it enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not mean that the legislation must be myopically interpreted according to that time:

“…the limits of the drafters’ imaginations supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.  When the express terms of a statute give us our answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest.  Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”

Slip. Op. at 2.

Each of the plaintiffs was a long term employee and each was terminated from employment because of sexual orientation or transgender status.  Employers argued that neither orientation nor transgender status are part of Title VII and that, therefore, the terminations were not discriminatory. Three federal circuit courts of appeal interpreted Title VII without consensus.

Statutory construction looks to the “ordinary public meaning” of words at the time of a law’s enactment.  This inhibits judicial meddling in legislative affairs and promotes soundness in public perception of rights and obligations.

Assuming that in 1964 “sex” meant biological sex, the majority wrote, then “because of sex” meant “by reason of” or “on account of” sex.  This establishes but-for causation and obviates the need for parsing concomitant or serial causes.  Once an employment decision is made that would not be made if an individual’s sex were different, liability attaches and it is immaterial if other causes are present.  It does an employer no good to point to other reasons once sex is a reason for a decision.  Indeed, over time the Congress has amended the Civil Rights Act to include liability where sex is a “motivating factor” in a decision.

The Court rejected the employers’ argument that discrimination could only be in reference to others similarly situated, as the statute repeatedly references individuals.  It is of no moment if an employer generally treats women well if in an individual case a decision was based unlawfully on sex.

If sex cannot be relevant to employment decisions, the Court reasoned, then neither can sexual orientation or status, as both are inextricable from sex.

Since enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination “because of sex” has come to include discrimination based on habitual perceptions or stereotypes or actuarial assumptions.

It is no answer to say that Congress could not or did not foresee sexual orientation or status as a concern at the time of enactment when the statutory language addresses sex and orientation and status are inseparably related to sex.

It makes no difference, the majority found, that orientation or status was not included in the statutory language where those traits are inextricably interwoven in sex.

Concluding that orientation or status is not within Title VII based on Congress’ failure to amend Title VII where it has directly considered sexual orientation in other statutes would be speculation.

Asserting that meanings have changed since 1964 is unavailing where the plain meaning of the statute supplies the answer needed. The breadth of Title VII as it has been interpreted over time cannot be denied.  As such, the Court’s decision in this case is not unusual in light of the many unanticipated decisions flowing from the Civil Rights Act in the more than half century since its passage.

Three Dissenting Justices, Two Dissenting Opinions.   Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, chastised the majority for having confused textualism with legislation, performing the former poorly and usurping Congress’ function in the latter.

The majority has engaged in a “false flag” textualist operation, as neither sexual orientation nor transgender status appear in the text and the form of ‘textualism’ which would permit the legislative updates provided by the majority was denounced by textualism’s primary proponent, Justice Antonin Scalia.

Justice Alito notes that an exhaustive review of dictionaries failed to disclose any incorporation of orientation or status within the meaning of “sex.” Moreover, orientation and status are in fact separable from “sex.”  Plaintiffs’ counsel conceded at oral argument that if an employer were to prohibit hiring on the basis of gay or transgender status but hiring would be without knowledge of biological sex, this practice would not be discrimination “because of sex.”

This very concession makes the majority’s reasoning all the more lacking, Justice Alito found. Moreover, if an employer is unaware of a potential employee’s sexual orientation or status, that employer cannot be found liable for intentional discrimination on that basis.

Justice Alito sees a rich irony in the majority’s effective statutory amendment under the guise of ‘textualism’.  Although the majority purports to interpret the statutory language as it is written, the majority overlooks more than a half century’s interpretations of that text, all the while declaring its ‘judicial humility’.

The ramifications of the Court’s decision cannot be overlooked.  The decision may impact facilities access, sports participation, housing, religious employment, and health insurance coverage for gender reassignment.  Speech freedoms may be implicated by forms of address and language.

Writing separately in dissent, Justice Kavanaugh opined that Congress and not the Supreme Court must address the question before the Court.  While stressing his position that sexual orientation and transgender stratus must fall within the law, the decision maker on this policy belongs to the legislative branch.

Justice Kavanaugh questioned the utility of the literalist textualism that he saw in the majority’s view, as the law requires that interpretation look to the ordinary, not the literal, meanings of words and phrases.  A rigid literal approach is not a good textual approach, according to textualism’s proponents.  And literal interpretations, disregarding as they may the everyday meaning of words, fail to perform the essential work of the law, which is to put the citizenry on notice of what the law is.

Equally problematic is the majority’s decision to rewrite history in creating its new interpretation.  To disregard history serves no goal well, no matter how laudable in principle that goal may be.  Historically sexual orientation discrimination has been seen as a form of discrimination separate from sex discrimination.

While it is understandable that those affected and those who support them would find joy in the majority’s decision, Justice Kavanaugh fears that the majority’s methodology will be questioned by many, and that, as a result, many will simply not buy it. A lack of confidence in the opinion is of little aid to those supporting the conclusion and undermines confidence in the Court as an institution.

17-1618 Bostock v. Clayton County (06_15_2020)

 

 

 

 

 

“[T]he mere fact of an emergency does not increase constitutional power, nor diminish constitutional restrictions.”

ACA International v. Maura Healey, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, No. 20-10767-RGS (U.S.D.C. Mass.) May 6, 2020.


Among other state measures taken during the COVID-19 emergency, the Attorney General of Massachusetts promulgated measures prohibiting credit and collections agencies from initiating telephone calls or lawsuits to collect debts. Many creditors were exempted from these regulations that operate against entities deemed essential by bank regulators.

The Association of Credit and Collections Professionals (ACA) sought injunctive relief in federal court challenging the regulations on first amendment speech and petition grounds and state law.

The court examined the traditional grounds for injunctive relief in matters concerning protected First Amendment interests, concerning which any infringement presumes irreparable harm: the likelihood that the moving party will succeed on the merits, the balance of equities and the public interest. The court declined to decide claims premised on asserted violations of state law, mindful that precedent limits federal courts’ powers over state officials to matters of federal law.

The intermediate scrutiny applicable to commercial speech gained no favor for the state, as the court could not credit the Attorney General’s unsupported beliefs that citizens would be more vulnerable than otherwise during an emergency or that banning telephone calls would ensure citizens well being or ensure domestic tranquility.

As extant state law regulations already circumscribe creditor activities, and incorporate federal protections, the court could not find a substantial government interest in redundant measures.

Neither could the court justify an outright ban on initiating litigation because some legislative litigation burdens some access to courts. Simply preserving rights until the unknown end of the emergency, particularly when several types of creditors are exempted from the regulations, is not sufficient to justify outright denial of petitionary rights, stating: “[t]he mere fact of an emergency does not increase constitutional power, nor diminish constitutional restrictions.” (Slip op. 25-26).

In balancing the equities, the court observed that debtors have substantial extant protections against unlawful creditor activity, while the emergency regulations could force some creditors out of business, a hardship underscored by medical entities’ dependence on such agencies to recover funds.

The court entered a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of the emergency regulations.

ACA International v. Healey, Attorney General. TRO Order May 6, 2020

Eternal Vigilance: Depictions of Press Freedoms and Hazards Around the World

A bit out of the ordinary for JustLawful, but the link below, created by VisualCapitalist.com, provides striking depictions of the ease (or not!) of disseminating information around the world.  Moreover, for those accustomed to observing the lives of the White House Press Corps (i.e., find seat, observe, report), it is deceptively easy to form the belief that reporting is always that cozy.  Not so!

And in further discoveries, the oft-repeated phrase alluded to here, i.e., “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” has not been confirmed by the keepers of the Jeffersonian flame, who offer that the expression was in widespread use in the 19th century.  With no pride of authorship found to reside in founding father Jefferson, the phrase may be more accurately attributed to Irish lawyer, judge, and firebrand John Philpot Curran.  Those dismayed by the unending onslaughts of the digital age may find respite in the slower, yet potent, pace of the 1817 Curran memoir linked below.

Mapped:  Press Freedom Around the World.  Routley, N. Visual Capitalist.  May 2, 2020

Thomas Jefferson Foundation:  “Eternal Vigilance” May Be  a Spurious Quotation

Minnesota Legal History Project_.Memoirs of the Legal, Literary & Political Life of John Philpot Curran

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surveillance Without Surcease: Massachusetts’ Highest Court to Review Constitutionality of Continuous, Warrantless Videorecording of Criminal Defendants’ Houses

Nelson Mora, et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, SJC-12890.  Oral argument scheduled for May 5, 2020.

Related:   Commonwealth v. McCarthy, SJC-12750.  Opinion issued April 16, 2020.


Defendants were arrested as part of an ongoing state effort to interrupt commerce in drugs.  As part of that effort, police installed, without warrants, video cameras in public spaces outside defendants’ houses.  These “poll cameras” permitted uninterrupted video recording of the outside of these houses and were equipped with zoom features to permit closer scrutiny.  

Defendants moved to suppress the video evidence as violative of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 14 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  The Superior Court denied relief, finding that defendants have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the exteriors of their homes, which were plainly visible to the world.

Interlocutory review was sought and granted.

Appellants/Defendants argue that incessant videorecording denies defendants’ constitutionally promised privacy interests, which are not defined with reference to brightline distinctions between exteriors and interiors, but rather with respect to the reasonable expectations of privacy enunciated in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1969).  Static, unceasing and warrantless mechanical surveillance is a search which intrudes beyond any reasonable bounds of police powers.  

Defendants are supported by several civil rights and technology advocacy entities, who join in characterizing the surveillance in issue as “Orwellian.”

The state stands firm in its view that that which is in plain view is not private, and that even if issues were to be found in these searches, error should be excused on the basis of the police’s good faith.

Just weeks ago the Supreme Judicial Court outlined constitutional parameters of static camera recordings of vehicles permanently placed at the ends of bridges linking the main land of Massachusetts with Cape Cod.   Following an extensive review of the foundational ideas that support the law of searches and privacy, and after concluding that the camera surveillance in issue could be a search, the court found no constitutional violation as the car in question could be seen without technology and any intrusion was of limited duration.   Chief Justice Gant wrote separately in concurrence, suggesting that the course going forward might be better served if authorizations based on reasonable suspicion and subsequent probable cause were obtained in advance of surveillance. 

Appellants/Defendants embrace McCarthy as pointing the way for a decision in their favor.  The state has tradition on its side: many considerations of poll cameras have found their use to be constitutionally innocuous, with only a few courts demanding that this form of surveillance  be cabinned by time limits.

Justlawful’s Observation.  The “in plain sight” argument offered by the state, if woodenly applied, could lead to results that would undermine Katz.  Moreover, the argument that recording shows only what a passerby might see becomes problematic if human rather than mechanical supervision were in issue.  Were a person to stand in observation of a residence without interruption, the homeowner or resident might well feel intruded upon, even if the onlooker could see only the exterior of the home, and might be justified in seeking injunctive relief to cause the behavior to cease.   

Briefs of the Parties

Commonwealth v. Mora – SJC-12890 Appellants’ Brief

Commonwealth v. Mora — Commonwealth’s Brief

Commonwealth v. Mora — Appellants’ Reply Brief

The McCarthy Decision

2020 04 16 Commonwealth v. McCarthy SJC-12750

For those fond of legal history, an 1890 Harvard Law Review article outlining Warren and Brandeis’ Views of Privacy

Warren and Brandeis, _The Right to Privacy_

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Wheels on the Bus Go Round the Supreme Court No More: Certiorari Denied in Challenge to Transit Authority’s Ban on Religious Advertisements

Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, No. 18-1455.  Petition for Certiorari denied on April 6, 2020.  


In connection with the Court’s denial of the petition for certiorari, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, issued a statement which leaves no doubt that the two would conclude that the transit authority’s current ban on religious advertising on its buses violates the First Amendment as it is reflects government engagement in impermissible viewpoint discrimination. 

Certiorari was denied because Justice Kavenaugh was involved in the case when he served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  As he could not participate in reviewing a case he was involved in, deciding the case with less than a full complement of justices appeared unwise.

The decisions below violate Supreme Court precedent, Justice Gorsuch noted, as the Court has determined that “religion” includes both subject matter and viewpoint.  Once subjects are opened for discussion, religious views cannot be suppressed:

…[O]nce the government allows a subject to be discussed, it cannot silence religious views on that topic…[O]nce the government declares Christmas open for commentary, it can hardly turn around and mute religious speech on a subject that so naturally invites it… [The government] cannot do is what it did here—permit a subject sure to inspire religious views…and then suppress those views. The First Amendment requires governments to protect religious viewpoints, not single them out for silencing.

–Statement respecting denial of certiorari at pp. 2- 3.

JustLawful aside:  The great benefits of opinions accompanying denials of certiorari is that they not only serve to foretell the future, at least as to some justices’ views, but they also offer a brevity that is scarce in current jurisprudence.

2020 04 06 Certiorari Denied 18-1455 Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (04_06_2020)

Who’s Zoomin’ Who? Pandemic’s Videoconferencing Darling’s Security Failures Alleged to Have Permitted Data Breaches With Each Use

Cullen, et al.  v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc.,  No. 5:20-cv-02155-SVK (N.D. Cal.). Class action complaint filed March 30, 2020.

Taylor, et al. v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02170 (N.D. Cal.)  Class action complaint filed March 31, 2020. 

Motion to consider cases to be similar filed in the Cullen case on April 8, 2020.  


Videoconferencing exploded exponentially with the COVID-19 pandemic, as a declaration of national emergency and state and local stay-at-home orders inspired ingenuity in communications for business, personal, health and other reasons.  

“Zoom,” as the platform is known, emerged as a most popular platform, somehow almost immediately eclipsing other platforms such as Google Meet.

In signing on to use Zoom, Zoom represented to users that their privacy interests would be protected.  For health care practitioners, Zoom permitted the creation of business associate agreements that would, ostensibly, aid in attaining compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

All to the good, one might think.

Except Zoom seems to have been incorrect in its privacy and data assurances.

Zoom’s application sent data identifying the user to Facebook every time the application was downloaded and every time the user logged in.

This discovery irked more than health care providers, for whom the federal government’s relaxation of compliance requirements for telehealth during the COVID-19 crisis did nothing to relieve providers of ethical obligations to clients to maintain confidentiality.

Likewise distressed were non-professionals whose functioning depends on assurances of confidentiality.

Along with disclosures about the software insecurity came a flood of pranksters practicing “zoom bombing,” interrupting online meetings with pornography and toxic messaging.  Some churches were not amused. 

Within days of discovery and disclosure two class actions were filed in federal court in the Northern District of California.  The complaints allege violations of several consumer and privacy protection statutes and aver that even if Zoom Video Communications remedies its technology, it remains responsible for the damage incurred prior to that time.

Since disclosure, Zoom has launched a campaign to underscore its innocence, its concern, and its plans for repair.  Many of the statements come quite close to admissions, perhaps reflecting the confidence of technology scions who are, in their own minds, intent on doing good and refraining from being evil.

Or perhaps Zoom believes that it has so captivated the market that all it needs to do is to appear contrite, fix the application, and move on.  

Simple, but time-honored, security measures not prevalent in the past have come to be required, such as passwords.

And Zoom has hired Facebook’s former security chief to head Zoom’s mitigation maneuvers. 

At this time, it does not appear that Facebook has acknowledged any relationship with Zoom nor is it known whether or how much money was paid to Zoom for user information.

At the same time, Facebook is taking steps to persuade some of the market to use Facebook’s platform rather than Zoom’s.

In addition to private lawsuits, it appears that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and state attorney generals have questioned Zoom’s practices. 

Cyberspace privacy concerns and pointers for managing Zoom have been proffered by non-profits such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The class actions are in their early stages.  With courts either shuttered or (ironically) reliant on videoconferencing for proceedings, it is not known when or if the court will rule on the recently filed motion to treat the Cullen and Taylor cases as related.  An initial case conference in Cullen is scheduled for June 30, 2020.  


Northern District of California Case Information

Cullen, et al. v. Zoom Video Communications, No. 5:20-cv-02155-SVK (N.D. Cal.).

Taylor, et al. v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02170 (N.D. Cal.)

Related Media

iMore.com, March 27, 2020: Responding to Backlash, Zoom Stops Sharing User Data with Facebook

New York Times, March 30, 2020: Attorney General Looks Into Zoom’s Privacy Practices

Zoom Blog, April 1, 2020: A Message to Our Users

Forbes, April 2, 2020: Why Zoom Really Needs Better Privacy: $1.9M Orders Show the Government’s COVID-19 Response is Now Relying On It

Electronic Frontier Foundation, April 4, 2020: Harden Your Zoom Settings to Protect Your Privacy and Avoid Trolls

Motley Fool, April 4, 2020: Facebook Wants to Take a Bite Out of Zoom Video’s Growth

Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2020: Zoom CEO: “I really messed up,” on Security as Coronavirus Drove Video Tool’s Appeal

Boston.com, April 7, 2020: Massachusetts Schools, Churches, Have Been Targeted by Hackers on Zoom

Forbes, April 8, 2020: Zoom Brings on Former Facebook Security Head to Fix Privacy Problems

 

 

 

 

 

“Live Free or Die” Validly Circumscribed in Time of Public Health Emergency, New Hampshire Superior Court Finds

Binford, et al. v. Sununu, Governor of the State of New Hampshire, No. 217-2020-cv-00152 (Merrimack Sup. Ct.)

The Superior Court in the State of New Hampshire has denied plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief from the governor’s emergency order prohibiting public gatherings of fifty or more persons during the time of the COVID-19 viral epidemic. 

Plaintiffs challenged the order on federal and New Hampshire Constitutional grounds, arguing that the governor lacked authority to issue an unenforceable order which would interfere with rights of assembly and religion.

The Superior Court denied the plaintiffs’ emergency motion on March 18th, and after hearing, dismissed the case on March 20.  

The court observed that the governor possesses emergency powers which may be used to protect the lives of the public during the present pandemic.  The current use of such powers is all the more apt when of short duration: the emergency order by its terms will expire on April 3.  

The court noted that the governor’s exercise of emergency powers are subject to circumscription by the legislature, and may be addressed by further judicial review should the need arise.

There is no formal written opinion at this time.  The hearing on the motion was closed to the public, but news coverage has been provided from several sources, as an audio record of the hearing has been provided to the press..


Governor’s March 16th Emergency Order

Emergency Motion for Temporary and Permanent Injunctive Relief

Opposition to Motion for Injunctive Relief

Court Upholds Governor’s Order: New Hampshire Union Leader

Court Upholds Ban on Large Gatherings: Seacoast Online

 

Not Exactly the Remedy Plaintiff Had In Mind: Federal Judge Denies Injunctive Relief Against Alleged Unicorn Trademark Infringers, Observing Public Health Crisis is Real, But Unicorn Crisis is Not

Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 20-cv-01666 (N.D. Ill.)


Plaintiff sought an emergency order to bring to a halt alleged infringement on unicorn and elf designs, which if granted would involve third parties domestically and internationally.  The federal court, strapped for resources in light of declared national and state emergencies, brooked plaintiff no mercy when, having been advised that the court would not schedule the hearing as plaintiff requested, plaintiff renewed its demand.

The court’s pointed opinion serves not only as a shot across the bow to litigants demonstrating extraordinary, yet imprudent, zeal in extraordinary times, but offers homespun 19th century legal wisdom:  “About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists in telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.” 1 Jessup, Elihu Root 133 (1938). Hill v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co., 814 F.2d 1192 (7th Cir. 1987).

Sure to be quoted to litigants and clients alike in coming days.

Just Lawful Chortles, But Frets:  The trial court was well within reason to put counsel on notice that repeatedly pressing its cause would not work, and particularly not in times of emergencies of the court’s and the nation’s own.  Through the quote from Root the court did, in fact, offer counsel a way to soften the blow to the client, albeit sardonically.  

Yet the reliance on ‘national emergency’ may itself soon wear thin.  At the heart of this case, and the court’s order, is the issue of enforceability, not pestiness.  Courts do not like to issue orders that cannot be effectuated, and rightly so. This is particularly true of orders that would affect entities not before the court, which would occur if the relief requested by Art Ask Agency were granted. It would not have consumed a great deal of judicial resources to mention this in the order denying reconsideration of the scheduling order. 

Although counsel everywhere will no doubt make use of this opinion to illustrate to clients what approach not to take at present, no one, and we may hope the courts included, looks forward to expansion of the “national emergency” rationale to cause even further limitations on the process of the courts.

Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, et al., No. 20-cv-1666 (N.D. Ill.).

 

Some Kind of Hearing, Updated: UConn Student’s Suspension Permanently Vacated, Parameters of New Investigation and Hearing Envisioned, and Student Deemed to Have Prevailed.

John Doe v. University of Connecticut, et al., No. 3:20-cv-00092 (D. Conn.)


A student accused of conduct violations and the University of Connecticut and its officials have reached agreement to dissolve permanently the student’s suspension and to refashion rules and procedures for a new investigation and hearing on the allegations.  The new proceedings, to be completed not later than this month, are intended to provide some due process safeguards seen to have been lacking in initial proceedings. 

The U.S. District Court has entered judgment in accordance with the Consent Order submitted by the parties, with the court to retain jurisdiction to hear any matters relating to that order. 

The university defendants concede that John Doe is the prevailing party in the case and as such is permitted to recoup attorneys’ fees.  The process of determining the amount of the fee award is underway.  

Just Lawful Observation:  The case exemplifies the hazards of college and university administration of investigations and discipline having life long consequences yet operating without the constitutional guarantees promised in federal and state courts. 

The consequences to an accused student deprived of due process are life altering.  To this may be added the financial pressures on universities to be compliant with federal gender parity laws, violation of which will result in loss of funding.  Some believe this pressure has rendered schools incapable of operating without bias.  Moreover, social pressure to vindicate individuals who complain of sexual misconduct is everywhere felt, no less so in colleges and universities.

It occurs to Just Lawful that if ever there were cases that cry out for restorative or reparative justice, it is these cases in which students’ lives implode when activity viewed as consensual by one is viewed as assault by another.   Where remedies may be devised through mediation or learned interventions for both parties, this may be worthy of exploration.  

The costs of these proceedings to students, whether accused or accuser, are not academic in any sense:  at this time John Does’ attorneys’ fees request approaches one hundred thousand dollars.  Few students or their families could shoulder such costs without hardship.

2020 3 20-cv-00092 Consent Order

2020 3 20-cv-00092 Judgment

 

Suitable Accommodations Must Await Another Day: Supreme Court Declines Review of Walgreen Employee’s Religious Discrimination Claim

Patterson v. Walgreen, No. 18-349, 549 U.S. ____ (cert. denied February 24, 2020).


A decades-old Supreme Court case offhandedly announced that the “undue burden” that would relieve employers of any obligation to accommodate an employee’s religion need only be more than de minimus.  Joining in denial of certiorari of an employee’s case against Walgreen, Justices Alito and Thomas would like to revisit the standing precept, particularly where the old decision relied not on the civil rights statute but on federal agency guidance which predated statutory refinements of the definition of ‘religion’.

 

The Solicitor General suggested that other issues are of concern that need review, but the Court does not consider this case to be the proper vehicle.  The Solicitor General has asked whether an employer must offer a partial accommodation where a full accommodation would pose an undue hardship, or whether speculative harm can establish undue harm.  

 

Patterson alleged that Walgreen’s discriminated against him because his religion forbade working on his sabbath.  Walgreen’s routinely accommodated him in scheduling his work but declined to do so when an urgent need arose and it was thought that  accommodation would work an unairmness to another employee.

 

Patterson failed to appear for the requested Saturday work, which precipitated a delay in training Walgreen employees.  Discussion with Patterson was not fruitful. Patterson wanted a guarantee that he would never be asked to work on his sabbath.  He declined consideration of other positions where the issue would not arise. Walgreen’s suspended and later terminated Patterson.

 

The 11th Circuit observed that Patterson had established a prima facie case, leaving for decision on whether Walgreen failed to offer a reasonable accommodation or that Walgreen’s could not offer a reasonable accommodation which would not pose an undue hardship, which hardship can embrace both direct and indirect costs.  

 

An accommodation need not be the one requested by an employee, nor need the employer offer an array of accommodations from which to choose.  The duty to accommodate his match by a countervailing duty on the employee’s part to work with the employers as the employer suggests.

 

The 11th Circuit declined to address in depth the issue of undue hardwhip because Walgrehaten’s had offered Patterson the opportunity to change schedules when practicable or to obtain another position.  Even if undue hardship were considered, however, Patterson would not prevail because Walgreens would have incurred undue hardship had it been forced to rearrange its business schedule and that of other employees’ to accommodate Patterson.

 

The 11th Circuit also affirmed the trial court’s rejection of Patterson’s retaliation claim.  It cannot be said, the appellate court observed, that Patterson’s termination subsequent to his rejection of all reasonable accommodations was retaliatory.  An employee cannot both reject proffered reasonable accommodations and then claim retaliatory termination.  

 

Although the case will not be heard by the Supreme Court, the opinion accompanying denial of certiorari establishes that at least some of the associate justices are not at ease with the low standard that applies to employers concerning religious accommodations nor are they pleased with the continued existence of outdated definitions of religion.  The denial of certiorari means that the 11th Circuit’s view that an employee must cooperate with an employer concerning accommodations stands. As the 11th Circuit sees it, an employee seeking a religious accommodation cannot insist on the employee’s choice of accommodation, nor can the employee complain of retaliation where reasonable accommodations were offered and the employee rejected them.  

 

JustLawful prognostication:  This case was continued on conference lists for nearly a year, indicating its significance to the Court was not insubstantial but, as the concurring justices noted, the case did not present squarely the open issues that ought, in their views, to be addressed.   With the opinion below undisturbed, the balance of power in employer – employee relations in religious accommodations, at least in the 11th Circuit, rests with the employer. An employer may terminate an employee who refuses a reasonable accommodation, and may demonstrate that accommodation presents an ‘undue burden’ by offering only that the accommodation would cause more than slight harm.  

These issues will not diminish but only expand as the nation moves toward embracing a more expansive notion of religion and religious observances, and as the population of the United States grows ever more diverse in its demographics and in its religious practices.  The push and pull of employer and employee needs will likely not abate any time soon, making the hope for an apt case to serve as a vehicle to review will be presented sooner rather than later. Of course, there is nothing that stands in the way of legislative correction or executive and/or administrative refinement, perhaps obviating judicial intervention, should the coordinate branches’ respective spirits be so inclined.

 

Patterson v. Walgreen 18-349_7j70 February 24, 2020

Patterson v. Walgreen 11th Cir. March 9 2018

Appearances Do Not An Electronic Public Square Make: Ninth Circuit Rejects Assertion that First Amendment Applies to YouTube

Prager University v. Google LLC f/k/a Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC, No. 18-15712.  February 26, 2020.


Like the universe, the internet and its multiple platforms appear to be ever-expanding, even as the law of this new domain runs to catch up with novel features and equally novel claims.  The development of largely open online platforms upon which all and sundry may present their ideas, including their video recordings, gave rise to this suit. Prager University (“PragerU”), an informational resource which is not a true university, presents video discussions about politically conservative ideas.   

PragerU has objected to YouTube’s classification of its content as subject to YouTube’s “restricted” setting and to YouTube’s concomitant limitation on some of PragerU’s advertising.  The “restricted” setting is a user driven device which permits filtering content that some may see as objectionable. YouTube manages the classifications of content. Content providers who object to YouTube’s restricted classification may appeal, but the factors involved in classification and the reasons for decisions remain internal to YouTube.

PragerU has argued that YouTube is subject to the First Amendment because YouTube acts as an electronic public square.  Much as with traditional public squares, speech must be on a come one, come all basis, without hindrance by the platform provider. As such, PragerU has insisted, YouTube’s limitations on the visibility of PragerU’s content violate its First Amendment rights.

Not so, says a panel of Ninth Circuit justices, relying on an observation from the Supreme Court’s last term that the mere hosting of another’s speech will not make a private entity public.  Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1930 (2019).  

The First Amendment constrains only the government.  PragerU’s argument that YouTube has assumed a traditionally and exclusively governmental function falls far short of the mark. Inviting the public to avail itself of private property will not make a private property holder a state actor.  Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569 (1972).  

Unlike the government, which is forbidden by the First Amendment from interfering in citizens’ speech, a private entity may do as it pleases, notwithstanding that its choices may at times displease.  

The panel also rejected PragerU’s assertion that YouTube’s terms of use constituted false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act.  If this were so, the court observed, any agreement could be transformed into marketing material.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit refused to recognize any binding effect to YouTube’s public pronouncement that it aspires to uphold First Amendment principles.  Notwithstanding its legal tone, this statement was mere opinion.  More importantly, there is no “opt-in” feature that would allow a private actor to become a state actor by force of its own will.

JustLawful prognostication:  This decision will not end this matter.  There is simply too much speech at stake and too few platforms of YouTube’s scope to think otherwise.  This is not to suggest that the Ninth Circuit is incorrect, but that further exploration of these issues is expected.  This is particularly so where, as the Ninth Circuit noted, both parties offered that were the court to rule against them, the sky would surely fall (Slip. Op., pp. 13-14).  

Prager University v. Google 9th Cir. February 26 2020

 

Some Kind of Hearing: Perceiving Procedural Deficiencies, Federal Court Orders University of Connecticut to Enroll Suspended Student

Doe v. University of Connecticut, No. 3:20-cv-092. Temporary restraining order granted January 23, 2020. Hearing on preliminary injunction continued to February 19th.


That procedural due process must be accorded when the state acts to limit constitutionally protected interests seems to be second nature in our conceptions of fundamental fairness, yet it was only a half century ago, a millisecond in the slow emergence and refinement of legal principles, that the centrality of such promises was articulated in Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1975).   And since Matthews was decided, there has been ongoing development of principles that will breathe life into its meaning.  If it is not enough that due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, but to be heard in a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, the contours of the process that must be provided continue to evolve.

Recently a federal district court in Connecticut ordered the state university to reinstate a student suspended based on allegations of sexual assault where the court observed that the university’s process failed to permit the student to present witness testimony tending to negate the accuser’s credibility and failed to permit the submission of questions to the accuser.   These deprivations in themselves so distorted the proceedings that relief from the university’s decision was in order.

Doe had been months from graduation when he was accused of sexual assault. Initially the university expelled him, then revised its determination to a two year suspension, subsequent to which the school agreed to consider, but not guarantee, an application for readmission without consideration of credit earned elsewhere.

The court did not decide whether students facing discipline have confrontational rights that include cross examination, an issue of controversy within the federal courts, but focused instead on the school’s failure to permit the submission of some questions to the accuser and the presentation of witness statements helpful to Doe.

The court observed that the potentially catastrophic losses which would follow delay or preclusion of Doe’s education, as well as losses of economic and reputational interests, outweighed the university’s interest in student discipline on these facts. In light of the irreparable nature of the potential losses to Doe, the extraordinary measure of temporary mandatory injunctive relief was substantiated.  

While the interests of Doe’s accuser were not insignificant, the court noted, they would not preclude ordering temporary relief, particularly where Doe and the accuser had encountered each other subsequent to the alleged assault without incident.

A full hearing on injunctive relief having been scheduled, the parties have represented to the court that settlement discussions have been undertaken in earnest. 

This case is one among several that have within recent months caused federal courts to question the sufficiency of educational institutions’ responses to allegations of sexual assault.  Financial pressure has been applied to compel schools’ compliance with federal laws demanding sexual parity.  While such measures require close institutional attention to allegations of sexual assault, lest federal financial support be lost, some courts appear to be unwilling to permit an accused’s constitutional interests to be sacrificed in service of financial concerns.  

2020 01 23 Doe v. University of Connecticut, No. 3:20-cv-92 (MPS)

“Leveling Down:” Dismantling Problematic Programs to Remediate Constitutional Conflict: Attractive to Some Supreme Court Justices, Insufficient to Others

Espinoza v. Montana, No. 18-1195.  Oral argument held January 22, 2020.


Oral argument for the Espinoza case shed little light on its outcome, although it did underscore that the Supreme Court justices hold divergent views on what is appropriate not only constitutionally, but with respect to addressing constitutional error.  

Justice Ginsburg intimated that the parents who brought suit have no taxpayer standing as they are not directly involved with the Montana tax credit in issue.  She further suggested that the state supreme court was not unreasonable in “leveling down,” or avoiding constitutional problems by dispensing with the scholarship program entirely.  

Justice Sotomayor signaled disdain for any state involvement in religion, pointing to history for support, much as others point to history for support for the opposite view, that the framers would abhor hostility toward religion but rather sought to guard against preferential government treatment for one faith over another.

Other justices asked how the circumstances of the Espinoza case would even conceivably be acceptable if the issue were race rather than religion. Justice Alito reminded counsel that it is not really possible to overlook the coincidence of the enactment of Blaine Amendments with the wave of immigration that accompanied the Irish potato famine. 

Justice Breyer noted that there is no Establishment Clause respecting race, demolishing the “no distinction” point of view respecting race and religion.  The justice likewise worried about how a determination that the state might permissibly be involved in religion by means of the tax credit would impact subsequent funding decisions.  His principal worry seemed to be that a determination that religion could not be excluded would compel inclusion of religion in all state funding.  

Justice Kagan, noting her joinder in the Trinity Lutheran decision, asked whether the Espinoza case was not distinguishable from Trinity LutheranTrinity Lutheran concluded that it is unconstitutional to preclude participation in neutral and generally available government programs because of religion.  In this case, she stated, religion is directly involved: the issue is payment of money to religious institutions.

Justice Gorsuch interjected for clarity the question whether a federal court may aptly intervene where a state court has made an error under federal law, intimating that the question whether the state court error was active or passive is a red herring.

The Chief Justice questioned the role of intent in discrimination cases, suggesting, without more, that there may be some relevance for Espinoza. Thee Chief Justice cited a 1977 case holding that an ordinance with discriminatory impact was nonetheless constitutional because its enactment was without discriminatory intent.  

There are no certainties in the law, but it is not irrational to speculate that there will be no unanimity in any determination the court makes. The divergence in thought will not unlikely be reflected in a multiplicity of opinions.

Among Friends: Strict Separation Advocates Square Off Against School Choice Proponents in Challenge to Montana Determination to Dismantle School Choice Tax Credit

Espinoza v. Montana, No. 18-1195 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) Oral argument January 22, 2020.


Dozens of amicus briefs have been submitted to the Supreme Court concerning the Court’s consideration of the constitutionality — or not — of a Montana tax-advantaged school choice program.  A thumbnail of their arguments is presented here.

 

 

Entities Submitting Amicus Briefs for Respondents Arguments
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty; The Evangelical Lutheran Church In America; General Synod of The United Church of Christ; Reverend Dr. J. Herbert Nelson, Ii, As Stated Clerk of The General Assembly of The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) “No funding” provisions in state constitutions promote religious liberty. Nothing in the 1972 re-enactment of the Montana Constitution suggests that its ‘no religious funding’ provisions were grounded in religious animosity. Principles of federalism compel the federal government to refrain from interference in state determinations concerning state constitutional matters: states must remain free to provide greater separation of church and state than the federal constitution requires.
Tennessee Education Association The Court is urged to bear in mind that public education serves society, where funding for private or church affiliated education is focused on individuals. In the absence of evidence that the Montana constitution’s ‘no aid’ provision is grounded in religious bigotry, the provision should not be struck down.
Colorado, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, And Washington The state amici are among the 38 states having state constitutional ‘no aid’ provisions. Amici submit that states have a profound interest in managing public education, that considerations of school funding issues are not “one size fits all” matters and are well within the ‘play in the joints’ of the competing religion clauses, and that such matters should be and remain within the powers of the states to consider.
Montana Association of Rabbis The Montana tax credit, if upheld, inures overwhelmingly to the benefit of Christian schools, and as such produces discrimination against Jews, who are a religious minority within the state. The discrimination which would ensue from upholding the tax credit is insupportable.
Religion Law Scholars Traditional considerations of the proscriptions of the Establishment Clause permits a benevolent neutrality regarding religion. The state’s activity with respect to religion need not be rigid, yet care must be taken to preclude religious accommodation from becoming state sponsorship of religion. In order to avoid state sponsorship of religious institutions, a state may determine, as Montana has, not to fund programs such as the scholarship tax credit in issue here.
National Disability Rights Network, The Arc of The United States, Council of Parent Attorneys And Advocates Twenty one disability rights advocacy groups join to oppose preferential tax treatment for private educational institutions. The groups fear that because the private schools are not bound by the federal laws governing public education of children with disabilities, such as the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”), the gains won by such legislation will be lost, and private schools will bear no accountability for their treatment of students with disabilities.
National School Boards Association et al.  More than a dozen school board associations, school systems associations, school administrators’ associations, and other public education associations and advocates submit that the Montana Supreme Court’s determined neutrality with respect to state involvement in religion is lawful and that expansion of Trinity Lutheran to public education would undermine long standing principles governing state involvement in religion.
American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, Montana Federation of Public Employees, And Montana Quality Education Coalition Teachers’ unions urge dismissal of the case because petitioners’ interests in the relatively small tax credits being challenged are too extenuated to confer Article III standing. Precedent requires dismissal of third party challenges to others’ tax interests: to hold otherwise would flood the courts with third party actions.
Public Funds Public Schools Amicus submits that Montana Constitution Article X, Section 6 reflects the state’s commitment to the expenditure of public funds for public schools. Diversion of public funds to private schools is insupportable, particularly where doing so undermines student achievement.
Religious And Civil Rights Organizations The “play in the joints” of the federal religion clauses leaves room for states to offer more robust religious freedom protections than those accorded by the federal constitution. Montana need not require that every program that benefits public institutions benefit religious institutions: declining to permit public funding of private entities at all in order to maintain neutrality is well within the state’s rights. Upholding the Montana Supreme Court decision would not disturb decisions about property taxes, but failing to uphold the state’s decision would upend decades of precedent that precludes state involvement in funding religion. The state’s determination not to fund religious activity does not infringe upon its exercise.
State of Maine School districts lacking resources with which to operate public schools may arrange for private schools to operate in their stead, or may pay tuition for students to attend a non-sectarian school, but funding to religious schools is not permitted. Notwithstanding that Maine’s is not a voucher program, Maine questions the direct diversion of public funds to religious entities and urges the Court to affirm the Montana determination as so doing will aid Maine in resisting challenges to its approach. Maine argues that precedent recognizes that refusal to fund religious entities does not violate the Free Exercise Clause, and Trinity Lutheran does not disturb that result.
Montana Constitutional Convention Delegates Participants in the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention assure the Court that Article X, Section 6 was vigorously debated. The convention repudiated the religious animosity of its 19th century counterpart, but chose to enact the ‘no aid’ provision in furtherance of a fundamental state commitment to public education. Not hostility toward religion but a commitment to government restraint with respect to involvement in religious matters guided the enactment of the ‘no aid’ provision.
Montana and Northern Wyoming Conference, United Church of Christ The Montana-Northern Wyoming Conference of the United Church of Christ are social justice advocates who perceive that advocacy for public education falls within those social justice goals. The UCC Conference points out that questioning the underlying legislative motivation that led to the enactment of Montana Constitution Article X, Section 6 is not proper in an “as applied” challenge such as the one in issue in this case. Even if it were proper, the motivation in 1972 was to further public aid to public education without animosity toward any faith or faiths, and that re-enactment purged the provision of any of its tainted history
Freedom From Religion Foundation, Center for Inquiry, American Atheists, And American Humanist Association Advocates urge the Court to frame the case not as one of discrimination against religion, but of impermissible state-compelled aid to religion. No such aid was within the framers’ contemplation, such aid has been historically precluded, and to hold otherwise would contravene both history and tradition. Indirect aid through tax credits is no less odious than direct aid. In the larger sense state abstinence from engagement in funding religious activities fosters religious liberty. Amici note that non-involvement in religious activities precludes preferencing one faith over another or compelling any citizen to fund a faith anathema to his or her own. Moreover, state funding of religious schools invites state regulation of those same schools, inviting entanglement that may prove undesirable by both state and church.
Entities Submitting Amicus Briefs for Petitioners
Arguments
Forge Youth Mentoring Forge Youth Mentoring, which provides Christian assistance to at-risk youth, urges the Court to recognize that Trinity Lutheran teaces that the state may not preclude religions from participation in generally available public benefits applies to education. An overly broad reading of Locke, involving direct aid to religious formation, is not apt here and particularly not so following Trinity Lutheran.
Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, National Legal Foundation, Pacific Justice Institute, And International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers Amici argue that Montana erred in its fundamental perception of the monies in issue as being owned by the state. The state does not own all because it can tax all, nor does it own the taxpayers’ contributions to private educational institutions in this case by virtue of provision of a credit against tax for such donations. Precedent supports the conclusion that the donation of private money to a private entity does not become state money by virtue of offering the credit. Zelman holds that a neutral program which permits choice concerning the direction of funds need not offend the Establishment Clause.
131 Current And former State Legislators State legislators unequivocally contend that Blaine Amendments reflect not only a shameful history but also present a contemporary impediment to state efforts to advance educational benefits for its citizens.
Justice And Freedom Fund, Institute for Faith And Family, And North Carolina School Choice Attendance at private school is an acceptable means of compliance with Montana’s compulsory education requirement. Where parents must choose private education because public education conflicts with their values, the provision of tax advantages for private education is a counterbalance to the parents’ underwriting of objectionable public schools through taxation. Where private choice directs the flow of private funds for educational and not religious ends the Establishment Clause is not implicated. The Court should continue on its course of applying flexible non-discrimination principles rather than to uphold inflexible ‘no aid’ laws.
Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization And Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic School The application of the Montana constitution’s ‘no aid’ provisions directly discriminates against religious organizations and because it does so in connection with a generally available program or benefit — education — it cannot survive analysis under Trinity Lutheran. Amici argue that the Blaine Amendment, readopted in 1972 with knowledge of its history, bears a shameful history and is facially unconstitutional.
Montana Family Foundation The Montana Family Foundation asserts that the Religion Clauses reflect and require a ‘wholesome neutrality’ concerning government involvement in religion, a view upheld in Trinity Lutheran which is not present in Blaine Amendments or in Montana’s no-aid amendment.
Center for Education Reform, et al., Amici support the attainment of educational excellence and are of the view that a primary factor in successful school outcome’s is a family’s ability to direct the choice of school their children attend. Montana’s prohibition of access to a generally available benefit — education — runs afoul of Trinity Lutheran.Families have a recognized and constitutionally protected liberty interest in where their children attend school. Denying school choice because of religion violates bedrock constitutional principles. By comparison, the state interest in any indirect aid to religious that may flow from permitting a tax credit for private donations is miniscule. The antipathy to Catholicism undergirding the Blaine amendments would not be recognized by the Framers, but the interests of parents in their children and in freedom from religious discrimination would have been applauded, and should be today.
Rusty Bowers, Speaker of The Arizona House of Representatives, And Other State Legislative Leaders Legislative leaders of three states worry that the consideration of Blaine amendments in general and in this case in particular is ill-founded. As it is grounded in individual choice, the Montana program does not raise Establishment Clause concerns, but the denial of equality within a generally available benefit raises Free Exercise concerns that compel reversal of the Montana decision.
Jerry And Kathy Armstrong, Lashawn Robinson, Gwendolyn Samuel, Yi Fang Chen, And Pacific Legal Foundation In Support Parents of students and the foundation assert that school choice is a primary component of a parent’s “right, responsibility and privilege” to raise his or her child. School choice programs are critically important in providing an educational setting which will permit a child to thrive, and such programs are particularly critical where parents would not otherwise have the means to access such a setting.
Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty Amicus observes that Montana’s Blaine Amendment is an impediment to students who would benefit from scholarships to Jewish Day School., which would educate them, ground them in their faith, and prepare them for leadership roles. The costs of such schools has been termed a “community crisis,” which would be alleviated by a determination that the Blaine Amendment, grounded in a history of religious antipathy, can no longer stand as an barrier to educational opportunities.
Christian Legal Society, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, American Association of Christian Schools, The Anglican Church In North America, Association of Christian Schools International, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Council for American Private Education, Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, National Association of Evangelicals, Queens Federation of Churches, And World Vision, Inc. (U.S.) Amici urge the Court to continue to recognize that the First Amendment protects religious liberty through government neutrality respecting religion. Trinity Lutheran supports these principles by holding that the government may not preclude participation in a generally available benefit because of religion. That preclusion is clear here where no parent may avail himself or herself of a tax credit available to all because it concerns donation to a sectarian entity. Government neutrality is not manifested by discrimination against religion but by permitting the participation of all without concern for religion. The core constitutional concern of protection of voluntary and private choice in belief is best served by equality in governmental aid to religious and non-religious schools, a position which is “both formally and substantively neutral.”
Independence Institute Amicus presents a detailed history of the 19th century Blaine Amendments, illustrating the antipathies toward disfavored religions that these laws supported and promoted, underscoring that in that day “sectarian” applied only to those disfavored groups, and arguing that the application of the Montana Constitution’s “no aid” provision violates both the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Alliance for Choice In Education Amicus submits that precluding faith-based schools from participation in scholarship benefits sharply reduces their likelihood of obtaining favorable educational outcomes for students. The exclusion ignores history and likewise ignores the importance of parental capacity to seek educational opportunities consistent with their values. Research supports a correlation between choice and good outcomes. The Locke decision’s “play in the joints” between the religion clauses does not endorse discrimination against religion. Where the purpose of the tax credit was to benefit family choice generally and no one religion particularly, the guidance of Trinity Lutheran would favor inclusion of both non-sectarian and sectarian schools.
The Liberty Justice Center And American Federation for Children Amicii submit that the application of Blaine Amendments to school choice programs keeps children from low income families captive, that the amendments turn the Establishment Clause on its head by punishing rather than protecting minority religions, and that Blaine Amendments, which are grounded in religious animus, violate the Equal Protection clause.
Georgia Goal Scholarship Program, Inc. Georgia’s corollary to the Montana tax credit program is critically important to students. Grounded in religious animus and racial bigotry, Blaine Amendments cannot be permitted to stand in the way of minority children’s education. The application of these amendments to minority students in the ante-bellum and post-civil war south forced African American students into industrial education and denied them the classical liberal education available to others.
The Rutherford Institute A relic of 19th century anti-Catholicism, Montana’s Blaine Amendment, like those of the thirty seven states that retain such provisions, discriminates among religions in violation of the principles of neutrality toward religion required by the federal Establishment Clause.
Americans for Prosperity And Yes. Every Kid. The Montana constitution does not reach tax credits, yet the state Supreme Court applied the constitution in violation of the rights of those who could not be verified as non-religious. Tax credits are not appropriations of public funds. The Montana Supreme Court erred in establishing a religion of secularism. Although not raised in prior proceedings, amici submit that Montana has engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by denying equal third party funding to all students.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Because they are grounded in religious bigotry, Blaine Amendments are presumptively unconstitutional. Reenactment of Montana’s Blaine Amendment in 1972 did not cure its racial animus. Application of the Montana no-aid provision violates the principles articulated in Trinity Lutheran.
Senators Steve Daines, Tim Scott, John Kennedy, And Marsha Blackburn And Representative Greg Gianforte Montana’s no-aid provisions remain exactly as they were in 1889. The application of the Blaine Amendment discriminates among religions and cannot survive analysis under Trinity Lutheran. Locke concerns direct funding of clergy education and does not embrace the kind of global exclusion of religious entities from available benefits that Montana has upheld here.
Montana Catholic School Parents, The Catholic Association Foundation, And The Invest In Education Foundation Amici parents provide anecdotal evidence of the benefits of children’s placement in religiously affiliated schools. The anti-Catholic history of the Blaine Amendments precludes their present application. The application of Montana’s ‘no-aid’ provision interferes with parents’ fundamental interests in governing their children and their children’s educations.
Oklahoma, Georgia, Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, The Commonwealth of Kentucky By And Through Governor Matt Bevin, Louisiana, Governor Phil Bryant of The State of Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, And West Virginia Montana could not and did not cure the constitutional deficiencies in the application of the no-aid provision by dismantling the program in its entirety. Federal intervention is warranted under the Supremacy Clause, which requires that the federal courts deny the effect of unconstitutional state laws. Even were state Blaine Amendments considered to be constitutionally acceptable, they do not reach tax credits which continue to permit private control of educational funding, particularly where it is individual students and not religious institutions who benefit from the scholarships. Upholding the Montana decision will jeopardize the programs of other states, some of which have concluded that their tax credit programs do not violate the First Amendment. The harm from upholding Montana’s decision would flow to other benefits and would fall particularly on low income families.
The Honorable Scott Walker Wisconsin’s former governor and school choice proponent argues that the direct funding of religious education that was present in Locke is not present in this case and that in any event Locke should be overruled, as any status-use distinction to be drawn with respect to funding cannot survive constitutional scrutiny. The attempt to distinguish Locke away in Trinity Lutheran is not sufficient: Locke must be overruled in its entirety.
The Cato Institute Montana’s Article X, Section 6 violates the Free Exercise Clause as applied to Montana’s tax credit program, for exclusion from public programs because of religion evinces hostility toward religion and lacks the neutrality that the constitution prescribes. While the Establishment Clause forbids government entanglement with religion, it likewise prohibits the government from handicapping religion. In avoiding entanglement with religion, the state must guard against discriminating against religions. Application of the Montana Blaine Amendment creates obstacles solely on the basis of religion and as such violates the First Amendment. It is error to consider a tax credit to be an expenditure of public funds. And exclusion of schools because of religion creates rather than diminishes conflict within communities, for those who are forced to forego choice will be at odds with those who would impose their choice upon them.
Edchoice, Reason Foundation, And The Individual Rights Foundation Proponents of educational and individual choice join with free market libertarians to offer the observation that states legislate in favor of school choice year after year with full awareness that litigation will ensue and with bring with it families’ fears that their children’s schooling will be disrupted by the litigation. Social science documents improved educational outcomes for students. The constitution does not support exclusion of religion from public benefits. Public school students do not suffer because of school choice programs but become attuned to the existence of many views within society. Finally, the provision of school choice programs may diminish the amount a state needs to expend on education, creating a savings benefit.
The Opportunity Scholarship Fund This Oklahoma Scholarship Granting Organization notes that Oklahoma’s laws are substantially similar to Montana’s, but Oklahoma’s programs have been upheld as constitutional under Zelman. The organization is concerned, however, that any acceptance of a scholarship by a family with a child with a disability will be seen as accepting a benefit which would preclude receipt of federal disability support. Oklahoma argues that this concern would be alleviated by the Court’s ruling that exclusion of religious schools from the scholarship program is unconstitutional.
Pioneer Institute This institute, describes itself as one that fosters civic discourse, submits that application of Blaine Amendments, grounded in anti-Catholic bigotry, offends the First Amendment. The institute provides a detailed history of state and federal Blaine amendments.
The Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence This litigating branch of the Claremont Institute, which focuses on the law as conceptualized by the Framers, observes that religious establishment flourished in the colonies but concern about religious compulsions followed the revolution, leading to the promulgation of the protections of individual liberty from state intrusion that the First Amendment guarantees. The First Amendment operates to constrain the federal government in order to protect religious liberties, not to deny them or to codify hostility toward religion. Montana’s laws and interpretations of those laws evidence that hostility and, as such, cannot survive constitutional analysis, as they violate the Free Exercise Clause.
The American Center for Law And Justice The ACLJ argues that it is not constitutionally permissible to deny generally available benefits on the basis of religion. The Locke decision, questionable in its own right, is not controlling in this case, as it involved direct aid in training for professional ministry. The ACLJ questions the extreme and disruptive logical outcomes of the exclusion of benefits on the basis of religion. Such exclusion would permit charitable deductions to nonprofits seeking to reduce famine but not to support Jewish community life, or permitting contributions to Ivy League schools but not Jesuit universities.
Mackinac Center for Public Policy This center for free market public policies asserts that school choice programs in Michigan have significantly enhanced student educational attainments. A determination upholding the Montana decision could impact Michigan’s programs, relegating students who have benefitted from choice to poorly performing public schools.
The Foundation for Moral Law This foundation supports strict construction of the constitution. Montana’s laws and actions violate the federal constitution, as they make hostility toward religion a state policy, which the First Amendment forbids. The Framers feared that the government would penalize citizens for not believing as the state thought that they should, which is precisely the result of the Montana decision. The First Amendment constrains the government from inhibiting religion and as such, it precludes policies which exclude religion entirely from general benefits. The state may not unduly burden religion nor may it exclude religion. The Trinity Lutheran decision should direct the outcome in this case.
The Solicitor General of The United States Montana’s exclusion of sectarian schools because they are sectarian schools violates the Free Exercise Clause because so doing imposes special disabilities upon religion. The state cannot avoid the impact of the no-aid provision, grounded in religious antipathy, by attempting to fashion a remedy that would end the program entirely. As the Montana law was unconstitutional from the beginning, the Montana Supreme Court could not by any measure remedy the statute but had only the power to acknowledge the statute’s constitutional deficiency.

 

Massachusetts Trial Court Considers the Constitutional Contours of End of Life Care

Kligler and another v. Attorney General Maura T. Healy and another, No. 2016-03254-F (December 31, 2019)


Two physicians, one terminally ill and one whose practice includes care for the terminally ill, sought declaratory relief upholding as constitutional the prescription of fatal doses of medication for patient self-administration, called Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) and upholding as constitutional discussion of such assistance and referrals to sources competent and capable of providing such prescriptions.

The physicians were wholly successful in obtaining, with no opposition from the state, the court’s opinion that the discussion of assistance in dying and the making of referrals to obtain such assistance is protected by the First Amendment.  In that no prosecution is likely to ensue from such discussions, the court declined to enjoin the state from so doing.

The court declined to find the characterization of medical assistance in dying as involuntary homicide to be unconstitutional or to find the application of involuntary manslaughter statutes to such aid to be unconstitutionally vague.  The United States Supreme Court has twice stated that substantive due process principles do not protect a physician’s right to participate in assisting in dying. Moreover, concepts of criminal law have long traditions leaving no one to guess what is proscribed within the meaning of “involuntary manslaughter.”

In the absence of a fundamental constitutional right, the state need only show that the prohibition of prescriptive assistance in dying serves and is reasonably related to an important government interest.  The preservation of life, the prevention of suicide, the protection of vulnerable populations, and the maintenance of sound medical practices and ethics are such interests, the court observed. In light of the irrevocability of administration of fatal medications, the court concluded that the proscription against such prescriptions is not unreasonable.

The court rejected the physicians’ arguments that a patient’s ingestion of the fatal doses of medications would serve as an intervening cause of death, relieving the physician of liability, where death is the known outcome at the time of issuing the prescription.  Nor was the court persuaded that the absence of coercion could change the result where, as before, death would be the known and intended outcome of the act of prescription.

The court likewise rejected equal protection challenges, observing that the law can and does respect the privacy and autonomy rights that attach to the refusal of medical treatment while concomitantly finding no corollary in any right to administer death.  Moreover, the active prescription of lethal doses of drugs differs from the permissible cessation of extraordinary treatments, the voluntary cessation of eating and drinking, or the provision of palliative pain management. The first produces death as a result of active physician intervention,  while the latter permits death to ensue as a natural result of underlying disease or debility.

The trial court noted that as social thought changes, so too may the law.  The trial court articulated its decision according to current precedent, yet noted change has occurred in the thirty years since the controlling decisions issued.  Of equal if not greater importance, the court concluded, the determination of the parameters of end of life care are not best addressed by the courts, but should be undertaken by the legislature.  

2019 12 31 Kligler v. Healy (Suffolk Sup. Ct.)

Communications Breakdown: Political Consultants and the United States Both Sought — and Obtained — Certiorari Review of the Constitutionality of Exceptions to the Federal Ban on Automated Cell Phone Calling

William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. v. American Association of Political Consultants, No. 19-631.  Petition for Certiorari granted January 8, 2020.


The near-universal adoption of cell phone telephony thirty years ago ushered in a new era of liberation from landline tethers, but not of freedom from unsolicited, unwanted, and not infrequently noisome automated calls and messages.  Called (among other things) robo-calls, the perceived nuisance of such practices by telemarketers and others prompted Congress to enact the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105 Stat. 2394.  

The TCPA prohibits calling cell phones without consent absent an emergency.  This gesture of federal consideration of individual interests has spawned a cavalcade of lawsuits challenging its meaning, including the instant case, in which certiorari was granted to determine whether an exception to the act which permits calls to collect a federal or federally guaranteed debt violates the First Amendment Free Speech Clause.   

The Fourth Circuit, in an opinion issued in April, 2019 perceived that the TCPA and its government debt exception created constitutionally unacceptable content based restrictions but did not conclude that the entire statute was invalid, determining only that the federal debt exception ought to be severed and the rest of the statute left intact.

The federal government asserts that there is no First Amendment violation, as strict scrutiny analysis does not apply where the economic purpose of a federal debt call is grounded in the relationship between the federal government and a debtor and where the privacy protections foundational to the TCPA remain intact.  Government speech not constrained by the First Amendment, should not be hamstrung by imposing the highest level of constitutional scrutiny where in essence commercial speech, subject only to limited review, is in issue.

The federal government argues that severability is wholly appropriate as the entire statute need not be done away with in order to address an exception to its general applicability.  

The American Association of Political Consultants’ views are diametrically opposed on both grounds.  The group asserts that it defies reason to classify debt collection calls as “purpose” based where the content of such calls is grounded in satisfying a debt.  Where calls linked to federal debts are permitted and those linked to private debts are not, this, the association advocates, makes a distinction based on the content of calls.  

It cannot be that severability is apt where the Fourth Circuit found the statute to be unconstitutional, the political consultants submit.  Severing an exception to an unconstitutional statute works no remedy, they argue.

A scheduling order has not yet been published.  There are two other petitions for certiorari pending in on related issues for which no action has been taken.

Petition for Certiorari: Barr, Attorney General, et al. v. Am. Assoc. of Political Consultants

Respondents Brief in Support of Certiorari: Barr, Attorney General, et al. v. American Association of Political Consultants

Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Certiorari: Barr, Attorney General, et al. v. American Association of Political Consultants

 

Viral Publication and Opinion in a Divided Nation: CNN Settles with High School Student Said to Have Been Defamed by Broadcast of Video of Confrontation with Native American Protester on the National Mall

Sandmann v. Cable News Network, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00031 (E.D. Ky.).  Related matter:  Sandmann v. Washington Post Company, No. 2:19-cv-00019 (E.D. Ky.)


Nicholas Sandmann visited the National Mall on January 18, 2019, joining with fellow Catholic High School students in a March for Life event.  There Sandmann was confronted, face to face, by Nathan Phillips, a Native American participating in a separate event, subsequent to what appears to have been a series of taunts exchanged among protest groups. 

The video confrontation, published nationally by mainstream media, including Cable News Network (CNN), precipitated officials, news commentators, church officials, and others to characterize Sandmann, shown in a “MAGA” (“Make America Great Again”) hat, a symbol of the current executive administration, as a racist. 

Sandmann filed complaints against several media entities separately, two of which, against the Washington Post Company and CNN, have been assigned to the same senior federal judge in the Eastern District of Kentucky.  

Following dismissal with prejudice of the complaint against the Washington Post, Sandmann was granted reconsideration which set aside the dismissal in part and granted Sandmann leave to amend his complaint against the Washington Post.  

In October, 2019, CNN’s motion was denied to dismiss and Sandmann’s motion to amend his complaint were granted. 

A proposed discovery and pretrial schedule was submitted to the court in the Eastern District of Kentucky in both cases on  January 3, 2020. The parties to the CNN case reported publicly on January 7, 2020 that settlement with CNN without trial, on undisclosed terms, had been reached. 

Whether the settlement signals a change of course among other media defendants will likely unfold in the not distant future. 

Notwithstanding — and perhaps particularly in light of — the rhetoric accompanying this case, the legal issues, while well grounded in history, seem to call for particular examination in the age of instant worldwide publication and the simultaneous formation of opinions.  Whether a matter is one of fact, and therefore actionable in defamation, or of opinion, and therefore not, is a longstanding principle. Whether this is changed or modified or subject to new refinement in the age of instant worldwide transmittal and simultaneous formation and publication of opinions remains to be seen.

CNN’s account of the settlement may be found at:

CNN Settles Lawsuit Stemming from Viral Video Controversy

The opinion dismissing Sandmann’s initial complaint against the Washington Post, of some historic note, may be found here:

2019 07 26 Sandmann v. WP Company__Memorandum and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

When Constitutional Clauses Collide:  Citizens’ Challenge to Montana’s Tax Advantaged School Choice Plan Seeks First Amendment and Equal Protection Review.

Espinoza, et al. v. Montana Department of Revenue, et al. No. 18-1195.  Oral argument set for January 22, 2020.


Many families hope that education will pave the way to successful adulthood.  Frequently private schooling is sought to serve that end, but many families find that no matter how arduously they work, the funds necessary to obtain that private schooling remain elusive:  scholarship help is a necessity for many who want to send their children to private school.   

In 2015, Montana enacted legislation providing a dollar-for-dollar tax credit, up to $150.00 annually, for donations to scholarship providing non-profit entities.  The non-profit entities would in turn use the donations to award scholarships, paid directly to the schools.  

Some 28 states have enacted at least 57 programs similar to Montana’s, called “school choice” programs.   Almost all private schools in Montana were qualified recipients of these tax advantaged scholarships. Yet very many of these schools were directly or indirectly affiliated with religious institutions.

Montana’s Constitution, Article X, Section 6, Part 1 prohibits the payment of state money, directly or indirectly, to fund religious activity.  This limitation was incorporated in the tax credit statute. Following enactment of the tax credit, state tax authorities promulgated a regulation echoing the preclusion of the use of tax money for religious entities.

Fearing that scholarships were in jeopardy, parents sued the state to enjoin it from precluding awards of scholarships to religious educational institutions, asserting that precluding aid would violate their First Amendment and Equal Protection rights.  The state countered that permitting the scholarships would run afoul of the state’s First Amendment and state constitutional obligations. 

The parents prevailed in the trial court but on appeal the Supreme Court of Montana, unable to split the constitutional baby between sectarian and nonsectarian beneficiaries of the tax credit program, declared the entire statute unconstitutional.  

The matter is now before the Supreme Court. 

Petitioners’ Challenges.  Petitioners urge the United States Supreme Court to reject the Montana Supreme Court’s wholesale invalidation of the entire tax credit statute as in violation of the federal religion clauses.  The parents ask the Court to determine the Montana state constitutional amendment forbidding aid to religion to be unconstitutional as applied to them, and to find Montana’s actions to be discrimination against religion in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Petitioners point out that Montana’s prohibition on state funding of any religious activity had its origins in the anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments of the 19th Century.  As religion is an inherently suspect clause, the state constitution as applied offends the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause, petitioners argue.  

The wholesale ban on any and all state aid to religion does not support government neutrality but rather evinces hostility toward religion and, as such, cannot survive constitutional review, petitioners argue.  This is true, petitioners assert, whether any of the tests of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002) or Lemon v. Kurtzman,   403 U.S. 602 (1971) or the teachings of the recent Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012  (2017) are applied.

Zelman requires only a religiously neutral program with choice centered in the individual, not the state, which petitioners assert is true of the 2015 Montana legislation.  In contrast, the state’s ban of all aid is hostile, not neutral, and works to deprive individual families of choice. Petitioners submit that however awkward it may be in application, Lemon in no sense endorses the antipathy to religion that Montana’s actions evince.

Montana’s dismantling of the tax credit program, which was available to all without respect to religion, advances no secular purpose where, petitioners argue, its only effect is to trample the rights of the religious with no concern for students.  Petitioners urge that the preclusion of state funding of religious professionals’ training, found to be unconstitutional in Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004), is inapposite, for that case concerned direct aid to churches in developing their clergy, which is not true of the Montana case.   

Montana’s Response.  Montana does not argue mootness, but does argue that the Montana Supreme Court’s invalidation of the tax advantaged school choice plan does away with constitutional concerns.  All aid has been precluded: no hostility, disparity or discrimination can be found where the statute no longer exists.  

Montana perceives that Espinoza spotlights the intersection of church/state traditions:  non-discrimination is crucial to religious freedom. The Establishment Clause permits but does not compel aid to religion. If the state is opposed to aiding religious schools the state can, as it has done here, decline to offer any aid at all.  Because petitioners concede that this is true, Montana argues, no constitutional claim remains.  

There can be no intrusion on the Free Exercise of religion where no program exists at all, the state submits.  Invalidation of the entire program works no coercion, as  the invalidation restrains the government, not the individual.

Montana denies that the 1972 re-enactment of the state constitutional no-aid clause ratified or endorsed the religious antipathy that gave rise to the 19th century Blaine Amendments.  Montana offers that the new constitution, enacted in 1972, sought to protect religious liberty by means of strict state separation from religion.  

In this case the state supreme court has protected religious freedom by enforcing the structural barrier between religious schools and the government that the no-aid clause contemplates.  Striking down the tax credit in its entirety ensures that no one is preferred and that no one is penalized for exercising their faith. 

Historic opposition to state funding of religious entities demonstrates the constitutionality of such prohibitions, the state contends.  Trinity Lutheran is not on point, for the tax credit plan does not involve a generally available benefit.

The state has not banned aid to education.  Moreover, where thirty eight states fall in line with Montana’s position, this is history to which the U.S. Supreme Court ought to defer.

The U.S. Supreme Court should not interfere with the constitutional and judicial authority of the state by enforcing a statute that the state Supreme Court has held to be unconstitutional, the state submits.   If it is conceded — and it is — that the state could decline to provide a school choice program, then it cannot be correct that if a school choice program is forbidden by the state constitution, then the application of the state constitution must be in violation of the federal constitution, and, therefore, a void statute must be enforced.

As there is no longer a school choice tax credit program, there is no unequal treatment, and therefore no Equal Protection clause violation.  Nor is there any Establishment Clause issue whether the state chooses to offer greater separation than the federal religion clause requires.

The state offers that the Supreme Court cannot recognize an amorphous “free exercise” violation where petitioners have not identified any violation. The Free Exercise clause inhibits the government: that some difficulty in exercising religion might beforeall individuals does not rise to the level of unconstitutional government prohibition on the free exercise of religious rights.

The operation, or not, of a tax advantage works no prohibition on free exercise.  Anyone can give to scholarships as they see fit: they just will not receive a tax credit.

There is no generally available benefit from which petitioners have been excluded because the tax credit program has been declared void ab initio

Without more, the state constitution’s no-aid close does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. In all, the fact that the Establishment Clause may allow a measure does not mean that the Free Exercise Clause compels it.  The state notes that where school choice is concerned, Justice Beyer has inquired of the fate of the interests of the families who would not wish to fund religious education at all.

Montana cautions that if the Supreme Court were to invalidate Montana’s no aid clause, grave constitutional concerns would arise.  Zelman does not require a single answer to whether  a “no aid” provision helps or hinders religion  Petitioners’ position lacks good sense: it is unimaginable that a statute declared unconstitutional under state law can spring back to life following federal constitutional review.

Zelman observed that choice that includes religion need not violate the Establishment Clause but declining funding is not the establishment of religion.  Lemon poses no problem because there are no unconstitutional effects created by the Montana Supreme Court’s invalidation of the school choice program.  Entitlement to a tax preference is not an establishment clause issue. Similarly, across the board disentitlement works no entitlement. 

Petitioners’ Reply.  Petitioners liken the state’s position to that of the authorities who shuttered schools rather than conform to the constitutional command to desegregate. 

Where the state emphasizes that petitioners concede that the state need not offer an aid program, the petitioners point to a comparable concession by the state:  the state cannot avoid the reality that the provision of a program that excluded religious schools would violate the federal constitution. Where protected classes are concerned, the Supreme Court has recognized that invalidating a program to prevent inclusion is just as discriminatory as exclusion from the start.  

It is not true that the Montana Supreme Court ‘harmonized’ federal and state constitutional interests.  Rather, the state understood that severability — permitting secular while forbidding sectarian aid — was a constitutional impossibility.  Eliminating a program to avoid unconstitutional results does not avoid constitutional concerns but confirms them.

Trinity Lutheran cautions that the Court ought not engage in a wooden application of Free Exercise principles:  indirect coercion or indirect penalties are within the ambit of the Free Exercise clause.  

The only reason the school choice tax credit was eliminated was concern over aid to religious schools.  The result in this case is worse than that in Trinity Lutheran, for the Espinoza petitioners have already relied on the availability of aid.  The additional financial burden and potential educational exclusion imposed on the petitioning parents falls within the concerns the Free Exercise Clause contemplates.

Locke concerned direct funding of professional clergy education, a circumstance not present here.  Further, petitioners argue that there is no “use” limitation on Trinity Lutheran’s holding.  Such an argument is irrelevant, nonetheless, where status discrimination exists: aid will be denied based only on religious status.  If religion and religious education cannot be disentangled, the state disproves its own argument: status v. use is a distinction without a difference.

Contrary to the state’s assertions, the weight of history is not on the state’s side, petitioners counter.  Most early considerations of government involvement in religion concerned direct aid to churches. This is not the case here, and there is no overwhelming reason to believe that aid that could benefit religious and secular schools would be objectionable to the founders. 

The proffered reasons for the wholesale reenactment of the Blaine Amendment in 1972 are of no moment, petitioners insist, where the significance of the measure is that of singling out religion for different treatment, which strikes at the core of Equal Protection clause concerns.  Even if it were accepted that a law’s constitutionality, or not,  cannot be determined by the motives of its enactors, the effects of a statute are reasonably evaluated in addressing constitutional concerns.  

As Montana has entirely banned aid to students seeking religiously affiliated private education, Zelman’s principles of neutrality and individual choice are decimated.

The question is not of “resurrection” of a defunct statute:  the issue is that Montana’s Supreme court determination forever precludes aid.  Similarly, the state’s resuscitation rhetoric must fail, as statutes are routinely revived following judicial review: so doing works no “inverse federalism.”

Petitioners submit that the federalism fears described by the state are phantasms.  There exists ample room for Montana to work within the “play in the joints” of the religion causes.  Montana may enact a school choice program without violating the Establishment Clause but it need not, and this would not violate the Free Exercise Clause. In contrast, adopting a wholesale ban on aid to religion would violate both religion clauses.  

Principal Briefs

Brief for Petitioners

Brief for Respondents

Reply Merits Brief

Joint Appendix

Amicus Submissions:  Note that the United States, as Amicus for Petitioners, Will Participate in Oral Argument 

The United States

Petitioners’ Amici

131 Current and Former State Legislators

Agudath Israel of America

Alliance for Choice in Education

American Center for Law & Justice

Americans for Prosperity and Yes Every Kid

Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization and Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic School

Billy Graham Evangelistic Association et al.

Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence

Center for Education Reform et al

Christian Legal Society et al

EdChoice, Reason Foundation, and The Individual Rights Foundation

Forge Youth Mentoring

Foundation for Moral Law

Georgia Goal Scholarship Program Inc

Honorable Scott Walker

Independence-Institute

Jerry and Kathy Armstrong et al

Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty

Justice and Freedom Fund et al

Liberty Justice Center and American Federation for Children

Mackinac Center for Public Policy

Montana Catholic School Parents, Catholic Association Foundation, and Invest in Education Foundation

Montana Family Foundation

Oklahoma et al

Opportunity Scholarship Fund

Pioneer Institute

Rusty Bowers Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives et al

Senator Daines et al

The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty

The Rutherford Institute

Respondents’ Amici

American Federation of Teachers et al

Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty

Colorado et al

Freedom from Religion Foundation et al

Montana Association of Rabbis

Montana Constitutional Convention Delegates

Montana Northern Wyoming Conference United Church of Christ

National Disability Rights Network et al

National School Boards Association et al.

Public Funds Public Schools

Religion Law Scholars

Religious and Civil Rights Organizations

State of Maine

Tennessee Education Association

 

 

 

Fact v. Fiction Friction: Native American Tribe and Leader Sue “Billions” Showrunners in Defamation

Cayuga Nation and Clint Halftown v. Showtime Networks, et al., No. 157902/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).  Oral argument on motion to dismiss scheduled for December 23, 2019.


“Billions” is a CBS/Showtime drama series that explores the manners and mores of titans of the New York financial and legal realm.  A fatherless self-made billionaire hedge fund owner squares off against a politically powerful adult child of privilege who cannot escape the influence of his ruthless father.

The Cayuga Nation and its leader object to Billions’ portrayal of them, asserting that the show has intimated the nation and its leader engaged in improper business conduct.  Showtime and its creators demur, asserting that this fictional account bears only a nominal similarity to the plaintiffs, that no viewer would mistake the drama for fact, that the nation as sovereign cannot maintain an action in defamation, and that any claim of misappropriation of Halftown’s likeness must fail, as no likeness has been appropriated and no image has been used in trade or advertising.

Defendants argue that fiction must be accorded strong First Amendment protection, and that the high standard applicable to defamation in fiction cases requires that any representation be unmistakable, indistinguishable from a real person, and involve defamatory statements concerning the target of the defamation. 

None of these standards can be met, defendants submit, where the female tribal leader acting in the show could not be mistaken for the real leader.  Moreover, the portrayal of the tribe and its leaders was not defamatory but rather portrayed the nation and its leader as politically astute.  There was no depiction or suggestion that either the nation or the its leader engaged in any criminal activity, precluding success in claiming defamation per se.

Plaintiffs insist that conclusory arguments without factual support do not support dismissal.  The nation is not without capacity to defend its good name and the idea that oblique representations cannot be actionable distorts the law.

Case Documents:

Summons and Complaint


Memorandum of Law in Support of Dismissal

Case Law in Support of Dismissal

Brafman v. Houghton Mifflin

Milo v. CBS

Summerlin v. Washington Star

Air Zimbabwe v. Tribune


Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Dismissal

 

Fundamental Speech Freedoms Ill-Served by Denial of Petitions for Certiorari in “Climate Change” Defamation Cases: Justice Alito Dissents

National Review, Inc. v. Michael E. Mann, No. 18-1451 and Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Michael E. Mann, No. 18-1477.  Petitions for Certiorari denied November 25, 2019.


To encourage the free flow of ideas and debate on matters of public concern, the First Amendment insulates statements of opinion from liability in defamation unless those opinions can be shown to be premised on demonstrably false assertions. 

If Jones says, “Smith could not defend my dog,” Jones cannot be sued if Jones has simply offered a sardonic appraisal of Smith’s advocacy.  If, however, Jones makes this statement when Smith has in fact won Fido’s acquittal, Jones may be liable in defamation, for his opinion is grounded in a falsehood. 

Unsurprisingly, yet apparently quite unpleasantly, the eruption of a firestorm of controversy about the soundness of the scientific evidence concerning climate change, accompanied by no small number of challenges to the character of its proponents and opponents, prompted scientist Mann to sue two conservative opponents of his research in defamation.   

No trial has been held as yet:  Defendants the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute asked that the Supreme Court consider who — judge or jury — should decide the contours of defamation claims, and how that should be accomplished.

The petitions for certiorari were denied on November 25, 2019.

Determinations about what is opinion and what is demonstrably true or false may be conclusive of liability in defamation cases, at least insofar as opinion is not actionable.  Special statutes reflect the goal of promptly resolving, through motions practice, claims concerning comment on matters of public interest. 

The capacity of the statutory framework to suit constitutional ends may become more intensive complex where the integrity of matters of scientific inquiry are concerned, as testing the truth of asserted facts and hypotheses is the very purpose of scientific inquiry.  Few would suggest that pretermitting discussion would serve any good end.

Just how much foundation in fact and how much hyperbole may be tolerated before speech loses First Amendment protection and becomes actionable in defamation generates no end of controversy, not the least component of which is who may decide such questions:  judge or jury. If these are questions of law, a judge may decide. If these are questions of fact, a jury may decide, and a judge ought not invade a jury’s fact-finding province.

The time and toil involved in preparing for trial is substantial, making the decision about deciders of great significance.  Yet notwithstanding advocates’ proffered arguments that there is a need for Supreme Court review of these questions, the Court has declined, to the disappointment of Justice Alito, who wrote separately in dissent from denial of the petitions of certiorari.  Justice Alito noted the critical nature of addressing these questions in order to ensure the preservation of First Amendment freedoms, which serve to guarantee that all may “speak freely and without fear” on matters of public concern.

 Confidence in constitutional guarantees is not well served by the uncertainty that is sustained by failure to resolve these questions, Justice Alito has offered.  This is especially so, he has noted, where the Court in recent years has not shied away from addressing First Amendment concerns in regulatory matters.  

While it is true that no rights have been conclusively forfeited in these cases because of the interlocutory nature of the appeal and the availability of trial, Justice Alito perceives the burdens of litigation and trial in themselves as potential impediments to participation in commentary on matters of public concern.  Justice Alito would have the Court step in to resolve such issues sooner rather than later or not at all.  

The Alito commentary:

18-1451_2019 11 25 Alito Dissent from Denial of Certiorari

The Opinion of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that prompted petitions for certiorari:

Inst v. Mann, 150 A.3d 1213 (D.C., 2016)

 

 

 

No Treats Here: Federal Court Enjoins Sheriff of Butts County, Georgia from Posting Warning Signs on Registered Sex Offenders’ Property

Reed, et al. v. Long, et al., No. 5:19-cv-00385 (M.D. Ga.) October 29, 2019.


A federal judge has enjoined a county sheriff from placing signs near the homes of several of the plaintiffs in this case, who are rehabilitated, yet registered, sex offenders.  The signs announced that no one would be permitted to seek Halloween treats at the address. The sheriff also left leaflets at the plaintiffs’ homes stating that the signposts were there because of their registered status.  

At least one plaintiff was threatened with arrest if he removed the sign.  

The court concluded that the sheriff’s acts compelled plaintiffs to speak in violation of the First Amendment, which restrains the government from inhibiting or requiring speech.  The court rejected the notion that the signs, as government speech, were wholly exempt from review as compelled speech.  

The court likewise rejected that notion that the signs were the least restrictive means of addressing the admittedly compelling government interest in child safety.  Where less intrusive measures had been effective in the past, and where the county had the capacity to caution without offending plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, defendants had not shown that theirs was the least restrictive means of serving the government’s interest. 

In awarding preliminary injunctive relief to three plaintiffs, the court declined to extend the injunction to all members of the class, as the court was concerned about whether some have been classified as more likely to pose a threat to others than the plaintiffs.

Reed v. Long, No. 5:19-cv-00385 (M.D. Ga.) Order of October 29, 2019.

Graffiti Gravitas: U.S. District Court in Maine Enjoins Enforcement of Student’s Suspension Subsequent to Posting Message About Sexual Assault in School Bathroom

A.M., a Minor v. Cape Elizabeth School District, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00466-LEW.  Opinion dated October 24, 2019.  


A.M. was suspended from high school in Cape Elizabeth, Maine, for violation of the school’s bullying policy.  She has sought and obtained a preliminary injunction on First Amendment grounds prohibiting enforcement of the suspension pending resolution of her claims on their merits.

A.M. had posted a note in a school bathroom announcing “There’s a Rapist In Our School, and You Know Who It Is.”  Another student discovered the note and presented it to school authorities. “Copy cat” postings ensued, the news swept through the student community, and a student was perceived to have been identified as the “rapist,” and was ostracized. 

The school commenced an exhaustive investigation, communicating by letter with parents with concerns and status information.  

If the firestorm within the school were not enough, local and national news media provided its external complement. 

Students protested the suspension of fellow students, and A.M., through her parents, sought relief from the suspension in federal court.

The federal district court rejected the school’s arguments and found preliminary injunctive relief to be appropriate where it appeared to the court that A.M. could show a likelihood of success on her First Amendment claim, where damage to First Amendment interests is presumptively irreparable, and where the harm to A.M. from suspension exceeds any institutional harm to the school.   

The school could not show that A.M.’s post was defamatory, particularly where the law of defamation concerning student speech is not well contoured and where no showing had been made that the link concerned another or was made with negligence.

As protected speech, then, the school would need to show that its actions came within the precedent established by Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 509 (1969) and subsequent cases.  Tinker established that students have First Amendment rights that are not coextensive with those of adults but that student speech ought not be interfered with absent substantial disruption in school operations or harm to others.

The court stressed that A.M.’s posting was undoubtedly one of current political interest:  concern about sexual assault and concomitant concern about authority’s responses to claims of sexual assault.  A post-it allegation in a school bathroom is not easily seen, the court observed, as the sort of call to disruptive arms that Tinker contemplates.  

Whether seen from the standpoint of foreseeable harm from the posting or from the standpoint of alleged harm in fact, the court appeared to be of the view that if controversy about this current issue consumed the school for a short period of time, this partakes more of the sort of lively, if sometimes rough-edged, public debate that the First Amendment exists to protect, rather than the sort of chaotic and dangerous behavior that Tinker would denounce.

That some students experienced fear or anxiety about the claim that there was a sexual assailant in the school and that some school administrators needed to work more than they did ordinarily were not the sorts of disruption that Tinker envisioned would justify speech disciplinary measures, the court concluded.  

Neither could the school create a clear line between A.M.’s posting and any harm to another, the court found.  A causal chain between A.M.’s action and the ostracized student had not been established at this preliminary stage.  

As the court perceived that A.M. might succeed on the merits of her First Amendment claim, and as the school defendants had not made a showing sufficient to controvert that claim, the court enjoined enforcement of A.M.’s school suspension.  

A.M. v. Cape Elizabeth School District, No. 19-cv-00466 (D. Maine)

Portland Head Light

Cape Elizabeth at a moment of greater tranquility.  2014 Photograph by James C.B. Walsh.  Displayed pursuant to Creative Commons license.  

 

 

Criminalizing Public Criticism: Federal Court Rules Pre-Enforcement Challenge to New Hampshire Criminal Defamation Statute May Proceed

Frese v. McDonald, 2019 DNH 184 (D. N.H., 2019). October 25, 2019.


Policing the police through public speech may be stifled, or ‘chilled,’ in First Amendment nomenclature, the federal court in New Hampshire has ruled, where the scope of the state criminal defamation statute is not clear. The addition of a scienter or knowledge requirement concerning false statements or the likelihood of public contempt adds nothing to dispel this apparent vagueness, the court has observed, particularly where the distinction between criticism and the invitation to contempt is not always plain.

Frese, a vociferous challenger of police and other official behavior, need not await actual criminal enforcement where his First Amendment interests are involved and where the exercise of those rights may be suppressed because of the threat of prosecution. Where encounters with the police have occurred in the past, where citizens as well as police may initiate proceedings, where there are indications that enforcement may be arbitrary, and where a criminal misdemeanor defendant may not insist on a jury trial or counsel, Frese’s constitutional interests are of such import that dismissal at the pleading stage is not warranted, the federal district court has concluded.

JustLawful Observation: Plaintiff Frese has not endeared himself to the New Hampshire authorities, but has found an ally in the American Civil Liberties Union, which has advocated on his behalf.

This test of the limits of criminalization of speech concerning public officials will likely have repercussions beyond New Hampshire: the ACLU observes half of the states have similar statutes.

Not all are in accord in this effort to release any choke-hold, real or imagined, that the threat of criminal prosecution for public criticism carries. At least one noted First Amendment scholar disagrees with the federal court in New Hampshire. As the statute is limited to knowingly false statements, this state of mind requirement saves the criminal defamation law from constitutional infirmity.

Ruling on Motion to Dismiss:

Frese v. MacDonald 2019 10 25 D. N.H.

News Accounts and Commentary:

Vagueness Challenge to N.H.’s Criminal Libel Statute Can Go Forward – Reason.com

He Disparaged the Police on Facebook. So They Arrested Him. – Liptak, The New York Times

Civil Settlement New Hampshire Union Leader

Concord News Coverage of Frese

Banned in Exeter_ Police Critic Unwelcome at Church, Shops. Seacoastonline.com – Portsmouth, NH

New Hampshire Police Arrested a Man for Being Mean to Them on the Internet

Model Citizen_ No. But Exeter Man Is At Center of First Amendment Dispute _ New Hampshire Public Radio

 

 

 

Criminalizing the Publication of Private Images Without Consent: The Supreme Court of Illinois Finds No Constitutional Flaw in “Revenge Porn” Statute

People v. Austin, 2019 Il 123910.  October 18, 2019.


Illinois boasts of the most rigorous law in the land respecting criminal liability for the dissemination of sexual images without consent. 

A trial court found the statute to be an impermissible content based speech restriction,  The circuit court dismissed a case against a woman who provided third parties with images of her former fiancee’s lover that were created and transmitted electronically between the former fiancee and lover.  

The state’s highest appellate court has reversed that determination, holding that the statute was not a content based regulation of speech but a valid exercise of state power to protect privacy.  

The court noted that the colloquial term “revenge porn” hardly captures the depth of the ills that may ensue when private images are published.  This is particularly so where the internet has produced its own niche for such images, drawing multitudes of eyes. 

There is an avid thirst for such materials in the online world, and there is no guarantee that even the most rigorous scrubbing of the internet would remove all images once set free in the ethereal, yet durable, online world.  Reputations and livelihoods may be lost, and families and loved ones may suffer. The court observed that there is no shortage of enduring damage that can ensue from publishing private images, and, in the court’s opinion, no civil law remedies will come close to ensuring such behavior is discouraged. 

The court’s majority sidestepped content analysis by observing that the statute does not concern content  so much as it makes criminally culpable the intentional publication of private images without consent. As only private images are of concern, the statute does not burden more speech than is necessary.  Moreover, to be criminal, publication must be intentional and with knowledge that the images were considered private.  

The court declined to announce a new species of speech categorically unprotected by the First Amendment.  Instead, the majority decided that the state has long acted with legitimacy in protecting privacy without encountering First Amendment infirmities where they are found to survive intermediate scrutiny. 

The court noted that the statute is not unlike other laws which prohibit disclosure of private matters such as medical records or identifying information.  Moreover, state action addressing private communications ordinarily receives somewhat less constitutional protection than does speech on matters of public concern, for the latter are the core of the First Amendment’s concerns.

Given the statute’s narrow scope  — the intentional distribution of sexual images understood to be private —  the court rejected an over-breadth challenge, as it is not likely that the statute could be found to proscribe a substantial amount of protected speech. Where it was conceded that the statute was sufficiently clear to avoid arbitrary enforcement, only a vagueness challenge remained, but the plain meaning of the plain language of the statute defeated its recognition.

The court also rejected the argument that the recipient of a sexual image acquires property interests that would invoke due process protections.  Being cognizant of whether an image was intended to be private does not require mind-reading. 

Two dissenting justices decried the majority’s recognition and subsequent abandonment of strict scrutiny as the standard of review and sharply dismissed the notion that the statute does not concern content when the subject of the statute is content:  private sexual imagery.  The statute, which provides no standard of intent, cannot be seen as narrowly tailored to serve any compelling state interest that might be found.  There are less restrictive means than criminal conviction to address any issues presented by ‘revenge porn,’ such as a private right of action.  

JustLawful Observation:  Within the past decade many states have enacted laws criminalizing the publication of private images.  Vermont has already considered its state statute, and found it to be constitutionally sound. More challenges will no doubt ensue, and it is not beyond imagination that at some point the United States Supreme Court will be requested to address the concerns raised by the statute.  This is particularly so where new categorical exceptions from First Amendment protection — such as racial epithets — are under discussion as potential solutions for otherwise insoluble and repetitive First Amendment issues.  

People v. Austin, 2019 IL123910

State v. Van Buren 2018 VT 95

 

 

The Right to Tell the State It Is Wrong: Ninth Circuit Recognizes Parent May Have a Claim Against Social Workers for Retaliation for Exercising First Amendment Rights in Connection with Child Protection Laws

Capp, et al. v. County of San Diego, et al., No. 18-55119 (9th Cir.) October 4,2019.


Jonathan Capp, going it alone in the judicial labyrinth, twice failed to persuade a trial court that he had been drawn into parental rights proceedings because he railed against the allegations made against him. The trial court twice dismissed his claim, first as insufficiently plead and again as barred by qualified immunity.

The Ninth Circuit has concluded that Capp in fact may assert a claim for violation of his First Amendment rights.  

During divorce proceedings, Capp became the object of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency inquiry. 

A county social worker contacted Capp to discuss his children and alleged substance abuse.  The children were interviewed without his consent.

Capp states that the social worker refused to answer his questions and terminated the interview.  Capp protested in writing to the social services agency. 

The San Diego family court dismissed a custody proceeding said to have been initiated by Capp’s wife at the social worker’s behest.  The family court denied the relief sought and chastised the agency.

A volley of correspondence and corrections ensued.  Capp was told allegations against him had been substantiated, then not, then told he was listed on a state registry concerning child abuse, then not.

Capp sued the social worker, social work supervisors, and the Health and Human Services Agency, claiming violations of his constitutional rights, in particular his right to be free from retaliation for exercising his First Amendment right to speak out against the proceedings initiated against him.

The Ninth Circuit reiterated the well established principle that speech protesting government action is constitutionally protection.  Retaliation for exercising that right is actionable. If an official act would inhibit an ordinary person from exercising First Amendment rights, the wrong may be reviewed in court. Thus, an injured person may succeed if it can be established that retaliation was a substantial or motivating factor in encouraging initiation of custody proceedings.  

Relief by means of a retaliation claim may be pursued even if it is recognized that the state and its social work are obliged to investigate claims of child abuse.  The presence of a legitimate motive will not, by itself, defeat the retaliation claim.

Where an individual can show that there was no substantiated concern for safety and that the individual was treated differently from others in similar circumstances, that evidence will permit an inference that retaliation prompted official action.

Even if Capp were able to show that retaliation for asserting his First Amendment rights to speak in protest of the child protective services agency’s actions, and that this was a motivating or substantial factor in encouraging Capp’s wife’s ex parte custody proceedings, the social workers would enjoy qualified immunity from suit unless they were found to have violated a clearly established constitutional right.

The Ninth Circuit recognized that a clearly established precedent recognized that the government cannot take action that would chill protected speech out of retaliatory animus for that speech.  Opinion, p. 22. Any government official would recognize that threatening legal sanctions or coercive action would violate the First Amendment and, as such, the social workers were not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law on appeal, although it could be explored further on remand.

The Ninth Circuit upheld dismissal of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims as the question whether children are entitled to be free from unreasonable searches has not been clearly established and because, while the termination of parental rights could be seen as a violation of substantive due process rights, there is no right to be free from investigation.  As the Fourth Amendment claim failed, so too would the municipal liability claim, particularly where only a conclusory allegation was articulated.

JustLawful Observation:  The Ninth Circuit noted that its articulation of a potential claim in this case was quite close.  Nonetheless it would be unwise to read the decision as anything other than a cautionary tale for those charged with the administration of child protective services. 

Capp v. Cnty. of San Diego (9th Cir., 2019)

Federal Court Enjoins Enforcement of New Jersey’s Mandated Donor Disclosures of Dissemination of Political Speech

American for Prosperity v. Attorney General of New Jersey, No. 3:19-cv-14228 (D. N.J.) October 2, 2019.


New Jersey enacted a statute intended to render transparent the expenditure of money on political causes, requiring disclosure of donors’ identities where $3000 or more annually was given for “political communications.” 

The New Jersey governor refused to sign the bill as initially proposed.  While praising the goal of bringing “dark money” to light, the governor feared that the statute as drafted would infringe on First Amendment rights.

The New Jersey legislature then enacted an essentially identical but renumbered bill which the governor signed on the condition that changes be made to ensure conformity with the constitution and election laws.

No changes were made.

Americans for Prosperity, a group that speaks on diverse issues of public concern, sought and obtained an injunction against enforcement of the act.

Americans for Prosperity argued that the statute reached far beyond matters more appropriately reserved for electioneering.  The court agreed. The statutory mandate of disclosure of donor identify where speech is intended to influence elections goes too far and is too uncertain to be tolerated under the constitution and case law.

The perceived ills evoked the court’s pointed conference:  “Most constitutionally troubling to the Court is the way in which…the Act brings communications of purely factual political information into a disclosure and financial reporting regime historical limited to electioneering communications.”  Opinion, p. 38. 

Although the court confined its ruling to the facial challenge to the statute, the court opined that where politics as practiced can be observed to have invited threats, harassment, and loss of employment, it is not likely that the statuteuroy scheme would survive as-applied review.

Ams. for Prosperity v. Grewal (D. N.J.) October 2, 2019)

 

Badmouthing Police Officer Online, Absent Malice, May Not Demonstrate Bad Character Disqualifying Applicant from Licensure as Private Investigator

Gray v. State, No. 18-AP-65 (Kennebec Sup. Ct.) July 18, 2019.


Maine requires proof of character for licensure as a private investigator, as demonstrated through review by the state police.  In Gray’s case, the police were not well pleased with Gray’s online statements about a police officer, and disqualified him from licensure because he was seen as being unable to provide accurate accounts of matters. 

The Maine Superior Court applied the brakes to this position, observing that offering an opinion online is speech protected by the First Amendment.  In remanding for further administrative proceedings, the court concluded that If the posting were made with knowledge of its falsity or otherwise evinced actual malice, then consideration would be appropriate in the applicant’s character evaluation.  

Justlawful observation:  The judge sidestepped the quagmire that open season on online posting as character could invite while providing some guidance on evaluating troubling online behavior, while simultaneously avoiding what might very well turn out to be an epic feud between the police and the applicant for licensure. 

Gray v. State (Kennebec Sup. Ct.) July 18, 2019

Not Without Merit: Federal Court in New York Allows Student Accused of Sexual Assault to Proceed with Defamation Case

Goldman v. Reddington, No. 18-cv-3662 (E.D.N.Y.)  Motion to Dismiss denied September 27, 2019.


Alex Goldman and Katherine Reddington were students at Syracuse University whose overnight encounter following a party ended with Reddington sensing that something had gone awry, although she had no recollection of assault until after psychotherapy months later.  Reddington obtained a physical examination which produced no evidence of assault. The district attorney declined prosecution for lack of evidence.  

However, Syracuse University took note of Reddington’s Title IX allegations and expelled Goldman, who subsequently enrolled in another university and sought employment with an engineering firm.

Goldman’s complaint states that Reddington boasted of succeeding in her case against Goldman on campus at Syracuse and online, and that she either posted or republished online comments calling him a ‘monster.’  Those comments, which attracted attention and public commentary, were tagged to Goldman’s new school and employer.

Goldman was summarily fired from his job.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has rejected Reddington’s argument that Goldman failed to plead facts sufficient to establish defamation or tortious interference with business relations and declined to address Reddington’s argument that an injunction against further commentary would violate her First Amendment rights, as a motion to dismiss addresses the complaint and not the remedies sought.  

The court did not agree with Reddington’s defense that she had offered non-actionable opinion about Goldman where that opinion was premised upon defamatory accusations of criminal conduct.  

Reddington’s tagging or republication of online posts she claims did not originate with her are not insulated from liability, the court held, for republication of defamatory material is itself actionable. 

Moreover, Goldman could go forward on his claim of tortious interference with business relationships as the claim can be premised on defamation.

Goldman v. Reddington, No. 18-cv-3662 (E.D.N.Y.) September 27, 2019

 

Supreme Court Justices to Consider Reviewing Whether Transit Authority’s Ban on Religious Advertising on Buses Violates First Amendment

Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, et al., No. 18-1455.  Scheduled for Conference October 1, 2019.


Today marks the Supreme Court’s official ‘back to work’ day, exemplified by the characterization of the first ensemble of the justices for the term as “the long conference,” in which the accumulated and prospective business before the Court demands extensive and intensive attention.

Among the many petitions of note is the Archdiocese of Washington’s (ADW) request that the Court grant its petition for certiorari to determine whether the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority’s (WMATA) prohibition on religious advertisements on its buses violates the First Amendment. 

The dispute between the church and state entities arose in 2017, when WMATA refused to permit publication of a “Find the Perfect Gift” advertisement intended for public viewing in anticipation of the Christmas holiday.  Although similar advertisements had been accepted and were widely seen within the WMATA ridership area, in 2015 WMATA promulgated regulations banning “Issue” messages, including political and religious views. WMATA reasoned that such messages stirred controversy and management of public concerns in reviewing complaints consumed an inordinate amount of resources. 

The Archdiocese argues that the Court’s precedent compels the conclusion that WMATA rules impermissibly suppress speech, notwithstanding the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to the contrary.

The Archdiocese argues that WMATA’s rules cannot survive review under either the First Amendment or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  As WMATA has admitted that it permits messages with secular messages but not with religious messages, WMATA has engaged in impermissible viewpoint discrimination.

The Archdiocese disputes  the position that the exclusion of the “subject” of religion avoids constitutional offense.  All manner of commentary about Christmas is permitted except religious commentary: this is exactly what is meant by viewpoint discrimination.

Particularly where religion enjoys specific constitutional protections, the imposition of speech burdens or prohibitions is unacceptable.  Adopting the government’s view would carry with it the potential to banish religious speech from all forums, a constitutionally unacceptable result.

The Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority disputes the Archdiocese’s argument, asserting that its regulation, intended to avoid controversy and its associated costs, is a reasonable viewpoint neutral subject limitation applicable to a non-public forum.  WMATA counters the church’s arguments about speech suppression with the prediction that if the regulation is struck down, then all advertisements opposing religion will be required to be accepted, to the detriment of the government’s ability to manage its transit authority and to the detriment of its ridership.  

WMATA cautions the court that adopting the Archdiocese’s position would destroy the forum analyses applied to permissible and impermissible restrictions on speech in public forums.  

WMATA argues that there is no Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim to be reviewed, as RFRA does not apply to the states, and WMATA is an inter-state project comprising of the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. 

JustLawful Prognostication:  “Definitely maybe.”

The Court could grant certiorari if it determines it important to weed the thicket of controversy and misunderstanding that have attached to analyses of permissible speech limitations, including forum analyses.  There is little doubt that this is a significant issue on both speech and religious freedom points.

It is equally possible that, given that the appellate court decision in issue concerns preliminary relief and not a determination on the merits, that the Court will avoid tackling these important concepts in the absence of a more developed record.  

An eleventh hour tipping point may have emerged.  Just days before the long conference, the Archdiocese submitted a supplementary brief arguing that a recent decision by the Third Circuit striking down regulations not dissimilar from the WMATA rules creates a split in circuit decisions making more urgent the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari.

Briefs in Support and Opposition to Petition for Certiorari

2019 05 19 Petition for Writ of Certiorari

2019 07 22 WMATA Opposition to Peittion for Certiorari

2019 08 06 Reply of Archdiocese v WMATA

2019 09 26 ADW Supplemental Brief in Support of Petition for Certiorari

Amicus Submissions

2019 06 20 Amicus Brief Foundation for Moral Law

2019 06 21 Amicus Brief Christian Legal Society et al

2019 06 21 Amicus Brief of National Association of Evangelicals et al

Opinions of D.C. Circuit and U.S.D.C. D.C.

Archdiocese of Wash. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth. & Paul J. Wiedefeld, 910 F.3d 1248(Mem) (D.C. Cir., 2018)

Archdiocese of Wash. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 897 F.3d 314 (D.C. Cir., 2018)

Archdiocese of Wash. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 281 F. Supp. 3d 88 (D. D.C., 2017)

Opinion of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Ne. Pa. Freethought Soc’y v. Cnty. of Lackawanna Transit Sys.No. 18-2743 (3rd Cir., 2019)

 

Federal Court in Maryland Upholds Law Precluding Licensed Professionals from Practicing “Conversion” Therapy on Minors

Doyle, et al.  v. Hogan, et al., No. 19-cv-00190 (D. Md.) Motion to Dismiss Granted September 20, 2019.


A Maryland statute governing the provision of mental health services precludes provision of “conversion” therapy to minors.  Violation of the statute carries the risk of professional censure. 

“Conversion” therapy is the name applied to interventions intended to reorient an individual’s sexual identity, presumably from same sex or other preferences to heterosexual interest.  “Conversion” therapy has received substantial disapprobation from professional groups, and some professionals advocate that even if there were evidence to support the efficacy of conversion therapy, it should not be offered to minors.

Plaintiff Doyle asserted in federal court that the preclusion of delivery of conversion therapy to minors unconstitutionally impaired his speech rights and his religious liberty. 

The court disagreed, finding that while the conversion therapy involved speech, the administration of therapy was in fact conduct outside the realm of constitutional concern.  

Moreover, the court observed, the therapist’s freedom to speak of or about conversion therapy remains untouched by the statute.  A mental health services provider may provide information about or express an opinion about conversion therapy without fear. 

Central to the court’s determination was the inability of minors to provide informed consent for treatment. As the state interest in the health and well being of minors is at least substantial, if not compelling, imposing limitations on professional conduct to which the minor is legally unable to consent is not unreasonable.  In that minor children are not capable of autonomously exercising informed consent and in that others may exercise consent on their behalf, the state is not wrong in protecting minors from treatment to which they could not accede as a matter of law.

The court concluded that as therapist’s speech interests are not within the statute’s purview, neither were free exercise rights abridged, as the prohibition on “conversion” therapy for minors is a law of general applicability which does not substantially interfere with any belief or practice of religion.

The statute applies only to those who are licensed practitioners within Maryland.

Doyle v. Hogan (D. MD.) September 20, 2019

Citizen Lockdowns, Mandated Business Closings and Assembly Restrictions All Unconstitutional, Federal Court in Pennsylvania Holds

County of Butler, et al. v. Wolf, et al., No. 2:20-cv-677 (W.D. Pa.) Opinion entered September 14, 2020.

In the pipeline:  state officials will appeal the court’s decision and seek to freeze proceedings until appellate review has concluded. Motions for entry of judgment or certification of issues for appeal are pending, as is a motion for entry of stay pending appeal.  The brief of plaintiffs on the motion for stay pending appeal is due on September 21.  

Good intentions are not good enough to protect constitutional interests, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania observes, and this may be especially so when emergency conditions invite extraordinary government action:

In an emergency, even a vigilant public may let down its guard over its constitutional liberties only to find that liberties, once relinquished, are hard to recoup and that restrictions  — while expedient in the face of an emergency situation — may persist long after immediate danger has passed.

Slip op. 2.

The federal court reviewed emergency orders issued by the Pennsylvania governor and the secretary for health related to the COVID-19 virus using ordinary principles of review and found that the state’s limitations on assembly violate the First Amendment; that the stay-at-home and business closure orders violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the the business closure components of the orders violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  

The governor signed a disaster emergency declaration on March 6, 2020, which activated emergency powers concerning commerce and health.

Groups of non-medical policy employees assembled by the governor divided businesses into “life sustaining” and “non life-threatening” businesses and drafted responses to questions from the public.

Schools were closed and stay-at-home orders issued.  Plans for reopening were developed along with capacity restrictions.  

Extensions and modifications of orders followed.

Counties, political persons, and businesses sued the state in May, 2020, challenging the orders on Takings Clause, Substantive Due Process, Equal Protection and First Amendment grounds.  

Following briefing, argument, and post-hearing briefing, on motions for declaratory judgment the court has concluded that: the assembly limitations violate the First Amendment; the stay-at-home and business closure orders violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the business closure orders violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

First, the court concluded that plaintiff counties lack Article III standing to sue under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 because this statute creates remedies, not rights, and as creations of the state, counties do not have constitutional rights.

Second, the court concluded that it need not apply relaxed or deferential standards of review to emergency measures.  Although states possess broad police powers, these powers cannot operate outside constitutional principles, the court reasoned, a position with which at least one Supreme Court justice agrees as do legal scholars.

The court found the abandonment of constitutional standards in emergency conditions particularly problematic where the emergency is ongoing and where mitigation restrictions are considered normative, and some want restrictions to remain in force indefinitely. 

The court recognizes that the exigencies of an emergency may require deference but not where the emergency has no stopping point:  

Faced with ongoing restrictions of indeterminate length, “suspension” of normal constitutional levels of scrutiny may ultimately lead to the suspension of constitutional liberties themselves. 

Slip Op. 19.

The judiciary, as an independent branch of government, must guarantee liberties even in an emergency.

Third, the court found that the open ended restraints on gatherings violate the First Amendment.  The restrictions apply to churches and some businesses, depending on the operation of capacity metrics.  There is no exception for protests but they have been permitted without compliance with restrictions.  

The court observed that the restrictions on assembly were content neutral, warranting intermediate scrutiny in which a regulation must be narrowly tailored to a significant government interest and leave ample alternative channels of communications.  

The open-ended and sweeping nature of the restrictions fail to survive this analysis, the court held.  In addition, they are categorically illogical, imposing fewer restraints in commerce than in other expressive settings, and no evidence supports the idea that the metrics chosen support the goal of diminishing disease.

Fourth, substantive due process rights were violated when the population was locked down and businesses deemed “non-life sustaining” were forced to close.  The court stressed that the issues are not moot because some restrictions have been relaxed, as the state’s orders remain vital and may spring back to life as the state wishes.  

The limitations imposed in quarantines require exposure to disease for a limited period of time.  That the wholesale societal lockdowns imposed by the state have no precedent will not make them unconstitutional, but because the orders impeded not only travel but associational rights, they are subject to, but cannot survive, strict scrutiny or even intermediate analysis.  

The lockdown orders impose far greater restrictions than necessary.  No one could go out except as approved by the state, an “inversion” of the American experience.  Where lockdown is the baseline for an indefinite period of time, no claim to narrow tailoring can be supported.

Fifth, where no rationale was even proffered for distinctions between life-sustaining and other businesses, the indefinite closure violates the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.  These measures, which may spring to life from suspension at the government’s command, violate substantive due process as they arbitrarily interfere with the right to self support which is central to the personal freedom which was the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment.  

The court wholly rejected the state’s “only temporary” argument, which was advanced to insist that there was no real damage caused by the shutdowns.  Even where suspensions were limited.  The measures cannot survive rational basis analysis.  The arbitrary creation, sweep, and administration of the order closing all “non-life sustaining” businesses is unconstitutional, having no fixed definitions and no temporal limitations.

Sixth, the business closure provisions of the orders violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.  Determinations based on county boundaries or undefined notions of “life sustaining” enterprises are not rationally related to any legitimate government end.  Where it is undisputed that some businesses were treated differently from others, and even where distinctions based on county boundaries are constitutional, the “arbitrary, ad hoc” imposition of the “life sustaining” distinction was not subject to measurement, was inherently arbitrary, and conferred upon government sweeping powers over businesses effectively allowing government to determine which businesses would open and which would close.

Butler, et al. v. Wolf, et al., No. 20-cv-677 (W.D. Pa.)