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

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)

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).

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

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

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