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.)