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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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

 

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

 

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

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


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

 

 

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

 

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CNN Settles Lawsuit Stemming from Viral Video Controversy

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

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