Is the National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional?

     On the first Thursday of every May, the United States government has allotted the National Day of Prayer in which it encourages Americans across all faiths to make religious prayer a priority for the day. This day dedicated to observance first made its way onto the national stage in 1952 as a joint resolution of Congress with President Truman signing it into law. Planning for this event is left up to a privately funded task force “whose purpose is to encourage participation on the National Day of Prayer. It exists to communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer, to create appropriate materials, and to mobilize the Christian community to intercede for America’s leaders and its families. The Task Force represents a Judeo-Christian expression of the national observance, based on our understanding that this country was birthed in prayer and in reverence for the God of the Bible” (National Day of Prayer Task Force). This privately funded task force, however, is in charge of planning a government-sponsored day that requires the President to issue an annual proclamation to recognize the day’s validity. 

It may be specifically encouraged by a privately-funded task force as well as not considered a federal holiday, but since this proclamation of encouragement of prayer stems from the executive branch of government, it trickles its way down to state and municipal government as “records indicate there have been 1,526 state and federal calls for national prayer since 1775 and counting” (National Day of Prayer Task Force). Protecting the American population’s right to the free exercise of their religion does not require or necessitate a need for a day of dedication or minimize the importance of acknowledging what is deemed appropriate by the Establishment Clause. In recent years, more specifically, the Trump administration, this day has been manipulated to encourage religious-based discrimination and close the gap between the intentional separation of church and state. During his administration, President Trump staunchly supported the National Day of Prayer to encourage religiosity within the nation as well as using the day as a platform to promote his religiously centered support for certain policies. This included President Trump supporting the Johnson Amendment, an amendment that allowed houses of worship to endorse political candidates, the Denial of Care Act, which allowed health care workers to deny care to workers on the basis of their religious beliefs, amongst others (The National Day of Prayer). This has left the National Day of Prayer to be associated with pursuits that promote religious-based discrimination as well as the political blurring of lines as it pertains to the separation of Church and state. 

The question many grapple with when it comes to the National Day of Prayer is whether it is encouraging individuals to embrace their free exercise, or is it the federal government permitting the establishment of a day dedicated to the promotion and furtherance of religion? I would say that the National Day of Prayer veers too close to the government establishing religion, therefore, going against the Establishment Clause making it unconstitutional. As stated by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, “It’s simply not the place of our secular government to direct its citizens on when, how or whether to pray. Government has no business even offering us advice on how to behave when it comes to religion.” (Americans United).  My reason for my beliefs lies in the statement of the National Day of Prayer Task Force. Specifically, the planning for this day comes from a Christian-centric lens. This is exemplified in the kind of prayer that is presented in President Biden 69th proclamation of the National Day of Prayer released in the early morning of May 6th, 2021 in which he encouraged fellow Americans to pray for themselves and the nation by their own conviction as well as stating that he will join in prayer as well. He ended his proclamation by noting the date which included the statement “in the year of our Lord.”. Although the task force’s website says it plans the day from a “Judeo-Christian” perspective to reflect the religious nature of this country and its framers, it contradicts the neutrality pertaining to religion that is a central right allowed to every American as outlined in the Constitution. The National Day of Prayer’s Task Force may be privately funded but it fuels a government-sponsored public event. Ultimately, I find that the manner in which this day is created and how it is publicized to the American public is a violation of the Establishment Clause, making it unconstitutional. 

Lippard V. Holleman

In 2012, tensions broke out between two members of the Diamond Hill Baptist Church(DHBC), pianist Kim Lippard and Pastor Larry Holleman. Lippard had been the congregation's pianist and vocalist for nearly 34 years and was in disagreement with the music director, Alan Hix, as to who should be assigned a solo performance. The two had a history of tense arguments and Pastor Holleman worked them through two rounds of reconciliation. Reconciliation is a process to improve the relationship between the two individuals based on biblical principles and passages. All attempts for reconciliation failed and in November 2012, Holleman wrote a letter to Lippard recommending that she be dismissed as pianist. This decision was backed by a meeting Holleman had with the Board of Deacons as well as the DHBC’s Church Personnel Committee. 

On November 28, 2012, Holleman delivered a church-wide sermon discussing the motion to terminate Lippard. According to Lippard, Holleman gave a two-hour sermon while reading a “20-page diatribe” which included false statements about her and her husband, Barry Lippard. The accusations claimed that Kim Lippard had “maliciously slandered another choir member and accused Hix of lying and intentionally hiding her sheet music.” After the church-wide meeting, Holleman left printed copies of the sermon in the foyer for all members of the congregation.  A similar occurrence took place again on December 2nd and ballots were distributed to the congregation that contained three questions about Kim Lippard’s character and her response to the scripture. Ultimately, the congregation voted to keep her as the DHBC pianist however Holleman's efforts to dismiss the Lippards continued.

The Lippards sued in 2013. Hix and Holleman as defendants wanted the claim thrown out on the basis that the courts could not interfere in matters involving “ecclesiastical or ecumenical question of church governance.” Due to this claim, the courts must evaluate the applicability of applying the First Amendment ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine. The ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine is an extension of the Establishment Clause in order for the state to avoid weighing in on matters of religious institutions. On a case-by-case basis, the court must determine whether the defamation claims can be resolved using neutral principles of law in order to avoid interpreting or weighing ecclesiastical matters.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals concluded that all statements the Plaintiffs challenge are barred by the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine, and thus would not address remaining challenges.

I agree with this assessment in large part due to the nature of this particular case. The North Carolina Court of Appeals emphasized that in order to address a defamation claim in an ecclesiastical setting, the plaintiff must generally present that the defendant caused injury by making false, defamatory statements that were published to a third person. The main part of this decision then occurs in that first competent regarding whether or not weighing “falsity” would require the court to interpret church doctrine. In this case, because the claims made by Holleman are directly tied to the process of Reconciliation the court would, in ruling, be entangled in church matters. 

This is a significant principle that reflects precedent established in US v. Ballard, which held that the courts could not “be the arbiters of the truth or falsity of one's religious beliefs.” The ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine is extended by this precedent. Though individuals should be generally protected by defamation, in a religious setting it would be a rare, though not impossible, occurrence when internal statements are purely secular. It is important to note that Ballard prevents the courts from ruling truth or falsity regarding religious beliefs, not speech or actions which is why the court must take these cases individually. The careful application of weighing action is seen through the “ministerial exception” in both the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru case. Though the “ministerial exception" under the First Amendment is in ways applicable to both cases, in both instances the court carefully observed whether or not this principle was applicable to the individuals. This is done to ensure that employment discrimination is not completely shielded by church authority. This aspect of weighing the harm and applicability of this First Amendment doctrine is significant and must be applied to this case. In cases regarding defamation, serious injury can be committed that should not be shielded by the church. For the sake of protecting individuals from serious harm in the form of slander, I understand the appeal on the plaintiff's part. However in this case I feel as though the court did weigh the applicability of the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine in a way that affirms that the court cannot weigh in on the Lippard’s defamation claims.

The Equality Act & What It May Mean For Religious Freedom

 In February of 2021 the US House of Representatives passed the Equality Act which is now being debated in the Senate. The Equality Act provides explicit anti-discrimination protections for the LGBTQ+ community. Particularly in workplaces, federally funded programs, housing, education, and other public spaces. It is lauded by those in favor of increased LGBTQ+ protections as a step in the right direction and a further legitimization of these identities and communities and their space in American society. Those who oppose the Equality Act are generally religious groups who fear that these protections could overturn aspects of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and strip religious individuals and communities from having full religious freedom and protection for their beliefs. 

For religious groups and individuals their opposition to the Equality Act is centered around several concerns. Most notably they fear that this new legislation will prevent religious freedom claims being made by individuals and groups who invoke the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In addition, they fear that this could lead the government to “punish” religious groups and individuals who do not agree with same sex marriages/relationships or acknowledge transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. They also fear that this Act could lead to coercive action by the government to force churches and other religious organizations to hold same sex marriage ceremonies, threaten religious adoption agencies who do not wish to place children with same sex couples, place transgender people in the same shelters and locker rooms as cisgender people, and force healthcare professionals to provide gender affirming healthcare that violates their personal beliefs. 

While several of these concerns are valid, some are quite unlikely to occur. One that is most being scrutinized by opponents to the bill is the last point in the previous paragraph, the ability to access gender affirming healthcare. The effects on healthcare that the Act provides is largely symbolic as it lacks specific wording that guarantees this right. Indeed, individuals who have Medicaid may still be denied access to this healthcare as individual states still have control over what Medicaid can and cannot cover. Also while these Medicaid rights may be expanded in the 12 states that currently do not have gender affirming healthcare covered over the coming months, the Equality Act does not apply to private insurance. Only 13% of trans individuals are currently covered by Medicaid with the rest either having private insurance or being uninsured. As for other aspects of the Act that are facing scrutiny, the concern is more valid.

The crux of the issue surrounding the passing of the Equality Act is whether by increasing the freedoms and protections of some the freedoms of others will be at risk. While I personally believe that the passing of the Equality Act is a positive thing and shows progress by allowing marginalized groups and more specifically the LGBTQ+ community more protection in court when faced with discrimination I also think this could lead to a slippery slope with religious protection and liberty for minority religious groups. Protecting at risk groups is important regardless of who those groups are. Cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop and Hobby Lobby have been able to protect religious individuals and groups from violating their beliefs but with this new Act it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court decides on future religious freedom cases. The balance between being free to believe and free to act is constantly being decided by the rulings of the Supreme Court and the courts below it. Currently Fulton v City of Philadelphia is being seen by the Supreme Court which will rule on the validity of Philadelphia removing funding from a Catholic Adoption agency due to their unwillingness to place children with same sex couples. How this case will be decided will either strengthen or weaken some of the goals of the Equality Act as it will allow discrimination based on sincerely held belief. 

While religious groups have many concerns and proponents from the LGBTQ+ community laud this new act there is still much to be decided in the coming months as the Act has not yet been passed by the Senate. Whether or not it passes and the repercussions either way will certainly have an effect on both the LGBTQ+ community and religious individuals and groups within the United States and regardless could simultaneously increase and decrease protections for both groups as courts debate the many issues that will arise with enhanced protections for both minority groups and their ability to act in alignment with how they identify and what they believe. 

North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention Inc. v. McRaney

In June 2015, Will McRaney was terminated from his position as the executive director of the Baptists Convention of Maryland/Delaware "BCMD" after holding this position for two years. Over a year after he was fired, McRaney filed a lawsuit in April 2017 against the North American Board "NAMB," as he claimed he was wrongfully terminated after an argument over collaborative regional mission efforts. McRaney alleged that the NAMB had harmed his career as an executive director, harmed his ministry, and caused him emotional distress. NAMB says that McRaney had turned into a "dysfunctional ministry partner" as the executive director, and denies interfering with McRaney's employment situation. In fact, NAMB is under the impression that he voluntarily resigned from the BCMD and agreed to a severance package. NAMB also says that McRaney's actions caused the BCMD to violate their Strategic Partnership Agreement with the NAMB. McRaney allegedly interfered with BCMD's religious obligations, thus NAMB was entitled to notify the BCMD that they were terminating their partnership with them if these circumstances continued.

On April 22, Senior Judge Glen Davidson of the U.S. District Court Northern District of Mississippi originally took on, but soon dismissed this case. Judge Davidson dismissed the case due to "lack of subject matter jurisdiction," as he said that deciding on this case would require the court to rule on religious elements that would constitute too much interference between the government and the Church. Judge Davidson cited the "ecclesiastical abstention doctrine" in his reasoning which is a constitutional principle that prohibits the court from resolving matters inherently religious in nature. 

In July 2020, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision made in the lower court, however they could not determine if the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applied. They instead said that the uncertainty surrounding the facts of this case was what caused them to rule in favor of McRaney. NAMB appealed this decision to the Supreme Court and said they would allow the federal court to explore the religious freedom protections afforded by ministries under the First Amendment.

The facts of this case are confusing, similar to a "he said, she said" scenario. However, the main issues are similar to what we had just discussed in class on Monday. The two questions at hand are: Can a secular court judge a minister's employment-related state-low tort claims against a religious organization using neutral principles? and Does the First Amendment prevent the judgement of a minister's employment-related state-law tort claim only when brought against the minister's employer? 

I side with the NAMB in this case. I believe that churches and ministers need to be protected from government interference, as the church and state are two separate entities. NAMB should be able to create or dissolve partnerships how they see fit, as cooperations between organizations and churches is a right protected by the First Amendment. NAMB should be able to work with BCMD in order to put into place a ministry strategy without the threat of government intervention. As discussed in the Hosanna-Tabor case, the Supreme Court has previously ruled down on the "ministerial exception", which helps to prevent state interference in churches. The church autonomy doctrine spelled out in Hosanna-Tabor also ensures that Church authorities are given the right to select and control who they want as a minister and that this is the Church and the Church alone's decision. Furthermore, in Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Supreme Court ruled that "courts are bound to stay out of employment disputes involving those holding certain important positions with churches and other religious institutions." Given the arguments that were made in the majority decision of each of these cases, I believe that NAMB should be allowed to determine who they foster relationships with based on each cooperation's minister (in this case BCMD's executive director which was Minister McRaney) and that the court should not intervene on Church's decisions.

One issue here that the opposing side might make is that McRaney was not an employee of NAMB therefore this case is about McRaney's complaint of external actions towards separate organizations. This means that if NAMB told BCMD to fire McRaney (which McRaney claims it true) then it wold not fall under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and a civil court can make a decision and have jurisdiction in this case. This would then distinguish this case from Hosanna-Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe. However, because I do not believe McRaney's claim that the NAMB directly told BCMD to fire him, I would argue against this point that could be made in McRaney's favor.

This case is important in reaffirming the rights afforded to religious groups by the First Amendment. Although there is some confusion in the details of this case, in Hosanna-Tabor, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the First Amendment must "give special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations." In order to affirm their decision and continue to reinforce this standard, the Supreme Court should rule in favor of the NAMB.

Diocese of Albany v. Lacewell

 The Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of catholic nuns that dedicate their life to serving the elderly poor, have been involved in numerous legal battles dealing with religious liberty. This considerable amount of legal challenges began in 2011 when the United States Department of Health and Human Services ordered employers to cover controversial contraceptives in their health care plans. However, three times within the past decade would the Supreme Court agree with the Little Sisters of the Poor that the government could not force the nuns to help with coverage of contraceptives. Their cases have shaped how the Supreme Court looks at religious exemptions and how religious freedom should be upheld and protected. As of recently though, in the case

Diocese of Albany v. Lacewell, the state of New York has expanded what employers must cover in their health plans to now include abortions. With the initial plan to give out religious exemptions, it has been noted that pressure from activists and differing groups pressured New York lawmakers to make this an all encompassing rule. This not only affects the Little Sisters of the Poor as various groups have joined in looking to dissent from this law and sue New York on the basis that the law forces them to violate their religious beliefs. This case is reminiscent of another court ruling dealing that dealt more closely with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This act prohibits any agency, department, or official of the United States or any State from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. The only exemptions that lie within this act occur only if the burden given to the person furthers a compelling state interest if that burden is the least restrictive means to furthering the compelling state interest. This case is Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Stores

and this case began the Supreme Court’s decade long analysis of the Freedom Restoration act. Essentially, the family that owns Hobby Lobby felt as though the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment was being violated when they were being forced to cover the employment-based group health care coverage of contraceptives. In this case, the court had to decide if the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allowed a for-profit company to deny employees health coverage of contraceptives due to the religious objections of the owners. The Supreme Court thus ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. Their ruling essentially required the government to offer the same accommodations that are offered to non-profit organizations to for-profit organizations. The key point from the RFRA is that forcing these exemptions is not the least restrictive means of furthering governmental interest in this case. Additionally, it was recognized that this ruling and reading of the RFRA only applied to the contraceptive mandate. Yet, this was not the only case involving the RFRA, or the Little Sisters of the Poor, as both were looked at in Little Sisters of the Poor Saint Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania. This case brought in the question of newfound exemptions, to the contraceptive mandate, given by the Trump administration to not-for-profit, education, and for-profit entities that have sincere religious or moral objections to providing contraceptive coverage. This was sued by Pennsylvania and New Jersey arguing that the agencies did not have the jurisdiction to hand down these objections and that they were not justified by the RFRA. The lower courts agreed and shot down the exemptions, however the Supreme Court reversed this ruling. The Supreme Court essentially ruled that the expansion of exemptions was within the power of these agencies. However, the court denied any majority opinion on whether the RFRA upholds these exemptions. With no ruling here, the Supreme Court is liable to more cases that ask these questions. Which is the case that the Little Sisters of the Poor are currently involved in as the questions of the RFRA are being directly challenged. In my opinion, the court should rule in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor. Previous cases upheld exemptions that were specifically catered to the contraceptive mandate and this is one that deals with abortions. With this in mind, I believe that religious organizations should not be forced to go against their religious beliefs. That they should be able to freely exercise their religion. In accordance with this case, the RFRA clarifies that the compelling state interest must burden in the least restrictive means and I believe that this is not the least restrictive means to further this state interest.

Government Intervention and The Catholic Church

Following the increased allegations against members of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis and the Catholic Church have worked to create more transparency and accountability of those who have been “credibly accused of sexually abusing a minor.” In addition to being under the age of 18, the Catholic Church also defines a minor as: “ includes individuals over the age of 18 who lack the mental faculties of an adult.” In 2019, the Diocese of Lubbock, in accordance with a new decision by Catholic Bishops in Texas, released a list of individuals, who “based on Catholic Church law and in accordance with internal church investigations, were credibly accused of sexually abusing “minors” as defined by Catholic law” (Beckett). Former Deacon Jesus Guerrero was included on the list. In 2003 Guerrero was suspended and then four years later permanently suspended from his position for “alleged sexual misconduct with a woman who has a history of mental and emotional issues” (Beckett), and is therefore classified as a minor under Catholic Law. Guerrero has sued the Diocese of Lubbock because he was named on the list. Guerrero is arguing that  “his inclusion is defamatory, because the person he is accused of abusing was not under 18 years of age at the time of the alleged misconduct” (Beckett).

This case, Diocese of Lubbock v. Jesus Guerrero brings to light an issue of the Establishment Clause. Guerrero is asking for the court to discuss & determine  “whether the Catholic Church’s religious understanding of “minor” is reasonable, and, as applied to his conduct, true” (Beckett). The question at hand is whether or not the government is allowed to interfere within church matters by determining whether or not the Catholic Church’s definition of a minor is “reasonable” and therefore asking the government to question and examine specific beliefs and rationale of the Catholic Church. Beckett Law is arguing on behalf of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops that “allowing courts to decide religious questions would open a Pandora’s box of lawsuits over internal church affairs, obliterating the separation of church and state” (Beckett). While reading this case, I was instantly reminded of Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Agnes Morrissey Berru and Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC because of the critical “ministerial exception” these cases discussed. Within both of the cases, the courts grappled with whether or not the government has the ability to hear and decide on the employment claims of teachers at religious schools. Although these two cases are different within the details, I was reminded of the entanglement that occurred between both of them and whether or not the government was able to interfere in the employment decision that was based on the church’s definition of a minister. 

This case is complicated. On the one hand, I understand the concerns that the Catholic Church has over the government making such a decision in religious affairs instead of the church. It sets a dangerous precedent many are concerned about. On the other hand, failure to act could also set another dangerous precedent of the government unable to intervene in potential criminal activity, therefore enacting the “slippery slope.” As Alee Corralles from UA Little Rock points out, “The Diocese of Lubbock decision will set one of two potentially harmful precedents: one allows a religious institution to publicly defame an individual under the guise of religious autonomy; the other condones government oversight of religious institutions in self-governing according to its beliefs.”  In accordance with Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the Diocese of Lubbock is arguing they have “good faith to be transparent about clergy with credible accusations of child abuse,”  but how do we know for sure? Either way, the court is setting a dangerous precedent, and reminded me of the extensive discussion we had earlier this week on entanglement. 

    If I was on the Supreme Court, I am not sure what I would decide. The weight that this case holds to create precedent for the First Amendment is heavy. In the unanimous decision in favor of the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, Chief Justice Roberts writes, “the members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of the ministers” (Munoz, 576). In his majority opinion in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Agnes Morrissey Berru, Justice Alito writes, “The Religion Clauses protect the right of churches and other religious  institutions  to  decide  matters ‘of  faith  and  doctrine’ without government intrusion” (Alito). Both of these quotes reflect the importance of the Establishment Clause and separation of church and state. Although I understand the fear of good faith versus bad faith, fear for survivors to come forward, and fear of government involvement in religious affairs and regulations outweighs the potential that the Church will abuse their power when the government is unable to intervene. Similar to the Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Agnes Morrissey Berru and Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, another case could come along in a few years with different details to sway the decision, however, for now I side with the Diocese of Lubbock.

Butler v. Smith County

     For many people living in Smith County, Tennessee, religion is incredibly important to them.  So much so, that school officials decided to implement religion into the daily activities within multiple schools in the Smith County School District.  Kelly Butler, a U.S. Army veteran, and Sharona and Jason Carr had children who attended Smith County schools. Both families are atheists and were very uncomfortable with the way religion was being implemented into the school system.  The unlawful activities reported by both families included: school directed prayer in mandatory assemblies, Bibles present during class, Bible verses posted in hallways, prayers broadcasted through loudspeakers at sporting events, coaches leading and participating in prayer with student-athletes, and a large cross painted on the wall of a school athletic facility.  It is clear that religion was completely entangled in the daily functions of the Smith County School District.  In addition to religion being very present during school hours, students who did not believe in Christianity were alienated and felt awkward attending their school.  Leyna Carr, a student in the Smith County School District, expressed her discomfort explaining, “At school everybody makes it seem like you have to believe in one thing, just like them. It’s very awkward and uncomfortable. I respect other people’s religion, and I would like it if everyone else would respect my beliefs.”  This case raises the issue of whether these school activities are a violation of the First Amendment, specifically the Establishment Clause.  Not only is religion being implemented in these public schools, but also students are feeling ostracized and coerced into following a particular religion that is not their own.

    In November of 2019, two families and the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee sued the Smith County School District for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because of the inappropriate and regular incorporation of religion into the school district’s events and other daily activities.  In September of 2020, the federal district court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the Smith County School District from continuing to unconstitutionally impose religion onto its students.  A consent decree was issued by the court which is an agreement or settlement that resolves a dispute between two parties without admission of guilt or liability.  This means that the school district agreed to resolve this issue and remove all forms of religion from its daily activities.  The school officials were also prohibited from incorporating official prayer at school events and from promoting personal religious beliefs onto students.  The issue of incorporating religion in public schools is something that has occurred before in cases like Engle v. Vitale, where New York State put a law in place requiring all public schools to say a morning prayer every day, or Stone v. Graham, where the state of Kentucky made a law requiring all public schools to have a poster displaying the Ten Commandments.  In both cases, the Supreme Court ruled that incorporating religion into public schools is unconstitutional and violates the Establishment Clause.  The federal district court remained consistent with the Supreme Court, in this case, ultimately ruling that the actions of the Smith County School District were completely unconstitutional.

    I agree with the federal district court’s decision because I do not believe that religion should have any place within public schools unless it is being taught from a secular context, like in a history class.  Hedy Weinberg, the executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee explained the importance of this case perfectly, stating that “families should be making the decisions about whether and how to educate their children about religion, not public schools.  Today’s consent decree ensures that the Smith County schools will be focused on providing quality education to all students, regardless of their religious beliefs.”  The actions of the Smith County School District were a clear violation of the Establishment Clause and the courts recognized this.  When religion, typically Christianity, is incorporated into public schools, it alienates students who do not believe in that religion.  This alienation can coerce students to agree with a religion that is not theirs and can create a religiously exclusionary or hostile environment for those who continue to not agree.  Like Hedy Weinberg said, students and their families should be able to decide how they want religion to be a part of their lives.  The Smith County School District is in no position to force religion onto its students.  I believe that the federal district court made the right decision by prohibiting the Smith County School District from continuing its religious activities. 

College of the Ozarks v. Biden

College of the Ozarks, a Christian liberal arts university in Missouri, recently filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration challenging the reinterpretation of the word “sex” in the Fair Housing Act. In January, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order to prevent discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation in response to the outcome of Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Supreme Court asserted an employee cannot be discriminated against based on his or her sexual orientation under Title VII. Biden’s executive order extends to the housing policies at universities in the United States by preventing the discrimination of students in dormitories. College of the Ozarks objects to the order as they believe forcing men and women to share dorms or private spaces, including restrooms and showers, violates their religious beliefs. In a press release about the complaint, the college wrote, “College of the Ozarks holds to the Christian belief that biological sex is not changeable, and it operates its dorms accordingly.” 

(Alliance Defending Freedom).

According to the College of the Ozarks v. Biden lawsuit filed, “Students are not required to belong to a particular faith or religion to attend the College, or to hold particular religious beliefs.” They are, however, “expected to adhere to Christian values and expectations as a matter of its code of conduct.” The code of conduct published by the private university includes a “Lifestyle/Sexuality Policy” prohibiting, “gender expression inconsistent with sex assigned at birth”, gender transition, sexual relations outside of marriage, and same-sex sexual relations. Additionally, the school has strict rules regarding men and women entering the dorms of the opposite sex and assign residence halls to keep men and women on opposite sides of campus. While Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex or gender identity, College of the Ozarks practices Christian values and therefore enforces their belief of sexuality. College of the Ozarks believe allowing students of the opposite sex to occupy the same dorm rooms or residence halls encourages students to engage in sexual relations. The directive also forces the college to acknowledge a student’s gender identity which conflicts with the Christian belief in one’s immutable biological sex. Lastly, the directive would censor the speech of the university about housing to align with the goals of Biden’s executive order.

Setting aside my personal beliefs about the content of the code of conduct, I do not believe College of the Ozarks, or other religiously affiliated universities with conflicting beliefs about gender identity or sexual orientation, should be legally obligated to abandon their religious beliefs under this directive. While I do believe there is a substantial national interest in preventing gender- and sex-based discrimination at universities, I also believe abiding by this directive places a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion of the students at College of the Ozarks as well as the school mission. We have discussed various cases in class that have introduced the complication with respect to national funding of religiously affiliated universities whose beliefs conflict national goals of inclusion. In agreeance with the majority decision of Bob Jones University v. United States, I do not believe a private institution should receive public funding or taxpayer exemptions if the school practices discrimination or promotes policies that conflict with national goals. College of the Ozarks v. Biden, however, raises questions of about obliging institutions, who enforce religious values, to conform to national developments which directly burden religious practices. I believe that asking the college to house a student based on gender identity, rather than biological sex if the two conflict, forces the university to go against their religious beliefs, which is a substantial burden. The school has structured their campus and lifestyle expectations around the Christian belief of heterosexual celibacy. The school therefore believes that shifting to all-gendered residences will burden their mission in enforcing celibacy. While I believe there is substantial secular purpose in the Biden administration signing the recent executive order, the free exercise law guarantees private religious institutions the ability to make administrative decisions guided by their religious practice. I believe the college may face scrutiny as the trial develops, however, I ultimately think it will be difficult to hold College of the Ozarks or other religiously affiliated universities to the directive without violating their First Amendment right to free exercise. 

References
Alliance Defending Freedom. 2021. Missouri college challenges Biden order that opens dorms, showers to opposite sex. April 15. https://adflegal.org/press-release/missouri-college-challenges-biden-order-opens-dorms-showers-opposite-sex.
Joseph Biden, Jr. 2021. Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation. January 20. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination-on-basis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/.
Kramer, Sarah. 2021. An Alarming Biden Rule Could Mean Opposite-Sex Roommates in College Dorms. April 15. https://adflegal.org/blog/alarming-biden-rule-could-mean-opposite-sex-roommates-college-dorms.

Connecticut Ends Religious Exemptions For Vaccinations

     On April 28, 2021 Governor Ned Lamont signed a bill that repealed Connecticut’s religious exemption vaccine law, worrying many individuals about their right to exercise religion and medical privacy. The actions of the bill will begin on September 1, 2022 where “children in pre-kindergarten, day care or those new to the school system would no longer be able to claim the exemption starting that day”; however, students K-12 will still be able to qualify for the religious exemption. We the Patriots USA and CT Freedom Alliance are two non-profit organizations that are currently suing the Board of Education, the Board of Public Health, the Office of Early Childhood Development, and three Connecticut boards of education to rescind the actions of both Governor Lamont and the Senate (22-14 vote). The bill is meant to ease the fear that highly contagious diseases like the measles will spread rapidly and severely affect children who cannot get the measles vaccine due to preexisting medical reasons. Proponents of the bill expressed that the concern stems from a low herd immunity rate amongst children. Senator Bob Duff spoke as the Senate majority leader and said, “All we're doing is closing a loophole for nonmedical exemption...people are abusing quote unquote religious exemptions for non-religious reasons only because they don't believe in health and science”. According to legislators, there are about “7,500 students claiming the religious exemption and at least 20,000 non-compliant” severely impacting herd immunity rates within Connecticut’s school districts (NBC Connecticut). The new bill is requiring children who are not yet enrolled in school to get the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. 

In further support of the lawsuit, parents Constantina Lora, Miriam Hidalgo, and Asma Elidrissi believe that the new bill repealing religious exemptions for vaccines directly violates their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. These parents spoke to NBC CT and Lora is a devout Greek Othodox, Hidalgo is a devout Catholic, and Elidrissi is a devout Muslim, and all of the parents have younger children who will be affected by the new legislation. In recent years Connecticut is the sixth state to remove its religious exemption when regulating vaccines but is still upholding a medical exemption. The bill will not affect children who are in grades K-12 who already have a valid religious exemption, rather new students entering school districts in Connecticut (pre-kindergarten, day care, or switching school districts) will have to sacrifice their right to religious exercise. 

In addition to the First Amendment, We the Patriots USA, CT Freedom Alliance, and Constantina Lora, Miriam Hidalgo, and Asma Elidrissi believe that eliminating religious exemptions for vaccines also violates the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment. The parents are frustrated that the bill lacks neutrality because only new students enrolled in Connecticut’s school districts are not granted a religious exemption, while older students are still allowed to use a religious exemption that was available before the bill was signed. 

When observing the argument that parents have the right to choose whether or not their children get a vaccination on religious grounds is argued in Prince v. Massachusetts (1944). This case articulates that child protection laws, including vaccination, supersede parental religious freedom. In addition, the right to religious exercise is not absolute where a religious exemption does not permit putting other children at risk of contracting a contagious disease. Prince v. Massachusetts addresses the argument that the majority of popular religions condone vaccinations and medical intervention. On similar grounds Reynolds v. United States (1879) ruled that the state is permitted to limit religious exercise if the state is able to articulate a compelling state interest in the promotion or or preservation of health, safety, or welfare. 

In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) the Supreme Court articulated that religious and individual liberties are not absolute and granted states the power to impose laws regulating vaccinations. The case highlights the entanglement between states exercising power to uphold public health while respecting the Constitution. State’s obtain sovereign power to make laws to protect the health of citizens that might come at the cost of certain personal liberties. Jacobson v. Massachusetts ruled that Cambridge, Mass, Board of Health has the authority to require residents to get the smallpox vaccine during the smallpox epidemic. This case is similar to the situation brought by Governor Lamont earlier this week in response to the state of Connecticut trying to regulate its public health. The main difference between Jacobson v. Massachusetts is that the requirement for the smallpox vaccination was neutral in practice. The bill passed by Governor Lamont is not neutral because a certain population of students still have the right to a religious exemption. 

      Since the bill lacks neutrality I have to disagree with the decision made by the Senate and Governor Lamont. Students who are currently enrolled in K-12 can keep their right to freely exercise their religion by not getting vaccinated but students enrolling for the 2022 school year are not granted the right to a religious exemption. Reflecting back on Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the law was neutral during the smallpox epidemic but the bill passed in Connecticut is not, making certain minority groups feel restricted from their right to free exercise. Also since students in K-12 do not have to get vaccinated because they are still able to use a religious exemption, it does not make the compelling state interest of herd immunity seem severe considering. If herd immunity was so important to the state of Connecticut then the bill would have been neutral, eliminating religious exemptions for all students.

Religious Exemption No More in Connecticut

     In the past year especially, we have seen an overwhelming amount of examples of the importance of people’s health taking precedence over religious beliefs. In this situation, the Governor of Connecticut, Governor Lamont, recently signed a religious vaccine exemption bill into law. This bill states that all students will now have to receive the required vaccinations in order to keep themselves and the public safe. The only students K-12 that are exempt from this new bill are students who have existing religious exemptions. The state Department of Public Health stated that there has been an increase in students who report a non-medical reason to be exempt from vaccinations. Governor Lamont stated, “This is an issue that I have spent a lot of time researching and discussing with medical experts, and it is something that I take very seriously knowing the public health impact it has on our children, families, and communities.” He recognizes the opposing viewpoint of how people will consider this to be an infringement on their religious liberties, but still makes it clear that under these circumstances the health of the general population is more important than one’s religious freedom.

    The issue in the case is whether forcing students to receive required vaccinations in order to attend school is a violation of one’s free exercise of religion. The Connecticut Freedom Alliance and We the Patrics USA both are attempting to revert this law and reinstate the freedom for a parent to exempt their child from required vaccinations for religious reasons. The common argument for these organizations and concerned parents all around the state is that this new law is an infringement on their religious freedom.

    After reading through this case and thinking about both points of views, I would have to say I agree with the state of Connecticut and Governor Lamont’s decision. I recognize and understand the concern that parents have when it comes to forcing their children to get vaccinations that are against their religion, but I still see the safety of all the other children and teachers as more important. That is my main reason as to why I have this opinion, in this situation I side with the health and safety of the public over religious freedom.

    In W.D. V. Rockland County, we see a similar problem. In New York, two students were exempt from attending school because they had not been vaccinated for religious reasons. A group of plaintiffs filed a complaint saying that the mandate “substantially burdened their religious beliefs by forcing them “to either engage in acts prohibited by their faith, that is, vaccinate, or lose state-created rights,” including the right to a public education.” When the NY Federal District Court reviewed the case, they quickly dismissed the opposition's argument strictly because this mandate served the purpose of protecting the general public from a very contagious and deadly measles outbreak. That case is a perfect example of how public health needs to come before religious freedom when dealing with such deadly viruses and diseases. 

    In Connecticut it seems as if the organizations and people who oppose this new law do not recognize the fact that them not receiving required vaccinations puts others at risk. No vaccination is 100% effective, so even if an unvaccinated person is surrounded by vaccinated people, there is still a chance they will spread it. This chance of spread increases when they are in a classroom with very little air flow surrounded by a large group of people. This law is not meant to be a burden for people who exclude themselves from vaccinations because of their religion. Instead, this law is meant to ensure that everyone who is gathering in a public setting has the highest chance of not only being immune to illnesses, but also being unable to transmit illnesses in the first place. Also another important fact to bring up is that the state of Connecticut is only forcing students to get vaccinated if they plan on attending school in person. As we have seen in the past year, attending school can be done virtually without any in person contact. Yes it would be more difficult for students, teachers, and parents, but this is always an option parents have if they are completely against getting their children vaccinated. When looking at this option, you see that parents are not being stripped of their religious freedom. They still have the option to exempt their children from these vaccinations, but in return they will have to adjust their academic lifestyle in order to keep the general public safe.

Joan Simon v. Saint Dominic Academy

The Saint Dominic Academy (SDA) is an all-girls Catholic school in Jersey City, New Jersey. The school is run and sponsored by the Dominican Sisters of Caldwell. In September 2018, one of the teachers at this school, Joan Simon, dispersed a letter in her classroom that depicted homosexual priests as the root of corruption in Catholicism. The letter was written by Catholic leader Ralph Martin. The Dean of the Saint Dominic Academy felt that this letter did not align with the goals of the school and their church-based teachings. Soon after handing out the letters, Simon had to take a leave of absence as a result of a motor vehicle accident. On October 9th, Joan Simon returned to work but was promptly fired from her position as Chairperson of the Religious Department and Campus Minister. 

On August 26, 2020, Simon filed the SAC which asserted eleven different claims. These claims fell under the New Jersey Labor and Workman’s Compensations Law, the FMLA, and NJ Family Leave Act. Furthermore, she asserted claims that the Saint Dominic Academy violated the employee manual and their covenant of good faith. She felt that her contract should have provided her with job security and the school should have attempted to make accommodations (instead of jumping to termination). 

In response to these allegations, the SDA is basing its argument off of the recent decision in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru. This case deals with the idea of the ministerial exception under the First Amendment. The Court ruled that the government should remove itself from situations regarding arguments over the employment of individuals in religious institutions. This decision grants autonomy to religious institutions and allows them to manage their organization in order to promote their religious mission. Properly managing internally means that the religious organization needs to be able to control who holds what position. A point further emphasized by the Court, in this case, is that ministerial exception is not limited to “ministers”. It can be applied to any individual who plays a vital role in the education and promotion of religion. Based off of the conclusions reached in this case, the SDA feels that the court should dismiss the SAC completely. 

Another case that would help the SDA’s case would be Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC. In this case, Cheryl Perich was fired from her job after returning from her leave of absence. Prior to termination, Perich had gone through immense amounts of training and worked hard in order to take on more important roles in the school. It was because of this training, as well as her title, that clearly placed Perich under the ministerial exception. Another conclusion reached in this case is that the term “minister” should not be the only factor in determining whether or not the exception should be applied. Justice Alito felt that the duties and responsibilities of the individual should also be examined. 

In the case of Joan Simon, she went through schooling in order to obtain her master’s degree in theology. Furthermore, she is referred to as a Campus Minister at the Saint Dominic Academy and is the Chairperson of the Religious Department. Due to her role in the school, it is clear that along with her ministerial title, her duties were rooted in the promotion of the religious mission of the SDA. The school was opposed to the letter that Simon distributed because they felt that it went against their religious mission. The Dean, as well as some parents, did not feel that it was appropriate or in the best interest of the students. Due to this, I think that a ministerial exception should be applied to this case. If the school felt that Simon was no longer the best fit for Campus Minister and Chairperson of the Religious Department, they have the autonomy to do what they feel is best for their institution. In terms of past cases, the decisions reached in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC will take precedence. In both of these cases, the Court ruled in favor of religious institutions and their right to regulate their own employment decisions. In order for a court to take Simon’s side, they would have to simultaneously undermine the decisions of the SDA. This would go against everything that the ministerial exception set out to prevent. Due to the previous Court cases mentioned, I agree with the District Court of New Jersey’s decision to dismiss all of Simon’s claims against the Saint Dominic Academy