Can Preventative Care Violate Religious Beliefs?

In Braidwood Management v. Becerra , there was a lawsuit in the state of Texas challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because of certain aspects that various plaintiffs state conflict with their religious beliefs. The Affordable Care Act mandates that health insurance providers cover certain preventative care. This preventative care includes contraceptive coverage, HIV medication including Truvada and PrEP, and STD testing. One plaintiff, John Kelley, owns a Christian professional association called Kelley Orthodontics, which employs many individuals and wants to provide health insurance for its employees, but wants to exclude insurance coverage of contraception drugs, PrEP. However, the mandates of the contraceptives and HIV drugs make it impossible for Kelley to purchase health insurance that excludes this coverage. 

Mr. Kelley has no need to purchase the health insurance with these specific requirements because he states his wife is past her child bearing years, his religion only supports monogamous relationships meaning he does not need STD testing, and does not want health insurance that covers HIV medications because he and his family members do not engage in behavior that transmits HIV. The second plaintiff, Joel Starnes, had similar reasons to Mr. Kelley, in which they both state that they are Christians and will not purchase health insurance that subsidizes abortifacient contraception or PrEP drugs that encourages homosexual behavior of which his religion does not support. Plaintiff, Steven Hortze, is in charge of Braidwood Management, which also filed suit with the other plaintiffs because his company is self-insured and must comply with the ACA health insurance coverage or face heavy financial penalties. Hortze is a Christian and wants to run his business according to Christian principles and teachings. He believes that insurance coverage of the HIV drugs promote “homosexual sodomy, prostitution, and heavy drug use, which are all against Hortze’s religious beliefs.”

Braidwood Management files suit for all self-insured employers who object to any of ACA’s mandates for religious reasons. Kelley Orthodontics sues for all religious employers that want to have health insurance with particular exclusions that align with their sincere religious reasons. And Mr. Kelley and Mr. Starnes sue for all individuals who wish to purchase health insurance that want exclusions from ACA’s mandates that conflict with their religious beliefs. 

Therefore, the question that remains is, does ACA’s preventive care mandate violate a religious individual’s Free Exercise by requiring them to provide insurance coverage that does not align with their sincere religious beliefs? 

I would argue that yes, the ACA does violate the plaintiffs' Free Exercise of Religion because it places a substantial burden upon the individual and there are no less restrictive means that the government can provide that can enable only certain health insurance coverage. I would argue that there is a substantial burden placed upon each of these plaintiffs because if they are required to pay for something they do not support, this clearly puts them at a disadvantage because they are being asked to either keep paying for something they do not believe in, or to pay penalties. A previous case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby touches base on this issue and in which the owners of Hobby Lobby a for-profit business would have a substantial monetary burden if they did not cover the contraceptives under the ACA mandate. This case can be applied to Braidwood Management v. Becerra because under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion, unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest, Braidwood Management should not have to comply with the ACA mandate if it violates the owner’s religious belief because it would put a substantial burden upon Mr. Hortze and his company if he has to pay the penalty for each employee. The Court declared that there would be a substantial burden placed upon Hobby Lobby owners and that there were no less restrictive means for the company to comply with their religious beliefs and the federal mandate. Since both Hobby Lobby and Braidwood Management are for-profit businesses, the Court should side with Braidwood Management as they did the Hobby Lobby owners in saying that the company could opt out of the contraception mandate because it must also comply with for-profit businesses as it does non-profit. Braidwood Management v. Becerra the plaintiffs should be allowed to opt out of the mandate because of another precedent case, Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania which pertains to a group of Catholic women who aim to help the elderly who also opposed the contraception mandate. This case declared that the Department of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury had the authority to create exemptions for religious employers. Even though this is a non-profit organization, Braidwood Management v. Becerra can be viewed through a similar lens because the court was looking at whether the departments had the authority to create the exemptions to the contraception mandate, not so much because it was a non-profit organization. 

Do you agree that the ACA’s preventive care mandate violated the religious employers Free Exercise? If so, to what extent do you agree? 

Sources: https://ballotpedia.org/Little_Sisters_of_the_Poor_Saints_Peter_and_Paul_Home_v._Pennsylvania

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/3594256-texas-lawsuit-aims-to-gut-birth-control-and-hiv-medication-coverage-from-health-insurance-plans/

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2022/texas-judge-finds-aca-requirement-preventive-services-without-cost-sharing-invalid

https://www.bmdllc.com/resources/blog/recent-litigation-challenges-the-affordable-care-act-preventive-services-requirement/

Firearms Ban in House of Worship

His Tabernacle Family Church (“the Church”) is a non-profit religious organization and a nondenominational Christian Church that was founded by Pastor Michael Spencer in 1998. Pastor Spencer has led its congregation forward in a number of ways and he continues to serve as the Church’s senior pastor. The Church ministers to over 1,100 people at three different locations—one in Horseheads, New York, a second in Ithaca, New York, and a third in Mansfield, Pennsylvania. The Church’s main location is Horseheads, New York where it operates a Christian house of worship.

Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, New York enacted Senate Bill S51001 on July 1st, 2022. Essentially, the State of New York required a person to show a special need for self-protection to receive an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home. Robert Nash and Brandon Koch challenged this law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications based on failure to show “proper cause.” Their claims were dismissed by a district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. Ultimately, the Court ruled that New York's law requiring a license to carry concealed weapons in public places is unconstitutional.

S51001 enacts certain requirements to get a pistol license in new york, including live fire training, additional background checks, affidavits, and gun dealers maintaining an ammunition database. There is an extensive list of “sensitive locations” where firearms may not be carried. It specifically bans guns in houses of worship, despite the rising concerns about church security. Pastor Spencer owns several firearms, all of which are registered in accordance with New York law. As the Church’s pastor, he feels as though he has a moral and religious duty to take reasonable measures to protect the safety of his congregation. His Tabernacle Family Church, Inc. v. Nigrelli is the lawsuit filed by First Liberty Institute in the United States District Court which challenges the state’s newly enacted Senate Bill S51001 that prohibits carrying firearms in “sensitive locations.” The lawsuit claims that  S51001 substantially burdens

the Plaintiffs’ right to the free exercise of religion by forcing them to choose between complying with their religious beliefs or complying with New York law. Specifically, S51001 forbids Pastor Spencer and the Church’s members, under threat of criminal penalties, from exercising their religious conviction to carry firearms into the Church to protect themselves and other congregants. New York now imposes criminal liability on any person who carries a firearm into a place of worship, regardless of whether that person has a license to carry a firearm under New York law, and regardless of whether the religious community would prefer congregants to carry a firearm. In stark contrast, secular business owners are allowed to choose for themselves whether to allow firearms on their premises.

 

For the purpose of this blog post, I will primarily be addressing the Free Exercise aspect of this bill and how it lacks neutrality and general applicability— Does the aspect of legislation from Senate Bill S51001, that restricts the carrying of concealed weapons in “sensitive locations,” specifically noting houses of worship, violate the minister’s and church’s right to freely exercise their religion if the clause treats houses of worship and secular businesses differently? Preventing the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right in places of worship, while allowing private properties this right is discriminatory. When you deny religious leaders and congregants the right to carry a firearm in their Church, while private businesses have the right to establish those rules in their businesses, it is a clear demonstration of the state discriminating on the basis of religion. The law explicitly singles out houses of worship and treats secular organizations more favorably than religious ones. The Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses require government neutrality towards religion, however, subjecting houses of worship to the disfavored treatment of a total ban on firearms while allowing secular organizations to establish their own policies regarding the carrying of firearms on their premise, demonstrates a clear hostility towards religion. In the 1993 case, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, the city put ordinances into place banning animal

sacrifice.  However, in a unanimous decision, the Court sided with the Church stating such a ban violated the Free Exercise Clause. By enacting ordinances that banned animal sacrifice, a ritual that was central to the practice of the Santeria religion, the City was passing laws that specifically oppressed a religion. As distasteful a practice as this is to many Americans, the Court found that the ordinances were specifically aimed at persecuting the practice of the Santeria religion. As such, they violated the Free Exercise Clause. Furthermore, S51001 runs into the Free Exercise Clause by interfering with core matters of internal church business. The state may have the power to dictate many things, but how worshippers should conduct themselves at worship services on church property is not one of them.

 

When analyzing this case, it is important to reflect on Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. The Governor of New York issued an executive order establishing a color-coded system imposing capacity restrictions at houses of worship across the state. In “red zones,” houses of worship were limited to a

maximum of 10 people at any given time; in “orange zones,” they were capped at 25. In either scenario, this limit applied no matter how large a religious community’s facility might be and no matter what precautions they had undertaken to assure congregant safety. Meanwhile, services deemed “essential” in the very same “zones” were exempted from capacity restrictions entirely. And while these “essential” services could range from liquor stores to bicycle shops to acupuncturists, New York State highlighted its position that religious worship is not “essential.” 

Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, and His Tabernacle Family Church, Inc. v. Nigrelli are all cases that involved imposed restrictions that violated a “minimum requirement of neutrality” by specifically naming religious entities for restrictions while giving secular businesses more latitude. I believe each of these cases clearly demonstrates an unconstitutional restriction of the Churches' free exercise rights.

 

Are Sunday Closing Laws Secular?

  

     On November 8th, 2022 Eris Evolution LLC filed a suit against the New York State Liquor Authority (NYSLA) , claiming the NYSLA was breaching the Establishment Clause by upholding the New York State law regarding Sunday all - night permits. “New York law prohibits bars from serving alcohol between 4 a.m. and 8 a.m. Monday through Friday, and between 4 a.m. and 10 a.m. on Sunday” (“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK v ERIS EVOLUTION, LLC”). There is an exception, called the “all-night permit”, to the New York state law regarding the regular hours allowed to serve alcohol which allows alcohol to be served until 8 a.m. The use of the “all-night permit” is only allowed on New Year's Eve. 

    This is where it gets tricky. Although the all-night permit exists, in years that New Years Eve falls on a Sunday, the all-night permit is not allowed to be filed for due to the Sunday closing laws. 

    Eris Evolution LLC believes that the Sunday Closing laws being the sole reason as to why the all-night permit can’t be filed for in years such as this one, 2023, is an Establishment Clause issue. This belief is what led the LLC to “[move] for a preliminary injunction … to process its application for a permit” (“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK v ERIS EVOLUTION, LLC”). This basically means Eris Evolution LLC believes it will suffer immensely if it isn’t allowed to remain open on New Years and the only way to avoid this immense suffering is to be granted the permit.   

     Which brings us to the constitutional question: Is New York State Liquor Authority violating the Establishment Clause by upholding the New York State law which bans Sunday “all-night permits” in years where New Years Eve falls on a Sunday, therefore denying Eris Evolution LLC’s request of a Sunday “all-night permit” for 2023?

    In their summary the New York Federal District court stated that the NYSLA was not breaching the Establishment Clause and referenced McGowan V Maryland to serve as a precedent for this case. In McGowan v Maryland, employees of a discount store sold supplies on a Sunday that was not outlined as the supplies they were allowed to sell under Maryland's blue laws. For clarification, blue laws are the same thing as Sunday closing laws. The question of the case was if Maryland’s blue laws violated the Establishment Clause and it was found that they didn’t ("McGowan v. Maryland."). Blue laws began as a religious law, trying to get more individuals to attend church and be faithful to their religions. However in modern times the blue laws have taken on a secular nature. The blue laws' secular nature is to “improve the "health, safety, recreation, and general well-being" of citizens” ("McGowan v. Maryland."). 

    Eris Evolution LLC’s main arguments in support of their claim that the store will suffer greatly if it is not able to remain open the whole night is that the New York state's laws regarding Sunday closings are a “sham” since the Sunday closing laws have fluctuated frequently over the years regarding the time of day liquor is allowed to be sold (“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK v ERIS EVOLUTION, LLC”). The remaining arguments of Eris Evolution were drawn from earlier cases, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v Cuomo and Elrod v Burns, in an attempt to prove, “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury… those cases deal with … [a] loss of a free exercise or free speech right” which is not the same as a loss of an Establishment right (“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK v ERIS EVOLUTION, LLC”). 

    In response the New York Federal District courts state “three distinct theories … to pursue a claim that the Establishment Clause has been violated: 1) taxpayer, 2) direct harm, and 3) denial of benefits” (“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK v ERIS EVOLUTION, LLC”). The courts found that Eris Evolution LLC’s main claim fell under the second theory of  “direct harm” through money lost due to having to close their business earlier than in past years. Therefore money would be the only remedy which the courts felt was not enough of a direct harm to invalidate the Establishment Clause and to be granted the permit. 

    I agree with the New York Federal District court’s outcome that the NYSLA was correct in denying Eris Evolution LLC’s request of a Sunday “all-night permit” on the basis of upholding the New York State law which bans Sunday “all-night permits” in years where New Year's Eve falls on a Sunday. I don’t believe that New York’s Sunday closing laws breach the Establishment Clause because of the modern view on Sunday closing laws. I understand the role of history in this case, in that the Sunday closing laws were originally religiously affiliated; however the significance surrounding the history of Sunday closing laws is not enough to sway the outcome in a different way for this case. What is important in deciding whether or not New York’s Sunday closing laws breach the Establishment clause is how the public views the Sunday closing today, which is that the laws hold a secular purpose. At this point in time, I don’t believe the public views the Sunday closing laws as the government trying to establish or push some form of religion onto the public. Furthermore I believe the implications of this court’s decision is just furthering the outcome of McGowan V Maryland, that Sunday closing laws hold a secular purpose and are therefore not infringing upon the Establishment clause.

Do you believe the only implication of this court’s decision is furthering the outcome of the McGowan v Maryland case? What could some other implications be?

Do you believe the secular nature that the courts profess the Sunday laws now hold is enough to override the Sunday Laws' historically religious nature?

Sources:

1. “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK v ERIS EVOLUTION, LLC” https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23298376/eris-evolution-v-bradley.pdf 

2. "McGowan v. Maryland." https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/8 

3. http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2022/11/court-upholds-ny-law-banning-bars-from.html 

4. https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-eris-evolution-llc-v-bradley-1255621 

Minton v Dignity Health

Evan Minton, a 35 year old transgender man, was turned away from Mercy San Juan Medical Center (a hospital in the Dignity Health medical chain) in California. Minton had a hysterectomy scheduled for months at this hospital and, up until a day before the procedure, he thought everything was fine. A nurse called two days prior to the surgery and Minton offhandedly mentioned he was transgender. The procedure, which is very commonly performed at that very hospital, was canceled the next day. Minton’s doctor regularly performs hysterectomies and made a statement saying it was clear that it was canceled based on Minton’s transgender status and it was the first time a surgery like this had ever been cancelled on her. The hospital cited religious reasons for canceling the surgery and Minton filed a lawsuit against Dignity Health, the largest medical provider in California. Minton sued based on the hospital's alleged violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. This is an anti-discrimination law in California’s Civil Code which states any business cannot engage in unlawful discrimination. The question at the basis of this case is whether or not Mercy San Juan Medical Center allowing a medical procedure that they deeply oppose on religious grounds violates their right to religious free exercise.

As established in Burwell v Hobby Lobby, corporations have personhood and should be treated legally as people. This case allowed Hobby Lobby (a for-profit store chain) to have a religious exemption from providing contraceptives in their healthcare plans. An important part of this decision was that the Green family (the owners of the Hobby Lobby stores) rooted the running of the stores in accordance with their deep religious principles. On the Hobby Lobby store website you can find the donations and ministry tab describing the multitudes of religious causes and churches that the Green family donates money to. A difference in the Dignity Health conglomerate is that on their website they are dedicated to diversity and not excluding any individuals, going so far as to have a tab on LGBTQ+ individuals. In their own words from their website, they “understand the unique health needs of the LGBTQ+ community, and [they] work hard to ensure that patients receive quality, inclusive, culturally competent care.” Additionally, their policy states that they will not “exclude, deny benefits to, or otherwise discriminate…on the grounds of race, color, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or gender identity and expression.” This statement from the hospital chain itself is one of the differences between Hobby Lobby and Dignity Health. However, the hospital had been deemed a Catholic hospital, as clear by the cross on the hospital itself. 

Minton was denied care in 2016 and the Supreme Court held onto the case until Fulton v Philadelphia was decided and then the case was denied review soon after. This makes Fulton v Philadelphia a relevant precedent in this case. In Fulton v Philadelphia, Philadelphia barred Catholic Social Services from placing kids in foster homes based on their same-sex couple discrimination. The Supreme Court decided that the city of Philadelphia violated Catholic Social Services free exercise. Catholic Social Services is a non-profit organization, however, and clearly religious based on just the name alone. Another relevant precedent is Cummings v Premier Rehab Keller. Cummings has been deaf since birth and is also legally blind, and when seeking physical therapy she asked for an ASL interpreter. Premier Rehab Keller refused and said she could communicate by writing, reading lips, or providing her own interpreter. Cummings went to another center but sued based on emotional distress. The Supreme Court ruled that emotional distress is not covered by the Constitution and that she could get her services elsewhere. This is relevant because Minton eventually went to another hospital to receive his gender affirming surgery after he was denied care in 2016. 

Furthermore, the lower courts decided that Dignity Health was in violation of California’s anti-discrimination laws. This decision is one that logically I agree with, however, based on the precedents relevant to this case, I do not believe the Supreme Court would have ruled in this way. Henceforth, my stance is that in the case of Minton v Dignity Health, Dignity Health has the right to deny care based on religious exemptions. Dignity Health, as a corporation, has the rights of personhood and therefore they are a private company which can deny care to anyone based on religious reservations. This is especially true based on recent state laws with which South Carolina has become the seventh state to enact a law that allows healthcare providers to deny care to anyone based on religious beliefs. This is especially directed at the LGBTQ+ community. Based on all of the relevant laws and precedents, my opinion sides with Dignity Health and their religious freedoms.  

Article:

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-declines-review-ruling-favor-patient-who-was-denied-care-being 

Sources:

https://www.aclu.org/cases/dignity-health-v-minton 

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dignity-health-v-minton/ 

https://www.nclrights.org/our-work/cases/minton-v-dignity-health/ 

https://www.hobbylobby.com/ 

https://www.dignityhealth.org/sacramento/locations/mercy-san-juan-medical-center

 

When you chose to serve your country do you have the same rights as those you've sworn to protect?

         For generations, the sailors of the United States Navy have been linked with their facial hair. Many Naval leaders in history have sported facial hair. Admiral Zumwalt, the Chief of Naval Operations in the 1970s, even stated that no sailor would face discrimination if they had chosen to have facial hair. The purpose was not only to support sailors with religious beliefs that made them sport a beard to show religious maturity but also to help sailors that suffered from razor burn from having to shave so often. In 1985 the Navy decided to ban beards across the entire Navy. They did, however, leave room for exceptions to this rule for significant medical or religious reasons. The Navy's reasoning behind the beard ban is that it could interfere with a gas-mask seal, making it hard for sailors to perform their duties. Recently, however, the Navy has been very strict with these exemptions. This is also strange as other branches of the United States Military, including the Army and Air Force, are very open to giving exceptions to allow soldiers with religious beliefs to wear facial hair with their uniform. This leads us to our plaintiff Edmund Di Liscia. Edmund is an Orthodox Jew who joined the Navy in 2018. In the Orthodox Jewish religion, you are ordered to grow out your facial hair to show maturity and obedience to G-d's will. Due to this belief, Edmund filed a request for an exemption from the Navy's beard ban in September 2020. This was denied; however, Edmund was fortunate enough to have a commanding officer who granted him a "chit," which is essentially a temporary accommodation to keep his beard. The problem Edmund faced with this temporary accommodation showed itself in April of 2021 when the Navy informed the commanding officer this chit was no longer valid and that everyone on the ship must be cleanly shaven. Edmund was told that if he did not remove the beard within 24 hours, there would be a punishment. After this, Edmund and the other sailors this ban affected realized that he must take legal action in order to protect their right to exercise their religious beliefs and filed suit. The Navy stated they would not make Edmund shave for the time being.

        The critical question, in this case, is whether it constitutional for the United States Navy to ban its soldiers from having a beard even if they state it is for religious purposes or violates the soldier's First Amendment right to Free exercise of religion. When examining if the Navy's rejection of Edmund's request is unconstitutional, there are a couple of crucial issues. For one, Edmund's belief that he must have a beard is sincere. I think it is assumed no one is questioning the sincerity of Edmund's belief but that having a beard could affect his performance in a job that is a matter of national security. Then we must look at whether this is a substantial burden upon Edmund. Well, it is hard to say for someone who is not an Orthodox Jew, it may very well seem that this is not a substantial burden as it is just hair, but to an Orthodox Jew who believes that having a beard is showing obedience to an almighty power, it may very well seem as though this is a substantial burden. Although this could be considered a burden, we must consider the neutrality of this ban. Is this neutral to all who serve in the Navy? Yes, it is, as everyone must do it. When looking at if there is a less restrictive mean for this policy, I wonder if concerns over the gas masks can be put to rest by setting a length on the beard, which would still allow Edmund and others to keep their beards while giving the Navy confidence they can perform their duties. All of these are essential issues to look at, but the question I propose is, do members of our military who all joined under their free will as there has not been a draft since 1973 lose certain rights that our Government believes could interfere with protecting our country?

       This question has been brought up in Supreme Court cases in the past that have looked at situations where an officer of one of the military branches may or may not be given accommodation to their uniform due to religious beliefs. We saw this in the case of Goldman v. Weinberger, where a Jewish member of the Air Force, Rabbi Weinberger, was not allowed to wear a kippah as the Air Force bylaws stated that no headwear was allowed in the uniform. This rule's purpose is different than the Navy's beard ban. The purpose of this law was to show uniformity in our Air Force, while the Navy's reasoning is directly for the safety and performance of the soldier. In a 5-4 decision, the court found that this rule was constitutional and that the Air Force not allowing Rabbi Goldman to wear the kippah while on duty was not unconstitutional. The reasoning from the majority of this case was that Military officials have much less protection than regular citizens and that this was to create uniformity. Weinberger argued that wearing the kippah had no threat to anyone, and therefore he should be allowed to wear it based on his beliefs. The court stood by its decision and created the president that when you join the military, you lose many rights a regular citizen may have as it is now your task to defend your nation. I believe this case directly correlates to Edmund's predicament concerning having a beard. Edmund Di Liscia joined the Navy for whatever reasons he may have had, but he did so by his own will and had fewer rights than a regular citizen.

        When looking at all of the facts of this case and previous cases the Supreme court has ruled on, it isn't easy to come to a decision. When applying the Sherbert test, we have to look at three things. Does this law or act place a substantial religious burden on one's free exercise of religion? Two, is there a compelling state interest for this law to be in place? Lastly, are there any less restrictive means by which this law can be applied? When looking at if it is a substantial burden, as previously stated, this is very hard to argue either way. To a non-Orthodox Jew, this does not seem like much of a burden at all. It just requires you to shave your face, but to an Orthodox Jew, this may seem like a significant burden as you are being asked to disobey G-d. When looking at if there is a compelling state interest, it is clear to the Navy there is. The Navy believes that having a beard hinders one's ability to wear a gas mask and could be a significant safety and performance hazard. Whether one believes this is the case or not, it is what our United States Navy believes is a vital issue that needs to be avoided. Finally, when looking at if there could be a less restrictive means by which this law can be applied, I am not entirely sure. One suggestion would be that the Navy sets a length limit on the beard, but to the Orthodox Jews or other groups that believe they must have a beard, is trimming the beard just as bad as shaving your face clean? Either way, I believe that when someone willfully joins a branch of the United States Military, the specific branch has the right to put in effect certain laws that the branch believes will protect our country, even if that violates certain rights you may have had before as an ordinary citizen. For this reason, I think the United States Navy has not violated Edmund's right to the free exercise of religion.

Sources:

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/285/goldman-v-weinberger

https://www.becketlaw.org/case/di-liscia-v-austin/

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/judge-temporarily-grants-orthodox-jewish-sailor-s-plea-to-keep-his-beard-1.669974

North Hill Elementary School in Des Moines v Second Grader

  The facts of this case are as follows: North Hill Elementary School in Des Moines, Washington have been reprimanding a second grade girl because of her consistent mentions of Jesus and the christian faith to her classmates during recess. The girl was sent to the principal's office or confronted by school staff on multiple occasions since the beginning of the year. School staff members also once searched the girl's backpack for religious literature the school opposes before she was allowed to enter the school. Other classmates had raised concerns because the young girl was saying that they “will go to hell because they do not listen to her, along with her concern about the fate of her own soul if she cannot help them” This caused the other students to cry and become noticeably upset. The student “was observed chasing another student to share scripture with them, standing on a picnic table shouting to students ‘Be saved or you are going to hell!” and getting into a disagreement with another student over her proselytizing.” The school received a complaint from a parent whose child had received a “religious pamphlet” from the student. This led to the search of the young girl's backpack on one occasion. The mother of the little girl saw the school faculty search her daughter's bag after dropping her off for school and immediately spoke to the principal. The mother was told that her child was not allowed to hand out certain religious material to students and that it was upsetting other parents. It is also important to note that  Highline School District has a Freedom of Expression policy that restricts students from passing out information that could interrupt school activities "in an assembly or classroom setting" – not outside on the playground. 

The issues this case raises have two parts. One issue is whether or not the school is violating the young girl's First Amendment right of Free Exercise by searching and reprimanding her for sharing her religious belief. The second issue is whether or not by allowing the girl to share her religious belief on school grounds they are setting up an establishment of religion. 

I would argue the school is not violating the young girl's First Amendment Right of Free Exercise, and by allowing her to proselytize and hand out pamphlets along with threats would be establishing one religion over another in a public school setting. This is because of the effects of young children as we have seen in many supreme court cases that when it comes to young children and religion the court has to worry about coercion and peer pressure. In the case Minersville School District v. Gobitis young children were expelled for refusing to say the pledge because it goes against their religion. However, in this case the young girl is actively trying to pressure other students to adopt her faith which crosses the line from free exercise into coercion. Moreover, she is telling young children that they will go to hell if they do not adopt her faith and is handing out pamphlets which would create an establishment for the school. This also brings up the Supreme Court issue of Stone v Graham, where the public school could not allow for the ten commandments in each classroom because it would create an establishment of religion. I think this case is similar in some ways because it argues that there is no secular purpose in the Ten Commandments, as well as a religious pamphlet and by allowing for a pamphlet to be passed around favors one religion over all others. I bring up the issue of children again, because the young girl saying her classmates will go to hell if they do not share her belief brings to light the issue of peer pressure. Although the district has a law that says students are free to talk about what they want on the playground, it does not allow for coercion. Using the case Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, where the court ruled students cannot pray or lead prayer at public school football games because it violates the Establishment Clause. This case demonstrates similar characteristics. Although it seems unwise for the school to search the girl's bag, they are within their constitutional rights to search her bag as she is a minor and the school has a compelling state interest to not promote a religion. The school is not saying she cannot talk about Jesus with her classmates but she cannot hand out religious pamphlets and coerce other students.

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2022/march/wa-school-officials-send-2nd-grader-to-principal-for-sharing-faith-search-her-backpack

https://aclj.org/religious-liberty/outrageous-public-school-scolds-punishes-2nd-grade-little-christian-girl-for-talking-about-jesus-subjects-her-to-daily-searches-for-contraband-bible-tracts-before-entering-school-property

https://www.christianpost.com/news/2nd-grader-punished-for-sharing-her-christian-faith-at-school.html

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/99-62

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-418

COVID-19 Struggles with the Transportation of Migrants

In McAllen, Texas, the Humanitarian Respite Center takes in and provides goods and services to migrant families that would otherwise be living on the streets. The Center gives food, clothing, medical care, and temporary rest to over 1,000 migrants that have been released from Border Control. The Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley created this center to help migrants in need after they have crossed the border and been released from law enforcement. Catholic Charities is a ministry that devotes its work to providing service to the less fortunate. Catholic Charities, after the migrants are given the care they need, transport them to shelters, hospitals, or reunite with their families. Once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the Center began testing migrants for COVID-19. If they tested positive, they were quarantined at nearby hotels until Texas issued an order that prohibited non-governmental programs from transporting migrants anywhere in Texas.

Texas enacted this order due to the compelling state interest in “preventing COVID-19 transmission.” This order did not allow the Center to transport migrants to bus stations, hospitals, airports, and other shelters. The order also prevented the Center from taking positive migrants with COVID-19 to quarantined locations to prevent the spread of COVID. Because of the Center’s inability to maintain COVID-19 due to the lack of transportation, they stopped taking in any more immigrants. This led to Border Patrol leaving migrants, without being tested for COVID-19, in local areas, making the likelihood of the transmission of COVID-19 throughout the community a lot higher. Not only did the COVID-19 rates rise, but the number of migrants with no food or water also rose as well.

The Department of Justice saw how this order could negatively affect the federal government’s operations, so they filed a lawsuit to revoke the order. Temporary relief from this order was granted but came with an expiration date of two weeks. Another case was then filed two days before the expiration that highlighted how this order impeded the religious rights of Catholic Charities. This order severely negatively affected Catholic Charities’ ability to carry out its religious mission. They believe that this order is impeding on their God-given task to give all the help to migrants they can, but, more importantly, to give equal respect and dignity to the migrants. The petitioners argued that this order is unconstitutional, violates the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment, and violates the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Texan government targeted and attacked the religious freedoms of Catholic Charities for not allowing them to serve migrants, also known as, doing God’s work. The order invoked prohibited non-governmental entities from transporting migrants anywhere in Texas. The Humanitarian Respite Center was one of the only religious groups doing this.

Not only is this an unconstitutional order, this order does nothing but harm to the public good. Instead of suppressing the spread of COVID-19, it enhances it. By forcing Border Control to release untested migrants throughout the state, COVID-19 is exposed and endangers all Texans. Similar to the Church of Lukmi Babln Aye, Inc v. Hialeah, in which a religious group was specifically targeted and prevented from practicing religious ceremonies, the government did not try to find alternative means that would be neutral facially and in practice. In the Church of Lukmi Babln Aye, Inc v. Hialeah, the government decided that the group's practices were harmful to the community but did not care to seek alternative options that would make all content. In this case, United States of America v. State of Texas, the government only cared about the danger of COVID-19, but they did not look at the outcomes of their actions, more importantly, who would be affected.

There is a compelling state interest to revoke this order and allow transportation of migrants to continue because it would lead to a lessening of the spread of COVID-19. There are no other alternative actions unless Border Control is forced to test and quarantine positive individuals. There is no undue hardship done to the rest of the community from the Humanitarian Respite Center’s actions. Not allowing Catholic Charities to use their center, the government is placing a substantial burden on, not only the migrants but also the religious individuals. The people of Catholic Charities believe that it is their duty, given to them by God, to provide aid to migrants. The order limiting transportation completely destroys the center and does not allow them to act anymore. While removing the order is beneficial to all of Texas and the spread of COVID-19, it also allows people’s divine work to continue.

Currently, this case is pending, so there is no final decision. Do you believe that Catholic Charities' Free Exercise rights were violated? Are their religious beliefs being infringed upon? If the order helped diminish the spread of COVID-19 would there be a different outcome regarding whether or not religious rights were violated?