Antisemitic threats are a form of religious expression?

Monday, March 4, 2024: U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan, Mark Totten, announced that Pickford, Michigan resident, Sean Pietila, 20, was sentenced to 12 months and one day in federal prison for making a series of violent threats between the days of June 1-2, 2023. The antisemitic threats included his desires to kill Jewish people. At the time of the threats, Pietila was residing in Lansing, Michigan. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) recovered evidence that Pietila had identified a Jewish synagogue, known as Shaarey Zedek Congregation, in East Lansing, Michigan and a specific date in March 2024. A wish list of firearms and other weapons was also identified by the FBI. 

U.S. Attorney, Mark Totten, said, “Today and every day we will take swift action to detect and disrupt hate crimes. No Michigander should live in fear because of their race, ethnicity, religion, or any other protected status.” 

In November 2023, Pietila pleaded guilty to the antisemitic threats, which included references to Adolf Hitler, and his desire and plan to engage in a mass shooting. During execution of a federal search warrant in June 2023, FBI Michigan identified typed notes on Pietila’s cell phone that depicted his plans to engage in a mass shooting as well as to commit suicide. One message wrote, “We [he and the receiver] time it a day after each other. We would surely inspire others to take arms against the Jewish controlled state.” For such conduct, U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker sentenced Sean Pietila to 12 months and one day in federal prison, 3 years of supervised release following prison time, and $10,648 in restitution. Prosecutors had sought for nearly three years of federal prison sentencing, but Pietila was granted a more lenient verdict given he had no prior criminal record and is remorseful for his actions. 

Sean Pietila's Cellphone

Despite Judge Robert Jonker’s sentencing, Sean Pietila’s attorney argued that Pietila battled mental illness and did not, in fact, have access to the firearms and weapons he mentioned. With this, the question is raised, 

 

“Was Sean Pietila’s First Amendment right to freely express his religious beliefs violated?” 

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants citizens the freedom of speech and freedom of religion. More specifically, the freedom of speech protects a wide range of expression, including symbolic, verbal, and written, and the freedom of religion protects an individual’s right to freely worship, observe religious practices, and hold religious beliefs without government interference. Despite this broad range of protection, the First Amendment rights are not absolute, and therefore, contain some limitations. Such limitations include incitement to violence, true threats, harassment, defamation, and obscenity. 

In my opinion, Sean Pietila violated a majority of these First Amendment limitations. As “incitement to violence” suggests, it is a form of speech that directly encourages unlawful conduct. The Supreme Court established a test for incitement, known as the Brandenburg Test, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 1969. The test determined that the government may interfere with free speech – not matter the forum – that is advocating to use force or crime. The two-part test includes: 

1. The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and 

2. The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action” (“Brandenburg Test”). 

In addition to incitement, I believe that Pietila posed a “true threat” to the Jewish community, particularly Shaarey Zedek Congregation. True threats are described as statements that obtain a serious expression of intent to cause harm or violence to an individual or a group. I believe, in consideration with the facts of the case, Sean Pietila posed a true and genuine threat to the Shaarey Zedek Congregation. 

As the facts of the case suggest, Pietila falls outside the realm of protected speech. His statements and actions were beyond mere expression of religious beliefs and entered the realm of criminal behavior. In fact, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Michigan, Cheyvoryea Gibson, stated, “When free speech crosses a line and becomes a threat of violence against another, the full investigative resources of the FBI will be deployed” (Sean Pietila Pleads Guilty for Making Violent, Antisemitic Threats). Additionally, the fact that Pietila pleaded guilty to the charges indicates his recognition to the unlawfulness that was instilled. 

In this case, the sentencing of Sean Pietila for making violent threats against Jewish people does not violate his First Amendment rights. The government has a legitimate interest in protecting public safety and preventing acts of violence, even if expressed under the guise of religious beliefs. While Sean Pitelia’s attorney argued that he battled mental illness and lacked the access to the described firearms and weapons, the fact remains that his statements and actions posed a serious threat. 

Therefore, in my opinion, Judge Robert Jonker of the U.S. District Court did not violate defendant Sean Pietila’s first amendment rights of free exercise. 

Referenced Works 

 “Brandenburg Test.” LII / Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test.

Friedman, Howard. Man Sentenced to 1 Year + for Threatening Synagogue Shooting. https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2024/03/man-sentenced-to-1-year-for-threatening.html 

Seann Pietila Pleads Guilty for Making Violent, Antisemitic Threats. 13 Nov. 2023, www.justice.gov/usao-wdmi/pr/2023_1113_Seann_Pietila_Plea_Agreement. 

Colorado Man Jailed For Refusing To Attend Christian Worship Services

 Mark Janny is a Colorado prisoner whose First Amendment rights to religious freedom were infringed upon when he was returned to prison for refusing to attend Bible studies, worship sessions, and religious counseling that his parole officer had required of him. Janny was imprisoned in November of 2023 for declining to take part in religious activities related to a faith he does not practice and his parole officer mandated that while still on parole, he remain at the Denver Rescue Mission which is in Fort Collins, Colorado. Mark told the administrators of this group called “The Rescue Mission” as well as his parole officer that he’s an atheist and that he did not agree with the organization's Christian beliefs, and therefore wanted no part. Both the director of the Rescue Mission and Mark's parole officer threatened to have him put back jail and reincarcerated if not to take part in the religious activities. The managers of the Rescue Mission eventually went so far as to kick Mark out of the institution when he refused to go to church, and this led to an additional 150 days of being detained after his parole officer deemed this to be a parole violation. 

Mark ended up suing his parole officer and the Rescue Mission's owners in a federal district court for violating his right to freedom of religion. He initially appeared in district court without any actual legal representation, and the court denied him, and disregarded the evidence that he’d brought forth. In response to the district court's wrongful dismissal of his lawsuit, groups like DLA Piper, Americans United, and the ACLU intervened to take up his appeal, and stepped to his defense, arguing that his free exercise has been transgressed upon. 

The Director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, made a public statement that “throwing someone in jail for refusing to go to church just tramples our nation’s commitment to religious liberty and is flagrantly unconstitutional.” The dissenting Judge, Judge Carson, objected to the assertion that the mission's director, Jim. Carmack could be considered a state actor for simply upholding program regulations. He did concede however that Mr. Carmack lacked the authority to send Mr. Janny back to jail, and regarded the action as extreme. According to Judge Carson's reasoning, all parolees would need an “address upon release,” and the parole officer John Gamez had an informal arrangement with the Rescue Mission to house certain parolees, but the arrangement didn't modify any existing policies or transfer authority to the parole officer Mr. Carmack. 

Eventually a settlement was reached in the beginning of 2022 with the previous director of the Rescue Mission, in which Mark received damages and the petition for review was removed. And as of December 2023, Mark's case against the parole officer is actually still pending, but he fought the parole officer's “partial summary judgment motion” in May of 2023 after it was filed that March, and attempted to restrict or one could even argue completely remove Mark's right to receive compensatory damages. In a decision on this specific motion, the court decided on November 14, 2023, to allow Mark Janny to seek significant damages and that he might even receive “minimal damages, compensatory damages for his loss of liberty, economic damages for his salary loss during part of his incarceration, and punitive damages.”

I agreed with the outcome of this case, and I think it's yet another good example of the success of the American justice system. Mark's parole officer engaged in threats and coercion in order to get him to embrace something that he has no obligation to take seriously, legally or morally. The constitution does not allow Mr. Janny's Parole Officer to do what he did to him, and if Mark doesn't want to put up with christian counseling, he is hardly the only person in this country to harbor that instinct, and he reserves the right to manifest that instinct in his own life.

Links: https://www.au.org/the-latest/press/colorado-court-victory-mark-janny-jailed-parole/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/9/parole-cant-be-revoked-refusing-faith-based-rehab-/\\\

Sacred Rights Shackled

    The case of Apache Stronghold v. United States highlights the complex balance between protecting minority religious rights and accommodating competing interests, mainly economic pursuits. The dispute revolves around the preservation of sacred land crucial to the spiritual practices of the Apache people, which is in conflict with the economic interests of a mining company: Resolution Copper.

    Oak Flat, located within the Tonto National Forest of Arizona, holds immense significance for the Apache community. It has served as a sacred site integral to their religious rituals and cultural heritage for centuries. The land has been utilized for ceremonies such as the "coming-of-age Sunrise Ceremony for Apache women; sweat lodge ceremonies; gathering of sacred medicine plants, animals, and minerals; and the use of sacred waters." These practices are not merely traditions but represent the essence of Apache spirituality and identity.

    However, Oak Flat faces an urgent threat due to its valuable and highly desired copper deposits, which have attracted the interest of mining companies such as Resolution Copper. Despite centuries of federal site protection, lobbying efforts have consistently attempted to exploit its resources. They had been unsuccessful until 2014, when a controversial "last-minute rider" was attached to a defense bill, effectively transferring Oak Flat to Resolution Copper and inviting the company to destroy these sacred lands. 

    This legal battle is led by Apache stronghold, a coalition of Native American individuals who sought to challenge this transfer in court, arguing that it is a violation of their religious freedom of free exercise. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 is central to their case, "requiring the government to show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means possible when its actions would pose a substantial burden on religious exercise." However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there was no substantial burden on the Apache's religious exercise, allowing the transfer to continue.

    This ruling raises fundamental questions about the interpretation and application of the RFRA based on the Apache Stronghold's free exercise rights. While the direct infringement on religious practices may not be apparent, the threat to Oak Flat poses a dangerous and irreversible threat to the destruction of Apache's religious life. The destruction of Oak Flat would obliterate the spiritual connection between the Apache people and their traditions, depriving them of religious expression that defines their identities as individuals and as one people. Therefore, Considering the facts of this case, does the Federal Government violate Apache Stronghold's free exercise of religion by allowing the obliteration of their sacred land in which they hold religious rituals?

    The comparison to Braunfield v. Brown (1961) provides valuable insights and precedent into the constitutional principle of incidental and substantial burdens on religious exercise. In Braunfield, Orthodox Jews faced economic hardships due to the requirement to abide by Sunday closing laws as well as participating in their Saturday sabbath under their religion. Despite the incidental nature of the burden, the Orthodox Jews continued to face incredibly harmful effects on their economic prosperity and existence as followers of the Orthodox Jewish religion. The court ruled that because this was an indirect burden, it was not an unconstitutional violation of the Orthodox Jews' free exercise rights. This violated the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause because although a burden may not be substantial, incidental burdens can certainly harm a religious group. Similarly, in Apache Stronghold v. United States, the potential obliteration of Oak Flat imposes an incidental burden on Apache religious practices, leading me to believe that there should be constitutional protection of these religious rights despite the lack of substantiality in effect. Therefore, there was a violation of Apache Stronghold's free exercise rights due to the government's ignorance and failure to recognize that although not substantial, there is an incidental burden in place that must be treated accordingly.

  

    The implications of this case extend beyond the fate of Oak Flat. It emphasizes the broader issue of safeguarding minority religious rights against opposing interests, economic or other. This ruling can shape how religious minority cases are ruled in the United States and establish precedents for future conflicts between indigenous communities and companies seeking to obtain resources. Ultimately, Apache Stronghold v. United States highlights the ongoing struggle to accommodate competing interests while upholding constitutional principles and rights. The protection of minority religious rights is something that all justices should strive for, as it is intertwined with the principles of equality and justice. It is imperative that the court recognizes the importance of preserving Oak Flat as a sacred site and upholds the religious rights of the Apache people.

Sources:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/67

https://www.becketlaw.org/case/apache-stronghold-v-united-states/

Can The Government Restrict Adoption on the Basis of Religious Beliefs?

    Mike and Kitty Burke are a Roman Catholic couple from Massachusetts who have long-waited to become parents and grow their family. Unfortunately, the Burkes learned early in their marriage that conceiving biological children of their own was not in the cards as Kitty faced uphill struggles with fertility. Failing to allow discouragement to ensue them, the Burkes applied to be foster parents in 2022 and began the necessary steps to build their family. However, following interviews with officials from the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families, this dream was once again crushed but for a much more problematic reason. 

    On August 8th, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts was tasked with determining whether or not an action committed by Massachusetts' Department of Children and Families violated the Free Exercise rights of Mike and Kitty Burke. In the case of Burke v. Walsh, the Department of Children and Families denied a request submitted by the Burkes to foster and adopt children in Massachusetts who are in desperate need of stable and loving families. The Burkes endured extensive training and expressed that they would be willing to accommodate children with behavioral needs or larger families to keep siblings intact. It did not matter to them, just as long as they had the opportunity to become foster parents. The request was denied by the Massachusetts DCF on the grounds of the Burkes' sincerely held religious beliefs regarding gender and human sexuality as well as the sanctity of marriage. The Burkes expressed their reservations about supporting a child who identified as LGBTQIA. Regardless of how much the Burkes appeared to be the ideal foster couple on paper, officials from the Department of Children and Families ultimately denied the request and said that "their faith is not supportive and neither are they." And in doing so, it is argued that in practice, these regulations of unwavering support is a universal bar against all Roman Catholics who agree with the Church's teaching on sex, marriage, and gender. (see a pdf of brief here)

    There are two compelling arguments raised by both parties in Burke v. Walsh. When it concerns the arguments raised by the Burke family and their attorneys, they argue the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is forcing them to choose between their faith and their desire to raise children in their household. Kitty Burke has suffered with fertility issues and is unable to have biological children of her own. By requiring her and her husband to pledge to support such behavior that contradicts their Roman Catholic beliefs at the expense of parenthood is a substantial burden and one that the government is not constitutionally allowed to impose. The attorneys for the Burkes even cite how officials from the Department of Children and Families were impressed with the eagerness expressed by both Mike and Kitty in being prospective parents. They were willing to do whatever it took to give a child in need a loving home. However, as mentioned the Commonwealth of Massachusetts declined their request on their failure to pledge support for the lifestyle their child chose in the future. There is a compelling state interest in ensuring the child being placed into the care of the Burkes is allowed to thrive in a loving and supportive environment. A possible argument can be made in the future on behalf of the child that the religious beliefs of Mike and Kitty Burke could restrict the right to self-determination that child has, which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can be found to be complicit with. The foster child is entitled to grow up in a supportive environment and given equal opportunities to succeed in life. It is quite possible that growing up in a non-entirely supportive religious environment could harm the child further down the road. 

    In the plaintiff's brief published by their attorneys, there are two specific precedents used to argue that the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families' regulations have already been decided as unconstitutional by both the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Appeals Courts. In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected any attempt to exclude Catholic foster care agencies from the child welfare system. The Court ruled that discrimination on the basis of religion was unconstitutional and a breach of the Free Exercise Clause. In Lasche v. New Jersey, the Third Circuit Appeals Court held that "the First Amendment prohibits retaliation against foster parents for sharing their religious beliefs on marriage." However, the plaintiffs warn that if the Massachusetts' regulation for its child welfare system were allowed to stand, then other religious groups such as Muslims, Jews, and Protestant Christians who believe similar teachings will be barred as well. This is problematic when we apply the First Amendment and its Free Exercise Clause because this particular policy will unevenly restrict the rights of religious couples from ever engaging with the child welfare system. 

    Now that the majority of the facts from Burke v. Walsh are explained, I think that if I were a jurist overseeing the legal proceedings I would be inclined to side with the Burkes and strike down the Massachusetts DCF's policy as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Even though I can sympathize with the state interest of ensuring foster children are placed in homes with unwavering love and support, there is still a pressing issue facing the Massachusetts Government in the number of foster children circulating their system. It is estimated that 1,500 children across the state are without families. The crisis has become so extreme that "the state has resorted to housing children in hospitals for weeks on end... because the Commonwealth has nowhere else to put them." It is clear that the state has a more compelling interest in reducing the crisis and placing children in loving homes that do not violate any other procedural standards except for their religious beliefs. Discriminating on the basis of religion during this crisis only adds fuel to the fire. These families are more than willing to take in as many children as possible and give them opportunities they could only dream of. In addition, when the regulation is put in practice, its effects are one that discriminates against many religions and would therefore be a clear violation of the First Amendment. 

    

Church and Child Custody

         How much authority does a parent have over their child’s religious exercise? In April 2015, Veronika Bardonner filed for divorce from her husband Kenneth Bardonner with whom she had two children. At some point during the divorce proceedings, Kenneth underwent a psychological evaluation in which he was diagnosed with narcissistic personality and exhibitionism disorders. As a result of these diagnoses, Kenneth was encouraged to attend counseling to recognize the negative impact such behaviors and thoughts would have on his children, but he ignored this suggestion. The divorce was finalized in September 2016 and the trial court awarded custody to Veronika with Kenneth receiving visitation rights. Following the divorce, Kenneth issued several petitions to modify his custody arrangements. All requests were denied because the court viewed that Kenneth was “emotionally harming the child by putting implicit and explicit pressure on him to ‘fix’ the parenting time [schedule].” All in all, the court found Kenneth’s obsessive behavior disturbing and in August 2020, the court gave Veronika sole decision-making authority. 

        Because the court believed that Kenneth’s actions posed a potential threat to the children, it issued an additional order in May 2018 that prohibited Kenneth from bringing his children to church services hosted by the All Saints Orthodox Church; however, they still could attend church functions that did not involve religious teachings. According to the court report, Veronika has several objections to the children’s participation with this church. Kenneth consistently ignored this order; in fact, a picture with Kenneth and his child can be found in the church’s 2020 directory. Upon learning about this blatant disregard, the court forbade Kenneth from bringing his children to any church-related events. Again, Kenneth did not abide by this order, declaring that the court’s restrictions violated his free exercise rights. In his appeal, Kenneth states, “[Kenneth’s] religious freedom and freedom of association is infringed when he is forced by the trial court to choose between involving his child in his church community or face having access to his son stripped.”

        On March 12, 2024, the Court of Appeals of Indiana rendered that the court order did not infringe upon Kenneth’s First Amendment rights. To support its opinion, the Court of Appeals cited Indiana law that bestows upon a custodial parent the right to regulate all aspects of a child’s upbringing, including religious training. As the custodial parent, Veronika has sole authority over her children’s religious upbringing and is therefore permitted to reject Kenneth’s preferences without explicit justification. The court order does not prohibit Kenneth from attending the All Saints Orthodox Church, only his children; thus, his free exercise rights remain intact. Additionally, the appeals court noted that it was Kenneth’s own poor behavior that led to the restrictive court order. Had he followed the initial, less prohibitive instructions, he would have no reason to claim a free exercise violation.

After reviewing the facts of the case and the court’s ruling, one might ask, “Does the court have the authority to deny Kenneth’s desire to include his children in his religious tradition or does such a restriction constitute a free exercise violation?” Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), a case about the conflict between the Amish faith and the education of minors, examines the free exercise rights of parents as it relates to children. In Yoder, the Supreme Court found, despite opposing opinions, that parents have authority over the religious training of their children. Parents can dictate what religion their children practice and what religious traditions they observe. Upon reaching adulthood, children can choose for themselves what religion, if any, they wish to follow. Therefore, Veronika and Kenneth are the arbiters of what is religiously appropriate for their children; however, in my opinion, Kenneth’s right to free exercise was not violated.

           Because Kenneth does not have custody of his children, his responsibility of religious training is no longer applicable. If he does not have legal authority to raise his children, then he cannot expect his religious preferences to be heeded. Although they are his children, legally, Kenneth is not entitled to guide their upbringing, as the court has ruled that the children are safer without his influence. Veronika’s position as custodial parent allows her to direct nearly every aspect of her children’s lives and she has the right to refuse accommodation of Kenneth’s demands. Also, I agree with the appeals court’s opinion that the order did not inhibit Kenneth’s own free exercise. The trial court did not prevent Kenneth from attending the church of his choice, nor did it suggest that Kenneth should stop attending the All Saints Orthodox Church for the sake of his children. Even though parents have the authority to guide the religious training of their children, Kenneth surrendered that privilege when he lost custody of his children and consequently, he did not experience a denial of his right to free exercise. 

Censoring Religious Ads

 

An organization by the name WallBuilders Presentations has a mission to present America's forgotten history and heroes. They do so through a lens focusing on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was formed. However, they have met a roadblock.

 

WallBuilders in the summer of 2023 wanted to launch a massive advertising campaign in the DC area to publish its name and its strong mission of opening the public's eye to the role of faith in the formation of our country. They were going to go about this advertising plan by using WMATA buses to spread the messages. Much of the DC metropolitan population relies on the WMATA buses for transportation daily so the messages would be seen by a large population. Included in the advertisements were religious messages. One ad had a picture of George Washington kneeling in prayer at Valley Forge with the word, “Christian?” under the image with the Wallbuilders website address. When proposed to WMATA it was swiftly rejected because it was a “issue ad that is intended to influence members of the public on an issue on which there are varying opinions.” WallBuilders then reflected on the rejection and decided to remove the word “Christian?” under the image. However yet again the ads were denied. There was no clarification received on the context behind “varying opinions”. 

 

WMATA is known for permitting advertisements that promote other organizations that have controversial takes and issues. This can be seen with them permitting an ad about the book of Mormon that harshly mocks the Mormon Church. Along with promotions involving the Catholic University of America. The main issue at hand being WMATA rejecting a religious ad possibly violating the First Amendment’s protection of religion. It could also possibly be inferred that WallBuilders constitutional rights are being violated under the Free Exercise clause of the First amendment. Are WMATA discriminating against certain religious advertisements? It also must be kept in mind these buses are in a public setting. 

 

It also must be taken into consideration that WMATA has been through issues like this in the past. The Supreme Court in 2020 declined to take up a challenge on a ban on religious advertising by WMATA. This issue dates to 2017 when a Christmas themed ad campaign with some religious themes was rejected. There was also an ad that was submitted in 2015 that was rejected that depicted the Prophet Muhammad. These rulings were upheld in favor of WMATA but still are met with harsh resistance and appeals. In an opinion by Justice Gorsuch, he wrote in reaction to the supreme court not hearing the case about Christmas related religious advertising in the WMATA, “the ban on religious advertising is viewpoint discrimination by a governmental authority and a violation of the first amendment”. 

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects religious expression. In this case WallBuilders is having its rights violated. By saying they ban all religious advertisements is a cheap cop out to me. It makes them look good on the outside but ultimately is violating their First Amendment rights. These ads simply have a website URL and a short message. No passenger on one of these buses is made to go out of their way to go to the website. Nobody is being forced to check out their website or become a member of the WallBuilders. There's also no direct threat of such advertisements to the public. The Free Exercise Clause was put into effect to make sure Americans could have their voices heard and express themselves without feeling persecuted. By denying WallBuilders this right to further their reach and message of their organization it is a direct violation of their rights. WMATA is in theory basically just censoring any organization that wants to try to push a message that is remotely religious but allowing some that they seem fit. This is also very dangerous in my opinion as if this is allowed to be swept under the rug, we could see these issues continue to spring up and be abused in other public settings. The First Amendment doesn’t play favorites, it makes sure that any voice no matter the message is heard. Voices should not be silenced in public forums."Rejecting a faith based advertising banner by labeling it an "issue ad," while accepting other ads such as those promoting a "Social Justice School" and "Earth Day," is clearly hypocriticaldiscriminatory, and illegal. WMATA must support the freedoms provided in the First Amendment rather than silence Americans through censorship" said First Liberty Senior Councilman Jermey Dys.

https://firstliberty.org/cases/wallbuilders/

https://firstliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/WallBuilders-Federal-Complaint_Redacted.pdfchristian-organization-sues-d-c-metro-for-rejecting-ads

https://washingtonstand.com/news/wallbuilders-supported-by-aclu-sues-dc-metro-for-rejecting-bus-ads

Religious Freedom In Regards To Abortion

    In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which eliminated any federal standards on abortion access. This resulted in many individual states curtailing or banning abortion rights, completely changing abortion access in many different parts of the country. Shortly after Roe v. Wade was overturned, Idaho completely banned abortion through its Defense of Life Act with very limited exceptions.

    The Satanic Temple is a non-theistic religious organization that emphasizes humanistic values like reason, compassion, and empathy, as outlined in its Seven Tenets. The Seven Tenets serve as its guiding principles and serve as the basis for many of its rituals. The organization engages in social and political activism focusing on a variety of issues, one being reproductive rights. The Satanic Temple also has Seven Rituals for various life events, offered as alternative options for those seeking something beyond traditional religious ceremonies. One of these Seven Rituals is the Satanic Abortion Ritual. While The Satanic Abortion Ritual is not a requirement of its members, they believe fully in bodily autonomy and a woman's right to choose. In this ritual, there are religious aspects following their Seven Tenets that one must go through before, after, and during a medical or surgical abortion.

    The Satanic Temple filed a lawsuit arguing that the current abortion statutes have violated The Satanic Temple’s religious freedoms, as they are not able to legally perform this ritual. The Temple stated that the Free Exercise Clause in The Constitution protects the right of female members to abort their babies in a ceremony as part of a Satanic Ritual.

    Considering the facts of this case, does Idaho’s Defense of Life Act violate the Free Exercise of religion by making The Satanic Temple’s Satanic Abortion Ritual illegal?

    When looking at this case, it is important to address the key issues at hand. The First Amendment protects religious groups to have unrestricted religious practice in accordance with their beliefs. However, these practices are only protected if they are not harmful. Given the context of this case, questions of whether there are overruling compelling state interests and issues of sincerity arise. In the hearing, the defendant, representing the state, argued that there is no way to verify what the Satanic Temple is putting forth about their Satanic Ritual. This is directly related to the issue of ruling on the truth or falsity of religious beliefs. In United States v. Ballard, it was unanimously determined that it is not within the government's jurisdiction to determine the truth or falsity of religious beliefs. Fundamentally, the Court is obligated to acknowledge a religious group's beliefs unless compelling evidence exists demonstrating fraudulent intentions. Due to this, the Court can not request that there must be a way to verify the Satanic Abortion Ritual. Another aspect of this case to consider is the compelling state interest. An important question arises of whether there is a compelling state interest in preventing this ritual. While abortion may be restricted and limited on a state level, it should be noted that there is no federal law banning abortion. In the precedent case, Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal the Court ruled that the government must examine individual religious freedoms and sincere practices. If there are sincere practices, there should be exceptions to laws, as long as it does not interfere with compelling state interests. This is not a case of whether or not abortion should be legal, but a case about religious freedom. When looking at the Defense of Life Act, there are exceptions demonstrating that abortion is highly restrictive but not fully banned. While these exceptions are not for religious reasons, some situations supersede the general compelling state interest. It is important to note that the Satanic Temple is not forcing its members to receive an abortion, but instead having this religious ceremony for those who chose to partake. Given all these facts, it seems as if there is not a compelling state interest in preventing this religious ritual beyond a difference of opinion on a controversial topic.

    

Abortion is an extremely controversial topic within the United States right now. It is important to note that this is a case about violating religious freedom, rather than if abortion should be legal. In my opinion, the Satanic Temple should be allowed to perform their Satanic Abortion Ritual. It is a completely voluntary ritual that expresses the pillars of their religion. When examining minority groups, the government cannot dismiss their religious beliefs solely because they do not align with its perspectives or opinions. It is essential for the Court not to make determinations regarding the sincerity of religious groups based on aspects of their faith.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/idaho/iddce/1:2022cv00411/50821/49/

https://idahonews.com/news/local/idaho-ag-office-defeats-satanic-temples-lawsuit-over-defense-of-life-act

https://www.lifenews.com/2024/02/06/judge-dismisses-satanic-temples-lawsuit-against-idaho-abortion-ban/

https://www.ag.idaho.gov/newsroom/attorney-general-labrador-defeats-satan/

Flying with Discrimination: Alaska Airlines' Controversial Decision

 After Congress passed the Equality Act in early 2021, Alaska Airlines pledged its support to prohibit “discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity” applicable in many fields, including transportation, which aligned with the Equality Act. Two Alaska Airlines employees, Marli Brown and Lacey Smith, who worked for the company as flight attendants, were fired for their comments concerning the Airlines' support of the Equality Act. Compelled by their Christian faith, according to court documents, Brown left comments on the internal employee message board which noted that Alaska Airlines endangered ‘the Church’, suppressed religious freedom, and violated the constitution through the Civil Rights Act. Smith, in agreement, added that the Equality Act was used by the company to regulate the morality of its employees and customers. The First Liberty Institute, which represents both plaintiffs, additionally argued that the Equality Act threatens religious liberty, and threatens those who do not believe the same as the government in terms of sexual orthodoxy. Alaska Airlines Senior VP of People responded to Smith’s comment stating that the Act is not meant to ‘regulate morality’, but instead protect customers and employees who identify as LGBTQ+ from discrimination. Both Smith and Brown’s comments were removed from the internal employee message board due to ‘hateful, discriminatory, and offensive’ language, while also having their flight shifts suspended while they were under investigation, then evidently terminated. In 2022, a federal lawsuit was filed on the plaintiff's behalf, claiming religious discrimination, failure to grant religious accommodation, and a hostile work environment that penalized them for expressing their beliefs by Alaska Airlines. 

Considering the facts of this case, it is important to understand the rights of the plaintiffs, Alaska Airlines, and the customers in which it serves. According to the plaintiffs, Alaska Airlines discriminated against them for religious reasons and therefore terminated them due to their comments on the internal employee message board. The First Liberty Institute also declared that it was a violation of their state and federal laws to be discriminated against based on their religious beliefs and expression. While this is correct, factually, Alaska Airlines VP of Inflight stated in response that the plaintiffs violated the Airlines’ discrimination policy by their use of the term ‘opposite sex’, as it presumes there are only two sexes. The plaintiffs justify their comments using the fact they were ‘compelled by their Christian faith’ to post such comments, explaining the claim of religious discrimination against them. Was it constitutionally religious discrimination by Alaska Airlines who terminated the plaintiffs based on their comments regarding the Equality Act on an internal employee message board?

In my opinion, while the two terminated employees have every right to publish religious content and explain their beliefs, the forum in which they commented was private and owned by Alaska Airlines. Therefore this is a limited forum, and Alaska Airlines has the right to consider the comments posted and control the content. I believe that Alaska Airlines is practicing neutrality, as they are simply trying to prevent discrimination in a private setting (an internal employee message board), and this has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Despite this, I do think Alaska Airlines could have taken less restrictive means, such as not terminating the plaintiffs and instead implementing an educational course or providing clearer guidelines for message board speech. While there are terms by which Alaska Airlines and the plaintiffs, Brown and Smith, can agree based on their termination, I do not believe there was religious discrimination specifically by Alaska Airlines. In regards to the comments, the centrality of the plaintiff's beliefs is not important, and instead, the anti-Equality Act beliefs are the most compelling points made by Brown and Smith. Their Christian beliefs, which could be the sincere motive of the comments, are not made clear, and therefore Alaska Airlines only can understand the comments from a secular, religious-free, neutral perspective. Therefore, in this case, the Airline removed the plaintiff's comments based on their discriminatory content, with no consideration of the plaintiff's religious beliefs.

In my opinion, this means Alaska Airlines was being neutral regarding the comment on their own, private forum, and understood the comment for the content that was written. This case is important because it draws the line between gender and religious discrimination. As a result, this case intersects legality, religion, and gender, while also trying to decipher if and how discrimination is occurring. Interestingly, this case, deals with the fact that the plaintiffs are discriminated against, while Alaska Airlines argues that they were the ones being discriminatory. This case differs from Lamb’s Chapel and Good News Club because it deals with a limited private forum, not a limited public forum or an open forum. Both of these cases deal with religious content and groups in public schools, and Alaska Airlines is not a public institution that must allow public forums. Therefore, in conclusion, it was not unconstitutional religious discrimination against the plaintiffs by Alaska Airlines regarding their comments.

https://firstliberty.org/cases/alaska-airlines/#simple1

https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/2-flight-attendants-sue-alaska-airlines-claim-they-were-canceled-for-religious-beliefs

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5

Illegal Smuggling of Immigrants Or Religious Duty?

Annunciation House

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued a Catholic agency serving migrants, Annunciation House, in El Paso, Texas. Annunciation House provides humanitarian services, basic necessities, guidance, support, and advocacy for migrants. This organization has been providing these humanitarian services for almost 50 years, including offering temporary shelter to migrants and refugees. They also supply migrants with basic necessities such as water and food. Additionally, Annunciation House provides information on migrants' legal rights and connects them with legal services. 

Attorney General Ken Paxton

Attorney General Ken Paxton accuses the agency of sheltering migrants who have illegally entered the United States. The attorney general seeks to ban Annunciation House from transacting business in Texas, believing that the religious organization is illegally fostering migrants. The Attorney General's office, in a press release, said in part, “The Office of the Attorney General reviewed significant public record information strongly suggesting Annunciation House is engaged in violations such as facilitating illegal entry to the United States, alien harboring, human smuggling, and operating a stash house.”  In response, Annunciation House reinforced their claims that they are a religious organization. They said, “Annunciation House … is a work recognized by the Catholic Church and is listed in the National Catholic Directory. Annunciation House has done this work of accompaniment out of the scriptural and Gospel mandate to welcome the stranger. Annunciation House’s response to the stranger is no different from that of the schools who enroll children of refugees, the clinics and hospitals who care for the needs of refugees, and the churches, synagogues, and mosques who welcome families to join in worship.” While the district attorney believes that Annunciation House is acting illegally by smuggling migrants, Annunciation House says none of their actions are illegal, and their duty to assist migrants is enforced on them by the Bible. 

The salient issue in this case is whether or not the district attorney is attempting to strip Annunciation House of its First Amendment right of free exercise of religion.

Attorney General Paxton’s allegations center around criminalizing the organization's activities and questioning its status as a nonprofit, but he does not make specific mention of the Catholic Church. I believe the Attorney General is using this case as a political tool, as he has made it clear that he is against many immigration policies established by the left. He asserts that organizations like Annunciation House are funded by the Biden administration. I believe he makes assertions like this and claims that these organizations are smuggling migrants as a way to scare citizens into voting for his own immigration policies.

There is no question that Annunciation House has sincerely held religious beliefs stating they must, “help thy neighbor.” In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Ballard, the court holds that the judiciary may only inquire into whether a person's or organization's beliefs are sincerely held, not whether they are factual. It is clear that the Catholic Church has a deeply rooted belief in charitable work; thus, they should be protected under the First Amendment. 

Annunciation House has gained support from many prominent Catholic leaders. Bishop Seitz of the Catholic Diocese of El Paso wrote a statement, reiterating the idea that charitable work, such as the work done by Annunciation House, is part of the duty of the Catholic Church. Kerry Alys Robinson, president and chief executive of Catholic Charities USA, defended the Texas shelter. These influential Catholic leaders affirm their support for Annunciation House, emphasizing that the organization operates based on its sincerely held religious beliefs and a sense of duty to the Church, rather than employing any malicious or illegal immigration tactics.

I believe that the district attorney is trying to strip Annunciation House of its First Amendment right; the majority of the immigrants coming to Annunciation House have already passed through the border, legally. The humanitarian care provided by Annunciation House (food, clean clothes, bathing facilities, overnight respite) is provided legally. Typically, this assistance begins after an asylum seeker has been processed and released by the federal government. Annunciation House cannot illegally smuggle migrants into the country if these asylum-seekers have already passed through U.S. border patrol. It is also clear that Annunciation House is providing a public service. In an email sent by the Catholic Charities USA organization, it was said, “Without the assistance of Catholic Charities and other humanitarian organizations, many migrant families and individuals would be on the streets of the nation’s communities. These communities are better equipped to handle large numbers of migrants precisely because of our humanitarian services.” It is beneficial to the city of El Paso that asylum-seekers and migrants receive assistance. Without this guidance, many of these people would be thrown helpless onto the streets of a foreign country, which could increase crime and threaten the communities.

I believe that Annunciation House is well within its First Amendment right to the free exercise to assist immigrants crossing the border. It not only is their First Amendment right to do so, but it also provides a public service to the broader border area. Paxton seems to be attacking this organization for his own political gain. It is unclear how Annunciation House could be acting illegally, as there has been no evidence indicating so. Forbidding Annunciation House from operating would violate the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment by forbidding Catholics from abiding by their duty to, “help thy neighbor.”

Sources,

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2024/02/29/migrants-catholic-charities-usa-immigrants-asylum-texas-paxton-border

https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/

https://annunciationhouse.org/press-release/

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2024/02/29/migrants-catholic-charities-usa-immigrants-asylum-texas-paxton-border 

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-sues-end-ngos-operations-texas-after-discovering-potential-efforts

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2024/02/texas-ag-seeks-to-liquidate-catholic.html

When does Private Housing become the Concern of the State?

In 2017 Rabbi Levi Gerlitzky and his wife, Fraida, moved to Hawaii to spread Chabad, a movement within the Orthodox Jewish faith. Being as the area largely underserved the needs of the Jewish community, Rabbi Gerlitzky's intent was to increase the resources available to his followers on the Big Island, particularly by founding the Chabad Jewish Center of the Big Island. While the center serves as a meaningful venue where followers can gather and pray, it's use is limited, as the location is inaccessible to a number of the Jewish Orthodox community's followers on the Sabbath, when according to Jewish law, the use of automobiles is prohibited. Additionally, as part of the Chabad faith, "Rabbis often own houses in which they live and invite Jewish community members to properly engage in Jewish traditions in conformity with Jewish law". As such, Rabbi Levi Gerlitzky generously opened his home to followers of the Jewish faith, so that community members could have access to a kosher kitchen and sacred prayer space. During these events, between fifteen and twenty individuals would attend the home of Rabbi Gerlitzky, yet the guests were careful to be quiet upon entry and exit of the Gerlitzky residence. 

Between 2017 and early 2023, Jewish community members on the Big Island would frequent Rabbi  Gerlitzky's home, without objection from the state. However, in February of 2023 Zendo Kern of the Planning Department for Hawaii's Big Island contacted Rabbi Gerlitzky, serving him with a cease and desist from holding religious events inside his private residence. 

According to the Planning Department, Rabbi Gerlitzky is in violation of Hawaii's zoning laws, as his operation of a worship space within his single-family home is not allowed without a registered permit. According to section 25-2-61 of Hawaii's zoning code, "Churches, temples and synagogues, including meeting facilities for churches, temples, synagogues and other such institutions" are allowed in residential zones, "provided that a minimum building site area of ten thousand square feet is required". Being as the Gerlitzky residence is on less than an acre, the residence does not meet the size requirements necessary to obtain a permit. Non-secular meeting facilities, on the other hand, are not required to submit a permit to Hawaii's housing department under section 25-5-3 and are rather permitted to operate without question. As such, the Gerlitzky family argues that Hawaii's laws are not neutral, as they place additional burden on religious organizations. 

On Feburary 13, 2024 Rabbi Gerlitzky contacted the First Liberty Institute with the intent to sue the Big Island's Planning Department on the Grounds of a free exercise breach. Rabbi Gerlitzky sees the state's preference to secular household operations as constituting "a facial violation of the First Amendment’s free-exercise clause". Rabbi Gerlitzky's attorney expanded upon this concern, stating that "Rabbi Gerlitzky has a constitutional right to engage in religious activities in his home...". His attorney furthers this by arguing that “By levying fines on religious gatherings while allowing similar secular in-home gatherings like Super Bowl parties and book clubs to continue without penalty, the County violates both the U.S. Constitution and federal law.”

As such, the following question must be raised: Did the Hawaii Planning Department violate Rabbi Gerlitzky's free exercise and First Amendment rights by forcing him to cease his household religious practices until he could obtain a permit? 

As the Lemon test dictates, any instance that excessively entangles the government and religious interests is impermissible, and the actions within a private household are arguably not worthy of government surveillance. Furthermore, there are a number of cases that prove relevant in evaluating if the state of Hawaii is breaching individual's First Amendment privileges. The case of Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah saw an Afro-Carribean faith group sue the city of Hialeah, Florida for adopting an ordinance that prohibited animal sacrifices, despite the group sacrificing animals in their religious practices. In an unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, arguing that the law was not neutral, and there was no compelling state interest in the prohibition of animal sacrifices for religious reasons. This case is relevant because the Supreme Court acknowledged that a city ordinance was not neutral in its intent to restrict sacrifices to oust a religious group. Furthermore, the case of Ritesh Tandon v. Gavin Newsom, Govenor of California, decided in 2021, saw the Supreme Court rule that the state of California could not restrict religious gatherings in households as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. These cases highlight that the court is keenly aware of the dangers of infringing upon people's religious practices as it relates to the household, an inherently private space. 

In analyzing precedent and the facts of Rabbi Gerlitzky's predicament, I believe Hawaii's zoning laws to be facially neutral but exclusionary in practice. Hawaii's permit requirement for religious organizations to form in residential zones is unjust, particularly considering the square-footage requirements. Additionally, the Big Island permits gatherings of non-secular purposes to occur without a permit. Therefore, by enabling non-secular events to occur with ease, and imposing a burden on religious groups, Rabbi Gerlitzky's free exercise rights are being infringed upon. Additionally, due to the religious restrictions associated with being an Orthodox Jew, particularly on the Sabbath, prohibiting the Gerlitzky household from hosting religious events poses a significant burden on the Jewish community. As such, I believe that the courts should require Hawaii to change their zoning policies to foster a sense of equality between secular and non-secular groups. 

Sources:

https://firstliberty.org/cases/rabbi-levi-gerlitzky/ 

https://firstliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Gerlitzky_Complaint_Redacted.pdf

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-948

https://www.hawaiicounty.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/302520/638270170859870000 

https://www.christianpost.com/news/rabbi-sues-county-for-denying-him-permit-to-host-services-at-home.html