Does Mandating a More Secular Education Curriculum Infringe upon the Free Exercise Clause?

In 2019, the Central United Talmudical Academy, a Kindergarten through 12th grade Hasidic private school in New York City agreed to give their students a standardized government test to see if the students are meeting the minimum education requirements set forth by NY state law. In return for giving the exam, the school was granted government funds. All of the students that took the exam failed. This outcome wasn’t surprising as the state has known about the secular education gap within the private Hasidic school community for the past few years. Prior to the pandemic, an investigation was started to see what could be done to correct the lack of a secular education within these schools but the investigation was put on pause as Covid worsened. It is important to note that while, “other schools might be struggling because of underfunding or mismanagement, [the private Hasidic] schools are different. They are failing by design” (Shapiro, Rosenthal). Within most of the private Hasidic schools, time spent learning topics like: Science, Math, English or History is seen as a waste of time. These schools instead prioritize learning about Jewish laws, traditions, prayers and duties within the community. The expectation is for these children to remain a part of the Hasidic Jewish community once they are adults. Therefore they believe their education should revolve around what they deem necessary skills to have in order to succeed within their community. As of Sept. 19th, the New York Education Policy Committee, “proposed amendments to New York State’s “substantial equivalency” regulations meant to clarify how the state determines that private schools offer instruction that is similar to that offered in public schools” it was further stated that “Monday’s vote only solidified rules on the methods the state will use to determine equivalency, not the actual curriculum schools need to follow” (Gergely). 

Here is where the Constitutional Question arises: If the State of New York begins monitoring private Hasidic schools curriculums in order to ensure there is an equivalent secular curriculum being taught across the board between private and public schools, so that all students meet minimum state standards, would such a process of monitoring and mandating more secular education violate the free exercise rights of the Hasidic schools and families?

Most individuals within the Hasidic community would say yes; Monitoring and mandating a more secular education system within their private school system infringes upon their free exercise clause. The Hasidic community has, “since arriving in Brooklyn in the 1940s, … relied on religious schools to propel the community’s growth and maintain its continuity” (Shapiro, Rosenthal). The community is well aware of the poor test results from the standardized tests but in their eyes, “their schools are succeeding — just not according to the standards set by the outside world” (Shapiro, Rosenthal). The children of this community are being educated on the ways that they will succeed within their own community, which requires a different skill set than what is being offered in public schools.

The Wisconsin v Yoder case, may be used as a precedent in this case where the majority opinion found the Yoder children were allowed to be exempt from the minimum state educational requirement because the information the children would be learning in secular education wouldn’t help them in the lifestyle they would be living. Furthermore, a concern brought to light in the Wisconsin case was that students not being given a higher secular education wouldn’t be successful in the modern world, if they chose to leave the Amish community. However the courts dismissed the argument stating there was no evidence of that. Many of the parents that belong to the Hasidic community plan for their children to remain within the Hasidic community as they’re children enter into their adulthoods, therefore the parents have the sincere belief that the education being given to their child currently is the one that will be most beneficial to them in the long run. Additionally, if these children are forced into a more secular education system by the government, and stop receiving the strictly religious education that is accepted among their community, a ‘substantial burden’ may be placed upon them because “their leaders, the grand rabbis, wield significant power, and breaking the rules they set can carry serious consequences” one consequence may even be ‘shunning’ individuals from the entire community (Shapiro, Rosenthal).

I will make the counter argument, stating the state is remaining neutral by monitoring the education given within these schools and that the regulation, creating an equivalent curriculum for all schools, does not violate the free exercise clause. The government has a compelling state interest in ensuring all children are receiving an education where if they one day decide to leave whichever community they are currently a part of, they have the knowledge and skills necessary to leave said community and be successful. Furthermore by providing the children of this community with a more secular education, the effect on the children would be highly beneficial. As seen in the New York Times article, a man who grew up going to a private Hasidic school and has since left the Hasidic Jewish community, stated “It’s crazy that I’m 20 years old, I don’t know any higher order math, and never learned any science” (Shapiro, Rosenthal). It is likely that children who do choose to leave will be shunned from the only world they know about, with no tools or basic knowledge of the modern world to help themselves, they will likely struggle. If these children are given a more well rounded secular education base, the government isn’t infringing upon their freedom to continue practicing and studying their religion, the government is making it so that if the children do choose to leave their transition into the modern world will be less turbulent. 

Sources: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/11/nyregion/hasidic-yeshivas-schools-new-york.html

https://www.jta.org/2022/09/12/ny/new-york-finalizes-rules-requiring-private-schools-including-yeshivas-to-prove-they-meet-standards

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-110

 

Should Children have to choose between their Sports and their Faith?

        Oakwood Adventist Academy is a Seventh-day Adventist private school in Hunstville, Alabama. The Seventh-day Adventist Church follows a form of Protestant Christianity that believes the 7th day of the week is a day of rest and observance. They believe the 7th day of the week falls on Saturday on the modern calendar. Their Sabbath lasts from Friday at nightfall to Saturday and nightfall. Parochial schools have a high emphasis on their sports teams. The Oakwood Adventist Academy basketball team enjoyed an outstanding season and made it to the playoffs. The problem was their game was scheduled to be at 4:30 pm on Saturday, which conflicted with the time of the players' Sabbath. During the Sabbath, one may not participate in any work or schooling; basketball falls under that category. The Sabbath is one's time to focus on their prayer and connection with God.

         The school made efforts to switch the time of the game to a time that did not interfere with their time of rest so that their players would get a chance to play. They requested to switch the game to at 7:30, only 3 hours after their original game was supposed to be played. The time switch was approved by all schools involved but was rejected by Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA), forcing the team to forfeit the game. The Oakwood is a Seventh-day Adventist school that filed suit claiming the action of forcing their players to play during their Sabbath was a direct burden on their players. They claimed it violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. This case is currently being heard by U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

        The main question here is whether the Alabama High School Atheltic Association is not letting the Oakwood Adventist Academy Basketball team change the time of their playoff game and discriminating against the players' religious beliefs, putting a direct burden on them. The Oakwood Adventist Academy believes it does and has requested in the suit that the AHSAA provide religious accommodations for their players and other religious academies going forward. The Academy officials also stated that this was not just for themselves; it was for other groups, such as the Orthodox Jews, who believe the Sabbath lands on Friday night through Saturday night. The NCAA, an organization, respected worldwide for how they govern Collegiate Student-Athletes, already has accommodations such as these in place so that no one will ever have to choose between their faith and playing their sport. 

        A case very similar to this is Nakashima v. Oregon State Board of Education. The Oregon School Activities Association (OSAA) sets the schedules for private and public school teams. The OSAA did not schedule games on Sundays. The Portland Adventist Academy, similar to Oakwood Adventist Academy, follows the teachings of The Seventh-Day Adventist Church. The Portland Adventist Academy requests accommodations that they would not have to play on Saturdays, and up to this point, the OSAA respected that request. The OSAA had received complaints from other institutions involved in the tournament and had informed the Portland Adventist school they could no longer grant their accommodation as previously stated. The OSAA appealed this decision and brought the case to the Oregon Supreme court. The Oregon Court of Appeals found that the OSAA did discriminate against the students by not allowing their accommodations. The OSAA argument was that allowing this accommodation would be giving The Portland Adventist Academy special treatment violating the U.S. Constitution and the Oregon Constitution. The court agreed with the finding of the Oregon Court of Appeals that granting this accommodation did not violate the U.S. Constitution or the Oregon Constitution. The Supreme Court also found the OSAA violated the rights of the students as it discriminated against their religion.

        The Nakashima v. Oregon State Board of Education decision will help the Oakwood Adventist Academy in their case of Oakwood Adventist Academy vs. Alabama High School Athletic Association case. Although the cases themselves have differences, the main principles are the same. By the AHSAA not granting the school and its students accommodation to not have to play during their time of Sabbath, the AHSAA discriminates directly against the student's religion. This is a direct violation of the Student-Athlete's First Amendment rights of freedom of religion. The Oakwood Adventist case is not only fighting for their religious freedom but all groups with religious beliefs that could interfere with the ability to participate in sports. The decision of this case will have future implications as if they are allowed religious accommodations, other religions also must be granted the same accommodations for their beliefs.  This is a significant issue because these student-athletes chose to attend this private school to practice their religious beliefs. Any Student-Athlete must have equal opportunity to participate in athletic events regardless of their beliefs. Not granting these students the accommodations they need to participate in their specific sport makes it so that there is not equal opportunity for athletes to participate, violating the athlete's rights as Americans.

Sources: 

https://www.becketlaw.org/case/oakwood-adventist-academy-v-alabama-high-school-athletic-association/

 

https://www.nadadventist.org/news/faith-and-basketball-high-school-team-fights-right-compete-and-keep-their-sabbath

 

https://www.aclu-or.org/en/cases/nakashima-v-board-education

 

https://www.wbrc.com/2022/05/04/oakwood-adventist-academy-sues-ahsaa-claims-religious-discrimination/

 

https://classroomlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Case-Study-Nakashima-v-Oregon-State-Bd-of-Ed.pdf

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

The Supreme Court is set to hear a lawsuit regarding an interesting combination of both the free speech and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. The case surrounds Lorie, the owner of 303 Creative LLC. This company is focused around design of all kinds, and is based in Lorie’s passion for the arts. Meaning that Lorie works to design websites, graphics, and other sorts of creative designs. As expressed in an article by the Alliance Defending Freedom, Lorie was hoping to expand her business into creating wedding websites, but, because of religious convictions, she did not want to cater to LGBTQ+ couples, citing that her beliefs understand marriage as “between a man and a woman”. She would like this message posted on her website and to not cater to same-sex couples, but the current Colorado laws will not allow this. Lorie is a God-fearing woman based in Colorado, and the Colorado AntiDiscrimination Act (“CADA”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for any open businesses. The main question being brought from this case is: does the Colorado’s AntiDiscrimination Act violate Lorie’s right to freedom of speech and free exercise by prohibiting her from posting a message on her website sharing that she will not cater to same-sex couples due to her religious convictions as well as working with same-sex couples on this wedding website expansion?

    The courts have established this as a free speech issue, but looking at the huge part that religion plays in this, I am going to present it from a free exercise standpoint. Looking at a past case that is relevant, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is an important precedent to keep in mind. In 2018, this ruling set a tone for how LGBTQ+ religious opinions will be decided moving forward. This case is based around how a cakemaker was approached by a gay couple who wanted to have their wedding cake made at his shop. Same-sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado at the time and the owner of the shop was Christian and deeply opposed to same-sex marriage. He argued that he should not be forced to put something on a cake he did not agree with, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of him due to the fact that he was exercising his religious freedom and additionally his freedom of speech. 

    In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the lower courts ruled in favor of CADA. Multitudes of discrimination are not allowed under this law (specifically discrimination in relation to sexual orientation) and the lower courts ruled in favor of that finding. The lower court in Lorie’s case ruled that CADA’s Accommodation Clause, which reads that any public accommodation cannot refuse to serve a group because of sexual orientation, narrowly survived the strict scrutiny test. Strict scrutiny means that the Judicial Review assumes a policy to not be well-founded unless a compelling interest is presented. If this interest is present, the policy can be justified. The Tenth Circuit Court ruled that Colorado has a compelling state interest in ensuring equivalent access of public goods or services to all the citizens of Colorado. The Supreme Court overturning this decision sets a precedent which will most likely be used for 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. The Supreme Court ruled that although same-sex couples are granted civil rights and liberties, free exercise and free speech are Constitutionally protected rights and these two things need to both exist under the Court’s rulings and the Constitution. All of these things are protected expressions, which I believe can get a little slippery if they are all to be fully protected. This means that a private business can not serve LGBTQ+ couples due to religious beliefs, even though same-sex couples also have civil liberties and protections as guarded under the Constitution. This is important in my opinion because it establishes that freedom of religious exercise is more important of an interest to the Supreme Court than preventing discrimination of same-sex couples and giving them access to the same goods and services non-LGBTQ+ couples have access to.

    Although I do not agree with the morality of denying same-sex couples the right to consume products just as any other American, I do believe that under the guise of the Constitution, 303 Creative LLC and Lorie should be able to not cater to same-sex couples when making marriage websites. Lorie does not oppose working for LGBTQ+ individuals by themselves, but she does believe that marriage is a sacred right under God for a man and a woman, so she is not able to make marriage websites for same-sex individuals for this reason. Under the Constitution, Lorie should be able to post a message about her beliefs on this specific topic, especially since she has her religious beliefs about God posted throughout her website already. Lorie’s right to free speech is being silenced through CADA and, additionally, through this silencing of free speech and free expression, Lorie will be forced to serve same-sex couples, which violates her religious beliefs. For these reasons, I oppose the lower court's decision to uphold CADA. 

Sources:

https://adfmedia.org/case/303-creative-v-elenis 

https://denverlaborlaw.com/colorado-employment-law/colorado-revised-statutes-crs-24-34-401/#:~:text=401%20et%20seq.-,C.R.S.,Colorado%20employment%20lawyers%20right%20away. 

https://303creative.com/about/ 

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/303-creative-llc-v-elenis/ 

https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/supreme-court-report-303-creative-llc-v-elenis-21-476/ 

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1596/masterpiece-cakeshop-v-colorado-civil-rights-commission 

https://mslegal.org/cases/303-creative-v-aubrey-elenis-et-al/

Does Firing a Volunteer Chaplain Based on His Personal Religious Beliefs Posted on a Blog Violate his First Amendment right?

Dr. Andrew Fox, an ordained minister, was a volunteer chaplain for the Austin, Texas Fire Department. He was not paid for his role in the department. He started Austin’s fire chaplaincy program and served as the city’s lead chaplain for eight years. Within those eight years there were never any discriminatory complaints against him and he assisted all fireman and their families for all desired spiritual and religious needs. Fox decided to post on his personal blog, his personal religious belief that there are biological differences between men and women and men should not be able to compete on women’s sports teams. City officials forced Fox to delete the post and apologize for the post. When he refused to follow suit, the officials then proceeded to fire him. 

This case introduces the question of whether or not Dr. Andrew Fox’s First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion was violated by the city officials due to the demand for him to take down a post he wrote on his personal blog and firing him. This brings to light the Constitutional issue of a chaplains ability to express his own religious beliefs on his own personal blog although he voluntarily works for the state. Dr. Andrew Fox was not employed or paid under the state and therefore was given no direct funds for his religious role in a state department. Therefore, there was no direct funding of the state that supported this personal religious belief. The state has no compelling interest in interfering with Fox’s personal blog, especially since he is not employed by the state. As well, he is performing a volunteer position, which therefore, institutes that not all firemen and their families participate in his support. Since the fire department is state held, the firemen and families are free to participate in their own outside religious organizations and are not pressured to use Andrew Fox’s chaplain services. It is also important to note that Andrew Fox’s blog was a personal one and was not related to his volunteer chaplaincy program. Under the First Amendment of Freedom of Religion Andrew Fox is allowed to express his own personal beliefs as there is a separation of church and state. By having his blog not be in relation to his volunteer program for the state, his forced resignation was unconstitutional and violated his rights. The city officials are not eligible, under Constitutional Law, to discriminate against Andrew Fox just because their religious beliefs do not coincide. 

The case contradicts the case  Cochran v. City of Atlanta where the court deemed it was unconstitutional to fire the Fire Chief because of his Christian religious beliefs he wrote in a book. This is important to note because a Fire Chief is employed under the state and the state has compelling interest to separate religion from state. However, Fox is not employed by the state and has no grounds for compelling state interest. The city officials were not neutral in their grounds for termination because if Fox blogged about a supporting view of the officials he would no longer be under scrutiny. There is also no direct burden upon the fireman for the personal blog post Fox posted and therefore should not be scrutinized. Similarly, to the Supreme Court Case Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the school to fire the football coach on the basis of his religious belief to pray during a public football game. The city officials are violating Andrew Fox’s First Amendment right to Freedom to express his own religious beliefs. In both precedents the courts decided it was unconstitutional to suppress one's religious belief both on and off state property when there is no direct coercion or direct harm to the public. 

The Andrew Fox situation implicates a slippery slope of allowing city officials to “pick and choose” which beliefs they agree with and those they do not to be seen by the public. As well, it is unconstitutional because Fox broke no Establishment Clause because he was not using his volunteer state position to make a religious belief claim. If the court decided that this case was constitutional, in that the state was allowed to dictate what religious beliefs are socially accepted, will lead to what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison feared that allowing civil magistrates, city officials, to dictate was is unconstitutional and constitutional leads to a slippery slope of the state interfering with one’s natural right to religious freedom. There are severe implications for allowing city officials the power to repress minority opinions and goes against what the founding fathers created within the First Amendment. 

To reiterate, it is unconstitutional and violates Fox’s First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion, to terminate his volunteer program based on a minority opinion statement he commented on his personal blog. He was not employed by the state and should be able to express his personal beliefs. There were no cases of coercion upon the fireman and families to accept Fox’s beliefs, and there are no grounds for compelling state interest in the matter. 

 https://www.au.org/the-latest/articles/austin-chaplain-case/

https://adflegal.org/press-release/fire-chaplain-sues-city-austin-firing-him-sharing-religious-view-personal-blog

https://adfmedia.org/case/cochran-v-city-atlanta

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/former-chaplain-for-austin-fire-sues-city-over-blog-post-about-transgender-athletes/

The Sisters of Life Fight for Their Rights

The Sisters of Life is a Catholic religious organization built to help individuals find their worth through God. Not only this, but the Sisters of Life are known for helping with poverty, chastity, obedience, and maintaining the sacredness of human life by providing free aid to pregnant women in need. New York, recently, passed a law, A11150, that forces pregnancy centers to go through investigations but, more importantly, to give their disclosure agreements to the government that reveals personal information about the ins and outs of their program. Specifically, the government is requiring information about agencies’ training, supporters, and even about individual women who seek their help. New York argues that this statute is very necessary due to the low costs of all care provided by pregnancy centers and how these minimal costs can lead to a deceptive nature of practice and care given to patients. The Sisters of Life went to the Commissioner of Health to ensure that the government is not permitted to use this law to interrupt their practices or force them to reveal their internal religious documents, but this act allows the Commissioner to request any information they deem necessary to know. The basis of The Sister of Life is built on relationships full of trust and confidence between the agents and their patients. Many come to the Sisters when they are in need of saving. The Sisters of Life agency filed a federal lawsuit against Mary T. Basset, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, demanding the protection of their private religious documents from being able to be viewed by the public. 

This is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the government is specifically targeting one organization and not allowing them the equal freedoms given to other similar organizations. The Sisters of Life realized this infringement and asked the Commissioner to confirm in writing that the Department will try not to heavily enforce this statute upon them, but she did not respond. The Sisters began to fear government interference in their organization because of they did not willfully participate in the bill, then penalties would be given. 

I believe that forcing The Sisters of Life to reveal private information of individuals is an infringement of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because this organization has not violated any previous limitations and guidelines provided to them by the state of New York. Women can speak freely under God without the fear of governmental interference. With the state of New York becoming involved, Jefferson’s and Madison’s past beliefs of the separation of the church and state are becoming violated. The state is taking power from churches by forcing them to release private information even when they have not violated any laws. This case is similar to the 2015 case Reed v. Town of Gilbert  because both of these cases focus on targeting particular views and preventing the First Amendment from protecting specific groups. The Establishment Clause is infringed upon because the government is prohibiting a religious group to practice what they deem necessary without government interference. This issue is very important to our world today because there is a strong debate over abortion among citizens and the government is trying to remain neutral. The government trying to interfere with a religious group that helps women with abortions is not only an infringement on religious freedoms, but also intervening on private versus public institutions, the ability to have doctor-patient, priest-practicer confidentiality, and women's rights. 

Do you believe that this government interference to gain private knowledge is necessary to keep cheap-costing institutions in check? How can the government ensure that cheap-costing programs are giving out sufficient care without interfering with peoples’ personal rights?

New Hope Family Services v. Poole

        Located in Syracuse, New York, New Hope Family Services operates a Christian-based adoption and temporary-foster-placement agency and pregnancy resource center. Informed by its deeply-held religious beliefs, New Hope Family Services doesn’t recommend adoptions to any unmarried or same-sex couples due to their biblical philosophy that marriage must remain between a man and a woman. Furthermore, New Hope believes that children’s placement within families beyond the scope of married, heterosexual couples is not considered to be in the ‘best interest’ of the child. Throughout its years of operation, New Hope has been commended for the quality of its adoption services, however, the New York State’s Office of Children and Family Services recently described New Hope’s policy, that restricted children’s placement within homes of a married mother and father, to be “discriminatory and impermissible”. As an authorized agency, New Hope is subjected to the inspection and supervision of the OCFS with regards to any action related to the welfare of children. In 2010, the state of New York amended its Domestic Relations Law, expanding the right to adopt towards same-sex and unmarried couples in addition to heterosexual, married couples. However, this revision didn’t alter any of the prior standards regarding agencies’ ability to approve adoptions by any persons. In 2013, OCFS furthered prohibited “discrimination and harassment against applicants for adoption services on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, religion, or disability”, urging agencies to take reasonable steps to avoid incidents of discrimination. 

When unmarried or same-sex couples contact New Hope, the agency notifies the couple that they are unable to provide them with adoption services and offers to provide these clients with referrals to other adoption agencies. However, in 2018, OCFS found this recusal and referral practice to be in violation of their 2013 anti-discrimination policy. As a result, the OCFS required that New Hope either revise its policy or terminate its adoption program. Refusing to comply, New Hope motioned for a preliminary injunction, which was initially denied and then vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2^nd Circuit. In assessing the background of this case, the primary constitutional question at hand lies in whether New York State’s Office of Children and Family Services’ mandate, detailing New Hope Family Services’ obligation to either terminate their operations or revise their policy, breaches New Hope’s right to Free Exercise and Free Speech, as outlined in the First Amendment?

In deciding whether or not OCFS’s mandate violates New Hope’s right to the Free Exercise clause, I believe it is important to consider the neutrality of the anti-discrimination policy with which New Hope’s violation occurs. According to the case Employment Division v. Smith, a related precedent was established regarding the ability of ‘neutral, generally applicable laws’ to ‘incidentally burden religion’, arguing that one’s religion doesn’t excuse an individual from complying with an otherwise valid law. However, in the case of New Hope Family Services v. Poole, I argue that there seems to be sufficient reason to question the neutrality and general applicability of the anti-discrimination policy enforced by the OCFS. As established in Lukumi v. Hialeah, the Supreme Court has established that a law is not considered neutral if it intends “ to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation”. In assessing the verbiage of the OCFS’s anti-discrimination policy, I believe the violation is ‘facially neutral’ in its attempt to prevent any possible incident of discrimination among the pool of potential, adoptive parent applicants. However, in practice, it can be argued that it infringes on the beliefs of certain religious sects that harbor strong views regarding the sanctity of marriage. With regards to New Hope Family Services, it is clear that the Christian faith permeates every activity and the overall mission of the organization, including their views regarding the ideal family structure in upbringing one’s children. However, by requiring a revision of the recusal and referral policy, the state would thereby require New Hope Family Services to act in a way that is inconsistent with their religious beliefs, impinging on their rights to freely exercise their religion. Furthermore, the agency doesn’t actively deny unmarried or same-sex applicants as adoptive candidates, but rather recuses from reviewing or considering their applications. Moreover, unmarried or same-sex applicants are welcome to use the services of other public, adoption agencies that don’t share in these beliefs, which is often part of a recommendation process suggested by New Hope. 

With regards to the anti-discrimination policy’s general applicability, OCFS told New Hope that “some Christian ministries have decided to compromise and stay open”, implying that OCFS potentially provided concessions in their enforcement of the policy through the mandate for other religious adoption agencies. Furthermore, OCFS made “exemptions for secular nonreligious purposes” within the anti-discrimination policy itself in allowing providers to consider protected characteristics within their placement procedure. In a typical adoption process, there is a complex consideration of multiple factors regarding the suitability of potential adoptive parents, including the adoptive parent’s capacity to give and receive affection, flexibility, and ability to change, etc. Furthermore, in choosing a child’s placement, agencies are given considerable discretion and are often inclined to consider the cultural, ethnic, or racial background of the child and the capacity of the adoptive parent to meet the needs of the child with such a background, allowing for refusals of potential parents on these grounds. As a result, it could be argued that religious considerations of marital status and sexual orientation should be included in these protected characteristics, in ensuring the ‘best fit’ or ‘most suitable’ family situation for the child. In applying related precedent, as established in Employment Division v. Smith, I think there is sufficient reason to question the general applicability and neutrality of the policy due to the aforementioned reasons.

 In a similar case, the City of Philadelphia barred Catholic Social Services from conducting adoption placements due to their strict policy against providing adoption licensing to same-sex couples. In deciding Futon v. City of Philadelphia, the Justices unanimously agreed that prohibiting CSS from providing adoption services or forcing them to certify same-sex licensing violated their First Amendment right to Free Exercise. In accordance with the precedent established in Employment Division v. Smith, it was decided that the discriminatory policy was neither neutral nor generally applicable, as it allowed for exemptions to the requirement based on the discretion of the Commissioner. As a result, the anti-discrimination policy was subjected to the ‘strict scrutiny’ test, where the government was required to demonstrate that the given statue was necessary in achieving a compelling government interest. With regards to the OCFS, two compelling state interests were identified in the construction of the anti-discrimination policy, including to avoid discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation, and to promote the pool of potential adoptive families. With regards to New Hope Family Services, I believe there is a ‘greater’ compelling state interest in ensuring children are placed in suitable family situations over the state’s concerns over merely increasing the applicant pool. In over 50 years of operation, New Hope has provided over 1,000 children with adoptive families that have been consistently considered in ‘the best interest of the child’, receiving no complaints regarding the adoption procedure until OCFS conducted a comprehensive review of New Hope. Furthermore, there is a clear need for adoption providers within the state of New York. Specifically, in the year 2017, there was approximately 27,000 children placed in foster care, with 4,400 waiting adoption.

Despite my accordance with the outcome of this case, I do recognize the potential implications regarding where judges should ‘draw the line’ between equality and liberty. As a result, important questions arise regarding, When does one’s religious rights allow an individual to ‘discriminate’ against or ‘violate’ another’s rights to equality? Alternatively, what circumstances require that the protection of certain minority groups against discrimination supersede the exercise of one’s religious beliefs?

According to the federal district court, it was decided that the New York State Office of Children and Family Services singled out the faith-based adoption provider in contending that their recusal and referral policy, that was motivated by their religious beliefs, was in violation of their 2013 anti-discrimination law. By enforcing the state law, the court found that “it would compel New Hope to process applicants from, or place children for adoptions with, same-sex or unmarried cohabitating couples insofar as it would prevent New Hope from referring such couples to other agencies.” On September 7^th, the federal district court denied the OCFS’s motion for summary judgement after the preliminary injunction was issued in October 2020 following the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2^nd Circuit. 

 

Sources:

https://adfmedia.org/case/new-hope-family-services-v-poole

http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2022/09/new-york-violates-speech-rights-of.html

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/not-a-masterpiece/

https://adflegal.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/New%20Hope%20Family%20Services%20v.%20Poole%20-%202nd%20Circuit%20opinion.pdf

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-123

Do Religious Universities Have Free Exercise Rights Under the First Amendment?

     In June, Yeshiva University in Manhattan was involved in a court case involving the State Supreme Court that ruled that the University must recognize the LGBTQ+ student club. The club being recognized was a large celebration for the LGBTQ+ students. However several of the faculty at the university had strong opinions against the ruling. Administrators argued that the decision from the New York State Supreme Court was a violation of the schools religious freedom. The University then applied for an emergency stay late which was appealed. In recent days, Justice Sonia Sotomayor has said that the University can disregard the ruling that ordered the school to recognize the LGBTQ+ student club. Sotomayor was able to override the decision of the court because she is a Supreme Court Justice. The lower court originally made their decision because they argued that Yeshiva University was not a religious institution, but rather an educational one. Due to this classification Yeshiva University needed to follow the NYC Human Rights law which ultimately protects the civil rights of citizens. Yeshiva University argued that they indeed were a religious institution. The University's president, Rabbi Ari Berman, talks about how he wants to respect all groups, LGBTQ+ students included, however with this being said he wants the, “identity as an institution grounded in Modern Orthodox Judaism to be taken seriously.” The University practices Jewish religion in a variety of different ways. For example, they encourage study in Israel, require Torah readings, and a variety of other religious policies that are used to define their institution as a religious university. The University does have education outside of religion, but the University leads with a faith-based style of learning. An article from the New York Times states, "Yeshiva University says that its mission is to empower students to apply the values of the Torah in the modern world". In addition, the article goes into talking about how Orthodox Jews, in particular, believe the Torah promotes traditional views in terms of gender and sexuality. Therefore the LGBTQ+ club goes against the interpreted language of the Torah. 

    The main issue at stake here is whether the University's First amendment rights are being violated. More specifically the case is connected to the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The University is arguing that their rights are being violated, and that they have a legal obligation to deny recognition of the LGBTQ+ student group. The University is a private institution grounded on Orthodox Jewish Education, and they feel they are being forced to recognize a group not in their religious realm. It is of note that even though the school is private they still get some federal funds from the government. The overarching question is wether New York City's Humans Rights law overrides the free exercise rights of the University. In the end a decision was made that the University has a right to not recognize the LGBTQ+ group and their free exercise rights were maintained. The lead lawyer on the case, Eric Baxter, states, “the school should not have had to turn to the nation’s highest court “to receive such a commonsense ruling in favor of its First Amendment rights.”. 

     Morally, I believe that it is wrong to not recognize a group due to their sexual orientation. However my opinion is not based on morals, but rather constitutional law. One of my main arguments against this case is that the University is private. Yes, they are getting some federal funds but they are their own institution of higher-education separate from the state. If the University was public and they were choosing to not recognize the LGBTQ+ group I would one hundred percent argue it is wrong and that it violates the New York Human Rights Law. However, this is not the case. The University is private, and grounded on religion. The administrators are not even arguing the LGBTQ+ students are not welcomed, but rather they just can not be recognized as a club on campus. The school is grounded on Judaism, and has been able to function because of the strength the religion holds within the institution. Therefore to permit the University from freely practicing their religion is unconstitutional. If the state can limit the schools religious freedom, what else can they limit? This issue is important because it recognizes key analytical categories. One analytical category in question here is the distinction between belief and action. The University made an action but it was in regard to their own beliefs. In this instance I believe the beliefs of Yeshiva University override the action and the decision of Justice Sotomayor is legitimate. The University has a right to free exercise of religion, and the decision to not recognize the LGBTQ+ club is under their First Amendment rights. 

Can Correctional Facilities Deny Inmates the Right to Demonstrate Religious Beliefs?

For 10 years inmate Lester Smith has been fighting for his right to practice his beliefs by growing out his beard. Smith is a practicing Muslim and part of that belief entails growing his beard longer then the correctional facilities regulated half an inch length. He pleaded that he should be allowed to grow his beard longer due to religious practices but the Georgia Department of Corrections denied him that right. His request was denied despite the fact that 38 out of the 50 states Bureau of Prisons allow for untrimmed breads and the precedent of Holt v. Hobbs allows for religious practices within prisons. 

Holt v. Hobbs was decided in 2011 after Abdul Muhammad, a prisoner in Arkansas, sued in for his right to wear a beard in accordance with his Muslim beliefs. Muhammad won his case unanimously and the right to demonstrate and practice religion within prisons was granted. Prior to this case practicing Jews weren’t allowed to wear yarmulkes, Catholics couldn’t practice confession and other sacraments. Prisons also denied religious diets like Kosher and they also confiscated religious texts like the Bible and the Koran as well as took away religious objects like rosaries, yarmulkes, and other things of that nature. Previously, prisons only observed certain holidays allowing for religious practices on those days, but didn’t respect all religious holidays. The freedom of religion within American prisons was virtually revoked and violated. There were even some instances of correctional facilities bugging Catholic confessionals. After Holt v. Hobbs, this all changed, it was seen as unconstitutional and a human rights violation to deny religious freedoms in prison. While a lot of rights granted to Americans are taken away from prisoners, the Supreme Court voted that the freedom of religion shouldn't be taken away. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act or RLUIPA, was instituted. This law prevents the unnecessary restrictions on freedom of religion. The Constitution prevents the inhumane treatment of prisoners and prevents them from cruel and unusual punishment, and RLUIPA extends that to include the unnecessary restrictions on religion. 

With RLUIPA and Holt v. Hobbs in mind, Smith brought his case to the Eleventh Circuit where they maintained the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDOC) rule and denied Lester Smith the right to grow his beard due to religious practices. The GDOC argued that because the prison is more risk- averse than the other 38 prisons, Smith growing out his beard created risk. Essentially allowing the GDOC to determine what is considered a religious exemption and what is not. The Eleventh Circuit also cited Knight v. Thompson, a case where a Native American man sued on the grounds of not being able to wear his hair in accordance with his religious beliefs while in a Alabama prison. This Circuit Court decided that the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) was within its limits to set a policy that no religious exceptions should be allowed in prison for safety reasons. This case also is widely known as a gross misinterpretation of RLUIPA, as the law stands to heavily favor religious freedom. The decisions of the Eleventh Circuit overlooked crucial evidence regarding the ADOC lack of investigating toward alternative options and even acknowledged the plaintiffs substantial burden in not abiding by his religious practices, yet chose to favor the ADOC. 

With two contradicting precedent cases, the Eleventh Circuit, in Lester Smith’s case chose to side with Knight v. Thompson, and denied Smith the right to grow out his beard. This case comes down to, does the Georgia Department of Corrections violate the Constitution and First Amendment freedom of exercise clause by preventing a prisoner from demonstrating his religious beliefs by growing out his beard? 

Yes, the GDOC violated the Constitution. First, the Eleventh Circuit is giving the GDOC, a state agency, the ability to determine what is a religious exemption and what is not. The First Amendment prevents the government from favoring or inhibiting the right to religious exercise and allowing a state funded agency to determine what classifies as a religious exemption or not, directly violates that. In addition, the issue of neutrality comes into play. An arbitrary state official gets to decide the classification for what religious exemption is. This allows for bias and other factors to come into play and doesn’t hold the standard of nutraily. In addition to potential bias by the GDOC, the same standard of religious expression is not being held across the board. If Catholics are allowed to pray and Jewish people are allowed to practice Kosher eating then how is growing a beard any different than demonstrating religious beliefs in those ways? That standard of religious neutrality is not being met. They are asking Mr. Smith to choose between following a rule about beard length or violating his personal religious beliefs. This places a substantial moral burden on Lester Smith. 

While these cases may be dealing with prisoners who are granted a very limited amount of rights due to their incarceration, they also are protected from cruel and unusual punishment and are expected to be treated humanely. The Constitution agrees that unnecessary restrictions on freedom of religion is considered a violation of those human rights. So not only is the rule made by GDOC not religiously neutral, a violation of State interference in religion, placing a substantial burden on the plaintiff, it also is a violation of human rights.  

Is Forcing Physicians to Participate in the End of Life Option Act, a Violation of Their First Amendment Rights?

     The Christian Medical and Dental Association (CMDA) is a group that provides representation for Christian healthcare professionals and students in America. They are claiming in the case Christian Medical & Dental Association v. Bonta, that California's End of Life Option Act is a violation of their First Amendment rights of free speech, free exercise of religion, and their Fourteenth Amendment rights of due process and equal protection. The End of Life Option Act

allows terminally ill adults to request an aid-in-dying drug. In order to obtain this drug the patient must ask for permission to receive the drug two times, 48 hours apart, as well as provide a written request. The physician must make note of the two oral requests and will decide if the patient should receive the drug or not. In January 2022, this act was amended to be involuntary for physicians participation regardless of their ethical or moral standards. Since 90% of the CMDA is against physician assisted suicide due to their religious beliefs, they argue that this act is a violation of their constitutional rights to free exercise of religion. 

    When a patient of a physician who does not want to participate in distributing an aid-in-dying drug requests it, the physician must say that they do not want to participate, and make note of the patient's oral request. This counts as the first oral request of the patient, and their medical records will be promptly given to another participating physician. The CMDA argues that this is forcing them to participate in the act, against their religious beliefs, because they must document the oral request, or they will face consequences such as getting their medical license revoked. Leslee Cochrane, a member of the CMDA, works in a hospice care center that does not practice physician assisted suicide. However, patients often say they would like to receive an aid-in-dying drug, so Cochrane must submit this request and refer them to another physician. This takes a toll on Cochrane’s everyday life and puts her in a moral dilemma.

    The question at stake here is;  Is it unconstitutional to force doctors to request aid-in-dying drugs for patients even if it is against their religious
beliefs? In July 2022, the court ruled that this does not violate the physician's right to free exercise. In the End of Life Option Act, the language that states the rules of physician participation in the act is neutral, thus religion is not directly referred to. When discussing the guidelines for participating and non participating physicians, the language is exactly the same. It is stated that there are no consequences for participating in or opting out of participation in the act, as long as the correct documentation is provided. Since the act is deemed as neutral and generally applicable, strict scrutiny does not apply in this case either. The court ruled that this is not a compelling state interest and does not target religion. Although unfortunately it violates the CMDA’s religious beliefs, the act does not go against religion in general, thus does not violate their right to free exercise. The court however did rule that this is a violation of the CMDA’s free speech. There is a penalty for not submitting the request of the patient for the aid-in-dying drug, so the right to free speech was deemed as violated and physicians are no longer forced to submit this request.

    I agree with the court and I think that forcing physicians to participate in the End of Life Option Act is not a violation of free exercise. Although it is unfortunate that this act goes against their religious beliefs, it is a neutral law and religion is not being targeted. I think this issue is important because it is a slippery slope. If religious exemptions are allowed for opting out of physician assisted suicide, what else can exemptions be allowed for? Will physicians start opting out of risky surgeries that can ultimately save the lives of patients? I also think that physicians should have their patients' best interest in mind, and I do not think this is a violation of their right to free exercise. They should not have to administer the drug first hand, but they should at least have to help the patient obtain the drug, regardless of their beliefs. The bioethical principle of beneficence states that a physician is obligated to benefit the patient. Refusing to give a drug to help a terminally ill person who is in extreme pain, is not benefiting the patient, and going against the physician’s obligations. What do you think? Is forcing physicians to record the patients first oral request of aid-in-dying drugs a violation of their right to free exercise?