14 Missouri clergy claim abortion ban is an establishment of religion

    On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center. This decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which protected the right to abortion. In 1986, the Missouri state legislature passed an anti-abortion bill, S.C.H.H.B. 1596, which would go into effect should Roe v. Wade be overturned. In 2022, the law automatically went into effect, banning abortion across the state except in cases of medical emergency. At the time, there was only one abortion clinic in the state that was forced to close its doors. This provision also requires that all Missouri laws be interpreted by reference to it. 14 members of the clergy from diverse faiths challenged this and several other laws surrounding abortion in the case Rev. Blackmon v. Missouri, using the Establishment Clause.

    They challenge the statute on the basis that its purpose is to enshrine a religious belief. The statute codifies that the “life of each human being begins at conception” and requires that the laws of Missouri “shall be interpreted and construed” in a manner that gives all fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses the same “rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons”. The appellants contend that these statements are religious and metaphysical beliefs, not medical ones. Enshrining these beliefs, they argue, gives preference to specific religious beliefs about when life begins, and coerces Missourians to live according to those religious beliefs. One Rabbi, Reverand Blackmon, explained that in the Jewish faith, life begins at the child’s first breath. A Unitarian Universalist minister said the restrictions are at odds with her religious beliefs about consciences. Many say their faith calls them to support abortion access because it is critical to the health, autonomy, and economic security of women. They argue that enacting the law imposed one religious belief on all the others practicing in Missouri, violating the Establishment Clause.

Does the Missouri state law banning abortion by declaring that life begins at conception, and compelling all following legislation to follow this statute, constitute an unconstitutional establishment of religion?

The legislation states that “Almighty God is the author of life” and that “the life of an individual human being begins at conception . . . ”. The statute also defines “unborn children” to include the “offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.” This brings up concerns about neutrality both between religions and between religion and non-religion. Non-religious people in Missouri would disagree with the statement that ‘God is the author of life’. And, the legislation is written from the perspective that an unborn embryo is equivalent to a human life and that killing it would be impermissible under the Constitution. But, making this belief a part of the law is a threat to the beliefs of religious minorities. 14 different faith leaders contend that the other statements are in opposition to their religious beliefs and teachings about when human life begins.

When signing the bill, one Missouri legislator said “As a Catholic, I do believe life begins at conception and that is built into our legislative findings.” Of course, not every legislator may have signed the bill with this same intention. However, its effect dictates a Christian perspective on all Missouri residents, who may have differing views on when life begins. In her concurring opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly, Justice O’Connor proposes an Endorsement Test in favor of the Lemon test to determine if an impermissible establishment of religion is present. She asks if the government action has “the effect of communicating a message of government endorsement or disapproval of religion.” To a reasonable observer, the language used is religious in nature, and only represents one faith’s conception of life, endorsing one faith’s conception of life. I find this an unconstitutional establishment because the effect of this law coerces all to abide by one faith’s religious belief, an impermissible violation of freedom of conscience.

https://www.au.org/how-we-protect-religious-freedom/legal-cases/cases/rev-blackmon-v-missouri/

file:///Users/sarahdowney/Downloads/Religious_Liberty_and_the_American_Supreme_Court_T..._----_(Chapter_35._Lynch_v._Donnelly_465_U.S._668_(1984))%20(1).pdf

Faith and Education: Examining the Implications of Indiana's House Bill 1137

The Governor of Indiana, Eric Holcomb, signed House Bill 1137 into law a little over a month ago. This marks a significant shift in the state's approach to parents' rights regarding their children's religious education. Under previous legislation, Indiana allowed parents to request that their children attend up to two hours per week of released-time religious instruction. However, schools were not obligated to grant these requests. The newly amended law now mandates principals to permit such religious instruction upon parental request. This legislation emphasizes collaboration between principals, parents, and religious schools to find the least disruptive time for this instruction, as outlined in a press release by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). In a statement regarding the bill, it was emphasized, "Parents have the right and responsibility to guide the upbringing and education of their children. And many parents consider religious instruction an important part of their child’s education." The law ensures that public schools will respect parents' opportunities to have their children participate in ‘release time’ programs. This accommodates parents’ desire for their children to receive religious instruction that cannot be offered by public schools.

The issue in this case revolves around the intersection of religious freedom and constitutional law, particularly the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In the context of education, the question arises whether mandating public schools to accommodate religious instruction violates the Establishment Clause by entangling government institutions with religion. Supporters of the legislation argue that it upholds parents' rights to direct the religious upbringing of their children. This is a protection provided by the Free Exercise Clause. They contend that the law ensures equal treatment for religious expression and does not establish a state religion. Also, proponents argue that the collaboration between parents, schools, and religious organizations promotes tolerance and respect for diverse religious beliefs. Opponents  raise concerns about the potential for the law to blur the line between church and state. Mandating public schools to accommodate religious instruction may be seen as government endorsement of religion, which could alienate students from minority faiths or those with no religious affiliation. Critics argue that public schools should remain neutral on matters of religion to uphold the principle of secularism and avoid privileging one belief system over others.

My analysis of the constitutional issue at hand recognizes the delicate balance between religious freedom and the Establishment Clause. While it is crucial to respect parents' rights to impart religious education to their children, it is equally important to uphold the secular nature of public education and prevent government entanglement with religion. With this being said I do believe this law is in violation of the establishment clause. The first reason is because of the government endorsing religion. Mandating public schools to accommodate religious instruction can be interpreted as government endorsement of religion. By requiring principals to permit students to attend religious instruction during school hours, the state is actively facilitating and promoting religious activities. This entanglement of government and religion may be seen as a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from endorsing or promoting any particular religion. Another reason that plays a part in this case is the potential for Coercion and Peer Pressure. Allowing religious instruction during school hours could create an environment where students feel pressured to participate in religious activities, even if they do not share the same beliefs. Students may face social or peer pressure to attend these sessions. This leads to a situation where religious practices are effectively imposed on them within the school setting. This coercion can be seen as a form of government endorsement of religion. In this instance the state is facilitating an environment where religious activities are given preferential treatment over secular activities. The last reason I believe this law is unconstitutional is that it undermines secularism in public education. Requiring public schools to accommodate religious instruction undermines the secular nature of public education. Public schools are intended to be neutral spaces where students of diverse backgrounds and beliefs can come together for education free from religious influence. By mandating the inclusion of religious instruction during school hours, the state is prioritizing religious education over secular education. This specifically goes against the principle of secularism upheld by the Establishment Clause. 

In summary, House Bill 1137 is unconstitutional in my eyes for its violation of the Establishment Clause. Mandating public schools to accommodate religious instruction risks government endorsement of religion, can be subject to students being coerced, and undermines secular education. Balancing religious freedom with the principles of religious neutrality and the separation of church and state is crucial. As this legislation unfolds, courts must ensure that the rights of all individuals, regardless of their beliefs, are protected within the framework of the Constitution.

Works Cited: 

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2024/03/new-indiana-law-strengthens-parents.html 

https://adfmedia.org/press-release/governor-signs-bill-protect-student-release-time-religious-instruction 

Sweet Cakes by Melissa

     

As shown in other cases there can be conflicts that emerge due to the tensions between the First Amendment Free Exercise clause and anti-discrimination laws. This case involving Aaron and Melissa Klein is another example of the challenges that occur when these two laws intersect. Aaron and Melissa Klein established a family bakery in 2007 called “Sweet Cakes by Melissa” in Gresham, Oregon. Sweet Cakes specialized in custom-designed cakes specifically for weddings. Aaron and Melissa are both devout Christians so they choose to run their business corresponding with their religious beliefs. Aaron and Melissa were willing to provide everyone with service at Sweet Cakes unless their request went against their religious beliefs. The requests they were not willing to create included cakes with profanity, cakes celebrating divorce, cakes displaying harm to other individuals and more.

In 2013, Sweet Cakes received an offer to make a custom designed wedding cake for a same-sex weddings. Aaron and Melissa respectfully denied the request of the customers. Same-sex marriage was a violation of their Christian beliefs as they believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman. They believed that if they were to make the cake for the wedding it would be a sign of their support for the wedding. The couple that was denied from Sweet Cakes felt as though they were being discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation. 

The couple filed a complaint with the state that Sweet Cakes violated Oregon’s Public Accommodation Law when they refused to serve a wedding cake because it was a same sex marriage. The Oregon Public Accommodation Law states that it is illegal for places that do business with the public to discriminate against any individual based on specific characteristics that are protected. These protected characteristics include sexual orientation as well as race, sex, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age. 

Oregon determined that this was a violation of the Public Accommodation Law and they charged the Klein’s with a $135,000 fine. Additionally, they put in place a gag order against the Klein’s restricting them from talking about their beliefs in public. The commissioner who reviewed the case had made statements online and in interviews prior to the case that he was going to rule that the Klein’s were guilty of violating the Oregon Public accommodation law. The commissioner claimed that the Kleins were using their religious beliefs as “an excuse” for not serving a same sex couple. He also claimed that the Kleins needed to be rehabilitated due to their religious beliefs. Due to the fine and the boycotts the Kleins had no option but to shut down Sweet Cakes. The Kleins believed that their Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment was violated as they felt they were being forced to act in ways that did not correspond with their religious beliefs. 

This case is attempting to determine if the Kleins Free Exercise Clause is violated due to the Oregon Public Accommodation law being applied when they denied serving a wedding cake to a same sex couple. The purpose of the Free Exercise Clause is to protect individuals’ right to practice their religion without government interference. Anti-discrimination laws are very important ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equally. However, applying the Oregon Public Accommodation law to the Kleins did in fact violate their Free Exercise Clause. This case is very similar to the precedent Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Masterpiece Cakeshop was a bakery in Colorado that made custom cakes for weddings. The owner was Jack Phillips who ran his business based upon his Chrstian beliefs and believed that his cakes were a form of art in which he honored God. A same sex couple requested for Jack Phillips to design a cake for their wedding but Phillips declined as he believed this would violate his religious beliefs. The same sex couple felt as though they were being discriminated against so they filed that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. Phillips believed that his Free Exercise Clause was violated and the Supreme Court agreed with him. The Supreme Court acknowledged that decorating cakes is a form of artistic expression and is a factor of his sincere religious beliefs. The court also stated that this showed hostility toward religion and that hostility by the government towards religion is prohibited by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court determined that this was not neutral towards religion and Philips should be provided a religious exemption from the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The facts of this case are very similar to the facts of the Sweet Cakes case so according to the precedent the Kleins’ free exercise of religion was violated. 

I believe that in this case the Klein’s Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment was violated. I do believe that anti-discrimination laws are very important to ensure equal services especially for LGBTQ+ individuals. However, I do not think that individuals such as the Klein’s should have to go against their sincerely held religious beliefs. The decorating of wedding cakes is seen as a form of artistic expression as decided in the precedent case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Kleins should not be forced to create artwork that does not agree with their religious beliefs. When the Oregon Public Accommodation law is applied it is not neutral to those religions that believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The Free Exercise Clause is put in place to ensure that religious beliefs should be treated neutrally so this is unconstitutional. Additionally, there is clear hostility towards the Kleins and their religious beliefs by the commissioner.  The commissioner was clearly biased in his decision as he made comments expressing that he already made his decision to rule against the Kleins prior to hearing the case. He also made many comments invalidating the sincerity of the Kleins and their views claiming that they were using their religious beliefs as an excuse for not following the anti-discrimination law. The commissioner went as far as saying that the Kleins need rehabilitation because of their religious beliefs. These comments clearly show hostility and bias towards the religious beliefs of the Kleins which is unconstitutional. Another aspect I believe that is important to note is that the Kleins were not only denying same sex couples. They also denied individuals who wanted cakes with profanity, cakes celebrating divorce, or cakes displaying harm to other individuals. The Kleins were not willing to create art expressions that went against their religious beliefs and this was not limited to same sex couples. This case demonstrates the importance of balancing religious liberties and anti-discrimination laws and in this scenario the religious liberties of the Kleins should be protected. 

Sources

https://firstliberty.org/cases/kleins/#simple1

https://www.opb.org/article/2022/01/26/oregon-appeals-court-sweet-cakes-bakery-same-sex-discrimination-ruling/

https://www.oregon.gov/boli/civil-rights/pages/your-rights-to-public-places.aspx#:~:text=It's%20illegal%20for%20places%20that,or%20services%20to%20the%20public.

California Civil Rights Department v. Cathy’s Creation Tasteries

 California Civil Rights Department v. Cathy’s Creation Tasteries 

The California Civil Rights Department v. Cathay’s Creation Tasteries case is shockingly similar to the very familiar and popular case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. In 2017, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio were engaged and planning a wedding celebration which required a cake. The couple went into Tasteries, a local cake shop located in Bakersfield, California. They planned on purchasing a cake from the store, but once the owner, Cathy Miller found out she would be providing a wedding cake to a same sex couple she refused service. Similar to Jack Philips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, Miller suggested other cake shops that would create their wedding cake, but did not offer them other goods within the store. Miller cited the store's discrimination policy and turned them away. After the couple filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, the state argued that Miller, owner of Tasteries, had violated the state protections against discrimination. This is titled the Unruh Act, which provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments for any reason under the following categories: age, ancestry, race/color, disability, national origin, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. The state filed suit and the lower courts ruled in favor of Miller, arguing that there are several cases which support her right to deny same-sex couples. Miller’s Free-Exercise rights are protected under Fulton, Tanden, Lukumi, and Masterpiece Cakeshop. The lower courts determined that under those precedents, the California state Unruh Act is neither neutral nor generally applicable. Miller feels that she is receiving hostility from the courts due to her sincerely held religious beliefs. Similar to Jack Philips, Miller is a member of her local Church, Valley Baptist Church in Bakersfield. She believes that her religion is a sincere part of her life. Additionally Miller believes that God calls upon her to honor him in every aspect, including at her job. Miller noted that she had received other orders in the past that did not align with her religious views/beliefs, and also turned those customers away. Such items consisted of baked goods with vulgar messages or pictures, drug paraphernalia, etc. It is noted in Miller’s respondent opening brief that “Miller's mission and standards for Tasteries stem directly from the Bible.” 

I believe a large reason why the Masterpiece CakeShop case was ruled in favor of Jack Philips was due to the fact that gay marriage was not legalized in Colorado at the time. The California Civil Rights Department v. Cathay’s Creation Tasteries case was far more recent and occurred when gay marriage had been legalized for a while now. This fact would likely produce a different outcome if this case were to go to the Supreme Court. While the respondent is claiming that the courts are failing to act neutrally towards her religion and religious exercise rights, Ginsburg noted in dissent of the Masterpiece CakeShop case that the comments of one or two lawyers can not let it affect the outcome of the entire case, and I agree. The comments of a few people who strongly disagree with Miller in the lower courts cannot be the reason that this discriminatory behavior is lawful. Owning a business and providing goods for every customer is a very neutral practice at both face value and in practice. There is a difference between belief and action. While Miller is not forced to believe that gay or same-sex marriage should be legal under her religious convictions, her making a cake is not fully endorsing the practice of same-sex marriage. She is not officiating the wedding or a part of the ceremony, nor does she have to agree with the idea to create the product. While Free Exercise and Free Speech rights are crucial components in American Law, if the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Miller, this could potentially pose a slippery slope of basic discrimination. Given the historical aspects of Jim Crow laws where racial discrimination was extremely common and acceptable, how does this set the precedent that it is acceptable to discriminate and refuse service to LGBTQ+ members due to religious reasons?  What would this precedent set? What would happen if someone were to discriminate based on race or gender, would this case be perceived differently? Of course, these are just a few of the hypotheticals that the court may ask in addition to many more. Finally, while this case is extremely complex and very morally grounded, this is a complex process in which the courts have to determine what is legal, regardless of whether or not it is right or wrong in some definitions. This case seems to be something which the courts have to determine what is more important, Constitutional issues such as freedom of speech and exercise, or civil rights such as protections against discrimination. Hybrid cases such as this often pose more complex issues and make the decision all the more challenging, at least for me when looking at cases that outline multiple different issues. While this issue remains complex, I disagree with the majority opinion in the lower courts which ruled in favor of Miller as I believe this could potentially set a dangerous precedent for discriminatory behavior in the future. Because she discriminated not only upon the message but also the identity of the individuals who attempted to purchase products from her store that was available to others of different identities, I believe this violates the precedent set in 303 Creative v. Elenis.

Sources: 

https://www.aclu.org/cases/california-civil-rights-department-v-cathys-creations-dba-tastries

https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2023/05/DFEH-v.-Cathys-Creations-Notice-Entry-of-Judgment_Statement-of-Decision.pdf

Bravest Military Members Must Choose: Religious Beliefs or Career?

On January 30, 2020, the worldwide outbreak that we all lived through, COVID-19, interrupted all of our lives. The COVID vaccine was made available by December 2020. President Joseph Biden announced on July 29, 2021 that there would be vaccine mandates for federal employees and contractors. Specifically, the President was targeting the Department of Defense (DoD) that would require all military service members to get the vaccination. They were required to obtain the vaccination with 90 to 120 days from when the requirement was in place. The CNO and the Commandant of the Marine Corps were mandated to hold non-exempt service members responsible. An important point to note is that there has not been religious exemption for any vaccination requirement for the past 7 years. For Navy members, if they refused to get the COVID vaccine, the Navy "may seek recoupment of applicable bonuses, special and incentive pays, and the cost of training and education." For Navy SEALs, this would be over 1 million for each one of them.

Navy SEALs are elite, military members that must be suited for all unconventional warfare. They must go through intense training that includes physical and mental challenges. They must be able to adapt to any type of environment and quick on their feet. Navy SEALs have dedicated many years to serve for their country. For those who felt that their religious freedom was being taken away, they feel like they are not able to be part of this anymore.

In this case, there were 35 Navy SEALs who filed against the Department of Defense and President Biden. The Plaintiffs in this case consisted of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants branches of Christianity. They asked about seeking religious accommodation from the vaccine mandate. When they filed for the religious accommodation, they were rejected and threatened with punishment, involuntary separation, or even a court-martial.

The most salient issue at hand is that the Navy military members especially the Navy SEALs are having their rights to free exercise violated. The Dod and President Biden are forcing them to have to choose between serving for their country/their career and going against their religious beliefs. All of the Plaintiffs' religious beliefs fell under these 4 categories: (1) opposition to abortion and the use of aborted fetal cell lines in development of the vaccine; (2) belief that modifying one's body is an afront to the Creator; (3) direct, divine instruction not to receive the vaccine; and (4) opposition to injecting trace amounts of animal cells into one's body. In many cases, the Plaintiffs' commanding officers recommended that their religious accommodation forms be approved, but they were rejected almost 100% of the time.

I think that in this case that the Navy SEALs are having their First Amendment Rights violated. I think that there is a substantial burden placed upon the Navy SEALS. For them, they have two options placed in front of them. The first option is that they can choose to submit to the DoD and President Biden and get the vaccine which goes against their religious beliefs. The second option is that they can choose to not get the vaccine which will end with other financial consequences, but they would be following their religious beliefs. The second important factor regards compelling state interest. Although they recognize that COVID-19 was a compelling state interest, as demonstrated in Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, the limits of this compelling state interest was finite. There was a compelling state interest, but there was a substantial burden placed upon the individual with not enough compelling state interest along with no less restrictive means. In the current case, there was not an option for a less restrictive option for the Plaintiffs.

Another important factor is making it neutral and comparing it to secular activity, they do not treat secular and nonsecular the same. For example, people who are medically exempt, allergic, or participating in a COVID-19 vaccine trial were able to be exempt from the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. This was opposite from the religious exemptions that were denied. It is also not generalizable since they have to name the reason for the exemption which was shown as displaying favoritism.

With all of the reasons above that display how the Plaintiffs' rights were violated, the last significant piece is that there was no harm in the 35 unvaccinated compared to the amount vaccinated. 99.4% were vaccinated whereas only 0.6% were not vaccinated. Therefore, if there was to be any harm, there was such as small chance of it happening in the first place. Along with that, is always the critique of the slippery slope. The main argument that was presented for this case that I also agree with is that there was such a minute group who decided to remain unvaccinated during a huge pandemic. So, I do not see these numbers rising, and they did not contribute to the rise in COVID-19 especially since many of them had the antibodies which makes them naturally immune to COVID-19 anyways.



References

U.S. Navy SEAL Careers | Navy.com

U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, 578 F. Supp. 3d 822 | Casetext Search + Citator

images (310×163) (gstatic.com)

U.S. Navy SEALs - Cases - First Liberty

State Health Orders Violating the Free Exercise of its Citizens

             During the COVID-19 pandemic, churches in Nevada were prevented from congregating to their usual standard, for the purposes of what the state referred to as “public health.” Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak was a case about just that, and to the constitutionality of Nevada's COVID-19 restrictions on religious gatherings. The case originated when Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley, a church in Nevada, challenged Governor Steve Sisolak's directive which  limited in-person religious services to 50 people, regardless of the size of the church building. He did all this while at the same time allowing larger gatherings at casinos and other secular establishments.  The language in the Governor’s edict said that a “10-screen multiplex” may host 500 moviegoers at any time, and that a casino may also cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table and similar numbers of people gathered at every roulette wheel. But churches, synagogues, and mosques were banned from admitting more than 50 worshippers, again, regardless of the size of the building, or the level of compliance with public health orders.

The central question in this case seems to be whether Nevada's differential treatment of religious gatherings compared to secular activities violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. Calvary Chapel argued that the state's restrictions unfairly targeted religious worship and placed unconstitutional burdens on its exercise. The church also made the case that by allowing larger secular gatherings while limiting religious ones, the government was essentially engaging in impermissible discrimination against religious organizations, which would in fact be in clear violation of their constitutional rights.

Governor Steve Sisolak as well as other state officials defended the restrictions as necessary measures to combat the spread of COVID-19 and protect public health. They argued that the limitations on religious gatherings are part of a broader effort to mitigate the risk of transmission in large gatherings, regardless of their purpose. The state claimed that its directives were “content-neutral” and did in fact apply equally to all gatherings, irrespective of whether they were religious or secular in nature. This did not easily square with the rather conspicuous and axiomatic attempt to do precisely the opposite as evidenced by the governor's directives.

The case eventually received widespread attention at the time due to its implications for religious freedom as it related to public health during the pandemic which was a time of great political division. Supporters of Calvary Chapel argued that the government's restrictions unfairly infringed upon the fundamental right to freely exercise religion, particularly when secular activities are subject to less stringent limitations. They also noted that churches should be treated no differently than other essential businesses or entities allowed to operate with greater capacity. This is an argument that makes sense in both a literal sense, as well as a constitutional sense. Many people do see their faith as essential, and the question posed is such: Who is the state to determine for we, the people, what precisely constitutes “essential.” The church buttressed its case by going even further and attempting to make an appeal on more human grounds, arguing that the restrictions imposed by the state hindered their ability to conduct meaningful religious services and deprived their congregants of essential spiritual guidance and support, particularly during a time of crisis which this was.

The proponents of the state's measures, however, argued for and stressed the compelling interest issue in regards to safeguarding public health and preventing the spread of COVID. They made the case that during a pandemic, government officials must have the authority to implement restrictions that may temporarily limit certain rights, including the freedom to assemble for religious worship, in order to protect the broader community from harm. It's a similar issue we saw in previous cases regarding the wearing of religious headwear among military service members. If it poses safety threats, in terms of troop identification or otherwise, if it could cause friendly fire among members of the same military force, then shouldn't we prioritize troop safety and their lives above their religious beliefs? This is a similar question that the Governor of Nevada seemed to pose, and which convinced the court to deny the church’s emergency application and to side with the state and its public health edicts.

            I disagree with the outcome of the case, and I think the Governor and his edicts violated the Church’s free exercise rights. The state authorities favored the rights of secular institutions to publicly gather, no matter how inessential they were. Churches however were verboten. In both the numbers of allowed churchgoers, and the level of public health compliance to which they were subjected, the state simply did not give Churches equal treatment under the law when compared to irreligious institutions like casinos which are more profitable to the state than a Church might be. This not only robs people of the choice to make their own decisions in public health matters but also of the right to freely exercise their religion, which under the purview of the first amendment, should be the cardinal concern in cases like this. 

Sources:   https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/calvary-chapel-dayton-valley-v-sisolak/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19A1070

Healthcare Ethics v. Abortion Rights – Is there a Definitive Answer?

    Throughout legal battles regarding the free exercise of religion, there has been a particularly large focus on people's, as well as organizations', sincerely held religious beliefs to oppose abortion and promote the holding that life begins at conception. A case concerning this issue is Diocese of Albany v. Harris. This case covers the struggle between the New York State Provision requiring employers to provide employees with the opportunity for abortion in their healthcare plan and the employer's sincerely held religious beliefs, directly countering one another. 

    In 2011, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provision required employers to provide healthcare services to their employees, including contraceptives and abortifacients, or otherwise face hefty fines upon non-compliance. Consequently, this was challenged by religious institutions and people who held countering religious beliefs. One of these groups to challenge this provision was the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of elderly nuns who made it their life mission to aid the elderly poor. Winning three victories with the Supreme Court, the Little Sisters of the Poor were successful in safeguarding their religious holdings so that contraceptives and abortifacients did not have to be provided due to their disagreement based on religious holdings. However, these victories were interrupted by the 2017 provision of New York to require employers to cover literal abortions in their healthcare plans. Exemptions were only granted to religious organizations with a concrete goal of safeguarding religious values and serving religious people. The result of this narrow exemption was the exclusion of many religious entities, including the Little Sisters of the Poor, that provide adequate community service to people on a non-faith basis. 

    As a result of this presumed injustice, a coalition of religious groups was formed, and New York was sued based on the claim that the 2017 New York provision violated their religious holdings. This alliance united based on the belief that life begins at conception and that abortion is an unspeakable sin. If the court denies the coalition's request to uphold these religious liberties, they claim that their religious beliefs will be violated. Therefore, given the facts of this case, does the 2017 New York provision that requires employers to include actual abortions in their healthcare plans despite violating the sincerely held religious beliefs of the coalition violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?

    Numerous salient issues must be considered to assess the constitutionality of the 2017 New York State provision regarding the religious holdings of the coalition members. First, a clear and substantial burden is present on the religious organizations making up the coalition. This burden is undeniable because these individuals are forced to either follow their deeply held spiritual values and pay a hefty fine alongside this, or sacrifice their beliefs to avoid payment. According to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the aim is to "protect citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a 'public morals' or a 'compelling' governmental interest." The coalition members are not presenting a threat to society, so there should be no sacrifice of beliefs in this scenario. With that said, there is a compelling governmental interest in this provision to provide women with adequate and complete protection of bodily autonomy in healthcare. This is stated by and pushed for by abortion activists, but the very provision does not constitute the least restrictive means of doing so. There are other manners to ensure that women can have cost-free abortions without impeding the religious rights of a group of people. 

    This case can be seen as an extension of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) concerning the same 2011 HHS provision of providing contraceptives and abortifacients in employee healthcare plans. The court ruled in favor of the devout-Christian family of the Greens, who claimed that providing their employees with this healthcare that facilitated abortion violated their sincerely held religious beliefs. The reasoning used in Burwell can be applied to the Diocese; the significant difference between the two cases is providing contraceptives and abortifacients to providing actual abortions. In both cases, a continual battle exists between bodily autonomy and religious belief. 

    I found this case particularly interesting for numerous reasons. First, I viewed it as a direct extension of the Burwell case, including the same provisions under the HHS and an additional policy by New York State in 2017. The continuation and relevance of this issue not only reveal the enduring importance of the conversation around abortion rights and accessibility to adequate healthcare but also the evolution of abortion policies and enactments as public and political opinion shift. Ultimately, this is becoming an increasingly important and hotly debated topic with the growing discourse surrounding abortion rights as well as the debate on the right to universal healthcare, so it is essential to keep these topics relevant. Therefore, I believe that the 2017 New York provision that requires employers to include actual abortions in their healthcare plans despite violating sincerely held religious beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. If the coalition of religious members loses this case, the implications will be severe. The religiously affiliated person will consequently go against their deeply held beliefs by directly facilitating abortions, a moral disagreement. Although I agree that there is a compelling government interest for the State to provide adequate and complete healthcare to all persons, I think that a middle-ground that does not violate a group's religious beliefs can be found.

https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-and-religion#:~:text=The%20Free%20Exercise%20Clause%20protects,a%20%22compelling%22%20governmental%20interest. 

https://www.becketlaw.org/case/diocese-of-albany-v-emami/

Running for Public Office Requires Mandatory Invocation

 

James Tosone

    In the United States, nearly all citizens of a certain age and residential status are eligible to run for public office; however, each state has varying ballot access regulations. The official policy of the New Jersey Secretary of State requires candidates to swear an oath known as the New Jersey Oath of Allegiance that contains the phrase “so help me God” in order to appear on the ballot. A suit filed in October 2023 asserts that James Tosone, a New Jersey resident and self-proclaimed nontheist, was denied candidacy because he refused to endorse the religious statement in the oath. Because he wanted to participate in the 2022 elections, Tosone reached out to the Division of Elections and requested that he be allowed to strike out the “so help me God '' portion of the oath. Despite meeting all the requirements to run for public office and running for office in 2017, 2018, and 2021, Tosone’s request was denied because the content of the New Jersey Oath of Allegiance is dictated by statute and no alternate version is acceptable. 

    Previously, Tosone signed the New Jersey Oath of Allegiance to be an eligible candidate for office, but he states that his views have changed and signing the oath now would violate his convictions; that is, he has an objection based on sincerely held beliefs to the contents of the oath. Tosone’s lawsuit alleges that forcing potential candidates to swear a religious oath and providing no secular alternative violates both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. According to the suit, refusing to accommodate non religious citizens potentially bars 24% of New Jersey residents from running for office. Additionally, the policy discriminates against certain religious sects, like the Mennonites and Quakers, that refuse to swear oaths to a deity. Endorsing the phrase “so help me God” would force these individuals to profess beliefs antithetical to their own, violating their free exercise. The suit also claims that New Jersey’s policy inherently disfavors nontheistic beliefs, which breaches the neutrality principle of the Establishment Clause. Essentially, according to Tosone, the policy coerces New Jersey citizens to express a belief in a monotheistic God, constituting an establishment of religion.

Response from the Division of Elections

    Although an arguably insignificant phrase, can New Jersey require potential candidates for public office to endorse the message “so help me God” without violating the religion clauses of the First Amendment? In my opinion, the constitutional issue lies not with the phrase itself but with the lack of accommodation. As seen in the Supreme Court case Marsh v. Chambers, nonsectarian invocations in government settings do not violate the Establishment Clause; however, the New Jersey Oath of Allegiance and the legislative prayers in Marsh differ slightly. In Marsh, no elected official had to endorse the religious content of the prayer and no punishment was enacted if an official refused to witness the prayer. This differs from the New Jersey oath which rescinds eligibility for candidacy on the basis of religious objection. The refusal to accommodate other religious and secular beliefs violates the Establishment Clause because it signals to citizens that they must profess a specific set of beliefs to participate in public affairs.

    Also, I believe that the New Jersey Oath of Allegiance infringes on both free exercise and free speech rights. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, which ruled compulsory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in school unconstitutional, the Court wrote, “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein”. With the New Jersey Oath of Allegiance, the Secretary of State prescribes religious sentiments that potential candidates must affirm, regardless of their own convictions. These candidates cannot freely express their beliefs without compromising their own position in the race for public office. Although the phrase “so help me God” may be nonsectarian and its presence does not constitute an establishment of religion, candidates’ religious objections to it should be respected under the First Amendment. Because no alternative version of the oath is offered and the oath potentially forces citizens to go against their own beliefs, I believe that the mandatory endorsement of the New Jersey Oath of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

Do Total Abortion Bans Violate RFRA?

 

    Following the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in 2022, several states around the U.S. mobilized their legislators to pass anti-abortion laws. In this Supreme Court decision, almost fifty years of the precedent established in Roe was overturned and the power to decide on abortion restrictions returned back to the individual state governments. Many critics of the Dobbs decision view the outcome as an "enshrinement of Christian nationalists' beliefs." It is a fair judgment to make as these anti-abortion restrictions are intended to satisfy the pro-life Christian movement. However, we are not here to decide the merits of whether or not this decision was the right one. Instead, we are here to discuss whether there are any potential constitutional violations for anti-abortion restrictions across the U.S. following Dobbs. In a recent case out of Indiana, a group called "Hoosier Jews for Choice" filed a law suit against the Indiana State Government on the grounds that their near-total abortion ban violates the RFRA rights of Jews and other minority religions that do not subscribe to the Christian faith. 

   The Indiana law that is in question and challenged in the following case is termed "Senate Enrolled Act One". It outlines a total abortion ban across the state with only three limited exceptions:

        1. When reasonable medical judgment dictates that performing the abortion is necessary to prevent

             death or a serious risk of substantial/irreversible harm or irreversible impairment of a major bodily

             function, or the "health or life exception". 

        2. When the pregnant person receives a diagnosis of a lethal fetal anomaly.

        3. When the pregnant person is a victim of rape or incest. 

The plaintiffs in this case at large argue that SEA One violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the State of Indiana. RFRA provides protections for religious groups against government actions that can present substantial burdens for a religious group to freely exercise their beliefs. RFRA is an extension of the Establishment Clause as it ensures religious freedoms and a lack of government sponsorship, but the government is allowed to pass legislation that prohibits a religious group's free exercise if [the government] can prove it has a compelling interest to do so and it uses the least restrictive means possible.

    In the case of Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Anonymous Plaintiffs, the constitutionality of total abortion bans is raised by minority religious groups in the State of Indiana. An initial trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs by confirming that the group has legal standing to bring this case and it can be certified as a "class-action suit" to include all minority religious groups that value abortions in their religious doctrines. An appeals court similarly ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, citing that the group's "claims are ripe" and that "[the bill] could have a substantial burden on the religious exercises of the plaintiffs". The case is expected to be appealed by the Indiana Attorney General's Office, as AG Todd Rokita stated that"life is still winning in Indiana". 

    This particular case is packed with multiple questions of constitutionality. The intended objection of this post is whether or not abortion bans violate the RFRA rights of religious minorities. The plaintiff group is called "Hoosier Jews for Choice", so in order to discuss the disparities laws like these take place on religious minorities, it is important to first understand their beliefs surrounding abortion practices. The primary distinction to understand where the Jewish faith stands on abortion is an individual one that is dependent on how closely the individual adheres to religious principles. According to the Jewish faith, the Hebrew Bible does not consider a fetus as having the status of a human life. Abortions are allowed in the Jewish community up to before 40 days gestation. If the pregnancy poses a threat to the life of the mother, then abortion is permitted in the Jewish faith with no restrictions. However, it is important to note that the restrictions surrounding abortion differ between the types of Judaism practiced. For example, Orthodox Jews believe differently than Conservative Jews who then believe differently from Reconstruction Jews. If there is one insight to come from this variation of Jewish faith, it is that not all religious faiths believe in the same values or morals. This can therefore be applied across the religious spectrum, and we can then begin to see that it is constitutionally impermissible to allow total abortion bans to remain in effect on the grounds that there are differences in faith. As the national advocacy group "Muslim Advocates" suggests, the U.S. Supreme Court "enshrined the religious doctrine of one religious community into law." Every religion regards life beginning at different points of time and for the law to favor one viewpoint over the other is a direct violate of the First Amendment. If the Establishment Clause were to be truly valued as a mechanism to ensure religious freedoms, then these bans would be overturned to respect views that differ from the predominant Christian faith in the U.S. 

    One of the more applicable examples of precedent that the courts can point to is Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores in which the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether or not an HHS mandate requiring employers to provide their employees with reproductive health resources violated their RFRA rights. The Supreme Court ended up ruling in favor of the for-profit corporations since providing reproductive care to employees would substantially burden their religious beliefs. In other words, the Supreme Court set the standard that if an act of government infringes upon one's right to practice their religion freely, then it is a violation of the First Amendment. I think it is clear that when applying this standard near total abortion bans like those in Indiana are unconstitutional and an infringement against minority religion's religious freedoms. There is a sincerely held religious belief in the Jewish faith that the mother's life is to be protected and the same standard of defining when life begins is not the same as what those of the Christian faith believe. By prohibiting these options for citizens that do not identify as Christians is in essence establishing the Christian faith as the sponsored religion by the state. It does not satisfy the requirement for governments to treat all religions equally or be equal to those that do not subscribe to a religious faith. It violates the neutrality requirement that the First Amendment preaches. In addition, there does not appear to be any valid, compelling state interest that Indiana could argue for such strict abortion restrictions as it is required to show under RFRA. There are other less restrictive means that the government can impose in order to satisfy their agenda without denying these rights. Since these near total abortion bans do not treat all religious sects equally, it would be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. 

Sources: 

1. Muslim Advocates

2. Jewish Faith Experience - from Brandeis University

3. Indiana Capitol Chronicle

4. Fox News 59

    

Volunteer Chaplains in Florida Public and Charter Schools

Tallahassee, Florida - On Thursday, April 18, 2024, Ron DeSantis, the Governor of Florida, signed a bill allowing for a volunteer chaplain program in both public and charter schools. Under HB 931, both public and charter schools may permit volunteer chaplains, in addition to guidance counselors, as a means of student support. The contents of the bill require the school districts to inform the parents and/or guardians of these Florida students that chaplains are present on school grounds. The chaplains’ religious affiliations as well as provided services will also be relayed to parents and guardians. To access the volunteer chaplains, each student would need written parental or guardian consent. 

The only requirements for a chaplain to participate in this volunteer program would be passing a background check. Upon passing the required screenings, a chaplain would also be required to have their name and religious affiliation listed on the school district’s website. Governor DeSantis noted that the chaplains would “provide support, services, and programs to students as assigned by the district school board” (Farrington). The law is to take effect on Monday, July 1, 2024. 

Governor DeSantis, acknowledging the controversial views on this bill, stressed that the program is voluntary. Florida school districts are not required to engage in the volunteer chaplain program nor are students required to work with them. In the event a student had the desire to work with a particular chaplain, parental permission would be required. Governor DeSantis stated, “No one’s being forced to do anything, but to exclude religious groups from campus, that is discrimination” (Farrington).

The contents of this current issue raise the following question, 

“Is a Florida bill supporting a volunteer chaplain program in public and charter schools a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?”

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This clause has been interpreted and adjudicated in multiple different fashions over the course of several decades. Prominent cases involving the intense interpretation of the Establishment Clause include Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which established the Lemon Test, and Lee v. Wesiman (1992), which affirmed the principle of a “wall of separation” between Church and State. 

The debate regarding a volunteer chaplain program in public and charter schools is vast and intense. Proponents argue that the program expands the freedom of free exercise and offers additional support services to students, particularly mental health. Critics, however, argue about the potential entanglement of Church and State, ultimately violating the Establishment Clause. Florida Senator Tina Polsky, a member of the Jewish community, particularly opposes the program. “As a member of a minority religion, I feel it [pushing religion onto someone] everyday. It makes me so uncomfortable” (Saunders). 

There is also the lingering question of which religious groups may partake in the program. The Satanic Temple, specifically, says it “looks forward” to participating in the volunteer chaplain program. 

It is important to acknowledge that The Satanic Temple, like most religious organizations, has been granted tax-exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (“Satanic Temple: IRS Has Designated It a Tax-exempt Church | AP News”). By being listed as a tax-exempt organization per the IRS database, The Satanic Temple would obtain the same right as a majority religion to place a chaplain in a Florida public or charter school. 

As the current policy stands, I find the volunteer chaplain program in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I emphasize this sense of current stance because I have found that the proposed bill lacks substance, particularly involving the details of how and which chaplains will be permitted on school grounds. 

The contents of the bill require Florida public and charter schools to run an extensive background check on any chaplain who volunteers their student support services. At the surface, this policy seems neutral. However, what will the procedure in allowing a volunteer chaplain to even receive a background check look like? Is Governor DeSantis granting these Florida school districts the flexibility to use their own discretion in accepting or denying volunteer chaplains? Leaving such discretion up to public and charter school administrators - government employees - creates excessive entanglement between Church and State. This principle of “all or none” comes into effect, and the members determining whether all, some, or no religious affiliations are represented on school grounds is being determined by state-funded employees. Whether you utilize the Lemon Test as a legal framework in determining establishment issues or not, this process evidently imposes an excessive entanglement. This process could be neutral if enacted effectively, but as the current contents of the bill stand, it is not. 

I also find the volunteer chaplain program to develop a sense of coercion amongst school-aged children. As previously mentioned, the “all or none” mentality is crucial to consider. It is hard to represent all religious affiliations in one common space, and in addition to this challenge, the religious affiliations being represented would be monitored by the discretion of Florida school boards. This, as previously stated, is not neutral amongst all religions. I find myself concerned for the students who are part of minority religions or who lack religious affiliation. Per the details of the proposed bill, parental or guardian consent is needed for any student to receive support from a volunteer chaplain. This, however, could still develop a sense of coercion for those students who lack the needed consent. Young students, especially, absorb vast amounts of information from their surroundings, and due to this critical part of child development, they are impressionable. Young students seeing their peers leave class to receive religious support could be detrimental to children of minority religions and/or children who grow up in secular households. 

Works Cited

 Farrington, Brendan. “Florida Will Open Schools to Volunteer Chaplains | AP News.” AP News, 18 Apr. 2024, apnews.com/article/florida-ron-desantis-religion-education-government-d7694c5040cfec89c5edd256af1a96cc.

“Satanic Temple: IRS Has Designated It a Tax-exempt Church | AP News.” AP News, 25 Apr. 2019, apnews.com/general-news-6addf2f0ecb646919cb1cfcfdacfc6c1. 

Saunders, Forrest. “Volunteer Chaplains Will Soon Be Allowed to Counsel Students in Florida’s Public Schools.” ABC Action News Tampa Bay (WFTS), 18 Apr. 2024, www.abcactionnews.com/news/state/volunteer-chaplains-will-soon-be-allowed-to-counsel-students-in-floridas-public-schools.