Joelle and Joseph Chung are both passionate tennis players who are also members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Chehalis, Washington. Specifically, Joelle was a top tennis player for her high-school and could compete at a high level. However, her senior year she was not able to finish her season because she was disqualified from the state postseason competition of the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association's (WIAA) due to her religious commitments. The last day of the State Championships was scheduled on a Saturday, which also happened to be the last day of the tournament, and this day is the Sabbath day for members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The only exception that was given to athletes to miss the tournament was for injury, illness, or unforeseen events. The Chung family asked the WIAA for an exception for religious beliefs and were denied. Even though Joelle has graduated, they still want Joseph, a sophomore at the time, to be able to participate in all competitions in the future without fear of disqualification due to religious commitments on Saturdays. After this denial, the Chung's sued in August 2019 on the grounds that the WIAA was discriminating by making exceptions for secular reasons but not for religion. They argued that this was a violation of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. After the lawsuit, on August 27, 2019, the WIAA added religious observance as an acceptable exemption for missing the tournament. While a small victory, the Chung's were not satisfied because the WIAA still refuses to accommodate religious observance and adjust the schedule of the tournament. Even with religious observance being added to the list of exemptions, the Chung's are arguing that the WIAA is still violating the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. They are still waiting on a hearing in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
One case that is important to look at for the decision of this case is Braunfeld v. Brown. In this case Abraham Braunfeld, an Orthodox Jew, is prohibited by his faith from working on Saturday. He owned a retail clothing and home furnishing store in PA, and under PA blue law he cannot be open on Sunday's. This meant that he would have to be closed on Saturday due to his faith and Sunday due to the blue law. He filed a lawsuit saying that he needed to be open six days a week in order to make enough money, so he wanted to be permitted to be open on Sundays. The Supreme Court ruled that the PA blue law did not violate the Free Exercise Clause and Braunfeld is not permitted to be open on a Sunday. They reasoned that there was a secular basis to the law and it didn't make any religious practice unlawful. It is an indirect burden for Braunfeld's religious observance, and while unfortunate for Braunfeld, it does not cause it to be unconstitutional. The same reasoning can be applied to Chung v. Washington Interscholastic Activities Association.
With the change to the exemption rules to include religious observation, they have done a good job at making it so there is not a substantial burden placed on their free exercise of religion. The days this tournament is played now just places an indirect burden on the Chung's, however if they choose to not play on the Saturday they will be granted an exemption. While everyone has the right to participate in sports, there is no way for everyone's personal schedules and commitments to be accommodated. It is not possible for there to be total freedom from restrictions on the days it will be played. If the days were to be changed, it may also conflict with other religions days of observation. The tournament dates do not appear to have been picked to purposely conflict with the Seventh-day Adventists Church members day of worship, so it is not purposely excluding one religion. While being able to play sports is a great opportunity for everyone, it is not something that they all will be able to do at all times. There are plenty of things, whether secular or religious, that conflict with sporting events and at a certain point people need to make decisions. The WIAA has already adjusted their policies to allow for religious exemptions, so I do not think there is a need for further change because there is no longer a direct burden on the Chung's free exercise of religion rights. This is why I do not believe that the WIAA state championship tournament dates are a violation of the Chung's Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
10 comments:
I agree with your decision that the burden on the Chung family is indirect and the championship date is not a violation of their First Amendment rights. Similar to your argument, there was no purpose of these dates directly affecting one religion over another. Sports are often on the weekends because of school, and they will affect a certain religion depending on the day. This case is also different to Braunfield v. Brown because the burden of not being able to work is much greater than participating in a sport tournament. It will be interesting to see if this case is heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington or not based on how serious they take the claim of a sport.
I agree that WIAA has not violated anyone's Free Exercise rights because the date of the tournament is not selected in order to make sure that individuals from certain religions are unable to make the tournament. I do think that WIAA did make a good decision in adding religious exemptions to their rules but I think that going further would place a burden on the rest of the individuals competing. If the tournament happens on Saturday and Sunday all the matches would have to occur on Sunday or another day during the week would have to be added which could place a burden on other players. Additionally, in schools students are not given off for every holiday in all religions instead they are able to use excused absences for religious purpose and miss school that day. I think that this example is the same as the Chung's case, the option to be excused for religious purposes exist but everyone else does not need to be affected for their choice.
I agree with the author in this case, that there is not a violation of Free Exercise rights given the date of the tournament being on a Saturday. I think that the WIAA allowing the exemption is reasonable, but adjusting the date of a tournament would be extremely difficult, due to everyone's individual commitments trying to be accommodated. The weekends are when most sporting events take place anyway, so I do not think this was discrimination based on their religious beliefs either (which would then be a different conversation).
I agree that there is not a violation of Free Exercise rights in this case. I think that adjusting the dates of a tournament is very difficult and I agree with Julia's comment above that accommodating everyone's individual commitments would be almost impossible for organizers. I think that because the tournament took place on a Saturday, a time that for many is the best option because there is no school, it is not discriminating against anyone because of their religion. The tournament organizers were simply trying to find a time that would allow the most competitors to participate while accommodating their school schedules. I believe that because high school sports tournaments often take place on the weekend because there is no school and most people are free this day, there is not a violation of Free Exercise rights taking place here.
I agree with your decision regarding this case. I believe that because the WIAA made religious observance a valid exemption on their list of exemptions, that they have justly accommodated Chung's First Amendment rights. I also like the point you made about sports. Sports are a choice one makes, it is not necessary that everyone play sports in life, therefore if a private organization like the WIAA chooses to put State Championships on a certain day, then people need to adjust to be able to play that day or just opt out. Chung missing a day of play is not the end of the world, it is merely unfortunate.
This analysis seems sound to me. The Braunfield standard seems applicable to me under the context that the organization changed their rules to provide exceptions for religious observances. I'm not sure what the procedure is for those students with religious exemptions to fully complete the tournament as those peers who do not have a religious exemption, just as an injured student.
I also agree with your decision regarding this case that there is no violation of Free Exercise rights here. I too think that the burden here that is being placed on the Chung family is indirect because the intention of scheduling these dates were not based upon one religion over the next. If they were to change the dates for one religion, technically that would be creating an establishment with unfair treatment among the rest of the religions. I think it is important that religious exemptions have been put into place so that those who are being affected can be accommodated properly. The main goal of scheduling was to pick days that are most suitable for the majority of the population, not to target a religion to make sure they would have conflicting schedules.
I would agree that the burden being placed on the Chung is indirect and not in violation of the family’s First Amendment rights. However, I do understand that the problem the family has with WIAA allowing exemptions for “injury, illness, or unforeseen events” as these standards are being held higher than that of their devotion to their religion. “Injury, illness, or unforeseen events” I would argue are neutral grounds that do not tip-toe on the line of religious rights which is why I agree with the argument that has been made.
I agree with your decision and think it is important to note that it's a person choice to participate in sports and not everyone's personal schedules and commitments can be accommodated. Going along with that the tournaments dates were not purposely picked to conflict with the Seventh day Adventists Church members day of worship, so it's not purposely excluding one religion. The WIAA also adjusted their polices to allow for religious exemptions and I think there is no need to change anything else because there's this now doesn't effect Chung's free exercise of religion rights.
This situation does not show a violation of ones Free Exercise rights. Personally I think one of the greatest points brought up in this brief was the fact that playing sports is ones choice. I think that is the main reason as to why there is truly no argument that defends the side that this league broke ones Free Exercise rights. These games that were scheduled were not purposely scheduled on specific dates that would prohibit one from religious activities. It is Chung's choice whether he wants to participate in his sport activity or his religious activity.
Post a Comment