Joelle and Joseph Chung are siblings both competing on their high school tennis team. They are members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Chehalis, WA and in following their faith, the Chung siblings observe the Sabbath, a day of rest and prayer every week starting at sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday.
The Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) is the organization under Washington law which regulates high-school sports and organizes the state postseason tennis tournaments. To make it to the state championship match, players must compete in two qualifying tournaments and must certify that they are able to participate in these varying levels of competition with exemptions for illness, injuries, and 'unforeseen events.'
In 2018, as a junior Joelle won the first match on the path to the state championship, but had to forfeit her spot since the following round of competition fell on the day of the Sabbath. The following year during her senior season in 2019, with the prospect of advancing to the championship scheduled on Friday and Saturday, the Chung family contacted the WIAA months prior to the tournaments asking for a religious exemption. The Chungs specifically asked for the WIAA to move the day of the championship or for Joelle to use an alternate for the conflicting Sabbath-day championship while playing in the qualifying rounds- therefore asking to preemptively withdrawal. The WIAA denied these requests stating that withdrawal due to anticipated conflict with the Sabbath violated their rules and disregarded the fairness to other tennis players. They stated that it allowing a withdrawing on the Sabbath is (1) unfair to the athletes who would could have taken the qualifying position from the withdrawing athlete, and (2) advantage the athlete scheduled to play the withdrawing athlete. Due to the WIAA's denial of Joelle's request for an allowed withdrawal, she could not compete in the qualifying and championship tournaments. In hopes of pushing the WIAA to change its rules prior to Joseph's high school tennis career, the Chung family sued the WIAA citing the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause in early August 2019.
In response in late August, the Association added a 'religious observance' exemption which allows "a player to withdraw from competition without being penalized." But the rule change does not move the day of the tournament or allow adjustments to the schedule due to religious observances. The Chungs filed for summary judgement of the case, but it was denied and the WIAA's rule stands.
The question of the case is: does the WIAA's failure to accommodate the religious observance of the Sabbath day when organizing its state high school championship tournaments violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?
The Chungs argue this is an issue of the Free Exercise Clause since the WIAA is infringing on their right for the Chung siblings to participate in their religious observance of the Sabbath while disallowing them to play in the tennis championship tournaments. The WIAA's connection to the state is direct since the Washington law grants authority to the Association in matters of high school sport administrations.
I personally believe that the Court was correct in denying summary judgment and siding with the WIAA, since there is not a clear breach of impeding on the Free Exercise Clause. In fact the WIAA is acting with regards to religious neutrality as its scheduling most likely relies on practical policy decisions. Some of the reasons a tournament might be scheduled on a Friday or Saturday could be to minimize student-athletes and coaches time out of class, to make transportation more accessible, or to maximize attendance to the matches. By accommodating the religious exemption and moving the tennis tournaments, it would end its neutrality of religion and also create a more complex burden for the WIAA and is therefore against the Association and Washington's state interests.
In potential counter of my point by saying that the tournament is not on a Sunday, which is another religious holy day. But the WIAA could argue that Sundays are secular days to hold make-up competitions or serve as a traveling day to return from competition. This notion of Sundays being make-up and travel-back days is largely practiced all over the US.
Most importantly, Joelle is not entitled to compete in the postseason tournaments, since she is playing tennis as her choice and there is no specific fundamental right determining engagement and participation in interscholastic high school sports. The Free Exercise Clause does not apply in this situation because she is not entitled through a right or a benefit to play in her high school tennis postseason and it does not directly deny her from not participating in her religious practices. This is further pushed since there was an added 'religious observance' policy, where the WIAA successfully created a fair rule that allowed religious exemption for Joelle and fellow student-athletes without burdening the organization and scheduling of the tournament.
The story of the Chung siblings is a small case in the larger picture of religious exemptions, in this case I argue that there is a line where the state (the WIAA in this scenario) can meet the person in the middle by providing a reasonable accommodation to allow them to freely practice their religious beliefs under the Free Exercise Clause, but the state should not go to far to prioritize and burden other people for the actions of the religious. Of course this sentiment does not and will not apply to all cases of religious exemptions, but I believe this case highlights there is a reasonable balance that the state can take on accusations of impending on the Free Exercise Clause.
Sources:
6 comments:
I agree with Sophia that the court is correct in denying summary judgement and siding with the WIAA. The point about hosting the tournaments on weekends to avoid other issues such as transportation or school is a great point to be taken into consideration when drawing a conclusion about this case. I think this is an interesting case because if the decision had gone the other way, this would have led to a slippery slope and possibly more precedents to be set in the future.
I wholely disagree with the court's ruling to side with the WIAA, because their inability to simply move the date is in my eyes a violation of the Seven Day Adventist's free exercise of their faith. The claim that the organization wouldn't move the day to a weekday to prevent students' time out of class is invalid since athletic organizations schedule games and matches on weekdays for football and basketball. Further schools allow students early leave from school for travel on days when a game/ match is to take place. The Saturday observance of the sabbath is a core tenant of their Seven Day Adventist faith, so theirs no compromise that can be had, and allowing them to not play with no penalty in standing still puts them at an unfair disadvantage because of their faith. Players who would otherwise win and beat one player may be forced to play against someone who otherwise would have been beat in an earlier round, but because they weren't able to knock them out prior due to their Saturday exemption would have to play against someone who had extra playing time and practice.
I agree with Sophia. Like we talked about today during class, there are rights to freedom of religion, but that doesn't mean that you have to play tennis. Of course, there is emotional reasoning that may suggest the high school tennis players should be able to play or have the days of the tournament on a different day, so they are able to play the sport they love. Like Sophia said, there is a point to be made in the neutrality. Most likely, people will find problems with any day the tournament is hosted. And, sure not all of the reasoning will be religious, but people could use the religious argument as a crutch to have the day of the tournament changed. The more I think though, I think about how upset people would be if the tournament was held on a Sunday instead. Many people would be angry, but since it is only affecting a small number of people here, there is less concern. There is just that slippery slope problem where accommodating this request could lead to many others - and how do we judge sincerity??
I for the most part agree with the court's decision but would partly dissent on their choice. This case reminded me of PA vs. The Orthodox Jewish community who felt burden by the state's law. I agree that the siblings did not face a substantial burden by the state, but their actions were still limited by the governments imposition of the basis of their religion. The dissenter in the PA case pointed out that the state is forcing the Jewish community to choose in between two of their convictions- religion and work. Here, the siblings are being forced to either compromise their religion or tennis career. I think the state putting the family is that position infringes on their right to not believe but act.
I agree with your opinion and the ruling of the court. Although it is unfortunate that the post season matches end up on the day of Sabbath, these matches are completely voluntary so they are not required to attend. Along with that point the WIAA isn't stopping them from practicing their sabbath it is just unlucky that they land on the same day. It is not a violation of their Free Exercise because they can still practice their religion and the WIAA does not hold any obligation to switch days for one player. I like how you mentioned the issue of neutrality where if they were to switch the day of the tournament to another it could look like they are favoring this religion and or player over another because they are making accommodations for them. They also have the games on weekends to avoid missing secular activities and if they moved this it could look like they were favoring religion over non-religion.
I agree with the court's decision. I even agree as someone who wrote my blog post advocating for a Seventh-day Adventist and his write to practice his religion on the Sabbath. There is a large distinction between this one and the Walmart case, as it was Hedican's career and income that he was being violated of, rather than tennis matches. Sophia points out these matches are entirely not required. If the case would have stated that competing in these tennis matches is her P.E. credit and without it she wouldn't graduate, this would be a different story and I would then side with the siblings. It is also quite a hassle to change the days of the tennis matches for the WIAA as opposed to a giant company, like Walmart, reworking one store's work schedule for a man to make an income to feed his family. Religious neutrality is what took place here.
Post a Comment