Mendham Methodist Church v. Morris County, New Jersey. District of New Jersey Federal District Court. In April 2023, the Clinic filed its
first direct-representation lawsuit in a case against Morris County, New Jersey, on behalf of a Methodist church and
a Lutheran church that both formerly received historic preservation funds to support
their centuries-old architecturally and historically significant church buildings
but were in recent years denied access to the grant program solely based on the fact
that they are houses of worship. A parallel case reached the United States Supreme
Court in 2019 and several Justices indicated interest in the issue at that time. We
have filed for summary judgment, arguing that the New Jersey rule against providing
equal treatment to houses of worship violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First
Amendment. Both the Freedom From Religion Foundation and New Jersey Attorney General
Matthew Platkin have sought to intervene in the case to defend New Jersey’s discriminatory
rule. The motion for summary judgment and the motions to intervene remain pending.
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland v. Kreidler. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A Washington state law forces churches to cover elective
abortions in their health insurance plans. As a result of Washington’s abortion mandate,
the Cedar Park Assembly of God’s insurance carrier included abortion coverage directly
in the church’s health plan. The church brought suit, but lost on the merits in the
district court. On appeal at the Ninth Circuit, the Clinic filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Christian Legal Society and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
in support of Cedar Park, arguing that Washington State’s abortion mandate violates
the Free Exercise Clause under recent United States Supreme Court decisions and the
Ninth Circuit’s en banc opinion in Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified
School District. This amicus brief continues the Clinic’s support for churches and
religious institutions that refuse to be complicit in facilitating abortion because
it directly contradicts their sincerely held religious beliefs about the sanctity
of human life. Foothill Church v. Bonta, the other case where the Clinic supported
a church challenging California’s abortion mandate, ended with a victory in California
district court. The Clinic filed its amicus brief in November 2023. Oral argument
will likely be held sometime in 2024, with a decision following later.
Hunter v. Department of Education. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This case involves a lawsuit against the Biden Administration’s
Department of Education. The plaintiffs–students who attended religious colleges and
universities–argued that allowing religious colleges to utilize a longstanding, statutorily
enacted religious exemption to Title IX violated the Establishment Clause because
it permitted those colleges to discriminate on the basis of sex, sexual orientation,
and transgender status. The Department of Education prevailed at the district court,
and the plaintiffs appealed. At the Ninth Circuit, the Clinic filed an amicus brief in support of the Department of Education, arguing that Kennedy v. Bremerton School
District, a recent Supreme Court case, revolutionized Establishment Clause doctrine
and that under the Court’s new “historical practices” interpretation, Plaintiffs failed
to state a viable Establishment Clause claim. As a result, religious colleges and
universities should be able to continue claiming Title IX’s religious exemption. A
contrary ruling would mean that religious colleges and universities cannot access
federal funding for their programs without surrendering their religious beliefs. The
Clinic filed its amicus brief in November 2023. Oral argument will be held sometime
in 2024, with a decision following in the months afterwards.
Barnett v. Short. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In this case, a Christian prisoner held in a Missouri
county jail requested a Bible for his personal devotion, but a jail official responded,
“Feel free to quote the constitution all you want to . . . [but] you will not receive
anything more.” The prisoner was denied access to a Bible for an entire month. The
Clinic represents Prof. Byron Johnson, a leading Christian scholar on the role of
religion in prison who is a professor at Baylor University in Texas and is currently
a visiting professor at Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy. Citing to Prof. Johnson’s
scholarship, the brief argues that accommodating prisoners’ religious exercise helps them rehabilitate in
prison, decreases prison security problems, and lowers the recidivism rates for released
prisoners. The Clinic will file an amicus brief on behalf of Prof. Johnson in November
2023.
Landor v. Louisiana. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (panel and en banc). In this case, a Rastafarian prisoner
had his religiously-mandated hair forcibly cut off, causing the Court to say that
it “emphatically condemn[ed] the treatment that Landor endured.” Nevertheless, the
Court held that Landor could not seek damages for the behavior the Court condemned.
The Clinic represents Prof. Byron Johnson, a leading Christian scholar on the role
of religion in prison who is a professor at Baylor University in Texas and is currently
a visiting professor at Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy. Citing to Prof. Johnson’s
scholarship, the brief argues that accommodating prisoners’ religious exercise helps
them rehabilitate in prison, decreases prison security problems, and lowers the recidivism
rates for released prisoners. The Clinic filed one amicus brief at the panel stage in the Fifth Circuit, and then another at the en banc stage in October 2023. A decision on whether the Fifth Circuit will
grant en banc review in Landor is expected in the coming months.
Spencer v. Chiumento. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. After the United States Supreme Court struck down
New York’s severe restrictions on gun ownership last June, the New York Legislature
enacted a series of new gun restrictions, which were immediately challenged in court.
One of those challenges involves a Christian church and pastor that would like to
have permitted firearms in church for purposes of defending against a violent attack
on their house of worship. However, New York’s new gun laws designate houses of worship
as “sensitive” locations where guns may not be borne, even (in some cases) by security
guards. The Clinic filed an amicus brief supporting the church’s claim, on behalf
of a Jewish synagogue in Monsey, New York. The brief argues that it is illegal to discriminate against houses of worship when New York
allows guns to be borne in many secular locations where many people gather, such as
department stores and restaurants. The brief will also point out that it is especially
problematic to deprive Jewish worshippers of the right to defend themselves given
the rising tide of antisemitic violence and attacks on synagogues. The brief was filed
in March 2023, and the case was argued later that month. In December 2023, the Second
Circuit issued its opinion, holding that New York’s laws wrongfully discriminated against houses of worship.
Fuqua v. Raak. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In this case, the Arizona prison system refused to
allow a prisoner to observe his Sabbath. The Clinic represents Prof. Byron Johnson,
a leading Christian scholar on the role of religion in prison who is a professor at
Baylor University in Texas and is currently a visiting professor at Pepperdine’s School
of Public Policy. Citing to Prof. Johnson’s scholarship, the brief argues that accommodating prisoners’ religious exercise helps them rehabilitate in
prison, decreases prison security problems, and lowers the recidivism rates for released
prisoners. The case is set to be argued in December 2023.
Pleasant View Baptist Church v. Beshear. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (en banc). This case involved a lawsuit against Kentucky
Governor Andy Beshear for COVID lockdown orders that prohibited in-person learning
at elementary and secondary schools. The panel ruled against the Plaintiffs on multiple
grounds, including on Plaintiffs’ freedom of assembly claim, by finding that any constitutional
rights were not “clearly established” at the time Plaintiffs brought their lawsuit.
As a result, the court held that government officials could not be held personally
liable for any unconstitutional actions. The Clinic filed a brief on behalf of John
Inazu, the nation’s foremost scholar on the Assembly Clause, who also has close ties
to Pepperdine University, having participated in the Dean’s Speaker Series with Dean
Caron. The Clinic’s amicus brief on behalf of Inazu argued that the panel erred in
its freedom of assembly analysis and that rehearing en banc was warranted to correct
that legal error. The brief was filed in September 2023. In October 2023, the Sixth Circuit denied rehearing
en banc.
Charter Day School v. Peltier. United States Supreme Court. This case involved an ACLU lawsuit against a North Carolina
charter school that requires students to wear appropriate clothing corresponding to
whether they are boys or girls. The ACLU challenge is based on the idea that this
policy violates federal laws pertaining to gender equality. The defendant, Charter
Day School, is defending in part based on the idea that it is a private entity, not
a public entity, and therefore not subject to the federal laws in question. The ACLU
says that because Charter Day School—a nonprofit corporation—contracts with the government
to run a charter school, it is therefore a public entity and subject to these gender
discrimination laws. Charter Day School lost at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
and sought review at the United States Supreme Court. The Clinic filed a brief on behalf of Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, in support
of Charter Day School. The amicus brief argued that although Charter Day School is
not itself religious, the theory advanced by the ACLU would be devastating for nonprofit
religious ministries like Catholic Charities that contract with governmental bodies
to provide social services like homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and food banks;
contracting should not be enough to turn a private entity into a public one. The amicus
brief was filed in October 2022 and Petitioner Charter Day School cited to the Clinic’s
brief twice, in its reply and supplemental briefs. In June 2023, the Supreme Court
denied review.
Mast v. Fillmore County, Minnesota. Minnesota Court of Appeals. This was a challenge by Old Order Amish farmers in rural
Minnesota to a county ordinance requiring them to treat “gray water” (sink water,
not sewage) using an electric septic tank rather than the traditional mulching system.
This case was reviewed once by the United States Supreme Court, which reversed an
earlier ruling against the Amish. Our amicus brief, filed on behalf of the National Committee for Amish Religious Freedom, the leading
national Amish religious liberty organization, argued that Fillmore County's ordinance
is part of a broader history of attacks on the Amish by local governments. Our brief
explains that a cooperative approach by the government, rather than bans on Amish
religious practices, have resulted in better outcomes for both the Amish and local
governmental bodies. The brief was filed in January 2023. In July 2023, the Minnesota
Court of Appeals issued a unanimous 3-0 decision in favor of the Old Order Amish.
Groff v. DeJoy. United States Supreme Court. This appeal concerned the United States Postal Service’s
decision to require its employees to start working on Sundays in accordance with USPS’s
agreement to deliver packages for Amazon. (U.S. Mail is not delivered on Sundays.)
In this appeal, a Christian United States postal worker seeks redress for his firing
due to his religious restriction on working on Sundays. The Clinic filed an amicus brief on behalf of Orthodox Union, one of the nation’s largest Orthodox Jewish denominational
groups. The brief explained the many problems that the previous legal standard presented
for Orthodox Jews and urged the Court to recognize a more faith-friendly legal standard.
The brief was filed in February 2023. In June 2023, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous
opinion in favor of the plaintiff, creating a new, more favorable standard for religious
claimants. In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court quoted the Clinic’s amicus brief by name and cited to cases found in the Clinic’s amicus brief.
Walker v. Baldwin. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. A Rastafarian prisoner was denied the wearing of
a religiously-mandated hairstyle. However, such hairstyles are commonly allowed in
federal and state prison systems and have caused no security problems. The Clinic
represents Prof. Byron Johnson, a leading Christian scholar on the role of religion
in prison who is a professor at Baylor University in Texas and is currently a visiting
professor at Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy. Citing to Prof. Johnson’s scholarship,
the brief argues that accommodating prisoners’ religious exercise helps them rehabilitate
in prison, decreases prison security problems, and lowers the recidivism rates for
released prisoners. The amicus brief was filed in October 2022. The Seventh Circuit later decided the case on alternative
grounds.
Palmer v. Liberty University. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This case involved an age discrimination claim by
a professor at Liberty University, a Christian university in Virginia, whose teaching
contract was not renewed. Our brief, which was filed on behalf of a coalition of religious universities from a number
of different faith traditions, including Pepperdine itself, argues that the professor's
discrimination lawsuit cannot be allowed to proceed because it runs afoul of the First
Amendment's ministerial exception and church autonomy doctrines. This brief was filed
in May 2022 and the case was argued in January 2023. In June 2023, the Fourth Circuit
affirmed the lower court’s dismissal on ADEA grounds and declined to reach the ministerial
exception question. One judge concurred in the judgment and explained that the plaintiff
was a minister and therefore her suit was barred.
Morris v. Centura Health. Colorado Court of Appeals. This case involved a test-case lawsuit brought by a doctor
who was fired for seeking to provide assisted suicide in contravention of her religious
hospital employer's commitment to abide by the Ethical and Religious Directives for
Catholic Healthcare Services. The doctor seeks to force Catholic healthcare entities
to allow their doctors to participate in assisted suicide/euthanasia. Our brief, filed on behalf of the Little Sisters of the Poor and the Catholic Benefits Association,
argued that the First Amendment doctrine of church autonomy would not allow Colorado
to force Catholic healthcare providers to participate in assisted suicide in defiance
of Church teaching. This brief was filed in May 2022. The Court of Appeals later denied
relief to Centura.
Foothill Church v. Bonta. Eastern District of California federal district court. This was a challenge by several
Protestant churches to a California state abortion mandate that applies to employers.
The churches have a religious objection to providing abortion within their employee
healthcare plans. Our amicus brief, filed on behalf of the California Catholic Conference
(which consists of the Catholic bishops of California) argued that California's abortion
mandate cannot be reconciled with either the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Fulton
v. City of Philadelphia or the church autonomy doctrine. The brief was filed in April 2022. Although the district court had originally ruled against
the churches, in August 2022 it reversed course based on the Fulton case, and in February
2023 it issued a permanent injunction against California’s abortion mandate.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. United States Supreme Court. This case concerned a public high school football coach
in Washington State who was fired because he prayed on the 50-yard line after games
concluded. Our brief, filed on behalf of the American Legion, argued that the history and traditions of
the First Amendment mean that while truly coercive prayer practices (e.g. pray-to-play)
would be impermissible, private prayer is firmly within constitutional bounds, even
if undertaken in a public place and in a public way. The brief was filed in March
2022, and the Supreme Court decided the case in June 2022 in favor of Coach Kennedy.
