Texas' Claim Against HHS Over Pharmacy Guidance Dismissed As Moot

In State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, (WD TX, April 5, 2024), a Texas federal district court dismissed as moot a challenge to an HHS Guidance Document for pharmacies. Initially, HHS issued Guidance reminding retail pharmacies of their non-discrimination obligations. The state of Texas and a pharmacy sued contending that the Guidance required Texas pharmacies to dispense abortion-inducing drugs in violation of Texas law and in violation of religious beliefs of plaintiff pharmacy. HHS denied this and moved for dismissal of the complaint. The court disagreed. The court now describes that decision by saying in part:

So based on the suspicion that Defendants were “smurfing” the administration’s policy goal contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in Dobbs, the Court shot down Defendants’ motion. [See prior posting.]

Three months after the court refused to dismiss the suit, HHS issued a revised Guidance which explicitly provided that the Guidance does not require pharmacies to fill prescriptions for the purpose of abortions. The court went on:

[D]espite the textual changes, which appear crafted specifically to capitulate to Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs remain unpersuaded....

Plainly put, Plaintiffs’ concern is that anyone—pregnant or not—can walk into a pharmacy with a prescription for methotrexate, which the pharmacy must fill under every circumstance because the prescription was lawfully prescribed for a non-abortion purpose like rheumatoid arthritis. It’s not an unreasonable concern....

From the Court’s perspective, it’s hard to account for the Revised Guidance’s plain text, Defendants’ reasons for issuing the Revised Guidance, and Defendants’ in-person statements, but then still conclude that Plaintiffs will be forced to dispense drugs for abortion purposes. Indeed, it seems the only way the Court could even “reasonably expect” that Plaintiffs’ alleged injury would occur at this point would be for the Court to disregard all of Defendants’ actions as deceptive litigation posturing.  

To be sure, that argument appeals to the Court’s healthy distrust for the fourth branch of government. But there is no evidence that Defendants have tried to enforce these “obligations” against Mayo or any pharmacy in Texas in the almost two years since the  Pharmacy Guidance was issued. ...

Plaintiffs have received everything they asked for; they should take the win. As a result, the issues are now moot and the Court lacks jurisdiction.

ADF issued a press release reacting to the decision.

Religiously Motivated Aid for Drug Abusers Not Protected by RFRA or 1st Amendment

In United States v. Safehouse, (ED PA, April 3, 2024), a Pennsylvania federal district court held that neither the Religious Freedom Restoration Act nor the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment is violated by prosecuting Safehouse for violating 21 USC §856 (Maintaining Drug-Involved Premises). Safehouse is a nonprofit corporation that plans to open a safe injection site for those struggling with opioid abuse. Its founders were religiously motivated, but the corporation's articles do not set out any religious purpose. The court said in part:

Here, the organizers and leaders of Safehouse profess religious motivation, but the work of Safehouse itself is in no respect religious....

As an entity unaffiliated with any specific faith or religious institution, Safehouse claims protection for its non-religious actions, based solely upon the religious motivation of its founders.  Neither RFRA nor the free exercise clause extends that far, as religion cannot provide a “limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted obligations.” ...  That is necessarily so, because “‘the very concept of ordered liberty precludes allowing’ [a plaintiff], or any other person, a blanket privilege ‘to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests.’”...  The noble intentions of Safehouse and its founders are self-evident, and the public health crisis they seek to address continues unabated, but their religious inspiration does not provide a shield against prosecution for violation of a federal criminal statute barring its operation.

WHYY News reports on the decision.

Inmates Sue Claiming Religious Need to Watch Solar Eclipse

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by six inmates at the Woodbourne Correctional Facility in Sullivan County, New York seeking to enjoin a 3-hour statewide prison lock down scheduled for April 8 that will prevent inmates from viewing the solar eclipse.  Plaintiffs are Christian, Muslim, Santerian and Atheist. The complaint (full text) in Zielinski v. New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, (ND NY, filed 3/29/2024), alleges that plaintiffs "have each expressed a sincerely held religious belief that April’s solar eclipse is a religious event that they must witness and reflect on to observe their faiths." The complaint sets out the nature of each plaintiff's religious belief. It alleges that the lock down violates plaintiffs' rights under RLUIPA, the Free Exercise and the Equal Protection Clauses. CBS News reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: AP, April 5, reports:

Thomas Mailey, a spokesperson for the corrections department, said the department has agreed to permit the six individuals to view the eclipse, while plaintiffs have agreed to drop their suit with prejudice.

California's Removal of Personal Belief Exemption from School Immunization Requirement Is Upheld

 In Royce v. Bonta, (SD CA, March 25, 2024), a California federal district court upheld the constitutionality of a law enacted by California in response to a 2015 measles outbreak. The law removed the personal belief exemption, but retained the medical exemption, from the requirement that school children enrolled in public and private schools be immunized against nine specific diseases.  The law also gives immigrant and homeless children a grace period in which to prove compliance with the immunization requirement. The court rejected parents free exercise challenge to the law, concluding that the law is neutral and generally applicable, saying in part:

In considering California’s interest in the health and safety of students and the public at large, the risk posed by SB 277’s enumerated exemptions does not qualify as comparable to the risk posed by a personal belief exemption....  Accordingly, SB 277 is generally applicable....

There is a legitimate State interest in protecting the health and safety of students and the public at large, and SB 277’s repeal of California’s prior personal belief exemption is rationally related to furthering that interest.  Because Plaintiffs fail to allege facts from which an inference can be drawn to hold otherwise, SB 277 survives rational basis review.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise claim fails as a matter of law.

Denial of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate Did Not Violate Title VII or Constitution

In White v. University of Washington, (WD WA, March 22, 2024), a Washington federal district court rejected Title VII as well as constitutional challenges brought by a healthcare worker who was denied a religious exemption from Washington's Covid vaccine mandate. In discussing Plaintiff's Title VII claim of failure to reasonably accommodate, the court said in part:

With respect to COVID-19 in particular, guidance from the EEOC indicates that “increasing ‘the risk of the spread of COVID-19 to other employees or to the public’” is a ground for finding undue hardship on employers asked to grant religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccination mandates....

 The Ninth Circuit also has found on a motion to dismiss that undue hardship is established as a matter of law where a religious accommodation would require an employer to violate state or federal law.

The court also rejected plaintiff's due process, equal protection and free exercise claims, saying in part:

Plaintiff has made no allegations regarding what her religious beliefs are, let alone how they were burdened by Defendants’ adherence to Proclamation 21-14.

Satanic Temple Sues School Board Over Discriminatory Rental Fees for Satan Club

The Satanic Temple filed suit this week in a Tennessee federal district court complaining that the Memphis-Shelby County School Board is placing hurdles in the way of its renting space for use by an After-School Satan Club. The complaint (full text) in The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Shelby County Board of Education, (WD TN, filed 3/19/2024), alleges in part:

160. ... MSCS has demonstrated a widespread custom and practice of unnecessarily delaying approval or denial of the Satanic Temple’s rental applications....

169. ... MSCS is unconstitutionally discriminating against the Satanic Temple on the basis of its disfavored viewpoint and the content of its speech by charging the Temple a discriminatory hourly rental rate for its monthly ASSC meetings and ... an arbitrary and exorbitant security fee while not charging the same rates or security fees to the Good News Club....

170. ... MSCS’s discriminatory actions are ... arising from disagreement with, and hostility toward, the viewpoint and/or content of the Satanic Temple’s speech, as well as hostility towards the Satanic Temple’s religion by school board members, MSCS administrators, MSCS officials, community members and others....

196. The Satanic Temple’s before- and-after school clubs are a vital part of its religiously motivated mission to provide a safe, inclusive, and welcoming club for students whose parents are members of the Satanic Temple, as well as other students who may not feel welcomed or comfortable at other available before- or after-school religious clubs.

197. MSCS’s widespread custom and practice of discriminating against the Satanic Temple and attempting to constructively block and deter the ASSC from meeting ... substantially burdens the Satanic Temple’s exercise of its sincerely held non-theistic religious belief.

Freedom From Religion foundation issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Christian Food Ministry Sues to End City's Attempts to Close It Down

 Last week, a Yuma County, Arizona Baptist church filed suit in an Arizona federal district court challenging actions the city of San Luis has taken to close down the church's food distribution ministry which it has operated for 23 years. The complaint (full text) in Gethsemani Baptist Church v. City of San Luis, (D AZ, filed 3/13/2024), says that with the election of a new mayor in 2022, the city ended its prior support for the food ministry and used zoning rules to attempt to end its operations. The city contends that the growth of the church's Food Ministry has changed it sufficiently that it may no longer rely on its prior treatment as a legal non-conforming use. The church alleges that the city's actions violate RLUIPA, the Free Exercise Clause, and Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Act. First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filling of the lawsuit.

Air Pollution Did Not Violate City Residents' Free Exercise Rights

In Dancer v. United States, (WD MI, March 15, 2024), residents of Kalamazoo, Michigan sued a variety of governmental and private parties alleging injuries from airborne pollution, chemical discharges and odors from a nearby paper mill. Among the 34 separate claims in the lawsuit was a claim that the city's failure to deal with air quality problems caused pollution and odors that interfered with plaintiffs' ability to attend congregational worship services. The Michigan federal district court said in part:

The city’s alleged failure to improve the air quality of its residents does not give rise to a free exercise claim because that failure impacts city residents without regard to their religion.... Ordinarily, a policy or practice that is “neutral, generally applicable, and ‘incidentally burdens religions practices’” does not give rise to a free exercise claim.... Those are the circumstances here.

Custody Order Barring Father from Taking Child to His Church Upheld

In Bardonner v. Bardonner, (IN App., March 12, 2024), the Indiana Court of Appeals held that a father's free exercise rights were not infringed in any way by a provision in a custody order that gives his former wife custody of their child and the sole right to determine the child's religious training.  At issue is a trial court order that provides in part:

Father shall NOT permit the child to attend any All Saints Orthodox Church service, Sunday school, social event, any event located at the church, any event sponsored in whole or in part by All Saints Orthodox Church; nor any private events hosted by a member of All Saints Orthodox Church....

The court said in part:

The bottom line is that Mother has the exclusive authority to dictate Child’s religious training, and she has decided that Child shall not participate in Father’s church. Mother does not need to explain her reasons or justify her decision in any way.

Finally, we note that it was Father’s own violations of previous court orders, which were less restrictive on this issue, that led the trial court to impose the current prohibition against taking Child to even private functions hosted by members of Father’s church. Given the trial court’s broad discretion in family matters, we decline Father’s invitation to find an abuse of that discretion here. 

In sum, the trial court’s order does not violate Father’s First Amendment rights; nor is it erroneous for other reasons.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Says Catholic Charities Not Exempt from Unemployment Comp Law

 In Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, (WI Sup. Ct., March 14, 2024), the Wisconsin Supreme Court by a vote of 4-3 held that Catholic Charities Bureau and four of its sub-entities are not entitled to an exemption from the state's unemployment compensation law.  The statute exempts nonprofit organizations "operated primarily for religious purposes and operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches." The court concluded that under the statute, what is important is the purpose of the nonprofit organization, not the purpose of the church which controls it. The court said in part:

... [I]n determining whether an organization is "operated primarily for religious purposes" within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.02(15)(h)2., we must examine both the motivations and the activities of the organization....

CCB and the sub-entities profess to have a religious motivation.... However, accepting an organization's motivations does not end the inquiry as we must also examine its activities....

 Here, such criteria weigh in favor of a determination that CCB's and the sub-entities' activities are not "primarily" religious in nature.  The record demonstrates that CCB and the sub-entities, which are organized as separate corporations apart from the church itself, neither attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials to program participants or employees.  Although not required, these would be strong indications that the activities are primarily religious in nature....

CCB's and the sub-entities' activities are primarily charitable and secular.  The sub-entities provide services to individuals with developmental and mental health disabilities.  These activities include job training, placement, and coaching, as well as services related to activities of daily living.  CCB provides background support and management services for these activities——a wholly secular endeavor....  

Such services can be provided by organizations of either religious or secular motivations, and the services provided would not differ in any sense....

The court also concluded that neither this inquiry nor the required payment of unemployment tax violates the Free Exercise or Establishment Clauses.

Justice Bradley, joined in part by Chief Justice Ziegler, filed a lengthy dissenting opinion, saying in part:

 Impermissibly entangling the government in church doctrine, the majority astonishingly declares Catholic Charities are not "operated primarily for religious purposes" because their activities are not "religious in nature."... The statute, however, requires only that a nonprofit be operated primarily for a religious reason.

Justice Hagedorn also filed a brief dissenting opinion.

AP reports on the decision, as does Courthouse News Service,

New York's Removal of Religious Exemption from School Vaccination Requirement Is Upheld

In Miller v. McDonald, (WD NY, March 11, 2024), a New York federal district court upheld New York's removal of religious exemptions from its mandatory requirement for vaccination of school children. It rejected Free Exercise challenges by Amish individuals and schools, finding, in part in reliance on the 2nd Circuit's We the Patriots decision, that the law was both neutral and generally applicable, and thus did not trigger heightened scrutiny.  The court said in  part:

... Plaintiffs allege that PHL § 2164 is not neutral because “the State targeted religious adherents by eliminating [the] long-standing religious exemption while leaving the medical exemption process in place.”... This allegation fails to establish non-neutrality.  Nothing in the text of PHL § 2164 as amended demonstrates any hostility to religion.  To the contrary, PHL § 2164 is neutral on its face, neither targeting religious belief nor singling it out for particularly harsh treatment.  And, as previously noted, We the Patriots affirmatively held that the repeal of a previously existing religious exemption is not, of itself, hostile to religion....

Moreover, the legislative history related to the repeal of the non-medical exemption contains no evidence of hostility towards religious belief.  Those sponsoring the relevant legislation in both the New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly made clear that their concern was public health...

The We the Patriots court explained that “where a law provides for an objectively defined category of people to whom the vaccination requirement does not apply, including a category defined by medical providers’ use of their professional judgment, such an exemption affords no meaningful discretion to the State” and thus does not render the law not generally applicable.

Ban on Caste Discrimination Is Constitutional

In Bagal v. Sawant, (WD WA, March 8, 2024), a Washington federal district court rejected First and 14th Amendment challenges to the City of Seattle's adding of "caste" as a protected class under its anti-discrimination Ordinance. The court said in part:

First, Plaintiff argues that incorporating “caste” into existing anti-discrimination laws ipso facto creates a stigma, levelled towards a specific and insular minority group, namely members of the Hindu religion....

Plaintiff simply does not allege they are burdened, in any manner, from practicing their faith.... [H]aving failed to allege a cognizable injury, Plaintiff de facto lacks standing to assert a Free Exercise challenge to the Ordinance. Plaintiff’s Establishment Clause claim is similarly unavailing.... Fundamentally, Plaintiff’s reasoning is that the City of Seattle’s involvement on an issue of equal importance to practitioners of a certain religion becomes, as a consequence, activity in favor or opposition to that religion. And that, because the City of Seattle opted to disfavor caste-based forms of discrimination, a fortiori it condemned all notions of caste as it was understood by any religion. But that logic proves too much. And even assuming, arguendo, that the Ordinance does condemn notions of caste as is believed by a certain religion, that does not constitute activity in support or disparagement of that religion. For instance, birth control is a topic that involves both religious beliefs and general welfare concerns. And yet, no court has ever held that government approval of birth control violates the Establishment Clause....

It is not enough, in other words, that the anti-caste legislation strikes members of a religion as reflecting poorly on their religious beliefs.... In this case, the Ordinance’s principal effect is not to endorse a religion, but simply to bolster local anti-discrimination laws.  Any coincidental reference to a shared phenomenon (such as caste) is secondary, if not wholly, immaterial....

Second, Plaintiff contends that the Ordinance violates the Equal Protection Clause....

Nowhere does the text of the Ordinance make use of prohibited classifications.  Rather, the Ordinance is facially neutral and of general applicability.  Moreover, wholly absent from Plaintiff’s complaint are any facts suggesting that the legislative drafters were actually motivated by racial or ethnic animus.... Further to the point, Plaintiff’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the City of Seattle has applied the Ordinance in a discriminatory manner.

Student Sues School Board Alleging Gender Affirming Policies Violate Her Rights

Suit was filed earlier this week in a Virgina state trial court by a high school student challenging Fairfax County School Board regulations (full text) that support transgender students.  The complaint (full text) in Doe v. Fairfax County School Board, (VA Cir. Ct., filed 3/4/2024), alleges in part:

... FCPS Regulation 2603.2 and its application unconstitutionally violates the Petitioner’s sincerely held philosophical and religious beliefs by compelling her to refer to “[s]tudents who identify as gender-expansive or transgender [] by their chosen name and pronoun ....  

... [They] further unconstitutionally violate the Petitioner’s philosophical and religious beliefs by compelling her to share a restroom with a biological male. 

... [They] unconstitutionally discriminate against the Petitioner on the basis of her sex by requiring her to use a private restroom to remain consistent with her beliefs while allowing a biological male to use the female restroom... [and by permitting] a biological male to feel safe and comfortable by having full access to any restroom of his choice while not allowing the Petitioner to feel safe and comfortable by using the restroom of her biological sex....

... FCPS has knowingly and blatantly violated the Petitioner’s rights by forcing her to accept the ideological viewpoint of the government and the claimed rights and privileges of other students. 

America First Legal issued a press release announcing its filing or the lawsuit. FFXNow reports on the lawsuit.

Christian Organization Challenges Grant Rule Barring Religious Favoritism in Hiring

Suit was filed this week in an Oregon federal district court challenging an anti-discrimination rule of the Oregon Department of Education that disqualified a Christian youth-mentoring ministry from receiving $410,000 in grants for which it had initially been selected. The Christian group requires all of its board members, its 30 employees and 100+ volunteers to adhere to the organization's Statement of Faith. The Grant Program's rule bars grantees from favoring co-religionists as employees or volunteers. The complaint (full text) in Yourh 71Five Ministries v. Williams, (D OR, filed 3/4/2024), contends that the rule violates its Free Exercise and Free Expression rights, saying in part:

Because it emphasizes one-to-one mentoring and creating authentic, trusting relationships, 71Five Ministries depends on its staff and volunteers to fulfill the ministry’s distinctly Christian mission and purpose....

Defendants cannot disqualify otherwise eligible religious organizations from participation in otherwise available government benefit programs, including the Youth Community Investment Grant Program, “solely because of their religious character,”

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

RLUIPA Safe harbor Does Not Extend to Claims for Monetary Damages

 In Bair Brucha Inc. v. Township of Toms River, New Jersey, (D NJ, Feb. 29, 2024), a New Jersey federal district court granted plaintiffs judgment on the pleadings on their RLUIPA and Free Exercise challenges to discriminatory land use regulations that prevented their construction of a synagogue.  Plaintiffs claimed that Toms River had engaged in an orchestrated effort to prevent the growth of the Orthodox Jewish population in the town. Subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit, the township amended its zoning regulations in a settlement of a RLUIPA suit brought by the Justice Department. Plaintiffs did not deny that their original regulations violated the Equal Terms and the Exclusion and Limits provisions of RLUIPA. However, they contended that since the zoning ordinances have subsequently been amended, the township is covered by the safe harbor provision in RLUIPA that shields a local government from the preemptive force of RLUIPA if it subsequently amends its land use regulations to remove the burdensome or discriminatory provisions. The court held that the safe harbor provision does not extend to claims for monetary damages incurred before the township took corrective action.

Also finding a violation of the Free Exercise clause, the court concluded that the land use regulations were neither neutral nor generally applicable and that antisemitic animus was a motivating factor behind the land use regulations.

Election of Student School Board Member by Public School Students Did Not Violate Free Exercise Clause

 In Kim v. Board of Education of Howard County, (4th Cir., Feb. 28, 2024), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of equal protection and free exercise challenges to the procedure that Howard County, Maryland uses to select a high school student to be one member of its 8-member school board. The student member is chosen by a vote of public-school students in grades 6 through 11. One of the plaintiffs contended that this process violates the Free Exercise clause because it excludes plaintiff's son who attends a Catholic school from participating in the selection process. The court concluded that the selection process is neutral and generally applicable and therefore subject only to rational basis review. The court said in part: 

Maryland’s law does not consider religious motivation but depends on public school enrollment. To the extent the law has an effect of excluding religious students, it does so “in spite of” and not “because of” those students’ religious reasons for forgoing public education.... The law is neutral. 

It is also generally applicable.,,,  Maryland’s law makes no distinction between religious and secular. It bars non-public-school students, religious and nonreligious alike, from choosing or serving as the student member.....

Howard County does not let any private schools, religious or nonreligious, participate in selecting the board of education student member.... Strict scrutiny plays no role in judging this textbook neutral and generally applicable selection criterion.....

Without the benefit of heightened judicial scrutiny, the parents have failed to state a viable claim under either the Equal Protection Clause or the Free Exercise Clause under rational basis review.

Court Upholds Maine's Law Barring LGBTQ Discrimination by Christian School Receiving State Funds

In Crosspoint Church v. Maikin, (D ME, Feb. 27, 2024), a Maine federal district court refused to enjoin application of the state's educational antidiscrimination laws against a private Christian school. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Maine's exclusion of sectarian schools from its tuition payment program to out-of-district schools when districts do not operate their own public high schools. (See prior posting.) While that litigation was in progress, Maine's legislature amended its civil right laws to now bar schools that receive public funds from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In rejecting the school's challenges, the court said in part:

The Court concludes that Crosspoint is not entitled to a preliminary injunction.  With this said, the Court acknowledges that Crosspoint is raising important legal questions.  Despite the plaintiffs’ hard-fought and significant victory at the United States Supreme Court in Carson, the Maine Legislature and the Maine Attorney General have largely deprived Crosspoint and similar religious schools of the fruit of their victory.  Crosspoint essentially argues that the Maine Legislature’s enactment of statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is a form of state-enforced, secular religion.  Yet, the Maine Legislature has the authority to define protected classes under its antidiscrimination laws.  The rub comes when the Maine Legislature’s view of the categories of people meriting protected status conflicts with sincerely held beliefs of members of religious communities.  This is a tension as old as the nation itself.  Although it has done its best to set out, analyze, and decide these difficult constitutional issues, the Court also recognizes that this case poses novel constitutional questions and has attempted to frame its opinion as a prelude to a challenge to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for a more authoritative ruling....

Cert. Filed In Religious Broadcasters' Appeal of Mandatory Royalty Rates

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed last week with the U.S. Supreme Court in National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee v. Copyright Royalty Board, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 2/23/2024).  In the case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a July 28, 2023, opinion (full text) upheld the royalty rates set by the Royalty Board for calendar years 2021 through 2025 that must be paid by various classes of webcasters that stream copyrighted songs over the Internet. In its certiorari petition, the Religious Broadcasters set out the following as one of the Questions Presented for review:

Recently, the Board adopted rates requiring noncommercial religious webcasters to pay over 18 times the secular NPR-webcaster rate to communicate religious messages to listeners above a modest 218-average listener threshold. The D.C. Circuit upheld that disparate burden based on the Board treating some secular webcasters as poorly as religious webcasters. The result is suppression of online religious speech....

Its decision presents ... important legal questions: 

1. Whether approving noncommercial rates that favor NPR’s secular speech over religious speech violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or the First Amendment....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

Pakistan Supreme Court Defends Free Exercise Rights of Ahmadis; Protests Follow

Earlier this month, a 2-judge panel of the Pakistani Supreme Court in Mubarak Ahmad Sani v. The State, (Pakistan Sup. Ct., Feb. 6, 2024) (full text in Urdu), ordered the release on personal bond of a member of the Ahmadi sect who had already been held for 13 months pending trial on charges of disseminating a banned religious text.

 As explained in the Feb. 25 issue of Dawn:

Petitioner Sami had sought deletion of certain charges in an FIR [First Information Report] registered against him on Dec 6, 2022 at the Chenab Nagar police station in Chiniot district.

The petitioner was accused of distributing/disseminating a proscribed book, Tafseer-i-Sagheer, which, according to the prosecution, was an offence under the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording) (Amendment) Act enforced in 2021, whereas the FIR alleged that the petitioner had done this in 2019 when the distribution/dissemination of the proscribed book was not an offence....

The petitioner was arrested on Jan 7, 2023 and remained incarcerated for 13 months — more than double the permissible punishment under Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932....

The verdict observed that the principle of there being no compulsion in religion mentioned in the Holy Quran is enshrined in the Constitution as a fundamental right. Clause (a) of Article 20 of the Constitution stipulates that “every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion”, while clause (b) of Article 20 states that “every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions”.

Article 22 of the Constitution requires and prescribes that “no religious community or denomination shall be prevented from providing religious instruction for pupils of that community or denomination in any educational institution maintained wholly by that community or denomination”.

“These fundamental rights cannot be derogated from, circumvented or diluted.... ” the judgement observed.

The court regretted that bail was declined to the petitioner by the additional sessions judge on June 10 last year, without considering that the petitioner had already served out the maximum prescribed imprisonment for these offence.

According to a Feb. 23 AFP report, the Supreme Court's decision led to demonstrations in Peshawar by some 3000 Pakistani Muslims who consider the Ahmadi text blasphemous. As reported by the Times of India, the Supreme Court on Thursday issued a statement defending the decision.

UPDATE: According to a Feb. 24 report in The News, the Punjab government has petitioned the Supreme Court seeking a revision of its decision, asking it to clarify that Article 20 of the Constitution qualifies its protection of the profession, propagation and practice of religion by making it subject to "public order and morality". At a hearing on accepting the petition, the Chief Justice's comments suggested that the Court would agree to that modification. The Court adjourned the hearing until Feb. 26.

Certiorari Denied in Case of Jurors Disqualified Because of Religious Beliefs

Today the Supreme Court denied review in Missouri Department of Corrections v. Finney, (certiorari denied, 2/20/2024). In the case a Missouri state appellate court (full text of state court opinion) upheld a trial court's striking of three potential jurors for cause. The suit involved claims against the Department of Corrections by a lesbian employee alleging sex discrimination and hostile work environment. The potential jurors were disqualified because of their strongly-held religious views that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality was an important issue in the case. Justice Alito filed a Statement respecting the denial of certiorari indicating that were it not for a complicating state law issue in the case, he would have voted to grant review, saying in part:

Before us, the Department of Corrections argues that these for-cause dismissals were unconstitutional, and I agree that the Court of Appeals’ reasoning raises a very serious and important question that we should address in an appropriate case. The judiciary, no less than the other branches of State and Federal Government, must respect people’s fundamental rights, and among these are the right to the free exercise of religion and the right to the equal protection of the laws. When a court, a quintessential state actor, finds that a person is ineligible to serve on a jury because of his or her religious beliefs, that decision implicates fundamental rights.