Yes, says a federal court, partly because this particular challenge (to a policy “which only allowed religious exemptions for those individuals who are members of organized religions whose teachings entirely forbid vaccinations”) appears to be purely legal in nature.
That's the issue raised by a newly filed federal lawsuit.
Four courts have recently said yes, in cases brought by conservative Muslims and Christians.
Donating to the needy, in addition to being a generally nice thing to do, is a protected First Amendment activity.
“The Very Reverend Georges F. de Laire, J.C.L., who serves as the Judicial Vicar and the Vicar for Canonical Affairs for the Diocese of Manchester, brings a defamation claim against Gary Michael Voris, Anita Carey, and St. Michael’s Media, Inc. a/k/a Church Militant.”
The defendant hospital might be violating Title VII by denying the exemption (especially since it "changed its policy in an arguably arbitrary manner")—but the employees' remedy would be to sue for damages from being fired, and not to get a preliminary injunction ordering that they not be fired.
That at least is the temporary injunction pending appeal, just issued Sunday.
Doesn't seem right to me, but I'd love to hear what people who know more about Jewish religious law think about it.
The full court will consider the proper standard for judicial review of COVID restrictions in religious institutions.
Featuring Guatemala, New York, and Iran.
Western Michigan University mandated vaccinations for participation in team sports (but not for students generally); it said religious exemption requests would be available on a case-by-case basis; but then apparently categorically denied them.
Justices have mostly demurred on the question of whether anti-discrimination laws trump religious freedom.
The same logic would apply to Orthodox Jewish women, and to men who wear religious headgear,
I coauthored it with Kevin Cope (University of Virginia) and Alex Stremitzer (UCLA/ETH Zurich)
But the decision turns heavily on Louisiana law, and on the nature of this particular set of rules.
A new law allows cash-strapped districts to send students to private religious schools.
Religious families aren’t the only ones seeking escape from endless curriculum wars.
The market was conducted on city streets, managed by the city, and open to the public.
Opposed by LGBT and pro-choice advocacy groups, the measure allows doctors to refuse to perform treatments on moral grounds
We can thank judges who were prepared to enforce constitutional limits on public health powers.
Plus: Georgia's voting roll purge draws media hype, Florida's drug law hypocrisy, and more...
No justices disagreed, but Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas object that the majority is sidestepping a debate over when laws can overrule religious beliefs.
The outcome of today's Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.
A new decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
