Recent Court Rulings Affirm First Amendment Protections

WASHINGTON, March 24, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- For some time, the First Amendment and religious freedom in general have been under almost continuous assault via court rulings on all levels across the nation. Recent decisions, however, are providing a ray of hope that First Amendment protections against governmental interference in religious matters can still hold sway as the framers of the Constitution intended.

Indoor worship

Undoubtedly, the most important and far-reaching decision pertaining to the First Amendment is the Feb. 5 Supreme Court joint ruling in the nearly identical cases of South Bay United Pentecostal Church vs. Newsom and Harvest Rock Church vs. Newsom.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom had banned all indoor worship in churches throughout the state in response to the coronavirus pandemic. This was the most severe restriction on church worship in the nation and considered by many to be blatantly discriminatory against the religious, as no such restrictions were placed on TV studio audiences and other similar gatherings. In its 5-4 ruling, the court held California's restrictions to be unconstitutional, and therefore the state must again allow its houses of worship to hold indoor services. (The court did allow the state to continue its 25% capacity attendance restriction.)

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in his opinion, "If Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California's churches, synagogues and mosques, something has gone seriously awry." While the court's ruling upholding First Amendment protections was by the slimmest possible majority, the ruling provides substantial hope that the higher courts will continue to safeguard First Amendment guarantees to the free exercise of religion.

'Ecclesiastical abstention'

As more issues involving religious disputes are litigated, it is increasingly important that essential components of religious freedom protections are affirmed. A recent example involved a suit brought by several parents whose children had been expelled for misbehavior from a religiously affiliated Lutheran private school.

In this case, Prince of Peace Christian School argued that the trial court could not intervene because of "ecclesiastical abstention," the legal doctrine that the First Amendment prohibits courts from deciding on matters of religious belief or practice. In a ruling from September 2020 the Texas 5th District Court of Appeals agreed, ruling that any decision on the merits of the dispute would require improper judicial intrusion into Prince of Peace's religious affairs, and that First Amendment protections take precedence over all other considerations.

This case may seem small in scope, but along with other similar decisions, indicates positive signs that appellate courts are upholding First Amendment protections more so than the lower courts.

'Religious schism' case

There have also been important developments on the appellate level in a closely watched case in Washington, D.C., with significant religious freedom implications. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued an interim ruling on Feb. 19 in the case, Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International, et al vs. Hyun Jin Moon et al, ordering an expedited appeals process and extending the "stay pending appeal" for the defendants.

This stay is important because it puts on hold until the appeals process is completed a lower court ruling that plaintiffs hoped would allow their hostile takeover of a religious nonprofit. Such a move would have effectively represented a court-ordered subjugation of a faith community and the courts choosing winners and losers in a religious schism, which is prohibited by the First Amendment.

Also put on hold by this decision were the draconian financial penalties levied against the defendants, who are all volunteer directors of the UCI board. These total over $100 million for each defendant.

The UCI case is of great concern to First Amendment and religious freedom advocates because of its serious implications for constitutional protections of religion. At the same time, the lower court's ruling, unless overturned, would set a dangerous precedent that undermines board governance protections for D.C.-based corporations, long written into D.C. law. Due to these two issues, every religion and non-profit in the District and beyond should be greatly concerned about the eventual outcome.

This case originated in the midst of a religious schism within the Unification Movement founded by the late Rev. Sun Myung Moon. It was dismissed quickly by the original judge on First Amendment grounds that it involved religious disputes outside the purview of any court.  However, on appeal the case was sent back to the lower court level "for further investigation," where it has languished for 10 years, until the questionable ruling now being challenged by the defendants was issued on Dec. 4.

The recent actions by the appellate court are encouraging signs that it will not disregard the serious First Amendment issues involved in this case, as the lower court judges have for so long.

Battle will continue

The First Amendment guarantees of the right to believe without undue interference from government (legislative or judicial) are still under major assault in many courtrooms and capitols across the land. With so many cases pending and worrisome legislation being proposed, threats to religious freedom remain a clear and present danger. The infamous and mistitled "Equality Act" recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives is a prime example.

Pending Senate consideration, it seeks to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and identity. However, critics, including major religious organizations, maintain that the details of its enforcement will egregiously undermine religious freedom. For example, according to an official statement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, "The Equality Act exempts itself from the bipartisan Religious Freedom Restoration Act, in an explicit and unprecedented departure from one of America's founding principles, thereby infringing on religious freedom and making it more difficult for individuals to live out their faith."

Whether through legislation like this, or litigation leading to judicial overreach, the threats to religious freedom remain dire. Our God-given right to freedom to belief and conscience must be safeguarded. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

For any inquiries, please contact [email protected].

Howard C. Self is president of Right To Believe. Right To Believe is a not-for-profit organization based in the United States. Its mission is to uphold the fundamental rights of religious freedom for all. We represent tens of thousands of individuals and organizations who are fighting to protect the right to believe in one's religion without undue governmental interference. 

SOURCE Right To Believe