CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION LEGAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT

©2015 Anti-Defamation League 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 www.adl.org contactus@adl.org

IN THE COURTS: ADL’S CURRENT LEGAL DOCKET FEBRUARY 2016

Page | 2

Table of Contents

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ......................... 3

2015-2016 DECISIONS FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ...................................... 3

FILED AND AWAITING DECISION IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ...................... 6

THE APPELLATE AND STATE COURTS ... 8

2015-2016 DECISIONS FROM APPELLATE AND STATE COURTS .......................... 8

FILED AND AWAITING DECISION ............................................................................ 13

IN APPELLATE AND STATE COURTS ....................................................................... 13

DECISION KEY

Favorable to ADL

Contrary to ADL Decision on other

grounds Favorable and

contrary portions of

the decision

Page | 3

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

2015-2016 DECISIONS FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

Obergefell v. Hodges (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)

Tanco v. Haslam (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)

DeBoer v. Snyder (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)

Bourke v. Beshear (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)

These cases challenge Ohio's, Tennessee’s, Michigan’s, and Kentucky’s Marriage Bans,

state constitutional amendments that define marriage as exclusively between one man and

one woman. ADL filed a brief on behalf of a coalition of 25 organizations that recounts

how discriminatory laws targeting disadvantaged groups have long been justified by

religious and moral disapproval, an argument that has been rejected by the U.S. Supreme

Court. The brief also argued that overturning the marriage ban would not only ensure that

religious considerations do not improperly influence which marriages the state can

recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the definition of marriage for

themselves. The Court held that that the 14th Amendment requires a state to license a

marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize marriages lawfully

performed in other jurisdictions.

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities

Project (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)

The case focuses on Dallas, Texas, where the State of Texas approved the construction of

affordable housing along racial lines. Over a period of years, a Texas housing agency

reinforced residential segregation by consistently approving affordable housing in

African American neighborhoods instead of fairly distributing that housing across all

communities to promote integration. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a key provision

of the Fair Housing Act. Enacted in the wake of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s tragic

assassination in 1968, the Fair Housing Act is our nation’s key tool to eradicate housing

discrimination and promote more inclusive neighborhoods. The Texas Department of

Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project case raises the

question whether the Fair Housing Act prohibits not just intentional bigotry but also

unjustified practices that disproportionately exclude or harm people based on race,

ethnicity, religion, family status, or other characteristics covered by the Act. This

principle, known as the “disparate impact” standard, has been the law of the land for over

four decades. In fact, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

issued regulations that again confirm this approach. ADL joined an amicus brief filed on

behalf of a coalition of organizations. The brief provided evidence (based in caselaw and

social science) supporting the arguments that segregation continues to generate grave

social harms; that conversely, integration conveys benefits that accrue both to individuals

and to society as a whole; and that disparate impact claims are a fundamental tool in

making progress toward integration. The Court held that the Act protects victims of

discrimination, even where they cannot prove an intent to discriminate.

Discrimination

Housing

Discrimination

Marriage equality

Page | 4

Zivotofsky v. Kerry (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)

This case involves the right of American citizens born in Jerusalem to list Israel as their

place of birth on their passports, rather than just “Jerusalem.” Despite a 2002 law

directing the Secretary of State, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen’s legal

guardian, to record the place of birth as Israel, the State Department manual currently

provides that the passports of American citizens born in Jerusalem must say “Jerusalem,”

reflecting official U.S. government policy regarding the unresolved status of Jerusalem.

Following the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court directing the case back to the lower

court for review on the merits, ADL again led an unusually broad-based coalition of other

Jewish organizations, in addition to the Association of Proud American Citizens Born in

Jerusalem, Israel, in filing an amicus brief which argued that “a passport is not a

statement of foreign policy,” but rather simply involves a ministerial act “a means of

identifying and differentiating citizens” based on information they provide. Therefore the

statute does not implicate the Executive Branch’s foreign policy power and it was within

the power of Congress to legislate regarding the issuance of passports. ADL also argued

that denying Jerusalem-born American citizens to identify Israel as their place of birth on

their passports is discriminatory as that is a right presently accorded to American citizens

born in territories not even recognized by the United States.

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)

At issue in this case is whether or not employees must be the ones to broach the topic of

religious accommodations in the workplace, even if it an obvious accommodation. The

plaintiff in this case, a Muslim woman who wore a headscarf/hijab, applied for a sales

position at Abercrombie & Fitch. During the interview, there was no discussion about if

or how the applicant’s hijab would be acceptable under the store's "Look Policy."

Although the plaintiff scored high enough to be hired, Abercrombie reduced the score

and failed to hire her. ADL’s brief emphasized the importance of Title VII's protection

against religious discrimination, explained how the Tenth Circuit's rule undermines both

Title VII's central purpose and its central "bilateral cooperation" mechanism, and urged

the Court to take care not to endorse customer preference as a component when

considering undue hardship.

Elonis v. United States (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)

At issue in this case is the standard for determining when a statement crosses the line

from protected speech to a "true threat." The defendant in the case posted threatening

statements on Facebook, including one about wanting to kill his estranged wife and dump

her body in a creek to make it look like a rape. He later said that he did not mean the

statements as a threat, but rather as a rant. ADL's brief argued that true threats should be

unlawful, regardless of whether the State can prove that the speaker intended the

statements as a threat.

Civil Liberties

First Amendment

Discrimination

Religious

Accommodation

Discrimination

Passport

Designation

Page | 5

Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)

At issue in this case was Alabama’s redistricting plan after the 2010 census. When

Alabama redrew its district lines the drafters created supermajorities in majority-minority

districts, sometimes creating districts that were more than 75 percent black. The Alabama

Democratic Conference and the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus filed lawsuits arguing

that, in drawing the district lines the way it did, Alabama unconstitutionally engaged in

racial gerrymandering and diluted minorities’ political power in other districts. ADL

urged the Supreme Court to strike down the redistricting plan as unconstitutional, arguing

that because the State subordinated traditional race-neutral redistricting principles to race-

based considerations, the Court should analyze the redistricting plan with the highest

level of scrutiny. ADL argued that Alabama’s plan should be struck down because it was

not narrowly tailored to fit the requirements of the Voting Rights Act.

Holt v. Hobbs (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)

This case challenges an Arkansas prison’s decision to deny an observant Muslim the right

to observe his faith by wearing a short beard. The Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) requires the State to offer a compelling reason

for denying a prisoner’s request to accommodate a sincerely-held religious belief, but

courts around the country have applied the standard differently. ADL joined a coalition of

religious organizations urging the Supreme Court to “apply uniform, rigorous standards

before accepting that prison officials have properly denied a prisoner of sincere belief the

religious accommodation he or she seeks.”

Religious Freedom

RLUIPA

Civil Liberties

Voting Rights

Page | 6

FILED AND AWAITING DECISION IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

Zubik et al. v. Burwell et al. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2016)

This case involves a second challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception

mandate, which generally requires employers to provide employee health insurance

inclusive of prescription contraception coverage. Religiously-affiliated organizations

challenged a provision of the mandate, which actually accommodates their free exercise

of religion by allowing them to opt out of providing contraception coverage. Under the

accommodation, such organizations are required to file a one-page form with the

Department of Health and Human Services. After the form is filed, they have no

responsibility for the coverage. Rather, an insurance company or third party pays for and

administers it. However, petitioners argue that the filing requirement violates their rights

under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). ADL’s amicus brief focuses on

RFRA’s “substantial burden” requirement. It argues that petitioners have failed to

demonstrate that filing form is a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion.

Rather, they have merely asserted subjective offense of their religious beliefs, which

should not be conflated with objective substantial burdens on religious exercise. The brief

further argues that assessment of substantial burden should also include impact on the

rights of others. In this case, striking down the opt-out provision would deny women

access to affordable contraception, but at most alleviate indirect and minimal burdens on

the petitioners. Balancing these interests, the Court should reject the petitioners’ claim.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole (U.S. Supreme Court, 2016)

In 2013, Texas passed a law that created substantial obstacles to accessing abortion by

including medically unnecessary requirements for clinics and health care providers. This

case challenges those provisions. ADL joined with the National Women’s Law Center

and 47 other organizations on an amicus brief that highlights the negative impact that the

restrictions at issue in this case have on women’s economic security and equal

participation in social and economic life. These include significant, and in some cases,

insurmountable, costs that threaten women’s financial well-being, job security, workforce

participation, and educational attainment. Such costs have a particularly harmful impact

on low-income women, women of color, women in low-wage jobs, and women who

already have children. These effects deprive women of equal dignity promised by the

Constitution, unduly burdening women’s reproductive decision-making.

United States v. Texas (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015) In 2014 President Obama issued an executive order, Deferred Action for Parents of

Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, which extended deferred action to certain

undocumented immigrants. Texas and twenty-five other states challenged the executive

order in federal court and the district court issued an injunction, which the Fifth Circuit

Court of Appeals upheld. ADL signed onto this brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to

hear the case. The brief argues that the injunction harms millions of individuals who have

either been in the United States since they were children or who are the parents of

American citizens or lawful permanent residents, as well as the broader communities in

Discrimination

Immigration

Civil Liberties

Reproductive

Freedom

Civil Liberties

Reproductive

Rights

Page | 7

which they reside. It further argues that lifting the injunction would allow people access

to better jobs, improving their lives, the lives of their families, and the lives of other

community members.

Fisher v. University of Texas (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)

This case concerns the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at

Austin. The Court is being asked to decide whether the Fifth Circuit's re-endorsement of

the University of Texas' use of race in a holistic undergraduate admissions process can be

sustained under the Supreme Court's decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment. ADL again urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the

University of Texas' admissions policy, saying that the policy does not impose quotas,

assign people to categories based on their race, or use race as a determinative factor in

making admissions decisions. Rather, its consideration of race as only one factor in a

holistic review of each application is a proper means to achieve a diverse student body.

Evenwel v. Abbott (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)

At issue in this case is whether states may use total population—as opposed to number of

registered voters or number of citizens of voting age—to draw district lines. Following

the decennial census in 2010 the Texas Legislature adopted a redistricting plan that

created roughly proportionally-sized state senate districts with regard to total population,

including registered voters, eligible voters, and people who are ineligible to vote. While

the districts had roughly the same total population, the district sizes varied with regard to

other metrics. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the redistricting plan violated the one

person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause. ADL joined an amicus brief

arguing that barring states from using total population to draw district lines could unfairly

exclude current and potential voters from the democratic process and would lead to

underrepresentation of groups disenfranchised by discriminatory voting laws.

Civil Liberties

Voting Rights

Discrimination

Affirmative

Action

Page | 8

THE APPELLATE AND STATE COURTS

2015-2016 DECISIONS FROM APPELLATE AND STATE COURTS

Liberty Ridge v. McCarthy (State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department, 2015)

Liberty Ridge Farm owners Cynthia and Robert Gifford refused to allow the

complainants in this case, a lesbian couple, to hold their wedding at the Farm. The New

York State Division of Human Rights and the Administrative Law Judge determined that

owners of a wedding venue that operates as a place of public accommodation under New

York's anti-discrimination law cannot discriminate on the basis of customers' sexual

orientation because of the owners' religious beliefs.

Liberty Ridge Farm appealed the ruling to the Colorado Court of Appeals. In their

opening brief, Appellants argue that enforcing the nondiscrimination law against them is

unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause and the compelled speech doctrine. ADL

submitted a brief urging the court to affirm the Division’s decision and reject arguments

that religious or moral disapproval is a legitimate basis for discrimination against

minority groups.

Commonwealth v. Michael Walters (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2015)

At issue in this case is whether a person violates the Massachusetts stalking statute by

posting threatening comments or photographs on social media. ADL’s brief argues that

true threats—whether online or in person—fall outside First Amendment protections.

The brief further argues that, in the Internet age, threats online can be just as damaging as

threats issued face-to-face, and that a defendant need not necessarily specifically draw the

victim’s attention to threatening posts online for them to be unlawful.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2015)

The complainants in this case, a gay couple, were denied the opportunity to order a cake

for their wedding reception by a Denver-area bakery with a policy and history of refusing

to sell baked goods for occasions celebrating same-sex relationships. The Colorado Civil

Rights Division held that this constituted sexual orientation discrimination in violation of

the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld

this finding and ordered the Cakeshop to change its policy and take various steps to

communicate the change.

The Cakeshop and its owner have appealed the Commission’s ruling to the Colorado

Court of Appeals. In their opening brief, Appellants argue that enforcing the

nondiscrimination law against them is unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause

and the compelled speech doctrine. ADL submitted a brief urging the court to affirm the

Commission’s decision and reject arguments that religious or moral disapproval is a

legitimate basis for discrimination against minority groups.

Civil Liberties

First Amendment

Discrimination

Public

Accommodation

Discrimination

Public

Accommodation

Page | 9

DeLeon v. Perry (U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit, 2014)

This case challenges Texas’ Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that defined

marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on behalf of

a coalition of 25 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would not only

ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which marriages the

state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the definition of

marriage for themselves..

Conde v. Rius-Armendariz (U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit, 2015)

This case challenges Puerto Rico’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that

defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on

behalf of a coalition of 25 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would

not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which

marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the

definition of marriage for themselves.

Brenner v. Armstrong (U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit, 2014)

This case challenges Florida’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that

defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on

behalf of a coalition of 25 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would

not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which

marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the

definition of marriage for themselves.

Al Falah Center v. Township of Bridgewater (U.S.C.A. 3d Circuit, 2014) At issue in

this case is a claim by a Muslim congregation in Bridgewater, NJ that the municipality

adopted a land use ordinance to block conversion of a former banquet facility, purchased

by the Congregation, into a mosque. The Interfaith Coalition on Mosques (ICOM)’s

amicus brief contends that the township’s conduct violates the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which safeguards the religious freedom of

houses of worship and other institutions in the land-use context by requiring courts to

apply a strict standard for reviewing laws that substantially burden religious exercise.

ICOM was formed by the Anti-Defamation League in 2010 to assist Muslim

communities confronting opposition to the legal building, expansion or relocation of their

mosques.

Henry v. Himes (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)

This case challenges Ohio’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that defined

marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on behalf of

a coalition of 25 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would not only

ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which marriages the

state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the definition of

marriage for themselves.

Discrimination

Marriage equality

Religious Freedom

Discrimination

SETTLED

Discrimination

Marriage equality

[post Obergefell]

Discrimination

Marriage equality

[post Obergefell]

Discrimination

Marriage equality

[post Obergefell]

Page | 10

Tanco v. Haslam (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)

This case challenges Tennessee’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that

defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on

behalf of a coalition of 22 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would

not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which

marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the

definition of marriage for themselves.

Bourke v. Beshear (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)

This case challenges Kentucky’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that

defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on

behalf of a coalition of 22 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would

not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which

marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the

definition of marriage for themselves.

DeBoer v. Snyder (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)

This case challenges Michigan’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that

defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on

behalf of a coalition of 22 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would

not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which

marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the

definition of marriage for themselves.

Sevcik v. Sandoval and Jackson v. Abercrombie (U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit, 2013)

The Nevada case, Sevcik v. Sandoval, was brought by four same-sex couples who sought

marriage licenses in Nevada and four more couples who had been married in California

and Canada and sought recognition of those marriages in Nevada. The Hawaii case,

Jackson v. Abercrombie, contested the constitutionality of both the state’s ban on same-

sex marriage and its recognition of civil unions only. The two cases were combined into a

single appeal. ADL filed a brief on behalf of a coalition of 29 organizations arguing that

overturning the marriage bans not only would ensure that religious considerations do not

improperly influence what marriages the two states can recognize but also would allow

religious groups to decide the definition of marriage for themselves.

United States v. Miller (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014) The Defendants in this case challenged the constitutionality of the Matthew Shepard and

James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA). The Anti-Defamation League filed

an amicus brief on behalf of 40 nationally-prominent civil rights, human rights, religious,

educational, and law enforcement organizations urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Sixth Circuit to uphold the constitutionality of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and to

affirm that it applies to cases in which the religiously-motivated violence involves

victims and perpetrators who share the same faith. The brief was the first coalition brief

filed in any challenge to the constitutionality of the HCPA.

Hate Crimes

Religious

Freedom

Discrimination

Marriage equality

Discrimination

Marriage equality

Discrimination

Marriage equality

Discrimination

Marriage equality

Page | 11

Wolf v.Walker (U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit, 2014)

This case challenged Wisconsin’s Marriage Ban, a state law that defined marriage as

exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on behalf of a coalition

of 25 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would not only ensure that

religious considerations do not improperly influence which marriages the state can

recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the definition of marriage for

themselves.

Baskin v. Bogan (U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit, 2014)

This case challenged Indiana’s Marriage Ban, a state law that defined marriage as

exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on behalf of a coalition

of 25 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would not only ensure that

religious considerations do not improperly influence which marriages the state can

recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the definition of marriage for

themselves.

Duncan v. New Hampshire (New Hampshire Supreme Court, 2014)

At issue in this case was the New Hampshire Education Tax Credit Program, which

authorizes New Hampshire businesses to redirect up to 85% of taxes owed as donations

to K-12 “scholarship organizations,” which pay for tuition at private religious and secular

schools. In addition to undermining separation of church and state, the Program directs

public funds to private religious and secular schools that discriminate against students

and teachers. ADL’s brief focused on this discrimination issue arguing that the Program

violates the New Hampshire constitution because its minimal anti-discrimination

prohibitions allow public financing of private schools that discriminate against students

and teachers on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability

and other personal characteristics.

Bostic v. Schaefer (U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit, 2014)

This case challenged Virginia’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that

defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on

behalf of a coalition of 20 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would

not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which

marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the

definition of marriage for themselves.

Kitchen v. Herbert (U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit, 2014)

This case challenged Utah’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that defined

marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on behalf of

a coalition of 26 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would not only

ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which marriages the

state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the definition of

marriage for themselves.

Bishop v. Smith (U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit, 2014)

Discrimination

Marriage equality

Discrimination

Marriage equality

Discrimination

Marriage equality

Discrimination

Marriage equality

Discrimination

Marriage equality

Church-State

Separation/

Discrimination

Establishment

Clause

Page | 12

This case challenged Oklahoma’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that

defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on

behalf of a coalition of 26 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would

not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which

marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the

definition of marriage for themselves.

Page | 13

FILED AND AWAITING DECISION

IN APPELLATE AND STATE COURTS

Ingersoll & Freed v. Arlene’s Flowers (Washington State Supreme Court, 2016)

Arlene’s Flowers’ owner Barronelle Stutzman refused to sell flowers to a gay couple,

Ingersoll and Freed, for their wedding. A Washington Superior Court ruled that the florist

violated the state’s anti-discrimination law when she denied service to the couple and

said that the defendants’ refusal based on her religious opposition to same sex marriage

is, as a matter of law, a refusal based on Ingersoll and Freed’s sexual orientation in

violation of the Washington anti-discrimination law.

Arlene’s Flowers appealed the ruling to the Washington State Supreme Court. ADL

submitted a brief in support of the couple urging the court to affirm the lower court’s

decision and reject arguments that religious or moral disapproval is a legitimate basis for

discrimination against minority groups.

Freedom From Region Foundation v. New Kensington-Arnold School (U.S.C.A. 3rd

Circuit, 2015)

This case involves a challenge to a six-foot tall, 2000-pound Ten Commandments

monument displayed at the local public high school, in violation of the First Amendment.

A student's mother claims that she changed her daughter's school so they could avoid

seeing the display. ADL's amicus brief argues that changing schools to avoid the display,

as well as the child and parents' earlier interactions with the display, are exactly the type

of harms that the Establishment Clause prohibits.

Lund v. Rowan County (U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit, 2015) At issue in the case are the opening prayer practices at public meetings of the Rowan

County, N.C. Commission. Based on the record in the case, the opening prayers are given

by County Commissioners on a rotating basis and are exclusively Christian. Furthermore,

in many instances residents attending meetings are asking by Commissioners to join in

the prayer. ADL's brief argues that these practices violate the minimal legislative prayer

requirements set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Greece v. Galloway decision

and coerce religious worship in violation of the Establishment Clause to the First

Amendment.

Serna v. Texas Department of State Health Services (Western District of Texas, 2015)

At issue in this case is whether Texas' Vital Statistics Unit may refuse to issue a birth

certificate for a child born in the United States because the parents requesting the birth

certificate do not have proper documentation to be in this country. Under the 14th

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, children born in the United States are

automatically, by virtue of their birth here, American citizens. ADL filed a letter brief in

support of the Plaintiffs arguing that Texas does not have the authority effectively to

eliminate birthright citizenship and the rights that flow from being born in the United

States of America, including the right to have a birth certificate issued. The brief

Discrimination

Immigration

Church-State

Separation

Establishment

Clause

Church-State

Separation

Establishment

Clause

Discrimination

Public

Accommodation

Page | 14

argues that refusal to issue birth certificates to children of undocumented immigrants

effectively creates an underclass of citizens who will have difficulty enrolling in school,

accessing health care, obtaining lawful employment, enlisting in the military, marrying,

and accessing many other rights.

Matthews v. Kountze Independent School District (Supreme Court of Texas, 2015)

In this case, the Texas Supreme Court will consider whether the display of bible verses

and religious symbols on run-through banners prepared by public high school

cheerleaders is unconstitutional. The content of these banners is approved by school

officials and the district provides the cheerleaders with a field to display the messages

prior to the football team running through the banners. ADL joined a coalition of faith-

based and civil rights groups in arguing that the school sponsored banners violate the

Establishment Clause of First Amendment because they constitute government

advancement, endorsement and coercion of religion.

Hart v. North Carolina (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2015)

Richardson v. North Carolina (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2015)

At issue in these cases is the constitutionality of a North Carolina school vouchers

program called the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Although secular and religious

private schools are eligible to receive vouchers under the program, close to three quarters

of participating schools are religious. As a result, the program effectively diverts

millions of public-education-fund dollars to religious schools, many of which infuse

religion into their curricula; discriminate in admissions and employment on the basis of

religion, disability and other grounds; and are subject to minimal academic standards.

ADL joined an amicus brief arguing that the North Carolina Supreme Court should

affirm a lower court decision, which ruled that the program did not serve a public purpose

in violation of the North Carolina State Constitution.

Commonwealth v. Kelly, Bratlie & Shdeed (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court,

2014)

This case challenges a judge’s jury instructions pursuant to a prosecution under the

Massachusetts Hate Crimes Penalties Act, where the judge instructed the jury to

determine if the defendants acted intentionally and deliberately in assaulting the victim

because of his race but didn’t instruct that the defendants’ bias motive also be a

“predominant” or “substantial” reason for the assault. ADL’s brief urges the Court to

uphold the judge’s jury instructions and not insert a “predominant” or “substantial” factor

test which would weaken protections for hate crimes victims and communities across the

Commonwealth.

LaRue v. Colorado Board of Education (Colorado Supreme Court, 2014)

Larue v. Douglas County School Board challenges Colorado’s school voucher program

that allows state funding to flow to parochial schools. While the Supreme Court has

interpreted the U.S. Constitution to permit similar programs in other states, the

Church-State

Separation

Government

funding

Hate Crimes

Jury Instructions

Church-State

Separation

Government

funding

Church-State

Separation

Establishment

Clause

Page | 15

Colorado’s constitution contains a No-Aid Clause that more explicitly prohibits direct

and indirect state funding of religion. The ADL and a coalition of religious groups from

multiple faiths argue that Colorado’s No-Aid Clause and the U.S. Constitution’s Religion

Clauses are not synonymous, and that the former reflects Colorado’s considered

judgment that government funding of religion threatens religious liberty. Accordingly,

the brief urges the Colorado Supreme Court to find that the voucher program violates the

state constitution.

Arce v. Huppenthal (U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit, 2013)

At issue in this case is Arizona law HB 2281, which bars public schools from 1)

promoting the overthrow of the government; 2) promoting resentment towards a race or

class of people; 3) designing programs primarily for students of a particular ethnic group;

and 4) advocating ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals. The

legislative history of the bill makes clear that its intent was to dismantle the Tucson

Unified School District’s Mexican-American Studies program (MAS), despite the

program’s success in closing the educational achievement gap for Latino students. After

passage of the law, the State Superintendent ordered the school district to dismantle the

MAS program. MAS staff and students filed suit. ADL joined a brief written by the Chief

Earl Warren Institute for Law and Social Policy, which argues that the lower court erred

in failing to consider fully how the law violates equal protection guarantees.

Discrimination

Education

Page | 16

INDEX OF CASES FILED/DECIDED IN 2015-2016 Civil Liberties Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)

Commonwealth v. Michael Walters (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2015)

Elonis v. United States ((U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)

Evenwel v. Abbott (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)

Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole (U.S. Supreme Court, 2016)

Zubik et al. v. Burwell et al. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2016

Discrimination Al Falah Center v. Township of Bridgewater (U.S.C.A. 3d Circuit, 2014)

Arce v. Huppenthal (U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit, 2013)

Baskin v. Bogan (U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit, 2014)

Bishop v. Smith (U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit, 2014)

Bostic v. Schaefer (U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit, 2014)

Bourke v. Beshear (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)

Bourke v. Beshear (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)

Brenner v. Armstrong (U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit, 2014)

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2015)

Conde v. Rius-Armendariz (U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit, 2015)

DeBoer v. Snyder (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)

DeBoer v. Snyder (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)

DeLeon v. Perry (U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit, 2014)

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)

Fisher v. University of Texas (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)

Henry v. Himes (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)

Ingersoll & Freed v. Arlene’s Flowers (Washington State Supreme Court, 2016)

Kitchen v. Herbert (U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit, 2014)

Liberty Ridge v. McCarthy (State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial

Department, 2015)

Obergefell v. Hodges (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)

Serna v. Texas Department of State Health Services (Western District of Texas, 2015)

Sevcik v. Sandoval and Jackson v. Abercrombie (U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit, 2013)

Tanco v. Haslam (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)

Tanco v. Haslam (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project (U.S.

Supreme Court, 2014)

United States v. Texas (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)

Wolf v.Walker (U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit, 2014)

Zivotofsky v. Kerry (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)

Hate Crimes

Commonwealth v. Kelly, Bratlie & Shdeed (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2014)

United States v. Miller (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)

Separation of Church and State Duncan v. New Hampshire (New Hampshire Supreme Court, 2014)

Freedom From Region Foundation v. New Kensington-Arnold School (U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit, 2015)

Hart v. North Carolina (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2015)

Page | 17

Holt v. Hobbs (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)

LaRue v. Colorado Board of Education (Colorado Supreme Court, 2014)

Lund v. Rowan County (U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit, 2015)

Richardson v. North Carolina (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2015)