Catholic school can fire teacher for being in same-sex marriage, Indiana court rules

by Michael Gryboski

An Indiana court has dismissed a lawsuit filed against a Roman Catholic Archdiocese by a former private school teacher who was fired for being in a same-sex marriage.

Marion Superior Court Judge Lance D. Hamner issued an order Friday in favor of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis’ motion to dismiss a lawsuit by former teacher Joshua Payne-Elliot.

According to the order, the court concluded that there was a “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” and “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, a law firm that represented the archdiocese, released a statement Friday expressing support for the order.

“If the First Amendment means anything, it means the government can’t punish the Catholic Church for asking Catholic educators to support Catholic teaching,” Goodrich said.

“This has always been a very simple case, because the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the freedom of religious schools to choose teachers who support their religious faith.”

Kathleen DeLaney, the attorney representing Payne-Elliott, told the Indianapolis Star that she took issue with the order, especially its explanation for the complaint's dismissal.

“The decision itself offers no reason, no rationale, no basis,” DeLaney said. “We have no way to know how the judge got to the decision.”

In June 2019, Payne-Elliot was fired from Cathedral High School after it was revealed that he had married another teacher of the same sex who worked at a different high school.

The firing reportedly came at the specific direction of the archdiocese, as the school had originally intended to renew his contract for the 2019-2020 school year.

Although Payne-Elliot reached a settlement with Cathedral High School soon after his firing, he filed legal action against the archdiocese, accusing it of forcing the school to dismiss him.

“We hope that this case will put a stop to the targeting of LGBTQ employees and their families,” said Payne-Elliot in a statement at the time, as reported by the Indianapolis Star.

A trial court had originally supported having the case go forward, however, the Indiana state Supreme Court intervened and told the lower court to reconsider the complaint.

In July 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that two Catholic schools could classify their teachers as ministers and not be held to the standards of anti-discrimination laws.

Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court, known as Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, which regarded two lawsuits against two Catholic schools in California.

“The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission,” Alito wrote.

“Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.”

Source:  https://www.christianpost.com/news/catholic-school-can-fire-teacher-for-being-in-same-sex-marriage-judge-rules.html



Federal judge orders Title 42 border policies be kept in place

ByCallie Patteson,, Steven Nelson and MaryAnn Martinez

 

A Louisiana federal judge on Friday blocked the Biden administration’s attempt to end the Title 42 health policy that allows rapid expulsion of illegal immigrants — keeping the policy in place hours before it was set to expire.

US District Judge Robert Summerhays sided with 24 Republican state attorneys who warned of a possible surge of migrants across the US-Mexico border that would overwhelm their resources.

Summerhays wrote in a 47-page ruling issuing a nationwide injunction that the states “demonstrated harm that will result… and that, despite the impact of the order on the states, they were not able to protect their interest by participating in the notice-and-comment process mandated by the [Administrative Procedure Act].”

The Title 42 order was adopted in 2020 by the Trump administration to allow for the near-immediate deportation of suspected illegal immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The fate of the policy became a point of conflict among Democrats, with more centrist party members arguing for keeping the order in place temporarily and more left-wing advocates urging its immediate repeal.

 Robert R Summerhays
Multiple makeshift rafts are being used to cross from Guatemala into Mexico on May 17.Stringer/AFP via Getty Images

The decision to lift Title 42 was heavily criticized by officials in border states even as current migration levels soar with it in place. 

In April, Customs and Border Protection reported a record high for that month of 234,088 repeat and unique migrant encounters along the southern border, but only 97,000 were removed under Title 42. 

The number of arrests at the US-Mexico border hit a four-decade high last year.

If the order had been lifted, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejendro Mayorkas warned that as many as 18,000 migrants could cross the border daily. 

Despite concerns, the Biden administration repeatedly defended the decision to lift the policy, with former White House press secretary Jen Psaki calling on Congress to take action if they wanted the policy to remain in place.

Source: https://nypost.com/2022/05/20/federal-judge-orders-title-42-kept-in-place/?utm_source=wnd&utm_medium=wnd&utm_campaign=syndicated




Judge recommends 'insurrection' claim against Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene be dropped

by Bob Unruh


Marjorie Taylor Greene video screenshot

                        Marjorie Taylor Greene (video screenshot)

Democrats once again have failed in their attempt to use a Civil War-era provision that those who took part in the Confederacy could not later return to Congress against a sitting member of Congress.

The Washington Examiner explained that Judge Charles Beaudrot, from Georgia's office of State Administrative Hearings, has recommended to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger that a claim of "insurrection" against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green, R-Ga., be dropped. [I find it ironic that Raffensberger [Ratburger) is attacking Marjorie when there have been so many allegations of voting fraud in GA many involving Dominion machines: https://www.sos.ga.gov/news/election-fraud-cases-sent-prosecution-dominion-refutes-disinformation  Now watch 2000 mules for a competing analysis. This attack against Marjorie is 'lawfare' ained at preventing her from running for office. - ED]

Raffensperger will make the final decision regarding Greene, who is very popular in her conservative northwest Georgia district, and is just as unpopular in Washington for her blunt, brash and direct way of calling out hypocrisy there.

Democrats wanted her removed from the ballot because she repeatedly has raised questions about the validity and accuracy of the 2020 election, which also was the focus of many who took part in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Democrats already have filed multiple lawsuits against Republicans claiming that they are barred from the ballot because they took part in an "insurrection."

However, the claim of "insurrection" comes only for their own talking points, and legal experts say for the provision to apply there would have to be an adjudication of "insurrectionist," which is far from likely.

group of Democrats from Greene's district claimed that she was involved in the riot, so therefore she is an "insurrectionist," so therefore she cannot run for office again, under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.





Supreme Court has voted to overturn Roe, according to draft opinion published by Politico

by Amy Howe and James Romoser (SCOTUS Blog)

Related:  OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE: Leak Shows Trump Delivered on Justices Ending Baby Murder

nighttime scene in front of supreme court with crowd of people holding signs supporting abortion rights

Within hours of the Politico story, crowds of demonstrators gathered in front of the Supreme Court on Monday nigh [Katie Barlow]

The Supreme Court has voted to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, according to a copy of an apparent draft opinion obtained by Politico.

Obtained by reporters Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward, the 98-page draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito is dated Feb. 10, 2022. It is styled as the “opinion of the Court” in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which Mississippi and its supporters have asked the justices to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion that was first established by Roe in 1973 and re-affirmed by Casey in 1992.

Initial votes on the outcome of a case can change — and the wording of opinions frequently does — as the justices deliberate and circulate draft opinions. The court is expected to release its decision in Dobbs in the next two months.

nighttime scene of people seated on ground with candles in front of supreme court
Demonstrators lit candles and held signs in front of the court on Monday night. (Katie Barlow)

Stressing that abortion “presents a profound moral question,” Alito’s draft concludes that the Constitution “does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating and prohibiting abortion.” He describes Roe as “egregiously wrong from the start.”

In a staff email, Politico’s executive editor, Dafna Linzer, wrote: “After an extensive review process, we are confident of the authenticity of the draft. This unprecedented view into the justices’ deliberations is plainly news of great public interest.”

Posted in Featured, Merits Cases

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe and James Romoser, Court has voted to overturn Roe, according to draft opinion published by Politico, SCOTUSblog (May. 2, 2022, 10:17 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/court-has-voted-to-overturn-roe-according-to-draft-opinion-published-by-politico/


Follow 11,829

JUST IN: The Supreme Court confirms the authenticity of the draft opinion revealed last night by Politico. The chief justice has ordered an investigation into the leak.

Reply on Twitter 1521509850181742592 Retweet on Twitter 1521509850181742592 1490

(cont’d) 2. Those interested in who leaked the draft should wonder why Alexander Ward — a national security reporter — shares the byline. The leaker would insist that their identity be incredibly tightly held. Politico would not assign someone who didn’t have to be on the story.

Reply on Twitter 1521345897761812480 Retweet on Twitter 1521345897761812480 371

Two final thoughts. 1. Politico reports that the 5 original votes to overturn Roe are “unchanged *as of this week*,” but does not report (and the leaker would know) that they have all said they will join the Alito opinion. At least 1 is apparently uncommitted. Hence the leak?

Reply on Twitter 1521344951317110785 Retweet on Twitter 1521344951317110785 850
Reply on Twitter 1521340502318190592 Retweet on Twitter 1521340502318190592 556

It's remarkable, the leak of what appears to be an initial draft majority opinion. SCOTUS generally has kept its secrets and has kept confidential its internal processes and deliberations. But the Court does occasionally leak, and it has leaked before about Roe v. Wade. 1/x

Reply on Twitter 1521309806430236672 Retweet on Twitter 1521309806430236672 3830

The @politico bombshell and the leaked opinion overturning Roe v. Wade in a TikTok minute.

Reply on Twitter 1521305948815605761 Retweet on Twitter 1521305948815605761 556 Load More...