Case updates this week:

Friday March 29th: The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Grace Bible Fellowship v. Polis, a challenge to Colorado’s COVID-19 restrictions limiting religious gatherings. Plaintiffs, Grace Bible Fellowship and its pastor, first brought suit in 2020, alleging that Colorado’s COVID-19 restrictions violated their Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment, but most claims were ultimately dismissed as moot in 2021 because the challenged measures were no longer in place. However, plaintiffs continued to challenge the Colorado Disaster Emergency Act (CDEA) on Free Exercise grounds. Their amended complaint added claims that CDEA and other Colorado public health laws violate the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

 

The lower court held, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed, that all claims seeking prospective relief should be dismissed because the restrictions were no longer in place and could not cause injury to the plaintiffs sufficient for standing. The Tenth Circuit also dismissed the Free Exercise challenges to CDEA. The facial challenge failed under rational review because the CDEA is neutral and generally applicable. The as-applied challenge was moot because the application of the COVID-19 restrictions was no longer in place, and thus could not be causing current harm. Plaintiffs’ claims that they might be harmed in the future were purely speculative.

Friday March 29th: The federal district court for the Western District of Washington partially dismissed a challenge to a Washington school’s COVID-19 vaccine and mask mandates for employees in Rosser v. Ferndale School District No. 502. The defendant, Ferndale School District, fired plaintiff, Rosser, after he repeatedly refused to comply with the school’s mask mandate. Rosser alleged both that Ferndale fired him because of his religious objections to COVID-19 related masking, and that Ferndale retaliated against him by writing a negative work evaluation after he was terminated, violating Title VII and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. However, the court rejected the majority of the claims, holding that Rosser had not raised religious objections to his employer prior to his firing for refusing to comply with the mask mandate. However, because the defendants did not “squarely address” the retaliation claim in their motion to dismiss, the court allowed the plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint, if he could do so without violating the ethical requirements of Rule 11, to include factual allegations that would remedy the legal deficiencies in his retaliation claim.

Friday March 29th: The federal district court for the District of Minnesota dismissed a doctor-turned-politician’s case against Minnesota’s Medical Board in Jensen v. Minnesota Board of Medical Practice. Plaintiff, Dr. Scott Jensen, made comments while running for Minnesota Governor in 2022 on COVID-19, medical treatment for the virus, and public health measures that were subsequently anonymously reported to the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice. Minnesota law requires the Board to both accept anonymous complaints against licensed physicians, as well as “receive and resolve” those complaints. Despite no further action being taken on any of the complaints beyond initial information gathering, Jensen alleged that the Board’s investigations were politically motivated reactions to his speech, violating the First Amendment. However, the court noted that there was no indication that Jensen was prevented from speaking. In fact, he continued to make public comments on the COVID-19 pandemic after being investigated. Due to Jensen’s failure to allege an injury in fact, the court found he lacked standing to sue.