(CN) — A Sixth Circuit appeals panel revived on Friday a pair of lawsuits filed by a Christian health care provider and Catholic parish that challenge Michigan’s LGBTQ protections, but rejected a similar case brought by a Catholic parish operating a school.
In the 37-page ruling released on Friday, the three-judge panel found that health care provider Christian Healthcare Centers and parish Sacred Heart of Jesus have standing to pursue challenges against provisions of Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
However, the panel found that unlike the other two plaintiffs, St. Joseph Parish of St. Johns failed to make specific claims related to civil rights protections after Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed 2023 bill to expand protection for LGBTQ residents.
“Michigan’s laws arguably forbid several of plaintiffs’ pleaded activities. And although the threat of enforcement analysis is more nuanced, we conclude that two plaintiffs — Christian Healthcare and Sacred Heart — have plausibly established a credible threat that defendants will enforce against them at least some of the challenged provisions of Michigan’s laws,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Stranch, a Barack Obama appointee, in the ruling.
The similar lawsuits filed by the trio of religious organizations claim that LGBTQ protections in the act violate their First Amendment rights by not allowing them to make certain public statements or hire certain employees in accordance with their religious values.
Specifically, the plaintiffs seek out and hire only Christian employees who do not engage in or support same-sex relationships or gender reassignment, which they claim could run afoul of the act. The trio presented oral arguments to the panel in June.
Christian Healthcare says in its suit it wishes to publish that a prospective employee for a biblical counselor position must agree with certain opinions, such as the “immutability of sex” and “disapproval of same-sex activity and relationships.”
Sacred Heart similarly stated that it would like to hire an art teacher and athletic coach who must agree not to encourage “same-sex relationships” or “transgender-related behavior and activity.”
Because these employment requirements could arguably be considered discrimination against prospective employees under the act, and that they could face repercussions for them, the panel determined they had standing for their claims.
But the panel found that St. Joseph wasn’t able to similarly establish that it has publicly posted about, or that they have or will in the future ask prospective employees about sexual orientation or gender identity.
“Unlike Christian Health and Sacred Heart, however, St. Joseph makes no allegation that it has ever provided any services to transgender individuals or individuals with gender dysphoria. In fact, St. Joseph has not alleged that any teacher, student, or parent (a) is either gay or transgender, (b) intends to participate in conduct proscribed by St. Joseph’s beliefs and policies, or (c) has ever complained about those policies. Absent such allegations, any ELCRA complaint based on these categories is too hypothetical to support St. Joseph’s standing,” Stranch wrote.
The circuit court also rejected St. Joseph’s argument that it has standing because it plans to communicate its religious preferences through job postings and an employee code of conduct.
“Given that the ELCRA has always prohibited religion-based discrimination, there is no plausible explanation as to why documents that have not drawn a complaint of religious discrimination in the past would suddenly draw one in the future,” Stranch wrote. “St. Joseph’s entire case, moreover, is directed at the amended ELCRA’s provisions regarding sexual orientation and gender identity—not the law’s longstanding prohibition on religious discrimination.”
Attorney Bryan Neihart of the Alliance Defending Freedom, who represented Christian Healthcare Centers commented on the court’s decision in a press release issued today.
“The Sixth Circuit was right to allow these cases to proceed. Michigan officials should respect religious organizations’ constitutionally protected freedom to follow the very faith that has motivated them to serve others,” he said.
The ruling kicks the case back down to federal court, which had previously dismissed the case, to take up the case once more and to determine what relief, if any, is warranted.
Stranch was joined in the ruling by U.S. Circuit Judge Helene White, a George W. Bush appointee, and U.S. Circuit Court Judge Eric Murphy, a Donald Trump appointee.
Though the Sixth Circuit panel did not weigh in on the merits of the presented arguments — only that they had standing to pursue their lawsuits, which had been dismissed by the lower court — Murphy issued a concurring ruling that pointed to possible conflict that may arise as the cases continue.
“The [Michigan Department of Civil Rights] asserts that Christian Healthcare’s and Sacred Heart’s proposed activities do not even arguably fall within ELCRA, but it then refuses to say that it will not enforce the law against the same activities. If the conduct and speech do not even arguably fall within the law, how could the Department in good faith try to enforce the law against that conduct and speech?” he wrote.
Murphy urged the parties to resolve and establish their positions on the meaning of the act.