New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. Poole

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · July 21, 2020 · No. 19-1715-cv

Summary

The Second Circuit held that a religious adoption agency stated plausible First Amendment Free Exercise and Free Speech claims against New York's enforcement of an anti-discrimination regulation (18 NYCRR § 421.3(d)) requiring it to serve same-sex and unmarried couples or close its adoption ministry. The court ruled that dismissal was premature because the pleadings raised a sufficient suspicion of religious hostility, given the permissive statutory language, the agency's long-standing recusal-and-referral practice, and statements by state officials suggesting religious beliefs could not be carried into the public sphere. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of a preliminary injunction, applying the neutrality and general applicability test under Employment Division v. Smith and Lukumi v. Hialeah.

Holdings

  1. The district court erred in dismissing New Hope's Free Exercise claim because the pleadings, when viewed in the light most favorable to New Hope, raise a plausible suspicion of religious hostility, and thus the claim should not have been dismissed at the pleadings stage.
  2. The district court erred in dismissing New Hope's compelled speech claim because the pleadings plausibly allege that OCFS's actions compel New Hope to speak in favor of adoptions by unmarried and same-sex couples, contrary to its religious beliefs, and the government speech doctrine does not apply at this stage.
  3. The district court erred in dismissing New Hope's expressive association claim because the pleadings plausibly allege that OCFS's enforcement of the regulation impairs New Hope's ability to advocate its religious values and may cause it to discipline employees who share those beliefs, thereby affecting the composition of the association.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred in dismissing New Hope's Free Exercise claim under the First Amendment.
  2. Whether the district court erred in dismissing New Hope's Free Speech claim (compelled speech and expressive association).

Disposition

reversed_in_part_vacated_in_part_and_remanded

Cases Cited (13)

  • Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)(followed)
  • Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)(followed)
  • Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm'n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018)(followed)
  • Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015)(cited)
  • Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 922 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2019)(distinguished)
  • Agency for Int'l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013)(followed)
  • Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017)(followed)
  • Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. 200 (2015)(cited)
  • Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009)(cited)
  • Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass'n, 544 U.S. 550 (2005)(cited)

Showing top 10 of 13.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…