Former SGs Clement, Verrilli Duel at DC Circuit in Religious Discrimination Fight
The Archdiocese of Washington argues the Washington, D.C., transit system illegally refused to run its Christmas-themed ads on city buses.
March 26, 2018 at 03:30 PM
4 minute read
Former solicitors general Paul Clement and Donald Verrilli went head to head Monday in oral arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a case that considers whether the Washington, D.C., public transit system's refusal to run a religious advertisement is a First Amendment violation.
Kirkland & Ellis' Clement represents the Archdiocese of Washington, which alleges a district court judge erred last year by refusing to grant a preliminary injunction requiring Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to run the church's Advent advertisements on city buses, which encouraged charitable giving during the winter Advent season. Though the Advent season has passed, the church wants to run the advertisement this year, too.
Verrilli, a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson, argued on behalf of WMATA. The transit system contends the church's advertisement was rightly denied under its rule barring messages that “promote or oppose” any religion. Verrilli told the judges Monday that the rule is constitutional because the transit system imposed it and other content restrictions in 2015 to avoid controversy, and to better ensure rider safety and employee morale.
Clement, backed by the Department of Justice, argued that by allowing secular advertisements related to a certain subject, such as Christmas, but not religious advertisements related to the same topic, WMATA engaged in illegal viewpoint discrimination.
It's not the first time the transit system has faced legal challenges associated with its rules. WMATA is also facing a lawsuit over its political restricts from conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos and several advocacy groups, represented by the ACLU. That case is still pending in the district court in Washington, D.C.
The three-judge panel considering the church's case includes Democrat-appointed judges Robert Wilkins and Judith Rogers, and Brett Kavanaugh, a Republican-appointed judge whose been floated by President Donald Trump as a potential Supreme Court nominee.
Kavanaugh seemed all but certain to side with the church, repeatedly pressing Verrilli on how he could argue that WMATA was not engaged in viewpoint discrimination. Several times, the judge quoted Chief Justice John Robert's majority opinion in last year's case, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, which said that excluding a church from a public benefit, “solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”
Verrilli said the rule at issue did not discriminate against the speaker, and that WMATA would have allowed an advertisement promoting charitable giving if the advertisement did not include a link to a website encouraging viewers to go to church, like the church's did in the case at hand. He said that's why the transit system allowed a Christmas-related advertisement from the Salvation Army, even though it's a Christian organization.
Wilkins and Rogers appeared less skeptical of the transit system's rules, which also bar political advertisements and any intended to “influence public policy.”
Wilkins asked Clement whether it would be viewpoint discrimination if he forbade guests at his Thanksgiving dinner from discussing politics, to which Clement replied that he was not sure it would be. Wilkins then asked if it would be viewpoint discrimination if he banned guests from talking about religion.
Clement said that would indeed be viewpoint discrimination, because it would also bar approaching topics from a religious perspective.
Clement said WMATA could not “take the easy way out” with its total ban on religious speech.
Rogers said that perhaps WMATA's rule “isn't as broad” as Clement was suggesting, since it only applies to advertisements that promote or oppose religion. Clement said Supreme Court precedent made clear WMATA could not avoid viewpoint discrimination by using the “promote or oppose” language.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Absurd Costs'?: Visa Faces Antitrust Class-Action Surge Following DOJ Complaint
3 minute read'Systemic and Pervasive'?: DiCello Levitt Alleges WWE Child Sexual Abuse Scandal
3 minute readThe 2024 NLJ Awards: Professional Excellence—Appellate Hot List
4th Circuit Revives Workplace Retaliation Lawsuit Against Biden's HHS Secretary
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome', DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250