Washington
Christian homeless shelter challenges state law prohibiting anti-LGBTQ+ hiring practices
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Lawyers for a Christian homeless shelter are scheduled to be in a federal appeals court Friday to challenge a Washington state anti-discrimination law that would require the charity to hire LGBTQ+ people and others who do not share its religious beliefs, including those on sexuality and marriage.
Union Gospel Mission in Yakima, about 150 miles (240 kilometers) southeast of Seattle, is asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to revive a lawsuit dismissed by a lower court. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a global legal organization, is assisting the mission.
Ryan Tucker, senior counsel with the alliance, said the mission faces prosecution for engaging in its “constitutionally protected freedom to hire fellow believers who share the mission’s calling to spread the gospel and care for vulnerable people” in the community.
But U.S. District Judge Mary K. Dimke dismissed the case last year, agreeing with attorneys for the state that the lawsuit filed by Yakima’s mission was a prohibited appeal of another case decided by the Washington Supreme Court.
The current case arises out of a 2017 lawsuit filed by Matt Woods, a bisexual Christian man who was denied a job as an attorney at a legal aid clinic operated by the Union Gospel Mission in Seattle. Washington’s Law Against Discrimination exempts religious nonprofits, but in 2021 the state Supreme Court held that the religious hiring exemption should only apply to ministerial positions.
The case was sent back to trial to determine if the role of legal aid attorney would fall under the exemption but Woods said he dismissed the case because he had gotten the ruling he sought and did not want to pursue monetary damages from a homeless shelter.
“I’m confident that the trial court would have found that a staff attorney position with a legal aid clinic is not a ministerial position,” he said in an email to The Associated Press.
The Union Gospel Mission in Yakima says its policy is to hire only co-religionists who adhere to its religious beliefs and expects “employees to abstain from sexual immorality, including adultery, nonmarried cohabitation, and homosexual conduct,” according to court documents.
The mission has held off on hiring an IT consultant and operations assistant.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 denied review of the Woods decision, but Justice Samuel Alito said “the day may soon come when we must decide whether the autonomy guaranteed by the First Amendment protects religious organizations’ freedom to hire co-religionists without state or judicial interference.”
Kansas
State won’t force providers to ask why patients want abortions as lawsuit proceeds
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas isn’t enforcing a new law requiring abortion providers to ask patients why they want to terminate their pregnancies, as a legal challenge against that rule and other older requirements makes its way through the courts.
Attorneys for the state and for providers challenging the new law along with other requirements announced a deal Thursday. In return for not enforcing the law, the state will get another four months to develop its defense of the challenged restrictions ahead of a trial now delayed until late June 2025. The agreement was announced during a Zoom hearing in Johnson County District Court in the Kansas City area.
Kansas doesn’t ban most abortions until the 22nd week of pregnancy. Its clinics now see thousands of patients from other states with near bans on abortion, most notably Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas.
Last fall, District Judge K. Christopher Jayaram blocked enforcement of requirements that include rules spelling out what providers must tell their patients, and a longstanding requirement that patients wait 24 hours after consulting a provider to undergo a procedure. On July 1, he allowed the providers to add a challenge to the new reporting law to their existing lawsuit rather than making them file a separate case.
The new law was supposed to take effect July 1 and would require providers to ask patients questions from a state script about their reasons for an abortion, although patients wouldn’t be forced to answer. Potential reasons include not being able to afford a child, not wanting a disabled child, not wanting to put schooling or a career on hold, and having an abusive spouse or partner. Clinics would be required to send data about patients’ answers to the state health department for a public report every six months.
“We are relieved that this intrusive law will not take effect,” the Center for Reproductive Rights, the national organization for abortion provider Planned Parenthood and the regional Planned Parenthood affiliate said in a joint statement. “This law would have forced abortion providers to collect deeply personal information — an unjustifiable invasion of patient privacy that has nothing to do with people’s health.”
Kansas already collects data about each abortion, such as the method and the week of pregnancy, but abortion opponents argue that having more information will aid in setting policies for helping pregnant women and new mothers. The Republican-controlled Legislature enacted the law over a veto from Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly.
At least eight other states have such reporting requirements, but the Kansas Supreme Court declared in 2019 that the state constitution protects access to abortion as a part of a “fundamental” right to bodily autonomy. In August 2022, Kansas voters decisively rejected a proposed amendment to say that the constitution doesn’t grant any right to abortion access.
The trial of the providers’ lawsuit had been set for late February 2025 before Jayaram delayed it in responded to the parties’ deal.
“The state is prepared to accept an agreement not to enforce the new law until the final judgment, provided that we get a schedule that accommodates the record that we think we need to develop in this case,” said Lincoln Wilson, a senior counsel for the anti-abortion Alliance Defending Freedom, which is leading the state’s defense of its laws.
Abortion providers suggested July 1 that the state wouldn’t enforce the new reporting requirement while the lawsuit proceeded, but the health department did not confirm that when reporters asked about it.
Colorado
Judge rejects claims that door-to-door voter fraud search was intimidation
DENVER (AP) — A Colorado judge on Thursday rejected claims from civil and voting rights organizations that a group of Donald Trump supporters intimidated voters when they went door-to-door searching for fraud following the 2020 election.
The lawsuit against leaders of the U.S. Election Integrity Plan alleged the group’s activities included photographing voters’ homes and “door-to-door voter intimidation” in areas where a high number of minorities live. The group was founded after Trump lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden and made false claims of mass voter fraud.
A bench trial in the case began Monday and was supposed to continue all week. But U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney abruptly ended the proceedings early Thursday, siding in favor of the Trump supporters, according to court documents.
Attorneys for the plaintiff organizations — the League of Women Voters of Colorado, the regional chapter of the NAACP and Mi Familia Vota — had invoked the 19th century Ku Klux Klan Act in their lawsuit. That law was passed after the Civil War to prevent white vigilantes from using violence and terror to stop Black people from voting.
The judge said both sides seemed to be litigating issues outside the scope of the case, Colorado Politics reported.
“It is not about the Jan. 6 (2021) insurrection or the history of voter intimidation in this country. It is not about the defendants’ collective belief about election fraud. It’s not about the security or lack of security of elections in Colorado,” said Sweeney, an appointee of President Joe Biden. “Those are sideshows and I was trying to reel those sideshows in.”
The U.S. Election Integrity project has links to MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, one of the nation’s most prominent election conspiracy theorists and a leading benefactor of election denial causes.
Michael Wynne, an attorney for Holly Kasun, a leader of the conservative group, said the lawsuit “was a classic case of lawfare.”
“There wasn’t anything that any of these individuals did that could be called intimidation,” Wynne said.
Free Speech For People attorney Courtney Hostetler, who represented the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement that they were disappointed with the ruling and considering whether to appeal.
Ohio
Man gets 3 years in death of fiancée who went missing in 2011
HAMILTON, Ohio (AP) — The fiancé of an Ohio art student who went missing nearly 13 years ago was sentenced Thursday to three years in prison.
John Carter, 36, had been charged with two counts of murder when he was arrested in March 2023. He eventually pleaded guilty last month to involuntary manslaughter as part of a plea deal.
The charges stemmed from the August 2011 disappearance of Katelyn Markham, who was last seen at her home in Fairfield, Ohio. At the time, Markham was a few weeks away from finishing her graphic arts degree at the Art Institute of Ohio—Cincinnati, and Carter has said they were planning to move to Colorado later that year.
Skeletal remains identified as Markham’s were found in 2013 in a wooded area in Cedar Grove, Indiana, about 20 miles (about 32 kilometers) west of her home in Fairfield. Authorities ruled her death a homicide but did not determine how she was killed.
Butler County prosecutors have said Carter caused Markham’s death by “physical violence and by force.” They said Thursday that Carter still hasn’t explained how or why he killed Markham.
Dave Markham, Katelyn Markham’s father, read a letter in court before Carter was sentenced:
“Not a day goes by that I don’t think of Katelyn,” he said, imploring Judge Daniel Haughey to sentence Carter to the maximum sentence by law. “Let him feel the pain that many of us have endured for the past 13 years.”
Carter did not speak during the sentencing hearing. His attorneys asked Haughey to impose probation or a minimal prison term, asking him to consider the law and not emotional statements.
Haughey, though, imposed the maximum term allowed under the plea deal, saying Carter “has shown no genuine remorse for this offense.” He also noted that Carter did not try to help Markham or acknowledge what happened to her immediately after her death.
Christian homeless shelter challenges state law prohibiting anti-LGBTQ+ hiring practices
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Lawyers for a Christian homeless shelter are scheduled to be in a federal appeals court Friday to challenge a Washington state anti-discrimination law that would require the charity to hire LGBTQ+ people and others who do not share its religious beliefs, including those on sexuality and marriage.
Union Gospel Mission in Yakima, about 150 miles (240 kilometers) southeast of Seattle, is asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to revive a lawsuit dismissed by a lower court. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a global legal organization, is assisting the mission.
Ryan Tucker, senior counsel with the alliance, said the mission faces prosecution for engaging in its “constitutionally protected freedom to hire fellow believers who share the mission’s calling to spread the gospel and care for vulnerable people” in the community.
But U.S. District Judge Mary K. Dimke dismissed the case last year, agreeing with attorneys for the state that the lawsuit filed by Yakima’s mission was a prohibited appeal of another case decided by the Washington Supreme Court.
The current case arises out of a 2017 lawsuit filed by Matt Woods, a bisexual Christian man who was denied a job as an attorney at a legal aid clinic operated by the Union Gospel Mission in Seattle. Washington’s Law Against Discrimination exempts religious nonprofits, but in 2021 the state Supreme Court held that the religious hiring exemption should only apply to ministerial positions.
The case was sent back to trial to determine if the role of legal aid attorney would fall under the exemption but Woods said he dismissed the case because he had gotten the ruling he sought and did not want to pursue monetary damages from a homeless shelter.
“I’m confident that the trial court would have found that a staff attorney position with a legal aid clinic is not a ministerial position,” he said in an email to The Associated Press.
The Union Gospel Mission in Yakima says its policy is to hire only co-religionists who adhere to its religious beliefs and expects “employees to abstain from sexual immorality, including adultery, nonmarried cohabitation, and homosexual conduct,” according to court documents.
The mission has held off on hiring an IT consultant and operations assistant.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 denied review of the Woods decision, but Justice Samuel Alito said “the day may soon come when we must decide whether the autonomy guaranteed by the First Amendment protects religious organizations’ freedom to hire co-religionists without state or judicial interference.”
Kansas
State won’t force providers to ask why patients want abortions as lawsuit proceeds
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas isn’t enforcing a new law requiring abortion providers to ask patients why they want to terminate their pregnancies, as a legal challenge against that rule and other older requirements makes its way through the courts.
Attorneys for the state and for providers challenging the new law along with other requirements announced a deal Thursday. In return for not enforcing the law, the state will get another four months to develop its defense of the challenged restrictions ahead of a trial now delayed until late June 2025. The agreement was announced during a Zoom hearing in Johnson County District Court in the Kansas City area.
Kansas doesn’t ban most abortions until the 22nd week of pregnancy. Its clinics now see thousands of patients from other states with near bans on abortion, most notably Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas.
Last fall, District Judge K. Christopher Jayaram blocked enforcement of requirements that include rules spelling out what providers must tell their patients, and a longstanding requirement that patients wait 24 hours after consulting a provider to undergo a procedure. On July 1, he allowed the providers to add a challenge to the new reporting law to their existing lawsuit rather than making them file a separate case.
The new law was supposed to take effect July 1 and would require providers to ask patients questions from a state script about their reasons for an abortion, although patients wouldn’t be forced to answer. Potential reasons include not being able to afford a child, not wanting a disabled child, not wanting to put schooling or a career on hold, and having an abusive spouse or partner. Clinics would be required to send data about patients’ answers to the state health department for a public report every six months.
“We are relieved that this intrusive law will not take effect,” the Center for Reproductive Rights, the national organization for abortion provider Planned Parenthood and the regional Planned Parenthood affiliate said in a joint statement. “This law would have forced abortion providers to collect deeply personal information — an unjustifiable invasion of patient privacy that has nothing to do with people’s health.”
Kansas already collects data about each abortion, such as the method and the week of pregnancy, but abortion opponents argue that having more information will aid in setting policies for helping pregnant women and new mothers. The Republican-controlled Legislature enacted the law over a veto from Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly.
At least eight other states have such reporting requirements, but the Kansas Supreme Court declared in 2019 that the state constitution protects access to abortion as a part of a “fundamental” right to bodily autonomy. In August 2022, Kansas voters decisively rejected a proposed amendment to say that the constitution doesn’t grant any right to abortion access.
The trial of the providers’ lawsuit had been set for late February 2025 before Jayaram delayed it in responded to the parties’ deal.
“The state is prepared to accept an agreement not to enforce the new law until the final judgment, provided that we get a schedule that accommodates the record that we think we need to develop in this case,” said Lincoln Wilson, a senior counsel for the anti-abortion Alliance Defending Freedom, which is leading the state’s defense of its laws.
Abortion providers suggested July 1 that the state wouldn’t enforce the new reporting requirement while the lawsuit proceeded, but the health department did not confirm that when reporters asked about it.
Colorado
Judge rejects claims that door-to-door voter fraud search was intimidation
DENVER (AP) — A Colorado judge on Thursday rejected claims from civil and voting rights organizations that a group of Donald Trump supporters intimidated voters when they went door-to-door searching for fraud following the 2020 election.
The lawsuit against leaders of the U.S. Election Integrity Plan alleged the group’s activities included photographing voters’ homes and “door-to-door voter intimidation” in areas where a high number of minorities live. The group was founded after Trump lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden and made false claims of mass voter fraud.
A bench trial in the case began Monday and was supposed to continue all week. But U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney abruptly ended the proceedings early Thursday, siding in favor of the Trump supporters, according to court documents.
Attorneys for the plaintiff organizations — the League of Women Voters of Colorado, the regional chapter of the NAACP and Mi Familia Vota — had invoked the 19th century Ku Klux Klan Act in their lawsuit. That law was passed after the Civil War to prevent white vigilantes from using violence and terror to stop Black people from voting.
The judge said both sides seemed to be litigating issues outside the scope of the case, Colorado Politics reported.
“It is not about the Jan. 6 (2021) insurrection or the history of voter intimidation in this country. It is not about the defendants’ collective belief about election fraud. It’s not about the security or lack of security of elections in Colorado,” said Sweeney, an appointee of President Joe Biden. “Those are sideshows and I was trying to reel those sideshows in.”
The U.S. Election Integrity project has links to MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, one of the nation’s most prominent election conspiracy theorists and a leading benefactor of election denial causes.
Michael Wynne, an attorney for Holly Kasun, a leader of the conservative group, said the lawsuit “was a classic case of lawfare.”
“There wasn’t anything that any of these individuals did that could be called intimidation,” Wynne said.
Free Speech For People attorney Courtney Hostetler, who represented the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement that they were disappointed with the ruling and considering whether to appeal.
Ohio
Man gets 3 years in death of fiancée who went missing in 2011
HAMILTON, Ohio (AP) — The fiancé of an Ohio art student who went missing nearly 13 years ago was sentenced Thursday to three years in prison.
John Carter, 36, had been charged with two counts of murder when he was arrested in March 2023. He eventually pleaded guilty last month to involuntary manslaughter as part of a plea deal.
The charges stemmed from the August 2011 disappearance of Katelyn Markham, who was last seen at her home in Fairfield, Ohio. At the time, Markham was a few weeks away from finishing her graphic arts degree at the Art Institute of Ohio—Cincinnati, and Carter has said they were planning to move to Colorado later that year.
Skeletal remains identified as Markham’s were found in 2013 in a wooded area in Cedar Grove, Indiana, about 20 miles (about 32 kilometers) west of her home in Fairfield. Authorities ruled her death a homicide but did not determine how she was killed.
Butler County prosecutors have said Carter caused Markham’s death by “physical violence and by force.” They said Thursday that Carter still hasn’t explained how or why he killed Markham.
Dave Markham, Katelyn Markham’s father, read a letter in court before Carter was sentenced:
“Not a day goes by that I don’t think of Katelyn,” he said, imploring Judge Daniel Haughey to sentence Carter to the maximum sentence by law. “Let him feel the pain that many of us have endured for the past 13 years.”
Carter did not speak during the sentencing hearing. His attorneys asked Haughey to impose probation or a minimal prison term, asking him to consider the law and not emotional statements.
Haughey, though, imposed the maximum term allowed under the plea deal, saying Carter “has shown no genuine remorse for this offense.” He also noted that Carter did not try to help Markham or acknowledge what happened to her immediately after her death.
