## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e8,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT R E X S H R U M,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 04- 7037 C IT Y O F C O W E T A , O K L A H O M A , a M u n i c i p a l c o rp o r a t i o n ; S TE VEN C. W H I T L O C K , i n d i v i d u a l l y,

D efen dan t s, and D E R R I C K P A L M E R , i n d i v i d u a l l y,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA

( D . C . N O . 0 3 - C I V - 4 6 5 - W) Jo h n H o w ard L iebe r, Jam es C . H o d g es a n d S h an n an P ink h am P assleyo f E ll er & D et ri ch, P . C . , T uls a, O klahom a for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants . Jam es Patr i ck H un tand D ou glas D . V erni er of Jam es R . M oo re & A ssoci at es, P. C . , O kl ahoma C i t y , O kl ahoma forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. B efo re B R I S C O E , Mc WI L L I A MS , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. M c CO NNELL , C i r cui tJ udge.- 2-

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee Rex Shrum i s both a l aw enfor cementoffi cerand a c l e r g yma n . Af

t e re i g h ta p p a r e n t l ys u c c e s s f u l y e a r s o f

j u g g l i n g th e two r es pons i bi l i t i es , hi s r el at i ons hi p w i th the managementof the pol i ce de part m ent so u red , an d the C h ief o f P o li ce all eg ed lyrea rran g ed O fficer S h rum ’s w o rk schedu l e so i tw ou l d co nfli ctw i t h h i s duti es as a m i nis t er. F orced t o ch oo se betw een hi s pol i ce a nd hi s m i ni s t er i al r es pons i bi l i t i es , O ffi cerShrum r es i gned fr om t he pol i ce de par t m entand fi l ed thi s l aw s ui t . W e mustnow deci de w hether the C ityo f C o w eta a n d the C h ief o f P o li ce v iolated O fficer S h rum ’s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s t o fr eedom of as s oci at i on, fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on, and subst anti ve d ue p rocess . I . F ACT UAL BA CKGROUND R ex S h rum h as se rve d as p asto r of the C o w eta C h u rch o f C h ri st, in ea stern O kl ahoma, s i nce A pr i l 1990. I n 1994, he j oi ned the pol i ce for ce of t he C i tyof C ow et a. H e arr anged w i t h hi s new empl oy ert o gi ve hi m W ednes dayeveni ngs a n d S u n d a y s o ff, s o t h a th e c o u l d c o n t i n u e t o c a rryo u th i s mi n i s t e r i a l d u t i e s . He w or ked the days hi ftM ondayt hr ough Fr i dayas a det ect i ve. O ffi cerShrum w as al s o a mem berof the l ocal l odge of the Fr at ernal O r derof Pol i ce ( FO P) , w hi ch w as t he ce r t i fi ed bar gai ni ng agentfori t s m ember s i n the C ow et a Pol i ce D e p a rt m e n t.- 3-

Pr obl ems ar os e overO ffi cerShrum ’ s t i m e s heet s . H e w as s uppos ed t o put hi s t i m e s heet s i n t he r eportbox of A s s i s t antC hi ef of Pol i ce D err i ck Pal m eron Fr i dayni ght , befor e l eavi ng forthe w eeke nd, s o the t i m e s heet s w oul d be su b m itt e d b yth e 8 :0 0 M o n d a ym o rn in g d e a d lin e . O ffice r S h ru m h a d re p e a ted ly tur ned i n t i m e s heet s l at e and ha d been r epr i m anded s ever al t i m es . O n M onday m or ni ng, J une 18, 2001, t he r ecor ds cl erk i n the Pol i ce D epart m entcoul d notfi nd O ffi cerShrum ’ s t i m e s heetfort he pr evi ous w eek. O n thi s occa s i on O ffi cer Shrum deni ed anyw r ongdoi ng. A notheroffi cer , Ser geantM i ke Sul l i van, s t at ed th a t h e s a w O ffic e r S h ru m ’s tim e s h e e t in A s s is ta n t C h ie f P a lm e r’ s b o x . N e v e r t h e l e s s , O ffi c e rS h ru m w a s s u s p e n d e d b y th e D e p a r t m e n tfo rth r e e d a ys w i t houtpay . H i s s us pens i on w as announce d i n a l et t erfr om A s s i s t antC hi ef P a lm e r, d a ted Ju n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 1 , w h ich w a rn e d th a t f u rth e r in f

ra c tio n s w o u ld lea d to “pr ogr es s i ve di s ci pl i naryact i on. ” O ffi cerShrum fi l ed a gr i evanc e, w hi ch the C ityd e n ied a n d w h ich w a s s u b m itt e d to a rb itratio n o n S e p tem b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 1 , in acc or dance w i t h t he col l ect i ve- bar gai ni ng agr eementbetw een the C i tyand the F O P . O n O ct ober2, 2001, O ffi cerShrum w as agai n s us pended byA s s i s t antC hi ef Pal m er . T hi s t i m e, fors ubm i t t i ng hi s t i m e s heetl at e, he w as s us pended forfi ve day s w i t houtpayand puton pr obat i on fors i x m onths . O ffi cerShrum agai n fi l ed a gr i evanc e. T hi s gr i evanc e w as l at ers et t l ed, w i th the C i tyagr eei ng t o pay O ffic e r S h ru m fo r t h e d a y s h e w a s s u s p e n d e d .- 4-

I n ear l y2002 O ffi cerShrum w as r eas s i gned t o w or k as a patr ol m an under Ser geantJ oe G i s t . I n t he new pos i t i on he w oul d cont i nue on the days hi ftbut w oul d nothave Sunday s off. T o cl earSunday s forhi s m i ni s t er i al dut i es , O ffi cer Shrum as ked Ser geantG i s tforperm i s s i on t o m ove t o the eve ni ng orm i dni ght s hi ft . Ser geantG i s tagr eed, pr ovi ded thatO ffi cerShrum coul d arr ange w i th the eveni ng orm i dni ghts hi fts upervi s ort o have a n offi cerr epl ace hi m on the day s hi ft . O ffi cerShrum m ade the nec es s aryarr angement s w i th Ser geantSul l i van, w h o w a s th e m id n ig h t s h if t s u p e rv is o r a n d a ls o th e p re s id e n t o f th e F O P lo d g e . A not heroffi cerm oved t o t he days hi ft ; O ffi cerShrum w or ked the mi dni ghts hi ft a n d w a s o ff

S u n d a y s a n d M o n d a y s . O n J anuary8, 2002, O ffi cerShrum r ece i ved hi s s emi - annual per form ance r evi ew . I n hi s r evi ew of O ffi cerShrum s i x m onths ear l i er , A s s i s t antC hi ef P alm er h ad m ark ed tw o o f th e tw elve ev alua ted a rea s as o n es w h ere “i m pr ovementi s nece s s ary ”: “A dher ence t o Pol i cy ” and “ I nt erper s onal R e l a t i o n s h i p . ” H i s n e w s u p e r v i s o r , S e r g e a n tG i s t , c o n d u c t e d th e J a n u a ry 8 r evi ew and mar ked the s ame t w o ar eas “uns at i s fac t or y . ” I n expl ai ni ng the r at i ng for“A dher ence t o Pol i cy , ” Ser geantG i s tnot ed thatO ffi cerShrum had bee n “di s ci pl i ned thi s per i od. H ow ever , [he ha s ] nothad anypr obl ems r ece nt l y . ” For “I nt erper s onal R el at i ons hi p, ” Ser geantG i s tw r ot e thata “s i tuat i on” w i th O ffi cer S h ru m h a d “ g o [ n e ] b a d w ith a n o th e r su p e rv iso r in [ th e ] p re se n c e o f su b o rd in a te- 5-

empl oy ees . E m pl oy ee s eems t o have now r es ol ved thats i tuat i on. ” A s s i s t ant C h ie f P a lm e r s ig n e d a n d a p p ro v e d th e p e rfo rm a n c e re v ie w . O n J anuary29, 2002, t he arbi tr at orr eac hed a de ci s i on i n the fi r s tt i m esh e e t d isp u te. T h e a rb itrato r fo u n d th a t O ffice r S h ru m h a d n o t b e e n late in s ubm i t t i ng hi s t i m e s heetdue on J une 18, 2001, and thatthe C i tyvi ol at ed the col l ect i ve- bar gai ni ng agr eementbys us pendi ng hi m . T he arbi tr at ordi r ect ed the C i t yt o “r es ci nd i t s di s ci pl i ne . . . i n everyr es pect , ” t o m ake O ffi cerShrum w hol e, t o “el i m i nat e anyr ecor d of thi s di s ci pl i ne” f r om hi s per s onnel fi l e, and n ev er to c o n side r th e e v en t t o O fficer S h rum ’s de tr im en t. T w o w ee k s lat er, Pal m er , w ho had bee n pr om ot ed t o C hi ef of Pol i ce, w r ot e t o M r . W hi t l ock, the c i t y m a n a g e r , a d v i s i n g h i m t o r e s i s tth e a rb i tr a t o r ’ s d e c i s i o n u n t i l c o m p e l l e d b y a cour tt o compl y . I n hi s l et t ert o M r . W hi t l ock, C hi ef Pal m erdi d notdenythe s ubs t ance of O ffi cerShrum ’ s al l egat i ons ; he i ns i s t ed r atherthatthe gr i evanc e w as nott i m el yfi l ed. M eanw hi l e, O ffi cerShrum cont i nued t o w or k the mi dni ghts hi ft w i t h Sunday s and M onday s off, underthe arr angementw or ked outw i th Ser geant G is t a n d S e rg e a n t S u lliv a n . O n M arc h 1 5 , 2 0 0 2 , C h ief P alm er w rote to S erg ea n t G istthat h e w as “ v ery conce r ned” a boutO ffi cerShrum ’ s “per form ance l evel . ” C hi ef Pal m erdi r ect ed Ser geantG i s tt o as s i gn O ffi cerShrum t o the days hi ft“fora mi ni m um of 30 day s ” s o he coul d r ece i ve “r emedi al tr ai ni ng i n s upervi s i on, ethi cs and i nt erper s onal r el at i ons hi ps . ” A thi s depos i t i on, C hi ef Pal m ercoul d notr eca l l t he- 6-

s peci fi c pr obl ems w i t h O ffi cerShrum ’ s per form ance orthe s peci fi c r emedi al tra in in g th a t w a s n e e d e d . C h ief P a lm e r d id re c a ll th a t if O ffice r S h ru m fa iled to w o rk S u n d a y s u n d e r t h is n e w a rr a n g e m e n t, h e c o u ld b e fir e d . R emedi al t r ai ni ng w as al s o or der ed forSer geantSul l i van, w ho had t es t i fi ed i n O ffi cerShrum ’ s favoratarbi t r at i on. Ser geantSul l i van r ece i ved a ne gat i ve r evi ew i n February2002, w as demot ed and a s s i gned r emedi al tr ai ni ng i n M ar ch 2002, and w as fi r ed i n A pr i l 2002. A n arbi tr at oror der ed hi s r ei ns t at ementand cal l ed the ca s e “a cl as s i c exa m pl e of w hatnott o do w hen admi ni s t er i ng di s ci pl i ne. ” The arbi t r at orl at err ei t er at ed the or derand found thatSer geant Sul l i van’ s hal t i ng r ei ns t at ementhad bee n m arked by“the t ai ntof r et al i at i on. ” O n M arch 17 , t w o d ay s aft er the lett er fr om C hief Palm er, S ergeant G i st i ns t ruct ed O ffi cerShrum t o begi n w or ki ng the days hi fton M ar ch 19. C oncerned abo ut a confli ctw i t h h i s m i nis t eri al du t i es, O ffi cer Shrum asked S ergeant G i st w hetherhe coul d cont i nue t o have Sunday s off. T he part i es di s put e Ser geant G i s t ’ s ans w er . T he D efe ndant s m ai nt ai n thatSer geantG i s tt ol d O ffi cerShrum t hathe coul d nott ake Sunday s off be caus e a mor e s eni oroffi cerhad s el ect ed that day , and ac cor di ng t o t he col l ect i ve- bar gai ni ng agr eementoff- day s w er e s el ect ed bys eni or i t y . O ffi cerShrum ’ s evi dence i s qui t e di ffe r ent . H e s ubm i t t ed a depos i t i on of Ser geantG i s tt o t he effec tthatanotheroffi cerw as w i l l i ng t o tr ade Sundays hi ft s w i t h O ffi cerShrum . A ccor di ng t o Ser geantG i s t , C hi ef Pal m er- 7-

di s appr oved, i ns i s t i ng t hatO ffi cerShrum w ork on Sunday s s o thathe coul d be m o n ito re d . O n M ar ch 22, 2002, O ffi cerShrum w r ot e a r es i gnat i on l et t ert o C hi ef Pal m er , effect i ve A pr i l 3, 2002. I n the l et t er , O ffi cerShrum des cr i bed hi s hi r i ng i n 1994 as bei ng done “w i t h t he under s t andi ng byboth the chi ef of pol i ce, and the ci t ym anage rt hatm yr es pons i bi l i t i es atthe C hur ch had t o be met , ” and he d e s c ri b e d th e e a s e w ith w h ic h h is m in is te ri a l d u tie s h a d b e e n a c c o m m o d a te d . A ccor di ng t o O ffi cerShrum , i n hi s ei ghty ear s on the for ce he had cr eat ed no pr obl ems and c aus ed no compl ai nt s fr om otheroffi cer s . N everthel es s , O ffi cer Shrum s ai d he w as r es i gni ng beca us e of Chi ef Pal m er ’ s “cont i nued r el i gi ous har as s m ent ”— “byfor ci ng m e t o w or k on Sundayy ou have gi ven me no ot her choi ce. ” O n A u g u s t 2 2 , 2 0 0 3 , O ffic e r S h ru m file d th is s u it in fe d e ra l d is tr ic t c o u rt . H e br oughtm anycl ai m s : vi ol at i ons of hi s fede r al cons t i tut i onal r i ght s of fr ee s peec h, fr eedom of as s embl y/ as s oci at i on, and fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on; vi ol at i on of the O klahom a F i re and P oli ce A rbi trat i on A ct ; w rongf ul t erm i nati on against publ i c pol i cy ; vi ol at i on of the O kl ahoma C ons t i tut i on; l ack of s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s ; i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s ; and vi ol at i on of the O kl ahoma R el i gi ous Fr eedom A ct . O ffi cerShrum s oughtactual and compensa t or ydamages fr om t he C i tyand ac tual , compensa t or y , and puni t i ve- 8-

damages fr om C hi ef Pal m erand fr om the C i tyM anage r , M r . W hi t l ock, both of w h o m h e s u e d in th e irin d iv id u a l c a p a c itie s . B yc o n se n t o f

th e p a rties , the c a se w a s p re sid e d o v e r b ya M a g istra te J u d g e , w h o s e d e c is io n w ill b e re fe rr e d to a s th a t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . See F e d . R. C i v. P. 73; 28 U . S. C . § 636( c) ( 3) . T he D efe ndant s m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent o n a l l c l a i ms . Th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tg r a n t e d th e mo t i o n i n p a r t , d i s mi s s i n g a l l c l a i ms againstM r. W hit l ock on qu al i fi ed im m un i tygroun ds, dis m i ssi ng the F i rs t A m e n d m e n t f

re e sp e e c h c laim a n d th e e q u iv a len t cla im u n d e r th e sta te cons t i tut i on, di s m i s s i ng t he cl ai m underthe O kl ahoma Fi r e and Pol i ce A rbi tr at i on A ct , and di s m i s s i ng t he s t at e t or tl aw cl ai m s of w r ongful t erm i nat i on and i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s . T he di s tr i ctcourtal l ow ed O ffi cer S h ru m to p ro c e e d a g a in st th e C itya n d a g a in st C h ief P a lm e r o n th re e o f

h is fede r al cl ai m s — fr eedom of as s oci at i on, fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on, and s ubs t ant i ve d u e p ro c e ss — a n d o n th e sta te la w c laim s th a t trac k th e m . C h ief P a lm e r a p p e a ls t he part i al deni al of hi s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton the fe der al c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s o n q u a lifie d im m u n ity g ro u n d s .

I I . J URI S DI CTI ON AND S TANDA RD O F REVI EW O r der s deny i ng qual i fi ed i m m uni tybefor e tr i al ar e appe al abl e onl yt o the e x te n t th e yre s o lv e a b s tr a c t is s u e s o f la w . B ehr ens v. P el l et i er , 516 U . S. 299, 313 ( 1996) . A n i nt er l ocut or yappea l i s i m pr operw hen the ques t i on i s t he s uffi ci ency of the evi dence ort he corr ectnes s of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ngs w i th r es pectt o a- 9-

g e n u in e is s u e o f

m a te ri a l fa c t. Johns on v. Jones , 515 U . S. 304, 313 (19 9 5 ). B eca us e C hi ef Pal m erar gues t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni tyeven unde r t he Pl ai nt i ff’ s ver s i on of the fa ct s , w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o heart hi s appea l n o tw ith s ta n d in g its in te rl o c u to ry c h a ra c te r. D eAnzona v. C i t y of D enve r , 222 F. 3d 1229, 1233 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) . O uri nqui ryon i nt er l ocut or yqual i fi ed i m m uni t yappea l s i s l i m i t ed, how ever , t o “abs tr acti s s ues of l aw . ” Johns on , 515 U . S. at317. W e must“t ake, as gi ven, the fa ct s t hatt he di s tr i ctcourtas s um ed w h e n it d e n ie d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t” to th e D e fe n d a n t. Id. a t 3 1 9 . G overnm entoffi ci al s ar e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni tyfr om l i abi l i tyfor c iv il d a m a g e s u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 w h e n th e ir “ c o n d u c t d o e s n o t v io late c lea rly e sta b lish e d sta tu to ryo r c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts o f w h ich a re a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld have know n. ” Ha rlo w v . F itzg e ra ld , 457 U . S. 800, 818 ( 1982) . W e r evi ew de n o v o a d e n ial o f

a su m m a ryju d g m e n t m o tio n ra isin g q u a lifie d im m u n ity q u e s tio n s . Hol l and ex r el . O verdor f f v. Har r i ngt on , 2 6 8 F .3 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 5 (1 0 th C i r . 2001) . O nce a defe ns e of qua l i fi ed i m m uni tyhas been r ai s ed, w e cons i der t w o ques t i ons : ( 1) w hethert he al l eged c onductvi ol at ed a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght , and if so , (2) w h ethe r th e law w as c learlyestab li sh ed at th e ti m e o f th e d efen d an t’ s a c tio n s . Sa u c ierv . Ka tz , 53 3 U . S . 19 4 (200 1). W e add res s each o f t hese ques t i ons forO ffi cerShrum ’ s cl ai m s of fr eedom of as s oci at i on, fr ee e xer ci s e, and subst anti ve d ue p rocess .P l ai nti ff rai ses no cl ai m s und er the fe deral l abo r l aw s. 1

- 10-

I I I . F RE E DO M OF AS S OC I AT I ON O ffi cerShrum ’ s fi r s tcl ai m agai ns tC hi ef Pal m eri s bas ed on i nt er fer ence w i t h hi s Fi r s tA m endmentfr eedom of as s oci at i on— s peci fi cal l y , hi s as s oci at i on w ith a lab o r u n io n , the F ra ter n a l O rd e r o f P o lice . H e a lleg e s th a t th e D e fe n d a n ts as s i gned hi m t o Sundaydut yi n r et al i at i on forhi s m ember s hi p i n the uni on and his i nv ocati on of h i s col l ect i ve b argai ning ri gh t s. 1 In the sl i gh t l ydiffer ent cont ext of free speech clai m s bypu bli c em ploy ees, t he Supr eme C our thas form ul at ed the four - partbal anci ng t es tof P i cke r i ng v. B d. of E ducat i on , 3 9 1 U .S . 5 6 3 (1 9 6 8 ); see C on nick v. M yers , 461 U . S. 138, 142 ( 1983) . O ne r equi r ementfors uch a c l ai m i s t hatt he s peec h addr es s a mat t erof p u b lic c o n c e rn . Id. at568. N ei thert hi s C our tnort he Supr eme C our thas d eterm ined , as a g en era l m att er, w h ethe r P i cke r i ng ’ s publ i c conc ern r equi r ement a p p lie s to f

re e d o m o f

a s s o c ia tio n c la im s . See S cha lk v. G allem ore , 906 F. 2d 491, 498 & n. 6 ( 10t h C i r . 1990) ( r equi r i ng publ i c conc ern w her e the “a s s oci at i on” w as

“ n o th in g m o re n o r le ss th a n a n a u d ien c e ” fo r th e e m p lo y e e ’s s p e e c h b u t ex p licitly d e c lin in g to h o ld th a t p u b lic c o n c e rn is a lw a y s re q u ire d ); F lanagan v. Munger , 890 F. 2d 1557, 1564 n. 7 ( 10t h C i r . 1989) ( expr es s i ng “s om e doubtw hethert heW e have s ubs equent l yr es erved the ques t i on i n s ever al unpubl i s hed 2 o p in io n s . See, e. g. , L u n o w v . C ity o f O k la h o m a C ity , 61 Fed. A ppx. 598, 606 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). Fi ve C i r cui t s have a dopt ed the publ i c conc ern r equi r ementforfr eedom of 3 a s s o c ia tio n c la im s a n d tw o h a v e n o t. See Huds on v. C r aven , 4 0 3 F .3 d 6 9 1 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (ap p ly ing the p u b li c c o n ce rn test t o h yb ri d sp ee ch /asso ciati o n claim s); C ob b v. P ozzi , 3 6 3 F . 3 d 8 9 , 1 0 2 -10 3 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (ap p ly ing the p u b li c c o n ce rn tes t to a ss o c iatio n c laim s); E dw ards v. C i t y of G oldsboro , 178 F. 3d 231, 249- 50 (4 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (s a m e ); G r i f f i n v. Thom as , 929 F. 2d 1210, 1214 ( 7th C i r . 1991) (sam e); B oals v. G r ay , 7 7 5 F .2 d 6 8 6 (6 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ( s a m e ). B uts ee Bre aux v. C i t y of G ar l and , 2 0 5 F .3 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 7 n .1 2 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (n o t ap p ly in g th e p u b lic c o n c e rn tes t to a ss o c iatio n c laim s); Hat cherv. B d. of P ub. E duc. and O r

phanage , 8 0 9 F .2 d 1 5 4 6 , 1 5 5 8 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) ( s a m e ). S e e a lso A ke rs v . Mc G in n is , 352 F. 3d 1030, 1044 ( 6t h C i r . 2003) ( C l ay , J . , concurr i ng and di s s ent i ng) ( cr i t i ci zi ng the a p p li ca ti o n o f th e p u b li c c o n ce rn test t o so m e a sso ciati o n al claim s); B al t on v. C i t y of Mi lw aukee , 133 F. 3d 1036, 1040 ( 7th C i r . 1998) ( s ugges t i ng thatt he i s s ue b e re ex am ined ).

- 11- P i cke r i ngt es t , par t i cul ar l yt he publ i c conc ern pr ong, appl i es i n fr eedom of asso ciati o n ca ses” ). 2 T h at qu esti o n h as d ivide d the C o u rt s o f A p p ea ls. In th is case , h o w ev er, 3 w e n e e d n o t re a c h th e b ro a d e r q u e stio n . In th e sp e c ific c o n tex t o f p u b lic empl oy ee l aboruni ons , t hi s C our thas r ej ect ed the r equi r ementt hata w or ker d em o n str ate tha t his asso ciati o n w ith the u n ion b e a m att er o f p u b li c c o n ce rn. In B ut cherv. C i t

y of McAl es t er , 9 5 6 F .2 d 9 7 3 (1 9 9 2 ), w e u p h e ld a ju ryv e rd ict in favorof a publ i c empl oy ee uni on m ember ’ s fr eedom of as s oci at i on cl ai m w i thout ap p ly ing the p u b li c c o n ce rn test. T h ree firem en su ed the c ityo f M cA lest er, O kl ahoma, forvi ol at i ng t hei rFi r s tA m endmentr i ghtt o part i ci pat e i n uni on a c tiv itie s . Id . at975 ( s t y l i ng t he cons t i tut i onal i nt er es ta “f i r s tamendm entr i ght- 12-

to p e a c e a b ly as s e m b le . . [ a n d ] t o p a rt ic ip a te in th e a c tiv itie s o f L o c a l 2 2 8 4 ” ). A m ong ot herar gum ent s , t he ci t yi ns i s t ed thatthe fi r emen had no cons t i tut i onal claim b ec au se th eir un ion ac ti v it ies w ere n o t pro tected u n d er P i cke r i ng . Id . at 9 7 9 . W e reje c te d th a t a rg u m e n t. Id. a t 9 7 9 -8 0 . See a lso Mor f i n v. A l buquer que P ub. Sch. , 9 0 6 F . 2 d 1 4 3 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) (r ev ersing a g ran t of su m m ary ju d g m e n t to a d e fe n d a n t o n a u n io n a ss o c iatio n c laim w ith o u t ap p ly in g th e p u b lic c o n c e rn te s t) . In th e se c a se s w e o ffe re d n o len g th ye x p lan a tio n fo r n o t ap p ly in g th e p u b lic conce r n t es t , butw e di d emphasi ze the s el f- i m pos ed cha r act erof the col l ect i vebargai ning agreem ent. W e no t ed thatthe cityhad “no l i cense, w here there i s a col l ect i ve- bar gai ni ng agr eement , t o embar k on uni on- bus t i ng act i vi t i es . ” B ut cher , 956 F. 2d at979. T he r eas on i s appar ent . T he P i cke r i ngt es ti s pr edi cat ed on the g o v e rn m e n t’s “ in ter e sts a s a n e m p lo y e r in re g u latin g th e sp e e c h o f its e m p lo y e e s,” w h ich “ d iffe r sig n ifica n tlyf ro m th o se it p o ss e ss e s in c o n n e c tio n w ith r egul at i on of the s peec h of the ci t i zenryi n gener al . ” P i cke r i ng , 3 9 1 U .S . a t 5 6 8 . T hos e i nt er es t s r el at e t o “the effi ci encyof the publ i c s ervi ces i tper form s thr ough i t s empl oy ees . ” Id. W her e a publ i c empl oy erhas negot i at ed w i th an empl oy ee uni on and s i gned a c ol l ect i ve- bar gai ni ng agr eement , i thas contr actual l yagr eed to th e le g itim a c yo f

th e u n io n a n d o f

its e m p lo y e e s ’ a s s o c ia tio n w ith th e u n io n . T h e p u b lic e m p lo y e r h a s p re su m a b lyre c e iv e d th e b e n e fit o f its b a rg a in , an d is e sto p p e d f

ro m c laim in g th a t it s “ in ter e sts a s a n e m p lo y e r” a re in c o n sis ten t w ith- 13-

th e f re e d o m o f

its e m p lo y e e s to a ss o c iate w ith th e u n io n o r to file g rie v a n c e s in a c c o rd a n c e w ith its p ro c e d u re s . See B ut cher , 9 5 6 F .2 d a t 9 7 9 (o n c e a p u b lic e m p lo y e r sig n s a c o llec tiv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t, i t n o lo n g e r c a n a ss e rt a “l egi t i m at e i nt er es ti n w hetheri t s fi r efi ght er s el ect ed t o j oi n the uni on and par t i ci pat e i n i t s act i vi t i es ”) . I f a publ i c empl oy err et al i at es agai ns tan empl oy ee forengagi ng i n act s pr ot ect ed bythe col l ect i ve- bar gai ni ng agr eement

— as O ffi cer Shrum al l eges her e— t hen the empl oy ercannotr el yon the P i cke r i ngtes t to a v o id F i r s tA m e n d m e n ts c ru t i n y. N o t o n lyd o e s th e F irst A m e n d m e n t f re e d o m o f

a ss o c iatio n p ro tec t p u b lic em p loy ee s fro m retali ati o n fo r pa rt ici p ati o n in a u n ion w ith w h ich th eir em p loy ers h a v e s ig n e d a c o lle c tiv e -b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t, B ut cher , 956 F. 2d at980, butas t hi s C our thel d i n Mo rfin , 906 F. 2d at1439, “[t ] he uncons t i tut i onal i tyof re talia tin g a g a in st a n e m p lo y e e fo r p a rticip a tin g in a u n io n [ is] c lea rly es t abl i s hed. ” W e ther efor e affi r m the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of s um m aryj udgm ent o n Offi c e rS h ru m’ s f

r e e d o m o f

a s s o c i a t i o n c l a i m. O n r emand, t he di s t r i ctcourts houl d nei therr equi r e “publ i c conc ern” nor engage i n j udi ci al bal anci ng of the governm ent ’ s i nt er es ti n eff i ci entoper at i ons a g a in st th e O ffice r S h ru m ’s in ter e st in u n io n a ss o c iatio n . T h e C ityo f C o w e ta al r eadybal ance d t hos e i nt er es t s w hen i tagr eed t o a col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement . T he D efe ndant s ar e es t opped fr om r enegi ng on t hi s agr eement , ei ther bycl ai m i ng t hatuni on as s oci at i on i s nota mat t erof publ i c conc ern orbys ay i ng- 14-

t hati t s i nt er es ti n eff

i ci entoper at i ons outw ei ghs O ffi cerShrum ’ s r i ghtt o uni on a s s o c ia tio n . I V. F RE E E X E RC I S E OF RE L I GI ON T he di s t r i ctcour tal s o deni ed C hi ef Pal m er ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent o n O fficer S h rum ’s free ex erc ise claim , b ase d o n q u ali fied im m u n ity . T h e c o u rt offe r ed tw o r at i onal es . Fi r s t , i tnot ed that“atl eas tone courthas found ‘ any r el i gi ous act i vi t i es of empl oy ees t hatcan be acc om m odat ed w i thoutundue h a rd s h ip to th e g o v e rn m e n ta l e m p lo y e r, s ee 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e(j ), are al so pr ot ect ed byt he fi r s tamendm ent . ’ ” O r der , at13 ( quot i ng B r ow n v. P olk C ount y, Io wa , 61 F. 3d 650, 654 ( 8 C i r . 1995) ( en banc ) ) . Second, the courtnot ed that th t here i s a factual di spute r egardi ng w hetherO ffi cer Shrum ’s “at t em pted exerci se of h i s r el i gious freedom s guaranteed byt he F i rs tA m end m ent, and D efen dan t s’ kn ow l edg e of thatat t em pt, w as a m oti vati ng fact or i n the act i on s t aken against hi m . ” Id. C h ief P alm er u rge s tw o g rou n d s fo r rev ersing the d istri ct co u rt ’s d e n ia l o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A . A ppl i cabi l i t y of

t he F ree E x erc i s e C l ause t o E x ecut i ve A ct i on C hief Palm er fi rs toffers t he intri gu i ng assert i on t hat the F ree Ex erci se Cl a u s e p r o t e c t s c i t i z e n s o n l yf r o m “ e n a c t me n to re n fo r c e me n to f a n yl a w, r egul at i on oror di nance , ” and notfr om t he ac t i ons ordeci s i ons of an e xecut i ve o fficia l, su c h a s th e d e c isio n to m o v e O ffice r S h ru m to th e d a ysh if t an d to fo rb id hi m fr om t r adi ng s hi ft s w i t h anotheroffi cer . T hi s ar gum enti s pr edi cat ed on a- 15-

n a rro w re a d in g o f

th e first a n d fif

th w o rd s o f

th e F irst A m e n d m e n t: “ C on gress s hal l m ake no l aw . . . . ” U . S. C ons t . , A m end. I . C ongr es s i s the l egi s l at i ve br anch, and the A m endmenti s di r ect ed atthe maki ng of “l aw . ” Even aft er in c o rp o ra tio n o f

th e F irst A m e n d m e n t ag a in st th e sta tes , A p p e llan t ev id e n tlyis ar gui ng, t he A m endmentappl i es onl yt o fede r al , s t at e, and l ocal l egi s l at i ve act i vi t yand the di r ectenfor cementther eof, and nott o the i ndepende ntexer ci s e of e x e c u tiv e f

u n c tio n s . T he S up rem e C ou rthas nev er expl i ci t l yheld that the F ree Ex erci se C l ause a p p lies to e x e c u tiv e a c tio n , tho u g h it h a s a ss u m e d o n c o u n tles s o c c a sio n s th a t it d o e s . See, e. g. , Lyn gv. Nw . Ind ian C em etery P ro tecti ve A ss’n , 485 U . S. 439 (1 9 8 8 ) (d e c isio n b yF o re st S e rv ice to b u ild a ro a d th ro u g h ter rito rysa c re d to c e rta in In d ian trib e s); Thom as v. R evi ew B d. of Ind. E mpl oym entSec. D i v. , 450 U .S . 7 0 7 (1 9 8 1 ) (d e c isio n b ysta te u n e m p lo ym e n t co m p e n sa tio n c o m m iss io n to d e n yb e n e fits to a w o rk e r u n e m p lo y e d o n a c c o u n t o f re lig io u s s c ru p les ); C r uzv. B e to , 405 U . S. 319 ( 1972) ( admi ni s tr at i ve ac t i ons bypr i s on offi ci al s affect i ng B u d d h istp ri so n er); Sher ber tv. Ver ner , 374 U . S. 398, 407 ( 1963) ( deni al of u n e m p lo ym e n t co m p e n sa tio n ); cf . P i cke r i ng, supra ( fr ee s peec h cl ai m ar i s i ng f ro m e x e c u tiv e p e rso n n e l ac tio n ); s ee als o A xs on- F l ynn v. Johns on , 356 F. 3d 12 77 (10 C i r. 20 04 ) ( revi ew i ng execu t i ve acti on un der the F ree Ex erci se

th C l aus e) . Pr ofes s orL eonar d L evypos ed the ques t i on w i thoutoffe r i ng anycl ear re so lu tio n :- 16-

[T]he Fi r s tA m endment , w hen r ead l i t er al l y , r ai s es the ques t i on w hether anys peci al s i gni fi canc e s houl d be att ache d t o the fa ctthatthe pr ohi bi t i on on pow erw as i m pos ed exc l us i vel yupon C on gress i ns t ead of upon t he g o v e rn m e n t o f

th e U n ited S tate s. D id th e sp e c ifica tio n o f C o n g re ss im p ly t hatr es t r ai nt s w er e noti nt ended t o be i m pos ed upon otherfede r al authori t i es? L e o n a rd W . L e v y , L eg a cy o f Sup p re ss io n : Fre e d o m o

f S p e e c h a n dP re ss in E a rly A m er i can His t or

y 2 3 3 -34 (19 6 0 ) (em p h asis in o ri g inal). T h e a n s we rt o Ch i e f

P a l me r ’ s a r g u me n ta n d P r o fe s s o rL e v y ’ s q u e s t i o n , we bel i eve, i s t hatt he Fi r s tA m endmentappl i es t o exer ci s es of exe cut i ve author i tyno less than itd o es to the p assa g e o f leg isl ati o n . T h e d raf ters’ use o f th e term “C on gress ” w as a r esul tof tw o st ructural decis i on s: t o li m i tthe reach o f t he F i rs t A m endment( as w el l as otherpr ot ect i ons of per s onal r i ght s i n the fi r s tei ght am end m ents ) t o the federal go vernm ent, and t o setforth these fr eedo m s as a fr ees t andi ng B i l l of R i ght s , s epar at e fr om the mai n bodyof the cons t i tut i onal d o c u m e n t. N e ith e r o f th e se e v in c e d a n yin ten tio n to c o n fin e th e A m e n d m e n t to act i ons of the l egi s l at i ve br anch. T he ea r l ys t at e cons t i tut i ons , on w hi ch the Fi r s tA m endmentw as pat t erned, uni form l yappl i ed thei rver s i ons of the Fr ee Exer ci s e C l aus e t o al l br anche s of g o v e rn m e n t. See Th e C o mp le te B ill o f R ig h ts : Th e D r a

fts , D e b a te s , S o u r c e s , & O r igi ns 13- 52 ( N ei l H . C ogan ed. , 1997) ( quot i ng the r el i gi ous fr eedom pr ovi s i ons i n t he cons t i tut i ons and cha r t er s of al l thi r t een or i gi nal s t at es ) . T he D el aw ar e D ecl ar at i on of R i ght s of 1776, § 2, forexampl e, pr ovi ded “thatno- 17-

author i t ycan oroughtt o be ves t ed i n, oras s um ed by a ny p ow er w ha t ever that s hal l i n anycas e i nt er fer e w i t h, ori n anym annercontr oul the r i ghtof cons ci ence i n t he fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi ous w or s hi p. ” Id. at15 ( emphasi s added) . T he N ew Y or k C ons t i tut i on of 1777, § X X X V I I I , pr ovi ded “[ t ] hatthe fr ee Exer ci s e and E nj oym entof r el i gi ous Pr ofes s i on and W or s hi p, w i thoutD i s cr i m i nat i on or Pr efe r ence , s hal l for everher eaf t erbe al l ow ed w i thi n thi s St at e t o al l M anki nd. ” Id. at26. T he Penns y l vani a C ons t i tut i on of 1790, A r t . I X , § 3, adopt ed c o n tem p o ra n e o u slyw ith th e F irst A m e n d m e n t, pr o v id e d “ th a t n o h u m a n a u th o rity can, i n anycas e w hat ever , contr oul ori nt er fer e w i th the r i ght s of cons ci ence . ” Id. a t 3 3 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T h e first d ra f

t d e b a ted in th e H o u se o f R e p re se n tativ e s o f

w h a t w a s la ter to b e th e R e lig io n C lau se s re a d : “N o re lig io n sh a ll b e e sta b lish e d b ylaw , n o r sh a ll t he equa l r i ght s of cons ci ence be i nfr i nged. ” 1 A nnals of C ong . 757 ( A ug. 15, 1 7 8 9 ) ( J o s e p h G a le s e d ., 1 8 3 4 ). I t w a s p ro p o s e d a s a n a m e n d m e n t to A rt ic le I, § 9, w hi ch s et s for t h l i m i t at i ons on t he pow er s of the fe der al governm ent . T he propo sal cam e un der cr i t i ci sm becau se of t he fe ar that i tm i gh tbe int erpr et ed as a l i m i t at i on on s t at e governm ent s , m anyof w hi ch then had e s t abl i s hm ent s of rel i gion of

som e sort . M oreove r, for i nd epen den treas on s, the F i rs tC on gress deci ded thatt he pr opos ed amendm ent s s houl d be att ache d t o the end of the do cum ent, rather than i nterpo l at ed w i thin i t ; this exace rbat ed the federal i sm p ro b lem b e c a u se it w a s o n lyth e p lac e m e n t o f th e re lig io n a m e n d m e n t w ith inA tt he C on st i tuti on al C on ven t i on , i n respon se t o an t i -nat i on al i st 4 s ens i t i vi t i es , t he Fr amer s car eful l ydel et ed eve rym ent i on of the w or ds “nat i on” or “nat i onal ” thathad appe ar ed i n the R andol ph Pl an. 1 R ecords of the Feder al C onvent i on 3 3 5 , 3 3 6 , 4 0 4 (M ax F arran d ed . , 1 9 1 1 ). 12 R eg. D eb. 472, 475 ( 1936) ( Sen. G abr i el M oor e, ar gui ng thatt he r efus al 5 of C on gress t o recei ve p et i t i on s agai nstsl averydid not vi olat e t he F i rs t A m end m ent r i gh tof p et i t i on becau se C on gress w as forbi dd en o nlyt o p ass “l aw s” a n d th e re f

u s a l to re c e iv e a p e titio n w a s n o t a la w ).

- 18- A rt ic le I, § 9 th a t c o n fin e d its re a c h in a n yw a yto th e fe d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t. M adi s on s ugges t ed thatt he pr obl em coul d be mosteas i l yr es ol ved byaddi ng the w or d “nat i onal ” t o t he pr opos al , s o thati tw oul d r ead that“no nat i onal r el i gi on s hal l be es t abl i s hed byl aw , ” 1 A nnals of C ong . 758- 59, butthi s i dea e ncount er ed oppos i t i on fr om t hos e s t i l l s ens i t i ve t o the cons ol i dat i oni s ti m pl i cat i ons of the w or d “nat i onal . ” S e e id . a t 7 5 9 (sta tem e n t o f R e p . G e rry ). T h e so lu tio n w a s to 4 e m p lo yth e w o rd “ C o n g re ss ,” th u s m a k in g c lea r th a t th e lim itatio n s o f w h a t is now t he Fi r s tA m endmentdi d notappl yt o the St at es . ( T hatl i m i t at i on t o the fede ral go vernm ent, of co urse, w as l at er abr og at ed b yi nco rporat i on of the F i rs t A m e n d m e n t a g a in s t th e S ta te s th ro u g h th e m e d iu m o f th e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t. C antw el lv. C onnect i cut , 3 1 0 U . S . 2 9 6 , 3 0 3 -30 4 (19 4 0 ). ) A s t hi s hi s t or ys how s , t her e w as no i nt ent i on t o confi ne the r eac h of the F irst A m e n d m e n t to th e leg isla tiv e b ra n c h . In d e e d , the first tim e a n y o n e in C o n g re ss e x p licitlya rg u e d th a t th e stric tu re s o f th e F irst A m e n d m e n t ap p lied o n ly t o t he pas s age of

a “l aw ”— i n 1836, i n connec t i on w i th the r i ghtof pet i t i on — t he 5 s ugges t i on w as r oundl yr ej ect ed ( “w i th r i di cul e, ” ac cor di ng t o the l eadi ng s chol ar- 19-

on cons t i tut i onal debat es i n C ongr es s ) . See D avi d P. C ur r i e, Th e C o n stitu tio n in C ongr es s : D es centInt o the Maels tr om , 1829- 1861 , at 9 (2 0 0 5 ). O ne s chol arhas ar gued thatthe l egi s l at i ve hi s t oryof the Est abl i s hm ent C l aus e s how s t hat“[t ] he w or d ‘ C ongr es s ’ w as i nt ent i onal l yi ns er t ed t o l i m i tthe s c op e of t he r e s t r i c t i on s on t he go ve rnmen tt o tha ts i ng l e br a nc h. ” M a r k. P. D e n b e a u x , The F i rs tWor d of the Fi rs tA m endm ent , 80 N w . U . L . R ev. 1156, 1169- 70 ( 1986) . Pr ofes s orD enbea ux bas es hi s ar gum enton a r emar k by R epr es ent at i ve H unt i ngt on of C onnect i cut , a s t at e thatatthe t i m e had a n es t abl i s hm entof r el i gi on i n t he form of compul s or yt axat i on forthe s uppor tof re lig io n . See T h o m a s J . C u rr y , The F i rs tFr eedom s : C hur ch and Stat e i n A m er i ca t o the Pass age of

the Fi rs tA m endm ent178, 183- 84 ( 1986) . H unt i ngt on fea r ed th a t th e o rig in a l v e rsio n o f th e re lig io n a m e n d m e n t w o u ld lea d to fe d e ra l law su its pr event i ng enfor cementof the “by l aw s ” thathad bee n enac t ed “fora s uppor tof m i ni s t er s , orbui l di ng of pl ace s of w or s hi p. ” 1 A nnals of C ong. 758. T he s ubs t i tut i on of the w or d “C ongr es s ” ca m e s hor t l yaft erH unt i ngt on’ s r emar k and c a n b e s e e n a s a re s p o n s e to it. See i d. at796. W e ca nnotagr ee w i th Pr ofes s or D enbea ux’ s i nt erpr et at i on of thi s i nci dent . H unt i ngt on’ s conce rn s t emm ed fr om uncert ai nt yoverw hethert he pr opos al w oul d ext end t o s t at e es t abl i s hm ent s , not o v e r a n yp a rt ic u la r c o n c e rn a b o u t a p a rt ic u la r b ra n c h o f th e fe d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t. A tt hi s j unctur e, t he J udi ci aryA cthad noty etbeen e nact ed, and H unt i ngt on p re su m a b lya ss u m e d th a t th e fe d e ra l co u rts w o u ld b e v e ste d w ith th e f u llH unt i ngt on m ade hi s r emar k on A ugus t15, 1789. T he H ous e deba t e on 6 t he J udi ci arybi l l di d notbegi n unt i l A ugus t24, 1 A nnals of C ong. 812, and the bi l l w as notadopt ed unt i l Sept ember24, 1 S ta t. 73. T he A ctdi d notves tt he fe d e ra l co u rts w ith g e n e ra l fe d e ra l q u e stio n ju risd ictio n , an d th u s, u n d e r th e A c t, H unt i ngt on’ s fea r ed l aw s ui tcoul d notar i s e unl es s s om ehow di ver s i tyj ur i s di ct i on coul d be contr i ved.

- 20- j ur i s di ct i on i m pl i ed byA r t i cl e I I I

— t o al l cas es “ar i s i ng underthe C ons t i tut i on. ” H e th u s w o rrie d th a t an o p p o n e n t o f th e C o n n e c ticu t es tab lish m e n t co u ld g o to fede r al cour t , i nvoke the pr opos ed l anguage “no r el i gi on s hal l be es t abl i s hed by l aw , ” and obt ai n an i nj unct i on orotherr el i ef pr event i ng enfor cementof the o b li g ati o n to p ay fo r su p p o rt o f m inist ers an d b u il d ing s o f w o rship . H is co n ce rn 6 w as s at i s fi ed byconfi ni ng t he r eac h of the r el i gi on pr opos al t o the fe der al governm ent . I ndeed, aft ert he pr opos al w as fur theramended t o forbi d any“l aw r es pect i ng t he es t abl i s hm entof r el i gi on, ” w hi ch pr ohi bi t ed the fe der al governm entbot h fr om es t abl i s hi ng r el i gi on att he fe der al l evel and fr om in te rfe ri n g w ith e s ta b lis h m e n ts a t th e s ta te le v e l, s e e A k h il R . A m a r, The B i l lof R ights : C r eat i on and R econs tr uct i on 32- 33 ( 1998) , confi ni ng the r eac h of the am en d m en t t o the leg isl ati v e b ran ch w o u ld h av e b ee n p erv erse fro m H u n ti n g ton ’s p o in t o f v ie w . M o re o v e r, ev e n if

th e F irst A m e n d m e n t it se lf a p p lied n a rro w lyo n lyto C ongr es s and onl yt o t he maki ng of “l aw s , ” thi s w oul d notbe the end of t he m at t er . T he Fi fth A m endment , w hi ch undoubt edl yappl i es t o the exe cut i ve b ra n c h , p ro v id e s th a t “n o p e rso n sh a ll b e d e p riv e d o f life , li b e rty , o r p ro p e rty- 21-

w i t houtdue pr oces s of l aw . ” Thi s m eans , among ot herl es s obvi ous thi ngs , that exec ut i ve off

i ci al s cannotabr i dge a pe r s on’ s l i berty( i ncl udi ng fr eedom of r el i gi on) exce pti n acc or dance w i th “l aw . ” See E dw ar d S. C orw i n, The D octr i ne of D ue Proce s s of

Law B ef

or e the C i vi lWar , 2 4 H arv . L . R ev . 3 6 6 (19 1 1 ); Youngs t ow n Sheet& Tube Co. v. Sawyer , 3 4 3 U S . 5 7 9 , 6 4 6 (1 9 5 2 ) ( J a c k s o n . J ., concurr i ng) . T hus , i f the Fi r s tA m endmentforbi ds the maki ng of “l aw ” that i nfr i nges t he fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on, and the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e forbi ds the exec ut i ve fr om t aki ng aw ayl i bert i es exce ptpur s uantt o “l aw , ” i tfol l ow s thatt he F ir s t A m e n d m e n t p ro te c ts a g a in s t e x e c u tiv e a s w e ll a s le g is la tiv e a b ri d g e m e n t. In d e e d , b e c a u se e x e c u tiv e a c tio n th a t b e a rs u p o n th e p riv a te r ig h ts o f in d iv id u a ls i s al m os tal w ay s gr ounded i n s om e s t atut or yauthor i ty , a cha l l enge t o the e x e c u tiv e a c tio n m a yb e c h a ra c te ri z e d a s a n a s -a p p lie d c h a lle n g e to th e s ta tu te . C f. D en b ea u x , 8 0 N w . U . L . R ev . at 11 5 7 n . 1 . In su b stan ce , O fficer S h rum ’s c h a llen g e to th e e x e c u tiv e a c tio n s o f C h ief P a lm e r is a c o n stitu tio n a l ch a llen g e to t he s t atut or ygr antof pow ert o t he C hi ef of Pol i ce t o s upervi s e empl oy ees , as a p p lie d in th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th is c a s e . Foral l of thes e r eas ons , w e r ej ectthe ar gum entthatC hi ef Pal m er ’ s act i ons ar e notcover ed byt he Fi r s tA m endmentbeca us e theydi d notcons t i tut e the enac t m entorenfor cementof anyl aw , r egul at i on, oror di nance .- 22-

B . N eu tra li ty a n d G en er a l A p p li ca b il it y C hi ef Pal m er ’ s s econd a r gum entforr ever s al i s t hatt he r el evantr egul at i ons and ac t i ons i n t hi s cas e w er e “ne utr al and gene r al l yappl i cabl e” w i thi n the m eani ng of E mp loy m e n t D ivis io n v . Sm ith , 494 U . S. 872 ( 1990) . “The t r ans ferof a n o ffi c e rt o t h e d a ys h i f t , wi t h o u tmo r e , i s n e u tr a l o n i t s fa c e , ” a n d “ [ t ] h e CBA [col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement ] and i t s r ank- t akes - pr ece dence rul e for det erm i ni ng day s off a r e al s o r el i gi on- neutr al . ” A ppel l antchal l enges t he di s tr i ct cour t ’ s concl us i on t hatt he fa i l ur e of a governm entempl oy ert o acc om m odat e the rel i gious need s of an em ploy ee, shortof u nd ue h ardshi p, i s a vi olat i on of the F i rs t A m e n d m e n t. See O rd e r, at 1 3 . H e a rg u e s th a t Br o wn v . Po lkCo u n t y , Io wa , 61 F. 3d 650, 654 ( 8 C i r . 1995) ( en banc ) , on w hi ch the di s tr i ctcourtr el i ed, th “contr adi ct s t he t eac hi ng” of thi s C our ti n Uni t ed Stat es v. Har dm an , 297 F. 3d 1 1 1 6 (1 0 C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (e n b a n c ), th a t “ Sm ith cre ates a ‘safe h arb o r’ i f th e law is ‘ a

th val i d and neutr al l aw of gene r al appl i cabi l i ty . ’ ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 21. W e agr ee w i t h A ppel l antPal m ert hatt he mer e fa i l ur e of a governm ent empl oy ert o acc om m odat e the r el i gi ous needs of an e m pl oy ee, w her e the nee d for a c c o m m o d a tio n a rise s f ro m a c o n flict w ith a n e u tra l an d g e n e ra llya p p lica b le empl oym entr equi r ement , does notvi ol at e the Fr ee Exer ci s e C l aus e, as t hat C l aus e w as i nt erpr et ed i n Sm ith . W e th u s re sp e c tf u llyd isa g re e w ith th e E ig h th C i r cui tt hat“the fi r s tamendm entpr ot ect s atl eas tas m uch r el i gi ous act i vi tyas T i t l e V I I does . ” Br o wn , 61 F. 3d at654. T he r el i gi ous acc om m odat i on- 23-

r equi r ement s of Ti t l e V I I , 42 U . S. C . § 2000e(j ) , ext end bey ond the di ct at es of the F r e e E x e r c i s e C l a u s e , a s i n t e rp r e t e d b y Sm ith . 494 U . S. at878- 82. T hus , the m e re re f u sa l o f C h ief P a lm e r a n d th e C o w e ta p o lice d e p a rtm e n t to a c c o m m o d a te O ffi cerShrum ’ s r el i gi ous s chedul i ng needs , w i thoutm or e, does notes t abl i s h a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. B utt hati s nott he crux of O ffi cerShrum ’ s cas e. O ffi cerShrum al l eges t hat he w as m oved t o t he days hi ftpr eci s el ybeca us e of Chi ef Pal m er ’ s know l edge of hi s r el i gi ous comm i t m ent . I f s o, the dec i s i on t o tr ans ferw as not“neutr al , ” but r atherm ot i vat ed byO ffi cerShrum ’ s r el i gi ous comm i t m ent s . W e r ecogni ze that C h ief P a lm e r a ss e rts n e u tra l re a so n s fo r h is d e c isio n to re q u ire O ffice r S h ru m to w or k t he days hi ft : t hathe w as conce rned aboutO ffi cerShrum ’ s “per form ance leve l” an d h e n ee d ed “re m ed ial tr ainin g . ” B u t th ese asse rt ed n eu tr al reaso n s are d i s p u t e d . Ath i s d e p o s i t i o n , Ch i e f P a l me rc o u l d n o tr e c a l l a n ys p e c i fi c p r o b l e ms w i t h O ffi cerShrum ’ s per form ance orthe s peci fi c r emedi al tr ai ni ng thatw as neede d. R . 380- 81. O ffi cerShrum pr es ent ed evi dence thatanotheroffi cerhad b e e n wi l l i n g t o t r a d e s h i f t s wi t h h i m b u tth a tCh i e f P a l me rwo u l d n o tp e r mi ti t , R. 259, 381, and thus t hatt he dec i s i on w as notm er el ya neutr al appl i cat i on of the

“ ra n k -t a k e s p re c e d e n c e ” ru le o f th e C B A . T he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded thatthe r el evant“fa ct s ar e di s put ed, ” and the ul t i m at e out come of t he ca s e w i l l tur n on w hetherO ffi cerShrum ’ s r el i gi ous comm i t m ent“w as a mot i vat i ng fac t ori n the ac t i ons t aken a gai ns thi m . ” O r der , at- 24-

13. Forpurpos es of i nt er l ocut or yappel l at e r evi ew , the ques t i on befor e us i s not w h ethe r C h ief P alm er’s ac co u n t i s w o rth yo f b eli ef, o r ev en if th e d istri ct co u rt w as corr ectt hatt her e w as a di s put ed ques t i on of m at er i al fac ton thi s poi nt , but o n lyw h e th e r, as su m in g th e d istric t co u rt’s e v a lu a tio n o f th e re c o rd w a s c o rre c t, O ffi c e rS h ru m h a s s t a t e d a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i m s tr i c t l ya s a m a t t e ro f l a w . We hol d t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tw as corr ectthatO ffi cerShrum ’ s al l egat i ons es t abl i s h a viol at i on of h i s cl earl yest abli shed co nst i tuti on al ri gh t s und er the F ree Ex erci se C la u s e . T o be s ur e, O ffi cerShrum does notal l ege thatC hi ef Pal m erhel d O ffi cer S h ru m ’s fa ith a g a in st h im o r a c ted f ro m re lig io u s p reju d ice . R a th e r, th e c laim is t hatr el i gi ous di s cr i m i nat i on w as the means t o an ent i r el ys ecul arend: C hi ef P a lm e r w a n ted to fo rc e O ffice r S h ru m o u t, an d m a k in g h im c h o o se b e tw e e n h is dut i es as a pol i ce offi cerand hi s dut i es as a mi ni s t erw as the met hod athand. B ut t he Fr ee Exer ci s e C l aus e i s notl i m i t ed t o act s m ot i vat ed byover tr el i gi ous hos t i l i t yorpr ej udi ce. A s i t s l anguage s ugges t s , the ani m at i ng i deal of the cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i on i s t o pr ot ectthe “f r ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on” fr om u n w a rra n ted g o v e rn m e n tal in h ib iti o n w h a tev e r its so u rc e . T h e first d ra f t, as it c a m e f ro m th e p e n o f

Ja m e s M a d iso n , w a s e v e n m o re e m p h a tic: “ n o r sh a ll th e f u ll and equa l r i ght s of cons ci ence be i n any m anner, oron any pr et ext , i nfr i nged. ” 1 A nnals of

C ong . 4 5 1 (Jun e 8 , 1 7 8 9 ) (spe ec h b yR ep . M ad ison ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). R epr es ent at i ve D ani el C arr ol l of M ary l and— notcoi nci dent al l y , as a R om anSher ber tv. Ver ner , 3 7 4 U . S . 3 9 8 (19 6 3 ). 7 Wis cons i n v. Yoder , 4 0 6 U . S . 2 0 5 (19 7 2 ). 8In r e Je nis on , 3 7 5 U . S . 1 4 (19 6 3 ) (pe r cu ri am ). 9 Q uar i ng v. P et ers on , 7 2 8 F .2 d 1 1 2 1 (8 th C ir .1 9 8 4 ), af f’ d s ub nom . Jens en 10 v. Q uar i ng , 472 U . S. 478 ( 1985) ( percur i am affi r m ance byan equa l l ydi vi ded C o u rt ). Frat ernal O rder of P oli ce New ark L odge No. 12 v. C i t y of New ark , 170 11 F . 3 d 3 5 9 , 3 6 6 -67 (3rd C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) (A li to, J. ). To m ic v . C a th o lic D io c e se o f P e o ria , — F .3 d — , 2 0 0 6 W L 8 5 1 6 4 0 (7 th 12 C ir. A p ril 4 , 2 0 0 6 ); R ay b u rn v . G e n e ra l C o n fer e n c e o

f Se v e n th -D ay A dv e n tists , 7 2 2 F . 2 d 1 1 6 4 (4th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ).

- 25- C athol i c, t he mostcons pi cuous exampl e i n the Fi r s tC ongr es s of a mem berof a r el i gi ous m i nor i t y— comm ent ed that“the r i ght s of cons ci ence ar e, i n thei rnatur e, of pec ul i ardel i cac y , and w i l l l i t t l e bea rthe gent l es tt ouch of gove rnm ent al hand. ” 1 A n n a ls o

f C o n g . 7 5 7 (A u g . 1 5 , 1 7 8 9 ). T rue t o t hi s hi s t or y , t he Fr ee Exer ci s e C l aus e has been a ppl i ed numer ous t i m es w hen governm entoffi ci al s i nt er fer ed w i th r el i gi ous exer ci s e notoutof hos t i l i t y or pr ej udi ce, but for s ecul ar r eas ons , s uch as s avi ng m oney , pr om ot i ng 7 educa t i on, obt ai ni ng j ur or s , fac i l i t at i ng tr aff i c l aw enfor cement , m ai nt ai ni ng 8 9 1 0 m or al e on the pol i ce for ce, orpr ot ect i ng j ob oppor tuni t i es . Pr oof of hos t i l i t yor 11 12 di s cr i m i nat or ym ot i vat i on m aybe s uffi ci entt o pr ove thata cha l l enged g o v e rn m e n ta l a c tio n is n o t n e u tr a l, C hur ch of the Lukum iB abal u A ye v . C i t y of Hi al eah , 5 0 8 U .S . 5 2 0 , 5 3 3 (1 9 9 3 ); A xs on- Fl ynn v. Johns on , 356 F. 3d 1277, 1294- 26-

( 10 C i r . 2004) , butthe Fr ee Exer ci s e C l aus e i s notconfi ned t o act i ons bas ed on th a n im u s . T hi s br i ngs us t o t he ques t i on of w hethert he l aw on thi s cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on w as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed. C hi ef Pal m er ’ s ar gum entforqual i fi ed im m u n ityre itera tes h is le g a l ar g u m e n t th a t h is a c tio n s w e re n e u tra l an d g e n e ra lly appl i cabl e, an ar gum entw hi ch w e have r ej ect ed as a mat t erof l aw . C hi ef Pal m er does notdi s put e thati tw as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed thatnon- neutr al s t at e ac t i on i m po si ng a subst anti al bu rden on t he ex erci se of rel i gion viol at es the F i rs t A m endment . I f O ffi cerShrum ’ s fac tual al l egat i ons ar e corr ect

— thathe w as s i ngl ed outpr eci s el ybeca us e of Chi ef Pal m er ’ s know l edge of hi s r el i gi ous c o m m itm e n t— th e n C h ief P a lm e r’s c laim o f

q u a lifie d im m u n itym u st fa il. O n lyif t he fi nderof fa ctul t i m at el yconcl udes , as a mat t erof fa ct , t hatC hi ef Pal m erhad a neu t ral basi s for hi s pers on nel act i on s, do es he ha ve a d efen se. T his i s thu s a cas e w her e the cl ai m of qual i fi ed i m m uni tycol l aps es i nt o the mer i t s . T he di s t r i ct c o u r twa s c o r r e c tt o h o l d t h a ti ts h o u l d p r o c e e d t o t r i a l o n t h e f r e e e x e r c i s e c l a i m. V . SU BST A N TIVE D U E P R O C ESS O fficer S h rum ’s fina l cl aim is th at his su b stan ti v e d u e p roc ess righ ts w ere v iolated. W e h av e n o t y et de cide d w h ich p rop ertyinterests i n em p loym en t are p ro te c te d b ys u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s , s ee Hennigh v. C i t y of Shaw nee , 155 F. 3d 1249, 1257 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) , and w e nee d notdeci de the ques t i on t oday . O ffi cer S h ru m ’s s u b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss c laim re sta tes h is o th e r c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s a t a- 27-

hi gherl evel of abs t r act i on. W her e a pl ai nt i ff ha s r ecour s e t o an “e xpl i ci tt extual s our ce of

cons t i tut i onal pr ot ect i on, ” G r aham v. C onnor , 490 U . S. 386, 395 (1 9 8 9 ), a m o re g e n e ra l c la im o f s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s is n o t a v a ila b le . See C o u n ty o f Sa c ra m e n to v . L e w is , 5 2 3 U .S . 8 3 3 , 8 4 2 (1 9 9 8 ); D u b b s v . He a dS ta rt, Inc. , 3 3 6 F . 3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 2 0 3 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . Wi th o u ta c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i m, we n e e d n o t c o n s id e r w h e th e r t h e la w w a s c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d . S e e B u tlerv . R io R ancho Pub. Sch. B d. of E duc. , 3 4 1 F . 3 d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W e AF F I RM t he deni al of s um m aryj udgm enton the fr eedom of a s s o c ia tio n a n d f

re e e x e rc is e c la im s , R EV ER SE t he deni al of s um m aryj udgm ent on t he s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m , and RE M AND forfur therpr ocee di ngs not i ncons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.N o . 0 4 -7 0 3 7 , R e x S h ru m v . C ity o f C o w e ta , e t a l. B RI S CO E , J . , concurr i ng:

I w r i t e onl yt o addr es s C hi ef Pal m er ’ s t extual ar gum entt hatt he fr ee exer ci s e cl aus e i s noti m pl i cat ed bec aus e Shrum i s notchal l engi ng the ena ctm ent o re n fo r c e me n to f

a n yl a w, r e g u l a t i o n , o ro r d i n a n c e . I wo u l d r e a c h t h e s a me concl us i on on t he i s s ue as t he maj or i ty , butI w oul d r el yi ns t ead upon our deci s i on i n A xs on- Fl ynn v. J ohns on, 356 F. 3d 1277 ( 10th C i r . 2004) , and pr i or Supr eme C our tcas es . C hi ef Pal m erdevot es a mer e par agr aph t o hi s t extual argum ent, w i t ho ut ci t at i on t o an yl egal autho ri tyothert han t he textof the F i rs t Am e n d me n t . S h ru m’ s b r i e f d o e s n o te v e n r e s p o n d t o t h e a r g u me n t . I n myv i e w, i ti s s uffi ci entt o not e, as t he maj or i tyhas , t hatt he Supr eme C our thas as s um ed on s ever al occa s i ons t hatt he fr ee e xer ci s e cl aus e i s notas r es tr i ct ed as C hi ef Pal m er sugg est s here. M ore r ecentl y , i n A xson -Fl ynn , w e assum ed thatt he free exe rci se c la u s e w a s n o t r e s tr ic te d to c h a lle n g e s in v o lv in g a la w , re g u la tio n , o r o rd in a n c e . T her e, t he pl ai nt i ff br oughta 42 U . S. C . § 1983 act i on agai ns tt he s t aff of the U ni ver s i t yof U t ah’ s A ct orT r ai ni ng Pr ogr am, al l egi ng, i n part , t hatt he s t aff for ced he rt o s ayoffe ns i ve w or ds contr aryt o herr el i gi ous bel i efs i n vi ol at i on of t he fr ee e xer ci s e cl aus e. I d. at1294. W e conc l uded thata genui ne i s s ue of m aterial fa ct ex ist ed as to w h ethe r th e staff’s req u ir em en t th at stu d en ts pe rfo rm act i ng exer ci s es as w r i t t en w as pr et extual ora neutr al rul e of ge ner al a p p lic a b ility. Id . In a fo o tn o te , w e c la ri fie d th a t o u r “ u s e o f th e w o rd “ ru le s ” . . .- 2-

m ean[ t ] a s t at e’ s ors t at e ac t or ’ s l aw s , r egul at i ons , orotherpol i ci es w hi ch ac ton pr i vat e per s ons . ” I d. at1294 n. 17. A s i s evi dentfr om A xs on- Fl ynn, governm ent con du cti s subj ectt o the free exerci se cl ause’s prot ect i on s.