In United States v. Manneh, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105209 (D NY, Dec. 31, 2008), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss an indictment against Mamie Manneh who was charged with importing parts of endangered African primates without the permit required by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and failing to disclose to border officials the true nature of the product she was importing. Manneh, a Liberian immigrant, argued that her prosecution violated her rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. She claims that bush meat is sacred to her. The court found that Manneh's religious claim was not sincere, but instead was merely pretextual. It concluded that even if her beliefs about bush meat were sincere, there was nothing in them that prevented her from disclosing the nature of her imports or applying for the required import license. Friday's New York Daily News reported on the decision. (See prior related posting.)
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Court Rejects RFRA Defense To Charges of Illegal Importation of Animal Parts
Posted by
Howard Friedman
--PermaLink:
12:50 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


2 comments:
The court is saying, she is just making up religious beliefs to evade punishment. Perhaps, there is no standard reference for animist religion to support her claim.
This decision is also in accordance with the Smith decision (1990).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
Question. How does this decision differ from the case below, where anyone can perform a marriage ceremony by just getting a made up certificate that one is a pastor, and in violation of state law? People are allowed to make things up when it comes to delegitimizing religious authority, a competing source of authority to government.
I cannot think of a more compelling government interest than family formation and preservation. By allowing just anyone to perform marriage, the lawyer is saying, it's worth nothing.
Wow- courts NEVER rule that religious beliefs are not sincere. I have only seen rulings where the court assumes the sincerity of the claimed belief and then finds that it doesn't matter.
Post a Comment