Yesterday the White House announced that nominations for two vacant circuit judgeships have been submitted to the Senate. AP, reporting on the nominations, says that there are currently 17 vacancies on federal appeals courts.
Maryland U.S. District Court Judge Andre M. Davis has been nominated by President Obama for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2000, Davis had been nominated by President Clinton for the 4th Circuit, but the Senate did not consider the nomination prior to Clinton's leaving office.
In 2000, Judge Davis decided Concerned Citizens of Carderock v. Hubbard, 84 F. Supp. 2d 668 (SDNY, 2000) [LEXIS link], holding that a Montgomery County, Maryland zoning ordinance did not violate the Establishment Clause. In the case, homeowners challenged the grant of a building permit to a synagogue, arguing that a zoning provision permitting "churches . . . and other places of worship" in areas zoned for single-family residences, but not allowing charitable institutions or private clubs there, amounts to an endorsement of religion. Judge Davis wrote: "the operative characteristic in the Ordinance is not religion, non-religion or any particular system of beliefs, but the County Council's reasonable, and thus legitimate, judgment about presumed compatibility with single family residential use."
New York U.S. District Court Judge Gerard E. Lynch has been nominated for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. From 1992-97, Lynch served as vice-dean of Columbia Law School. Judge Lynch's decisions include two in which he ruled against complaints from Muslim prisoners.
In Pugh v. Goord, 184 F. Supp. 2d 326 (SD NY, 2001) [Lexis link], Lynch denied a preliminary injunction and dismissed claims brought by Shi'ite Muslim inmates who wanted to be able to hold services separate from Sunni Muslim prisoners. However the judgment was vacated and the case remanded by the Second Circuit on the ground that plaintiffs did not have notice that the court was considering entirely dismissing the case. (Pugh v. Goord, 345 F.3d 121 (2d Cir., 2003) [Lexis link].
In Jones v. Goord, 435 F. Supp. 2d 221 (SD NY, 2006) [Lexis link], inmates objected to New York's administration of a program for double-celling in maximum-security prisons. Part of the claim was on behalf of Muslim prisoners who argued that double-celling prevents them from practicing their religion. There is not enough room to pray in a double cell, a cellmate may render a cell unclean and therefore unfit for prayer, certain prayers and rituals require solitude, and the morning call to prayer could disturb a sleeping cellmate. Judge Lynch wrote: "plaintiffs offer no alternative solution that would accommodate their religious needs, nor do they attempt to explain how the requested exemption could be applied without compromising the legitimate penological interest in distributing the burden of double-celling equally among prisoners."
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.