As the district court correctly concluded, the Bais Din failed to demonstrate that it suffered a pecuniary harm. Quite the opposite, the Bais Din did not even allege a pecuniary harm before the district court, claiming instead that the automatic stay inhibited the free exercise of religion by “preventing the Bais Din from issuing notices to or against” individuals who violate Jewish law’s prohibition on initiating proceedings in secular courts without prior permission from a rabbinical court. Whatever the merits of that claim, it does not reflect a pecuniary injury. Moreover, to the extent that the Bais Din seeks to vindicate a non-pecuniary injury, nothing in this or the district court’s opinion prevents it from filing a civil action.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Thursday, November 02, 2017
2nd Circuit: Religious Court Lacks Standing To Challenge Stay of Its Proceedings
In Bais Din of Mechon L’Hoyroa v. Congregation Birchos Yosef, (2d Cir., Nov. 1, 2017), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's conclusion that a Jewish religious court lacked standing to challenge the application of the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provisions to proceedings in the religious court. The 2nd Circuit said in part:
Labels:
Bankruptcy,
Beth Din,
Jewish