8th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Challenge To State Anti-BDS Law

Yesterday the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Arkansas Times LP vs. Waldrip.  In the case, an Arkansas federal district court dismissed a challenge to an Arkansas law which requires companies doing business with the state to certify that they are not boycotting Israel. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on yesterday's oral arguments.

TRO Issued Against Arkansas Abortion Restrictions

In a 159-page opinion in Little Rock Family Planning Services v. Rutledge, (ED AR, July 23, 2019), and Arkansas federal district court granted a 14-day temporary restraining order against enforcement of recent Arkansas laws that severely restrict abortions.  The laws at issue ban abortions after 18 weeks of pregnancy, ban abortions when the reason is a pre-natal diagnosis of Down's Syndrome, and bans abortions being performed by anyone other than board-certified OB-GYN physicians. CNA reports on the decision.

Arkansas Supreme Court OKs Limits On Leaders of Prison Religious Services

In Mutaqim v. Lay, (AR Sup. Ct., June 6, 2019), the Arkansas Supreme Court rejected challenges by a Nation of Islam inmate to two separate prison policies. The Court upheld the denial in 2013 to 2015 of several issues of the NOI publication The Final Call because they suggested that readers "rise up and strike out at their oppressors." These were censored to protect prison safety and security. The court also upheld a policy barring religious services from being led by inmates, and allowing them to be led by outsiders only if they are credentialed volunteers who are responsible for the orthodoxy of the religion or sect. NOI volunteers could not be found.  The Court said in part:

During the hearing, ADC’s chaplain testified that this policy is designed to protect prison security and order by preventing the dissemination of unorthodox or heretical views to the respective religion or sect, which could result in violence.  As indicated above, prison security is the most compelling government interest in the prison setting.

Rastafarian Minister's Trespass Arrest did Not Violate His Free Exercise Rights

In Brown v. Jordan, (WD AR, Feb. 14, 2019), a Rastafarian minister sued over his arrest that grew out of his picketing for passage of a medical marijuana issue on the 2016 Arkansas ballot. The court rejected his claim that his arrest violated his free exercise rights, saying in part:

In this case, Plaintiff was advocating for the passage of the Medical Marijuana Act. While the Act's passage would, in his view, pave the way for his church to lawfully use marijuana in its ceremonies, his advocacy did not itself involve his exercise of a religious belief. Furthermore, the officers who arrested him appeared at the Flash Market in response to a claim that Plaintiff was trespassing, as he had remained on the Flash Market property after having been asked to leave and was bothering the customers. No action the officers took on October 16, 2016 inhibited Plaintiff from practicing or exercising his religious beliefs. Therefore, no free exercise claim is stated, and this claim is dismissed.

Arkansas Anti-Israel Boycott Law Upheld

In Arkansas Times  LP v. Waldrip, (ED AR, Jan. 23, 2019), an Arkansas federal district court dismissed a challenge to Arkansas' Act 710 which requires companies doing business with the state to certify that they are not boycotting Israel.  Plaintiff claimed that the law compels speech regarding contractors’ political beliefs, association, and expression, and restricts state contractors from engaging in boycotts and boycott-related speech in violation of the 1st Amendment. The court rejected these arguments, holding:

A boycott of Israel, as defined by Act 710, is neither speech nor inherently expressive conduct.

The court went on to hold that prior U.S. Supreme Court precedents do not "create an unqualified right to engage in political boycotts."  AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

No Free Exercise Violation In Ban of Patron From City Swim Club

In White v. Simpson, (WD AR, Oct. 10, 2018), an Arkansas federal district court dismissed plaintiff's claims that his free exercise rights were infringed when he was banned from the premises of a city aquatic club.  The ban was based on his distracting lifeguards and his sexually harassing them verbally.  Plaintiff claimed that his rights were infringed because he was carrying on religious discussions with one of the lifeguards and gave the lifeguard a gift with a "Jesus loves you" message in it. The court found that none of the defendants knew of the religious nature of the discussions, so there was no evidence that he was banned because of his religion or the content or viewpoint of is speech.

Arkansas Commission Refuses To Dismiss Complaint Against Anti-Death Penalty Judge

In an Aug. 20 Order (full text begins at pg. 5) the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission refused to dismiss Allegations (full text) filed in June against Circuit Court Judge Wendell Griffen complaining about his granting of a temporary restraining order barring use for executions of vecuronium bromide sold to the state. (Background).  Griffen is charged with violating the Judicial Canon requiring impartiality through his participation in religious anti-death penalty rallies and vigils. Magnolia Banner News reports on the Commission's order.

Conservative Christian Groups Oppose Arkansas Tort Reform Ballot Measure

AP reports that Arkansas' proposed constitutional amendment on tort reform (full text) is receiving surprising opposition from conservative Christian anti-abortion groups:

A Christian group has begun rallying churches and abortion opponents against the measure, saying that limiting damage awards in lawsuits sets an arbitrary value on human life, contrary to anti-abortion beliefs, and conflicts with biblical principles of justice and helping the poor....

The Family Council, which championed Arkansas’ ban on gay marriages, is organizing meetings with church leaders to call for the measure’s rejection.

“The Bible is full of references to justice, and [the proposal] creates an environment where the powerful can tip the scales of justice against everybody else, but especially the poor,” Jerry Cox, the Family Council’s head, said at a recent breakfast meeting with pastors.

Pastors were handed informational booklets emblazoned with the words “Don’t Put A Price Tag On Human Life.” Flyers left on each table offered attendees inserts for their church bulletins.

8th Circuit Orders Dismissal of Trial Judge's Suit Over His Sitting On Death Penalty Cases

In In re Kemp, (8th Cir., July 2, 2018), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals by a 2-1 vote issued a writ of mandamus essentially ordering an Arkansas federal district court to dismiss a suit against seven justices of the Arkansas Supreme Court brought by Wendell Griffen, a state trial court judge. The Arkansas Supreme Court had ordered Griffen, who is also a Baptist minister, taken off of all cases involving the death penalty or the state's execution protocol, citing an apparent lack of impartiality. Griffen had issued a temporary restraining order against the state's method of execution after he wrote a blog post criticizing the death penalty as immoral and took part in an anti-death penalty rally on Good Friday.  Griffen then sued in federal district court claiming infringement of his religious freedom as well as retaliation for exercising his free speech rights, and violation of his due process and equal protection rights. The district court refused to completely dismiss Griffen's lawsuit. (See prior posting.) The 8th Circuit held, however, that Griffen had not stated a plausible claim for relief under any of his theories.  Judge Kelly dissented, arguing that this is an improper use of mandamus.  Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Arkansas Capitol Ten Commandments Monument

Suit was filed last month challenging the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument erected on the Arkansas state capitol grounds.  The complaint (full text) in Orsi v. Martin, (ED AR, filed 5/23/2018), alleges that the monument violates the Establishment Clause.  A press release from the American Humanist Association explains:

A similar monument was installed at the state capitol last year, only to be destroyed just hours after it was installed. The individual accused of destroying the display was subsequently found unfit to stand trial. Proponents of the display, led by state senator Jason Rapert, immediately began raising money for a replacement. Senator Rapert has publicly stated, “I am guilty as charged for supporting the Ten Commandments and… take full responsibility for being so bold as to believe that our state and our nation would be better off if people simply honored, followed and adhered to the Ten Commandments given by God Himself to Moses on Mt. Sinai.”  Rapert’s effort reportedly raised $85,000, which will provide a protective barrier around the new display.

Judge's Suit Challenging His Removal From Death Penalty Cases Moves Ahead

In Griffen v. Arkansas Supreme Court, (ED AR, April 12, 2018), an Arkansas federal district court held that sovereign and judicial immunity do not bar a suit for declaratory relief brought by a state court judge against justices of the Arkansas Supreme Court after they barred him from hearing death penalty cases.  Plaintiff, who is also a pastor, was active in demonstrations and vigils opposing the death penalty.  He contends that the action taken against him amounts to retaliation based on his speech and religion in violation of the 1st Amendment and the Arkansas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court held that he had stated a plausible claim for relief.  AP reports on the decision.

UPDATE: On April 24, defendants filed a writ of mandamus with the 8th Circuit challenging the district court's refusal to dismiss the lawsuit. (Arkansas Online).

Man Destroys New 10 Commandments Monument At Arkansas Capitol

As previously reported, on Tuesday a 6-foot tall granite replica of the Ten Commandments was installed on the grounds of the Arkansas State Capitol.  According to Arkansas Online, less than 24 hours later a 32-year old Arkansas man drove a vehicle into the monument, destroying it. Police have arrested Michael Tate Reed, charging him with defacing objects of public respect, trespassing on Capitol grounds and first-degree criminal mischief.  Reed apparently live streamed his actions on Facebook.  Apparently Reed is the same person who 3 years ago similarly destroyed a Ten Commandments monument on the Oklahoma statehouse grounds. (See prior posting.) State Senator Jason Rapert who sponsored the Arkansas legislation authorizing the monument says that a new monument has already been ordered.

Ten Commandments Monument Erected On Arkansas Statehouse Grounds

NPR News reports that yesterday a 6-foot tall granite replica of the Ten Commandments was installed on the grounds of the Arkansas State Capitol.  In 2015, the state legislature enacted legislation authorizing the monument, to be financed privately. (See prior posting.)  State Senator Jason Rapert, the sponsor of the legislation, told reporters yesterday:

We have a beautiful Capitol grounds but we did not have a monument that actually honored the historical moral foundation of law. And today we have now, through the support of people all over the country, mostly from Arkansas, been able to erect this monument at zero taxpayer expense.

The ACLU says it will file suit to get the monument removed.

Arkansas Disorderly Conduct Law Upheld Against Abortion Protesters

In Duhe v. City of Little Rock, Arkansas, (ED AR, April 27, 2017), an Arkansas federal district court upheld the constitutionality of Arkansas' disorderly conduct statute in a suit by two participants in a pro-life event known as Operation Save America. One of the participants was president of a Christian organization, Spirit One. The participants interfered with traffic flow in a clinic parking lot, while using a microphone and loudspeaker to present their views.  Their activity disturbed businesses in the area.  The court held that the disorderly conduct statute under which the two men were charged is neither vague nor overbroad, and is a permissible content-neutral time, place and manner regulation.

Arkansas Supreme Court Invalidates City's LGBT Anti-Discrimination Law

In Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville, (AR Sup. Ct., Feb. 23, 2017), the Arkansas Supreme Court held that the City of Fayetteville is precluded by state statute from extending its anti-discrimination provisions to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. The Arkansas' Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act provides:

A county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance, resolution, rule, or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.

Fayetteville claimed that its expanded non-discrimination law is permitted because state laws on bullying, domestic abuse shelters and amendment of birth certificates include reference to sexual orientation and gender identity. The Court held, however, that municipalities are precluded from providing non-discrimination protection to categories beyond race, religion, national origin, gender and disability that are included in the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993.  Arkansas Matters reports on the decision.

8th Circuit Upholds Solicitation Ban At Revenue Offices

In Brown v. Arkansas Department of Administration, (8th Cir., Feb. 3, 2017), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a Rastafarian minister challenging a no-solicitation policy at certain state Revenue Offices.  The ban prevented the minister from continuing to setup a table on the lawn of a revenue office to seek signatures for a ballot initiative on the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act. (See prior posting.)  The appeals court held that the private property immediately surrounding the revenue office was a nonpublic forum, that the ban was reasonably related to the State’s interest in running revenue offices, and was viewpoint neutral.

Arkansas Is A Step Closer To A Ten Commandments Monument At Its Statehouse

Last year, Arkansas enacted legislation directing the secretary of state to arrange for private groups to place a Ten Commandments monument on the State Capitol grounds. (See prior posting.) Now according to an AP report yesterday, the American History and Heritage Foundation has filed an application with the Arkansas secretary of state to allow it to install the 6000 pound, 6-foot tall monument that it has created and has in storage. Its monument is similar to the Texas one that survived a U.S. Supreme Court challenge in Van Orden v. Perry. The Arkansas secretary of state must now consult with the Capitol Arts and Grounds Commission before approving the monument.

Lower Courts Applying Tougher RLUIPA Standards In Prisoner Cases

Last year's Supreme Court decision in Holt v. Hobbs on prisoner rights (see prior posting) is slowly beginning to impact otherwise routine prisoner claims in lower courts.  Muhammad v. Wheeler, (ED AR, March 22, 2016) involves a rather typical RLUIPA challenge by a Muslim inmate to the availability of a Halal diet in his Arkansas prison.  A vegetarian diet that complies with Halal requirements was available, but a Halal compliant diet containing meat was not. The federal magistrate judge who first heard the case recommended rejecting the claim on the ground that plaintiff had not shown a substantial burden on his religious exercise. (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36816, Jan. 19, 2016). However the district court rejected this portion of the recommendation.  In refusing to grant summary judgment to either side, the court said in part:

It is certainly conceivable that providing halal meat to Mr. Muhammad would increase security concerns and require considerable resources to the extent that deciding not to provide it at all furthers a compelling government interest. However, ... [defendants] fail to make properly that argument..... For example, in support of their cost argument, they claim that changing their policy would incur an increase of “over $9,600 for one serving of meat” and that “depending on which meal plan an inmate is on, meat is generally served three times per day”... They calculate this substantial figure by multiplying the difference in cost between halal meat and regular meat by 16,020, the total number of inmates housed by the ADC. This is precisely the type of generalized argument that is not allowed under the RLUIPA. The proper focused inquiry under the RLUIPA is whether denying halal meat to Mr. Muhammad, not all ADC inmates, furthers a compelling government interest.

Even if ... [defendants] successfully demonstrated that completely denying Mr. Muhammad access to halal meat furthers a compelling government interest, they fail to show how their no-halal-meat policy is the least restrictive means of serving that interest....  For example, nothing in the record indicates how often halal meat would need to be served to satisfy Mr. Muhammad’s religious needs. Does Mr. Muhammad require three servings of meat a day or one serving a year? They also fail to respond to Mr. Muhammad’s proposed compromise – a pescatarian meal plan that combines the three halal fish items already served in the common fare plan with the vegetarian plan.... It is unclear to the Court whether this plan fits within Mr. Muhammad’s own beliefs regarding a halal diet, but if he claims that offering a pescatarian meal plan would no longer place a substantial burden upon his religious exercise, ... [defendants] must show how refusing to provide such a plan furthers a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so. 

Arkansas County's Nativity Scene Violates Purpose Prong of Lemon Test

In American Humanist Association v. Baxter County, Arkansas, (WD AR, Nov. 12, 2015), an Arkansas federal district court held that a privately-owned nativity scene that has been erected on the Baxter County Courthouse lawn for the past 40 years violates the Establishment Clause, despite changes made in recent years to attempt to avoid this conclusion.  The display has long been accompanied by a Christmas tree, and in recent years by Santa Claus and reindeer figures. In 2014, the county leased the land on which the display sits for $1 to the Chamber of Commerce for the specific purpose of erecting a nativity display. It also added a sign with a disclaimer saying that the county is saluting liberty, and the display is owned and erected by private citizens.  The court held that whatever the relevance of these details under the Lemon test on whether the display has the effect of promoting religion, these details are irrelevant when the purpose of the display is predominately religious. The court said in part:

The record leaves no room for doubt that, as the owner of the creche stated during his deposition, "[o]bviously the purpose of it was to celebrate Christmas." ... [Also] there is no dispute that in December 2013, Judge Pendergrass [the County CEO] denied at least two separate requests to install a banner near the creche stating "Happy Solstice."

The court in its judgment entered a declaratory judgment and injunction, and awarded $1 in nominal damages, against the county and its CEO in his official capacity. It held that the county CEO in his personal capacity had qualified immunity from a damage claim.  The court's injunction provides that  defendants must either

(1) refrain from placing any religiously sectarian seasonal display on the courthouse grounds, or (2) create a public forum on the courthouse grounds for a seasonal display open to persons of all faiths as well as of no faith at all, without discrimination on the basis of viewpoint.

Ozarks First reports on the decision.

Court Denies Preliminary Injunction In Challenge To Fayetteville Civil Rights Ordinance

In Fayetteville, Arkansas yesterday a state trial court judge refused to issue a temporary injunction to prevent the city's Uniform Civil Rights Protection ordinance from going into effect today. According to the Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette, opponents of the ordinance argued that it infringes freedom of conscience and religion of those who have religious objections to the protection of homosexual and transgender rights.  The lawsuit also contends that the Ordinance was improperly approved and submitted to voters, and that it violates Arkansas' recently enacted Act 137 which prohibits cities from enacting civil rights protections "on a basis not contained in state law." (See prior posting.) Voters approved the Ordinance in a referendum this week by a 53% -47% vote.  The court concluded that plaintiffs had failed to show irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.