Poway Synagogue Rabbi Sentenced To 14 Months In Custody For Fraud

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California announced that yesterday a California federal district judge sentenced Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein -- rabbi of Chabad of Poway during a much-publicized shooting in 2019-- to 14 months in custody for his part in a multi-million dollar fraud scheme.  Goldstein plead guilty to fraud charges in 2019. (See prior posting.) He was also ordered to pay $2.8 million in restitution.  According to the U.S. Attorney's Office:

[W]hile Rabbi Goldstein was director of the Poway synagogue, he received at least $6.2 million in phony contributions to the Chabad and affiliated charities and secretly refunded up to 90 percent of the donations to the “donors.” After Rabbi Goldstein provided these donors with fake receipts, they illegally claimed huge tax deductions for these nonexistent donations, and the rabbi kept about 10 percent ... for himself....

Rabbi Goldstein also admitted that he defrauded three different Fortune 500 companies by tricking them into matching supposed charitable donations of their employees....

Rabbi Goldstein ... also helped his brother ... conceal approximately $700,000 in income by allowing him to use Chabad bank accounts to deposit his income, thereby hiding it from the IRS.  As his cut, Rabbi Goldstein kept 10 percent.... 

... Goldstein and another defendant ... used false information and fabricated invoices and other records to pretend to be eligible for emergency funds, grants or donations, and private loans [from FEMA and the state of California].

According to The Forward's report on the sentencing, prosecutors had recommended a much more lenient sentence-- 8 months of home confinement and 4 years probation.

Court Denies Motion Under RFRA And 1st Amendment To Dismiss Indictments

In United States v. Morales, (SD CA, Dec. 13, 2021), a California federal district court denied a motion to dismiss indictments against three defendants who claimed that the indictments violated their rights under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause. Among the charges were that defendants induced Imperial Valley Ministry participants to surrender SNAP benefits to the Ministries and that they dispatched IVM participants to panhandle. The court said in part:

The Court finds too attenuated a link between the Government’s prosecution of Defendants for forced labor, document servitude, and benefits fraud and Defendants’ purported religious activities of evangelizing, fundraising, donating to the church, and general operation of IVM programs for there to be a substantial burden, as there remain viable alternative avenues for Defendants to conduct their specified religious activities....

Soap Opera Star Sues ABC Over Religious Exemption To Vaccine Mandate

Litigation over religious exemptions from COVID vaccine mandates continues to grow. Yesterday, Ingo Rademacher-- well known for portraying Jasper Jacks on the ABC soap opera General Hospital-- sued in a California state court after his request for a religious exemption from ABC's vaccine requirement was denied. He argues that the expansive right to privacy afforded by the California state constitution protects both informational privacy and bodily integrity, and can be enforced against private parties. The complaint (full text) in Rademacher v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., (CA Super. Ct., filed 12/13/2021) contends:

ABC does not have the authority to force a medical treatment on its employees against their will. Even if it did, it must offer religious exemptions to the forced treatment to anyone who requests one. It cannot discriminate among religions and cannot second-guess the sincerity of one's religious beliefs....

Deadline reports on the lawsuit.

Mom Loses Attempt To Display Menorah At PTA Tree Lighting Ceremony

In Lyons v. Carmel Unified School District, (ND CA, Dec. 10, 2021), a California federal district court denied a temporary restraining order sought to allow the mother of Jewish children in a public school to display a 6-foot inflatable menorah at the PTA's tree lighting ceremony. The school was only willing to permit plaintiff to bring a small menorah to hang as a tree decoration. Rejecting plaintiff's Establishment Clause claim, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs contend that the event advances Christian religions over other religious ... by allowing display of Christian holiday symbols – the tree and ornaments – but banning display of non-Christian holiday symbols such as a menorah....  

Defendants argue that they have not referred to the tree lighting event as involving a “Christmas” tree. Even assuming that the event is viewed as involving the decoration and display of a Christmas tree, however, that would not implicate the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court has held that “[t]he Christmas tree, unlike the menorah, is not itself a religious symbol.” Cty. of Allegheny v. Am. C.L. Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 616 (1989)....

The court also rejected plaintiff's free speech claim because the school offered plaintiff the opportunity to reserve School grounds for her own event where she could display the menorah.

California Group Publishes Proposals To Protect Abortion In A Post- Roe v. Wade World

In California, the Future of Abortion Council, an organization comprised of 40 advocacy organizations and abortion providers,  yesterday released a Report (full text) setting out 45 recommendations for the legislature to consider if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. According to ABC News:

With more than two dozen states poised to ban abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court gives them the OK next year, California clinics and their allies in the state Legislature on Wednesday revealed a plan to make the state a “sanctuary" for those seeking reproductive care, including possibly paying for travel, lodging and procedures for people from other states....

The recommendations are not just a liberal fantasy. Some of the state's most important policymakers helped write them, including Toni Atkins, the San Diego Democrat who leads the state Senate and attended multiple meetings.

Product Liability/ Negligence Suit Against Facebook Seeks $150B On Behalf Of Rohingya Refugees

An unusual class action lawsuit was filed this week against Facebook in a California state trial court on behalf of all Rohingya refugees in the United States who left Myanmar on or after June 1, 2012. It asks for $150 billion in damages for knowingly fueling anti-Rohingya sentiment that enabled the military government of Burma (Myanmar) to engage in ethnic cleansing campaign against the Rohingya. The complaint (full text) in Jane Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc., (CA Super. Ct., filed 12/6/2021), sets out product liability and negligence claims against Facebook, saying in part:

168. The design of Facebook’s algorithms and product resulted in the proliferation and intensification of hate speech, misinformation, and conspiracy theories attacking the Rohingya in Burma, radicalizing users, causing injury to Plaintiff and the Class, as described above. Accordingly, through the design of its algorithms and product, Facebook (1) contributed to the development and creation of such hate speech and misinformation and (2) radicalized users, causing them to tolerate, support, and even participate in the persecution of and ethnic violence against Plaintiff and the Class.

169. Because (1) the persecution of the Rohingya by the military government was widely known before Facebook launched its product in Burma and (2) Facebook was repeatedly warned after the launch that hate speech and misinformation on the system was likely to result in ethnic violence, Facebook knew and had reason to expect that the Myanmar military and non-Rohingya civilians would engage in violence and commit atrocities against Plaintiff and the Class.

According to the Rohingya Facebook Claim Website, lawyers plan to file a similar suit in the United Kingdom on behalf of Rohingya living elsewhere than the United States. A Letter of Notice has been sent to Facebook. CNN reports on the lawsuits.

School District Sued For Favoring Christian Cultural and Speech Activities

Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court alleging that a California school district has given preference to Christian cultural and speech activities over those of other religions, including Judaism. The complaint (full text) in Lyons v. Carmel Unified School District, (ND CA, filed 12/7/2021), particularly focuses on the refusal by Carmel River School to allow the display of an inflatable menorah at a widely-promoted after-school holiday celebration which will include the decoration and lighting of a Christmas tree and Christmas-themed holiday songs. The complaint alleges that the school has violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses as well as free speech and equal protection provisions. Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit Lifts Injunction Against School District's Vaccine Mandate

On Nov. 28, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined, pending appeal, the San Diego school district's COVID vaccine mandate because it denied religious exemptions while allowing a deferral option for pregnant students. (See prior posting.) Subsequently the school district removed the deferral option for pregnant students. So in John Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (9th Cir., Dec. 4, 2021), the court, in a 2-1 decision, held:

Given the removal of the “per se” deferral option for pregnant students, the injunction issued in the November 28, 2021 order has terminated under its own terms.

The majority rejected the claim that medical exemptions, temporary exemptions for students who are homeless, in migrant status or foster care, or in military families, and special provisions for students with Individualized Education Programs, but the absence of religious exemptions, undermine the general applicability of the vaccine mandate.

Judge Ikuta dissented, arguing that these secular exemptions mean that the mandate is not generally applicable and thus must be evaluated under the strict scrutiny standard, saying in part:

These religious and secular activities pose identical risks to the government’s asserted interest in ensuring the “safest environment possible for all students and employees,” because both result in the presence of unvaccinated students in the classroom, who could spread COVID-19 to other students and employees.

Plaintiff's attorney has said that emergency relief will be sought from the U.S. Supreme Court.

UPDATE: Here is plaintiffs' Petition for emergency relief from the Supreme Court, asking for an injunction or stay pending appeal.

9th Circuit Enjoins School District Vaccine Mandate Pending Appeal

In an Order in John Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (9th Cir., Nov. 28, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined, pending appeal, the San Diego school district's COVID vaccine mandate which, while allowing certain medical exemptions, does not provide for religious exemptions for students. Judges Berzon and Bennett said the injunction would be removed if the school district removed its "per se" deferral option for pregnant students.  Judge Ikuta, in a partial dissent, said:

I would keep the injunction in effect until the ... School District ceases to treat any students (not just pregnant students) seeking relief from the vaccination mandate for secular reasons more favorably than students seeking relief for religious reasons, because any unvaccinated student attending in-person classes poses the same risk to the school district’s interest in ensuring a safe school environment

The court said that written opinions explaining the order "will follow shortly." California Globe reports on the decision.

School's Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemptions Upheld

In Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (SD CA, Nov. 18, 2021), a California federal district court denied a temporary restraining order in a suit by a high school student and her parents objecting to the school district's COVID vaccine mandate which did not provide for religious exemptions. The court held that the scope of the injunction sought by plaintiff created standing issues, but regardless of that:

In light of the overwhelming weight of authority upholding vaccination requirements in response to free exercise challenges, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of their claim.

Thomas More Society has more background on the case.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Ministerial Exception Case

On Tuesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Orr v. Christian Brothers High School. As reported by Law & Crime, at issue in the case is  "whether a California Catholic school can use the “ministerial exception” to shield itself from claims of racial discrimination by its former principal."

California Ban On Harassing Persons Entering Vaccination Site Violates 1st Amendment

In Right to Life of Central California v. Bonta, (ED CA, Oct. 30, 2021), a California federal district court issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of a portion of a California statute that protects patients near vaccine sites from "harassment." The statute was challenged by a right-to-life organization that approaches women entering a Planned Parenthood clinic. The clinic is covered by the statute because it offers HPV vaccine. The court concluded that the 1st Amendment's free speech protections are violated by the prohibition on "harassing" anyone entering or exiting within 100 feet of the site.  The harassment ban bars approaching within 30 feet of such person to give them a leaflet or handbill, or to display a sign, or engage in oral protest, education or counseling. The court did not enjoin enforcement of the ban on obstructing, injuring, intimidating, or interfering with such person.  ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Certiorari Denied In Catholic Hospital's Free Exercise Claim

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Dignity Health v. Minton, (Docket No. 19-1135, certiorari denied 11/1/2021) (Order List.) Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would have granted review. In the case, a California state appellate court (full text of opinion) held that California's Unruh Civil Rights Act allows a suit against a Catholic hospital for unequal access by a transgender man whose doctor was not permitted to perform a hysterectomy on him at the hospital. The hospital argued that performing the procedure would violate its long-held religious beliefs.

Suit Uniquely Brings Together Issues of Abortion and Vaccines

Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court challenging California's recently enacted SB 742 which creates a 30-foot floating buffer zone to prevent harassment or interference with any person who is entering or exiting a vaccination site. The buffer zone applies to anyone within 100 feet from the vaccination site entrance. The complaint (full text) in Right To Life of Central California v. Bonta, (ED CA, filed 10/13/2021), raises the challenge in a unique factual context. Right to Life is an organization that attempts to dissuade women from having abortions and which provides support to pregnant women and those who have had abortions. Its Outreach Center is located next door to a Planned Parenthood clinic and its staff regularly approaches women who are entering Planned Parenthood. The new law prevents this-- even when outreach staff is on its own property-- because the contiguous Planned Parenthood Center offers HPV vaccine. The complaint alleges that the new law violates plaintiff's 1st and 14th Amendment rights. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Woman Required To Remove Hijab Loses Suit Against Security Guard and County

In Niblett v. Universal Protection Service, LP, (CD CA, Oct. 5, 2021), a California federal district court dismissed a damage action by a Muslim woman who was required by a security guard to remove her hijab in order to enter Los Angeles County's Department of Public Social Services building. The court dismissed on qualified immunity grounds the suit against the security guard and his employer that were hired to provide security for the county building, saying in part:

Assuming that Rodriguez and UPS were acting under color of state law when they exercised their authority to control access to a County building, which the Court does not decide, Plaintiff has not alleged a violation of any clearly established First Amendment right. Plaintiff ... cites no authority whatsoever holding that requiring someone to remove a hijab to pass through a metal detector violates the First Amendment.

Plaintiff's suit against the County was dismissed for failure to show a policy or practice of constitutional violations, saying in part:

Plaintiff does not allege that before her encounter with Rodriguez any County employee or agent had ever forced a Muslim woman to remove her hijab in any context, much less that County employees and agents had a widespread practice of requiring Muslim women to remove their hijabs in order to pass through security screenings at County buildings. Similarly, she does not allege facts suggesting that the County knew of such a practice and endorsed it or had reason to know further training was required about allowing hijabs to be worn through metal detectors.

Huntsman's Fraud Claim Against Mormon Church Dismissed

In Huntsman v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (CD CA, Sept. 10, 2021), a California federal district court dismissed a fraud suit brought by James Huntsman against the LDS Church. Huntsman, a prominent LDS Church member, alleged that the Church falsely claimed that no tithing funds would be used in its development of commercial real estate in Salt Lake City. Huntsman claims this was false because the Church used earnings on invested tithing funds for the project. First the court held that the church autonomy doctrine does not require dismissal of the case because the dispute is purely secular. It does not involve an analysis of Church policy or doctrine. However, the court concluded that no reasonable juror could conclude that defendant made a misrepresentation. The President of the Church, while stating that no tithing funds would be used, added that earnings of invested reserve funds will be used. The court also rejected a fraud claim relating to a second project. A Notice of Appeal of the decision to the 9th Circuit has been filed.

Suit Says Trader Joe's Failed To Accommodate Religious Objection To COVID Vaccination

Suit was filed earlier this month under Title VII and California state law by a 26-year Christian employee of Trader Joe's who was fired after the company refused to adequately accommodate his religious objections to being vaccinated against COVID. Plaintiff Gregg Crawford was initially granted a religious exemption from the company's mandatory vaccination policy. However an important management meeting was limited to vaccinated employees, and the company refused to arrange an accommodation that would allow Crawford to attend in person or remotely. He was told his non-attendance would negatively affect his performance review. Shortly after Crawford complained about this and consulted an attorney, he was fired. The complaint (full text) in Crawford v. Trader Joe's Company, (CD CA, filed 9/7/2021), alleges violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and of state anti-discrimination laws. KTLA News reports on the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges California's Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum

Suit was filed earlier this month in a California state trial court challenging a portion of the state's Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum.  The complaint (full text) in Californians for Equal Rights Foundation v. State of California, (Super. Ct., filed 9/3/2021), alleges that the chair of the committee that developed the model curriculum has shown in his writings an animus toward Christianity and Catholicism, and reflects this by including in the model curriculum various prayers based on indigenous religious principles. the complaint continues:

The ... ESMC Lesson Resources section contains a prayer entitled the “In Lak Ech Affirmation” .... The Aztec Prayer invokes the names of five beings worshiped by the Aztecs as gods or demi-gods.... The names of these Aztec gods are collectively invoked 20 times.... They are honored and praised by repeatedly invoking their respective names...

The ancient Aztec religion is not a philosophy, dead mythology, historic curiosity, general outlook on life, or mere symbol. Rather, it is a recognized living faith practiced today both by descendants of the Aztecs and by others..... The fact that it is not large, institutional, or well-known does not change its status as a religion.

The complaint also contends that the curriculum also includes the Ashe Affirmation taken from Yoruba religion of Nigeria. The complaint asserts violations of the establishment clause, free exercise clause and no-aid clause of the California constitution. Religion News Service reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit: COVID Closure of Private Schools May Have Violated Due Process Rights of Parents

In Brach v. Newsom. (9th Cir., July 23, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, rejected due process challenges to California's COVID-related closure of in-person instruction in public schools, but held that the closure of in-person instruction in private schools may have violated parents' and students' due process rights. The court said in part:

We reach a different conclusion, however, as to the State’s interference in the in-person provision of private education to the children of five of the Plaintiffs in this case. California’s forced closure of their private schools implicates a right that has long been considered fundamental under the applicable caselaw—the right of parents to control their children’s education and to choose their children’s educational forum. Because California’s ban on in-person schooling abridges a fundamental liberty of these five Plaintiffs that is protected by the Due Process Clause, that prohibition can be upheld only if it withstands strict scrutiny. Given the State closure order’s lack of narrow tailoring, we cannot say that, as a matter of law, it survives such scrutiny.

Judge Hurwitz dissented in a lengthy opinion, arguing that the case is moot and also disagreeing with the majority's substantive reasoning.

9th Circuit Remands Churches' Challenge To California Abortion Coverage Mandate

In Foothill Church v. Watanabe, (9th Cir., July 19, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision vacated a California federal district court's rejection of free exercise and equal protection challenges to California's requirement that insurance companies include coverage for abortion services in all health insurance policies. The court remanded for further consideration in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Judge Bress filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

We should have decided the appeal that was properly before us and held what the law pre- and post-Fulton plainly requires: the Director’s broad discretionary authority to issue individualized exemptions from the abortion coverage obligation means that we must apply strict scrutiny to California’s requirement that the churches’ health planscover elective abortions.

Separately, in a memorandum opinion issued at the same time, the court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of the churches' Establishment Clause claim, saying that all religious organizations are treated alike, and the Establishment Clause is not violated merely because a rule happens to coincide with the beliefs of some religions.