3rd Circuit: District Court Did Not Show Compelling Interest in Denying Muslim Inmate Religious Accommodations

In Nunez v. Wolf, (3d Cir., Aug. 27, 2024), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a suit under RLUIPA, held that the district court had not established that the Department of Corrections had a compelling interest in denying a Muslim inmate religious accommodations so that he could consummate his marriage, have ongoing conjugal visits with his wife, engage in congregate prayer with visitors and be circumcised. The court said in part:

To be clear, we are not holding that the DOC’s denials of Nunez’s requests cannot satisfy strict scrutiny if properly supported on remand.  What we do hold is that this determination cannot be made on the current record and that, as we have now clarified the nature of its burden, the DOC should have the opportunity to supplement the record before renewing its motion for summary judgment.

British Family Court Refuses To Order Circumcision Of Muslim Boy

In M v. F, (EWHC (Fam), June 14, 2021), a British High Court, Family Division judge refused the request by Muslim parents for an order requiring their 21-month old son's guardians to have the boy circumcised.   Because of prior domestic abuse, the boy had been removed at birth from the parents and placed with his maternal aunt and uncle who agreed to respect the child's Muslim heritage. Both the guardians and local welfare officials contend that no decision on circumcision should be made until the boy is older. The court said in part:

I accept that both parents, practising Muslims, earnestly wish the circumcision procedure to take place in order for P to connect with his Muslim heritage. Their views are of considerable importance, and I attach significant weight to them. That said, circumcision alone is not likely to establish or enhance P's sense of cultural or religious identity; this would be best achieved at his age by regular contact with his parents who can, in the best way they consider possible, help him to understand his identity and the faith into which he has been born. When he is older, they can be on hand to help him to reach a decision on whether to be circumcised. My decision has, to some extent, been influenced by the fact that presently neither parent chooses to see P, and neither parent has (contrary to their offer to do so) provided P with age-appropriate books and/or learning materials about Islam....

I have concluded that the decision to circumcise P should be deferred until he is able to make his own choice, once he has the maturity and insight to appreciate the consequences and longer-term effects of the decision which he reaches. I encourage the parents to resume their contact with P, so that not just his Muslim heritage, but also his experience of his wider family and origins, can be better understood and appreciated by him.

Law & Religion UK discusses the decision further.

Third Muslim Circumcision Death In Italy

AP reported yesterday on the third death in Italy since December of infant or toddler boys circumcised at home by Muslim families. Apparently Muslim immigrants sometimes have difficulty accessing circumcision services in hospitals either because of the cost or because some Italian doctors refuse to perform the procedure on boys under 4 years of age.

Controversial Bill In Iceland Would Criminalize Muslim and Jewish Circumcision Practices

The New York Times this week reported on the controversy in Iceland over a bill introduced in the country's Parliament last month that would make circumcision of young boys for non-medial reasons illegal.  The bill, which would impose a penalty of up to 6 years in prison for violation, was introduced by four political parties and is backed by many doctors and nurses in Iceland.  According to the Times:

[O]rganizations representing Muslims and Jews, which practice male circumcision as a matter of religious tradition, are questioning the lawmakers’ motives. The Roman Catholic Church in the European Union has also objected that the legislation is an attack on religious freedom.....

The bill is perceived as an anti-immigration issue directed against Muslims, Rabbi [Pinchas] Goldschmidt [President of the Conference of European Rabbis] said, and "we the Jews are the collateral damage."

It is "basically saying that Jews are not anymore welcome in Iceland," he said.

NYC Arrangement On Controversial Circumcision Method Apparently Is Not Working

In September 2015, the New York City Board of Health repealed its largely unenforced regulations that required parental consent forms be signed in cases of ritual circumcision using the direct oral suction technique (metzitzah b'peh). The original regulations were adopted to prevent passage of the herpes simplex virus to infants.  In exchange for the repeal, the Orthodox Jewish community was to cooperate in banning mohels  who are found to have infected an infant. (See prior posting.) The New York Post reported Monday that since the the 2015 arrangement by the DeBlasio administration, there have been six case of herpes.  However only two of the six mohels involved have been identified, and those two were not removed, but merely advised not to use the controversial direct oral suction method.  Mayor DeBlasio says the city is reviewing the situation.

Canada Denies Entry To U.S. Mohel

Canadian border officials last month refused entry into Canada to a Detroit-based mohel who was crossing into neighboring Windsor in order to perform a Jewish ritual circumcision for a family in Windsor.  According to a June 8 report by the Detroit Jewish News, Dr. Craig Singer (a physician, as well as a mohel certified by Hebrew Union College) was told by border officials that he would need a permit as a temporary foreign worker, and that he could be prosecuted for performing a surgical procedure in Canada without proper authorization. Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, Paragraph 186(l) provide that a foreign national may work in Canada without a work permit "as a person who is responsible for assisting a congregation or group in the achievement of its spiritual goals and whose main duties are to preach doctrine, perform functions related to gatherings of the congregation or group or provide spiritual counselling."  Enforcement guidelines provide:

Persons seeking entry under the authority of R186(l) should be able to provide documentation to support their request for entry that addresses: the genuineness of the offer of employment of the religious denomination that seeks to employ them; and their ability to minister to a congregation under the auspices of that religious denomination.

British Judge Rules In Muslim Parents' Dispute Over Sons' Circumcisions

In Exeter (county Devon) in England, a family court judge has ruled that a Muslim father cannot have his 4 and 6 year old sons circumcised over the objection of the boys' mother who is now separated from the father.  As reported yesterday by The Plymouth Herald, the father, a devout Muslim living in England but who was born in Algeria, argued that circumcision would be in accordance with his religious beliefs and in the boys' best interests. The judge said that she is deferring any decision on ordering the circumcision until the boys are old enough to make mature choices on their own, and are able to appreciate the consequences and longer-term effects of their decisions.  However this does not mean that they must reach adulthood before making their decisions. The judge said in part:

First and foremost, this is a once and for all, irreversible procedure.  There is no guarantee that these boys will wish to continue to observe the Muslim faith with the devotion demonstrated by their father, although that may very well be their choice.

South Africa's Jewish Community Creates Internal Body To Regulate Ritual Circumcision

According to yesterday's Jerusalem Post, South Africa's Jewish community is setting up its own Committee to oversee and regulate the practice of ritual circumcision in the nation.  The Committee will set requirements for circumcisions based on Jewish law and the highest standards of professionalism, health and safety.  The decision by Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein and the Beth Din (rabbinic court) implements the recommendations of a commission of inquiry set up by the Jewish community after a serious malpractice incident by an elderly mohel last June.  In order to practice, a mohel will need to be accredited by the new committee, and have the accreditation renewed every two years. The country's Chief Rabbi has already imposed a lifetime ban on the mohel whose malpractice triggered the new recommendations.

New York City Repeals Circumcision Informed Consent Rule

As reported by the New York Times, on Wednesday the New York City Board of Health by a vote of 9-1-1 repealed its largely unenforced regulations that required parental consent forms be signed in cases of ritual circumcision using the direct oral suction technique (metzitzah b'peh). The original regulations were adopted in 2012 in order to prevent passage of the herpes simplex virus to infants. (See prior posting.)  In its Notice of Adoption the Board said in part:

In February, 2015, the Mayor announced a new strategy to address this problem. As part of this approach, the Department will work cooperatively with leaders of the Orthodox Jewish community to educate parents about the risks of DOS. These educational efforts will include working with hospitals throughout the City to distribute educational materials about the risks of DOS to the parents of all newborn infant boys, as well as making this information available at other health care settings, such as obstetric and pediatric practices. These materials, which include a Department telephone number for parents who may have questions, have been translated into Yiddish and are being distributed at hospitals and medical offices that service communities where DOS is practiced. The Department’s educational initiative is more likely to succeed if the Department can restore a strong relationship with these communities.

City officials expect Orthodox Jewish leaders to cooperate in banning mohels  who are found to have infected an infant, though formal arrangements with them are not yet complete. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Florida Lawsuit Claims Court Enforcement of Parenting Plan For Circumicison of 4+ Year Old Boy Is Unconstitutional

In Florida, a dispute between the father and mother of a now four-and-one-half year old boy has led to the filing of a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state trial court order enforcing a parenting plan provision  calling for the boy's circumcision.  The complaint (full text) in C.R.N.H. v. Nebus, (SD FL, filed 4/13/2015), filed by the mother on her own behalf and on behalf of the child, names the boy's father, Dennis Nebus, as well as all judges and sheriffs in Florida, as defendants.  As reported by the Palm Beach Sun Sentinel and AP, the boy was born in October 2010.  In 2012, his parents who were never married agreed to a parenting plan which was approved by a Florida trial court.  The plan called for the father to arrange for the son's circumcision.  Subsequently the mother changed her mind about allowing the procedure and went into hiding at a battered women's shelter with the boy.  The father has no religious reasons for desiring the boy's circumcision. It is disputed whether he has a medical reason.

The complaint contends that under the circumstances of this case, forcing circumcision of the boy amounts to assault and battery and would impair the parents relationship with their son. It also claims that the child has been denied procedural due process. the right to privacy and bodily integrity, equal protection, and free exercise of religion. Explaining the free exercise argument, the complaint contends: "C.R.N.H. is Christian and the New Testament affirmative [sic] discourages of the practice of circumcision." The complaint stresses numerous times that its arguments are made in light of the child's current age and the lack of any religious reason for the circumcision request.

Settlement Agreed To In NYC Circumcision Regulation Challenge

The New York Observer reported yesterday that New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio's administration has reached a settlement agreement with the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in a lawsuit (see prior posting) challenging the New York City Health Department's regulations requiring mohels to obtain written consent from parents before using the oral suction method (metzitzah b’peh) of performing a ritual circumcision. Under the settlement agreement reached after long negotiations with rabbinic authorities, the city will use local health care providers to educate the community about the risks of herpes infection in infants. Jewish leaders will help the city identify the mohel who performed the circumcision on any infant who becomes infected with HSV1.  If genetic testing shows the mohel was the source of the infection, the Jewish community will permanently remove him as a mohel, and he will be subject to financial penalties if he continues to perform circumcisions.  However the list of those removed will not be made public.  This arrangement will lead to a settlement of the pending litigation and repeal of the informed consent requirements.

British Court Says Male Circumcision Cannot Be Equated With Female Genital Mutilation

A decision by a Family Court judge in Britain earlier this month tackled directly the argument that male circumcision should be equated with female genital mutilation and be banned just as female genital mutilation is.  In Matter of B and G (Children), (Family Ct., Jan. 14, 2015), the court found significant differences between the two procedures, saying:

in 2015 the law generally, and family law in particular, is still prepared to tolerate non-therapeutic male circumcision performed for religious or even for purely cultural or conventional reasons, while no longer being willing to tolerate FGM in any of its form....

FGM has no basis in any religion; male circumcision is often performed for religious reasons. FGM has no medical justification and confers no health benefits; male circumcision is seen by some (although opinions are divided) as providing hygienic or prophylactic benefits. Be that as it may, "reasonable" parenting is treated as permitting male circumcision.

UK Human Rights Blog has more on the decision. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

CDC Proposes Recommendations Strongly Favoring Male Neonatal Circumcision

Last week the federal government's Centers for Disease Control released for comment (Dec. 2 Federal Register) recommendations for health-care providers who are counseling male patients and parents regarding male circumcision. (Full text of Recommendations).  The recommendations focus on the benefits of male circumcision in preventing transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, and strongly recommend neonatal circumcision of boys-- a practice consistent with Jewish and some Muslim traditions.  The recommendations are positive, but more cautious, as to circumcision of adolescent and adult males. The San Francisco Chronicle reports on reactions to the recommendations.

2nd Circuit: NYC Ritual Circumcision Informed Consent Rule Is Subject To Strict Scrutiny Analysis

In Central Rabbinical Congress of the United States & Canada v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, (2d Cir., Aug. 15, 2014), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction against New York City's informed consent regulations governing metzitzah b’peh, a method of ritual circumcision used by some Orthodox Jewish mohels. (See prior posting.) The regulation, concerned about the possible spread of herpes, requires signed written consent from a parent before direct oral suction may be used in any circumcision. The Second Circuit disagreed with the district court's conclusion that the regulation is neutral and generally applicable and is thus subject only to rational basis scrutiny. The appellate court remanded for the district court to now rule on the likelihood of success on the merits using strict scrutiny, but added:

Acknowledging the weighty interests at stake in this litigation (the plaintiffs’ in the free exercise of their faith and the Department’s in the health of newborns and in informed parental consent concerning risks these newborns face), we express no view as to whether plaintiffs have satisfied this [strict scrutiny] standard, believing that careful adjudication will benefit in the first instance from the district court’s comprehensive analysis.

Reuters reports on the decision.

New York City Health Department Orders 2 Mohels To Stop Controversial Circumcision Method After Infections

The Forward reported this week that the New York City Health Department has prohibited two mohels from performing Jewish religious circumcisions using the direct oral suction method (metzitzah b’peh) after infant boys allegedly contracted herpes infections from the two. The Health Department refuses to name the mohels  for privacy reasons.  New York City Health Department regulations adopted in 2012 require mohels to obtain written informed consent before using the controversial method for a circumcision. (See prior posting.) Only one of the two mohels targeted by the Health Department was able to produce the consent form for the infected infant.

Israel's Supreme Court Says Rabbinical Courts Lack Jurisdiction To Order Circumcision of Child

Israel's High Court of Justice on Sunday held 6-1 that a rabbinical court did not have jurisdiction in the context of a divorce action to order a couple to circumcise their one-year old son over the mother's objection. (See prior posting.)  Jerusalem Post reports that Deputy Supreme Court President Miriam Naor wrote in her majority opinion that the question of circumcision is unrelated to divorce issues that define the rabbinical courts' jurisdiction.  She said that parents have the right to make decisions in their child’s best interests whether they are married or divorced. The Court held that the question should be decided by the civil family court system. Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, president of the Supreme Rabbinical Court of Appeal, strongly criticized the High Court's decision, saying in part:

This ruling is another severe step in which Jewish judges forbid the fulfillment of a mitzva for which the Jewish people sacrificed its lives for throughout the generations.

Israeli Trial Court Dismisses Negligence Charges Against Mohels -- No Law Broken

Haaretz reports that an Israeli Magistrate's Court in the city of Ashkelon last week acquitted two individuals who had been charged with criminal negligence in connection with the Jewish ritual  circumcision of a baby boy. One of those charged was a well known mohel with many years of experience, and the other was a student from overseas learning from him.  They jointly performed a circumcision in which a baby boy suffered excessive bleeding, but no lasting harm.  Criminal charges were filed when it was learned that the experienced mohel's certification from Israel's Chief Rabbinate had expired, and the student had not yet been certified.

During the trial, though, it became clear that no law had been broken.  In the past, legislation has been introduced into Israel's Knesset to set standards for who may perform ritual circumcisions.  Proposals have not passed because technically Jewish law imposes the obligation on the father to circumcise his son.  Usually fathers delegate the task to a professional mohel.  But if a father who did not meet legislative criteria chose to perform the circumcision himself, the law would be imposing criminal penalties on the performance of a religious obligation.  This could create freedom of religion concerns. Magistrate Judge Haim Nachmias however in dismissing the charges wrote:

The legislators would be wise to regulate the profession of performing circumcisions, and the supervision of those performing this religious commandment, through legislation.  And it would be better had this been done already.

Israel's Supreme Court Issues Temporary Stay Of Rabbinical Court's Order Requiring Boy's Circumcision

As previously reported, last month Israel's Supreme Rabbinical Court upheld a lower court's $140 per day fine imposed on a woman who is refusing to have her one-year old son circumcised. Her husband, as part of a divorce action, is seeking to require the circumcision. Now, according to a report yesterday from Haaretz, Israel's Supreme Court has issued a temporary injunction halting enforcement of the Rabbinical court's order pending its appeal.  The Supreme Court ordered the husband to respond to the appeal by Jan. 2.

Lawsuit Charges Mohel Botched Infant's Ritual Circumcision

According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a lawsuit was filed in Philadelphia (PA) on Tuesday by parents of a now-8 month old boy whose ritual circumcision was allegedly botched.  The suit against Rabbi Mordechai Rosenberg, the mohel who performed the circumcision last April, says that Rosenberg's negligence led to catastrophic and life-changing injury to the infant who had to be rushed to Children's Hospital for emergency reconstructive surgery.

Court Denies Freedom of Information Request For Name of Mohel Who Spread Herpes

In In re Application of Berger and The Jewish Daily Forward v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, (NY Sup Ct Queens Co., Dec. 2, 2013), a New York state trial court rejected an investigative reporter's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for the name of the Mohel (Jewish ritual circumcision practitioner) who infected an infant with herpes while using the Orthodox Jewish circumcision practice of Metzizah B'Peh (oral suction).  Rules promulgated by the New York City health department require written informed consent from parents for use of the oral suction method. (See prior posting.) In rejecting the FOIL request, the court relied on the statutory exemption for records which "if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy...." The court said:

A person with herpes or any similar communicable disease suffers the same privacy concerns whether or not his business or personal life is concerned. In either instance, their personal privacy concerns are implicated irrespective of their vocational situation. The fact that an infected individual is a Mohel, a sous chef, or a police officer, no less implicates their personal privacy interests, or diminishes the need to keep their health status confidential.... 

The court finds that the disclosure of the names of the reported persons would likely subject the named individuals to vilification in the press, as well as embarrassment and shame in both their business and private life, in addition to possible sanctions for violations of the NYC Health Code if they infected others. The Court is also aware of the difficulties encountered by the New York City Department of Health in obtaining the cooperation of infected persons or members of religious orders in reporting conditions involving the spread of contagion.

The Forward yesterday reported on the decision.