No Spousal Privilege When Only Religious Marriage Was Entered

In Springfield, Massachusetts, a state trial court judge has ruled that the ex-wife of Ayyub Abdul-Alim may testify against him in his trial on firearms charges.  As reported by MassLive, the judge held inapplicable here the normal rule that bars a witness from testifying to private conversations with her spouse that occurred during their marriage. The parties were married in an Islamic religious ceremony, but never obtained a state-issued marriage certificate.  The court said:

While the court acknowledges that a marriage between the defendant and Ms. Stewart took place in the religious sense, there is no evidence that this marriage was sanctioned by the state through the fulfillment of the legal requirements.

Massachusetts Lacks Standing To Challenge Expanded Contraceptive Mandate Exemptions

In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, (D MA, March 12, 2018), a Massachusetts federal district court held that the state of Massachusetts lacks standing to challenge recently adopted Interim Federal Rules expanding religious and moral exemptions from the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate. The court concluded that the state had "failed to set forth specific facts demonstrating that it is likely to incur an injury" from adoption of the rules. MassLive reports on the decision.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Rules On Renovation Grants To Church

Caplan v. Town of Acton, (MA Sup Jud Ct, March 9, 2018), is a challenge under the Massachusetts' constitution's"anti-aid" clause to two historic-resource grants for renovation purposes to an active church.  The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a 5-1 opinion, concluded:

the constitutionality of such grants must be evaluated under our three-factor test: a judge must consider whether a motivating purpose of each grant is to aid the church, whether the grant will have the effect of substantially aiding the church, and whether the grant avoids the risks of the political and economic abuses that prompted the passage of the anti-aid amendment. We also conclude that, in light of the history of the anti-aid amendment, a grant of public funds to an active church warrants careful scrutiny.... 

[W]e conclude that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim with respect to the stained glass grant. Although the record before us does not allow us to ascertain whether there is a motivating purpose behind this grant other than historic preservation, its effect is to substantially aid the church in its essential function and, given the explicit religious imagery of the stained glass, it fails to avoid the very risks that the framers of the anti-aid amendment hoped to avoid....

With respect to the Master Plan grant, we conclude that further discovery is needed before a determination should be made as to whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim.  This is in part because, unlike the stained glass grant, the Master Plan grant is far broader in its scope, including not only plans for the renovation of worship space but also plans for the renovation of the Fletcher and Hosmer Houses, which are both private residences....

Justice Kafker, joined by Justice Gaziono filed a concurring opinion.  Justice Cypher filed a dissenting opinion. MassLive reports on the decision.

Massachusetts Court Will Hear Conservative Synagogue Suit Alleging Chabad Takeover

JTA reports on a lawsuit brought by members of a Sharon, Massachusetts Conservative Jewish synagogue that will be heard today in a  Massachusetts trial court.  Members of Temple Adath Sharon, in a lawsuit filed in November 2015, allege that Chabad of Sharon, which was experiencing financial difficulties, worked to have its members elected to the Conservative synagogue's board and as its officers in order to obtain a transfer of the synagogue's building and assets to Chabad.  It also claims that the April 2015 meeting that elected the board and officers was not properly announced and conducted. Chabad denies the allegations.

Church, Not Town, Owns Cemetery

In First Congregational Church of Harwich v. Eldredge, (MA Land Ct., Aug. 18, 2017), the Massachusetts Land Court held that the First Congregational Church of Harwich rather than the Town of Harwich has title to a cemetery adjacent to the Church and also has title to the Memorial Garden in which cremated remains of Church member families are buried. The litigation was filed when the Church objected to the Town's plans to move to another area of the cemetery the cremated remains that are now buried above unmarked and unknown graves.  The court said in part:

[L]ike the Church, the Town and the Cemetery Commission are entrusted to honor the dead. They have a special duty to honor the remains of those deceased whose descendants can no longer be found. Their authority does not extend to the power to order the existing cremains disinterred, but they are authorized to care for and preserve the area of the Memorial Garden under which the unidentified graves are located. The Cemetery Commission is permitted to take actions necessary for the preservation of these grave sites and to ensure that they are not further disturbed, including the power to bar any further interring of cremains in the Memorial Garden directly over the unmarked graves. The Church may continue to inter cremains in other areas of the Cemetery over which there are no ancient burial grounds.

Cape Cod Chronicle has a more extensive report on the decision.

Tolling Provision Applies While Priest Is Outside State On Orders of Church Superiors

In Commonwealth v. McCormick, 2017 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 791 (MA App., Aug. 15, 2017), a Massachusetts state appeals court upheld the convictions of a Catholic priest on five counts of rape of a child.  The court rejected defendant's argument that the statute of limitations tolling provision violates the federal Establishment Clause and his free exercise rights under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The state statute of limitations excludes from the computation of time under the limitations period any time during which the defendant is not "usually and publicly a resident" of Massachusetts.  Plaintiff was outside the state during periods in which he was working at a camp on the orders of his superiors in the Catholic church.

Court Dismisses Claim That Solar Project Infringes Sacred Indian Mounds

The Springfield Republican reports that on Friday a Massachusetts federal district court dismissed a lawsuit that sought to stop development of a 6-acre solar farm in Shutesbury, Massachusetts. Plaintiffs contended that the property contained sacred Indian mounds and sacred stone landscapes.  According to the paper:

Two archaeologists ... had found no evidence of sacred structures or burial mounds on the property. However, the plaintiffs claimed that only a "tribal historic preservation officer" could make that determination.

In dismissing the case, [Judge] Mastroianni concluded that the plaintiffs and their consultants have no legal right to enter the property.

The religious land use statute "does not create a substantive right for a person to carry out religious activities on property owned or controlled by another," and the Historic Preservation Act only covers federal or federally assisted projects.

Anti-LGBT Activist Appeals ATS Lawsuit That He Won

As previously reported, earlier this week a Massachusetts federal district court dismissed an Alien Tort Statute lawsuit against activist Scott Lively who was sued over his conduct in Uganda helping anti-LGBT activists there.  The court held that there had been insufficient conduct in the United States to support a suit under the ATS.  However the court's opinion harshly criticized Lively's actions, calling them crimes against humanity. Now, in an unusual move, Lively has filed an appeal even though the suit against him was dismissed.  The Notice of Appeal (full text) in Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively, (D MA, filed 6/8/2017), says appellant seeks removal from the court's order of "certain extraneous but prejudicial language immaterial to the disposition of the case and which the district court had no jurisdiction to entertain or enter." It also seeks to have supplemental state law claims which the district court dismissed without prejudice to instead be dismissed with prejudice so they cannot be refiled in state court. Liberty Counsel, representing Lively, issued a press release announcing the appeal and describing their objections to the district court's Order:

Judge Ponsor improperly littered his Order with a prolonged tirade against Lively, badly distorting his Christian views and activism, and insulting him with such unbecoming epithets as “crackpot bigot[],” “pathetic,” “ludicrous,” “abhorrent” and numerous others.

No Jurisdiction Under ATS Over Anti-Gay Pastor's Activity In Uganda

In Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively, (D MA, June 5, 2017), a Massachusetts federal district court dismissed a suit that had been brought under the Alien Tort Statute against Scott Lively, a pastor and anti-LGBT activist. The court said in part:

Defendant's positions on LGBTI people range from the ludicrous to the abhorrent....  He has tried to make gay people scapegoats for practically all of humanity's ills.... 

This crackpot bigotry could be brushed aside as pathetic, except for the terrible harm it can cause. The record in this case demonstrates that Defendant has worked with elements in Uganda who share some of his views to try to repress freedom of expression by LGBTI people in Uganda, deprive them of the protection of the law, and render their very existence illegal.... 

Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief based on Defendant's crimes against humanity. Defendant now seeks summary judgment in his favor arguing that, on the facts of record, the ATS provides no jurisdiction over a claim for injuries -- however grievous -- occurring entirely in a foreign country such as Uganda. Because the court has concluded that Defendant's .jurisdictional argument is correct, the motion will be allowed.

Anyone reading this memorandum should make no mistake. The question before the court is not whether Defendant's actions in aiding and abetting efforts to demonize, intimidate, and injure LGBTI people in Uganda constitute violations of international law. They do. The much narrower and more technical question posed by Defendant's motion is whether the limited actions taken by Defendant on American soil in pursuit of his odious campaign are sufficient to give this court jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. Since they are not sufficient, summary judgment is appropriate for this, and only this, reason. 

Liberty Counsel which represented Lively issued a press release on the decision describing Lively's activities as "sharing his biblical views on homosexuality during three visits to Uganda...."

Settlement Reached In Dispute Over Muslim Cemetery

The town of Dudley, Massachusetts has reached an agreement to settle a suit brought by the Islamic Society of Greater Worcester that will allow a Muslim cemetery to be located in the town. Initial denial of permits led to widely publicized charges of religious discrimination.  The Boston Globe reports:

The settlement, approved Thursday evening by the Dudley Board of Selectmen, should result in an initial 6-acre cemetery on 55 acres of former farmland that would provide enough graves for “several generations of families of the Islamic Society of Greater Worcester,” said Jay Talerman, ... a lawyer for the Islamic Society. Along with some wetlands, the site also contains about another 6 acres that would be suitable for cemetery plots, but under the deal the Islamic Society agrees not to seek to expand the initial cemetery for at least a decade, he said....

Under the new settlement, the cemetery project will come back before the Dudley Zoning Board of Appeals, where “we’ve agreed there will be a special permit granted on mutually agreeable conditions,” [John] Davis [the town's counsel] said. The project will then be reviewed by the Board of Health, and, if plans affect wetlands, by the Conservation Commission...

Massachusetts Modifies Reference To Churches As Public Accommodations; Suit Dismissed

Alliance Defending Freedom announced that today the churches and pastors who are plaintiffs in Horizon Christian Fellowship v. Williamson filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in their lawsuit after the Attorney General's Office made a change in its website and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination made changes to language in a Guidance document on when a church can be considered a place of public accommodation subject to state's ban on discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Originally (see prior posting) the Gender Identity Guidance stated:

Even a church could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the general public.

The revised Gender Identity Guidance reads:

The law does not apply to a religious organization if subjecting the organization to the law would violate the organization’s First Amendment rights. See Donaldson v. Farrakhan, 436 Mass. 94 (2002). However, a religious organization may be subject to the Commonwealth’s public accommodations law if it engages in or its facilities are used for a “public, secular function.” Id.

Originally a page on the Attorney General's website had made a categorical reference to "houses of worship" as an example of a "place of public accommodation."  That reference has been dropped.  A letter from the chief of the state's Civil Rights Division explained why the changes were made.

Churches Sue To Enjoin Massachusetts Ban on Gender Identity Discrimination

Four churches have filed a federal lawsuit alleging that recent changes to Massachusetts' public accommodation anti-discrimination law violate the churches' free exercise and free speech rights. As previously reported,  the law now bans discrimination on the basis of gender identity, and requires public accommodations to allow restroom use consistent with a person's gender identity. Last month, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination released a Gender Identity Guidance setting out the Commission's interpretation of the new law and suggesting that in some situations, the anti-discrimination ban can apply to churches. The complaint (full text) in Horizon Christian Fellowship v. Williamson, (D MA, filed 10/11/2016), contends that all church activities, even ones not overtly religious, are expressions of the churches' religious mission.  The complaint focuses on provisions in the law that bar public accommodations from discriminating and from inciting others to discriminate.  It alleges:

22. The Churches desire to preach and post on their websites sermons addressing God’s design for human sexuality and the Churches’ beliefs about “gender identity,” but reasonably fear that if they were to do so they would violate the Act’s prohibitions.

23. The Act’s prohibitions would also apply to a church bulletin and website that included an explanation that the women’s restrooms are reserved for biological females, while the men’s restrooms are reserved for biological males.

Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a memorandum in support of the motion (full text). ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Preliminary Injunction Denied In Challenge To Grants To Churches

Americans United reported Monday that a Massachusetts state trial court has denied a preliminary injunction in Caplan v. Town of Acton, Massachusetts, a suit challenging the town's approval of three Community Preservation grants to restore core facilities and religious imagery of two active local churches. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs contended that the grants violate the Anti-Aid provision of the Massachusetts constitution.

Massachusetts Agency Says Transgender Non-Discrimination Can Apply To Some Church Events

Massachusetts Senate Bill 2407, banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity in public accommodations, becomes effective October 1. The bill also requires public accommodations to allow restroom use consistent with a person's gender identity.  Last week (Sept. 1), the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination released its Gender Identity Guidance (full text) setting out the Commission's interpretation of the new law. The Guidance suggests that in some situations, the anti-discrimination ban can apply to churches:

Under G.L. c. 272, § 98, places of public accommodation may not discriminate against, or restrict a person from services because of that person’s gender identity. For example, a hotel or motel may not refuse to book a room for a person because of the person’s gender identity. Even a church could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the general public.

The Guidance adds in a footnote: "All charges, including those involving religious institutions or religious exemptions, are reviewed on a case-by-case basis." The Guidance also provides: "In the limited circumstances where it is necessary, an individual’s gender identity may be demonstrated by any evidence that the gender identity is sincerely held as a part of the person’s core identity."  Daily Caller reports on the Guidance.

Suit Alleges Grants For Church Preservation Projects Violate Massachusetts No-Aid Provision

A suit was filed yesterday against the town of Acton, Massachusetts by 13 of the town's residents and taxpayers challenging the town's approval of three Community Preservation grants to restore core facilities and religious imagery of two active local churches. The complaint (full text) in Caplan v. Town of Acton, Massachusetts, (MA Super. Ct., filed 7/7/2016) alleges that the grants violate Article XVIII, Section 2 of the Massachusetts Constitution that prohibits use of public funds "for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any church, religious denomination or society." Grants to Acton Congregational Church funded a master plan for historic preservation of the 170-year old church building and for repair of major stained glass window's in the church's building. A grant to the South Acton Congregational Church funded roof repairs. Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Boston Globe reports on the lawsuit.

Hospital Offered Reasonable Accommodation To Employee Rejecting Flu Shot

In Robinson v. Children's Hospital Boston, (D MA, April 5, 2016), a Massachusetts federal district court dismissed a Title VII and state discrimination claim by a hospital emergency room worker who refused on religious grounds to be immunized for influenza. Plaintiff, who was apparently a follower of Nation of Islam, initially refused the vaccine because it contained pork products, but the hospital offered her a non-gelatin vaccine.  She continued to refuse on religious grounds, was granted a temporary medical leave and was allowed to look for a non-patient area position in the hospital. When she was unable to find another position, she was terminated.  The court held that the hospital had offered plaintiff reasonable accommodation and that  allowing her to remain in the patient area unvaccinated would have posed an undue hardship. Boston Herald reports on the decision.

Mass. High Court Says Foster Parenting Can Be Denied Over Religious Belief In Corporal Punishment

In Magazu v. Department of Children and Families, (MA Sup. Jud. Ct., Jan. 4, 2016), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a decision by a state agency denying an application by a Christian couple to become foster and pre-adoptive parents because the couple uses corporal punishment as a form of discipline in their home.  State rules, particularly concerned with the emotional needs of abused and neglected children who often are placed in foster care, bar the use of corporal punishment by foster parents.  The couple agreed that they would not use corporal punishment on a foster child, but refused to agree to refrain from spanking their own daughters in private when appropriate. According to the Court:

The Magazus assert that, in accordance with their sincerely held Christian beliefs, they use appropriate corporal punishment on their own two daughters as a matter of loving parenting and biblical understanding. They contend that the department's denial of their application to become foster parents substantially burdens their right to the free exercise of religion under art. 46, § 1, of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.... 

The Court disagreed, saying in part:

although the department's decision imposes a substantial burden on the Magazus' sincerely held religious beliefs, this burden is outweighed by the department's compelling interest in protecting the physical and emotional well-being of foster children.

(See prior related posting.)

Santeria Priest Extradited To Massachusetts To Face Trial For Stealing Human Remains

According to CBS Connecticut, Amador Medina-- a 32 year old man who says he is a Santeria priest-- waived extradition back to Massachusetts in a Connecticut court hearing today.  Medina is accused of stealing five sets of human remains from a mausoleum in a cemetery in Worcester, Massachusetts, in order to use them in healing rituals.  As reported by the Canon Place Mercury, the skeletal remains date from the early 1900's.  Medina cooperated with police and showed them where the remains were in his Hartford apartment.  The Connecticut judge set Medina's bond at $300,000 and ordered mental health treatment for him.  Medina is unemployed and will not be able to post the bond.

Top Massachusetts Court Hears Arguments On Whether Religiously-Motivated Corporal Punishment Disqualifies Foster Parents

Last week (Sept. 10), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in Magazu v. Department of Children and Families (docket and links to briefs). As summarized by the Court at issue is:

Whether it was proper for the Department of Children and Families to deny the plaintiffs' request to become foster parents on the basis of the parents' religiously motivated use of corporal punishment on their biological children.

Wall of Separation blog discusses the case.

Court Says Sale of Boston Church Was Invalid

In First Bostonview Management, LLC v. Bostonview Corp., (MA App., Aug. 19, 2015), the Massachusetts Appeals Court held the purported sale of the property of Boston's Swedenborgian Church on the Hill invalid.  The court said in part:

[T]he sale of substantially all of the Bostonview church property (consisting of a church sanctuary, a parish meeting hall, a large apartment complex, offices, and parking spaces on prime land on Beacon Hill near the Massachusetts State House) was indisputably an "extraordinary transaction," and, if completed to the end would have stripped Bostonview of the very essence of its existence as a charitable corporation.... We conclude that the authority to make such a divesting asset/property sale contract ... was beyond the power of the charitable corporate board to delegate to two of its officers. The contract was void. The "shady" nature of the underlying prenegotiations to sell the church's very valuable (but sole) asset for $30 million -- including combined cash payments of close to $100,000 to two of the executive officers, and the purchase of the $94,000 luxury car for the church secretary -- only serves to demonstrate why restrictions on "extraordinary transactions" must be closely scrutinized by the charity's corporate board. 

The court also held that: "subsequent approval or other conduct by the board of directors of a charitable corporation will not substitute for prior specific authorization to commit the charity to an extraordinary transaction."

Boston Business Journal gives additional background:

The case centered on developer Michael Perry’s 2004 agreement to pay $30 million to purchase the property....  Perry struck the agreement with Thomas J. Kennedy and Edward J. MacKenzie Jr., who were then officials at Bostonview Corp., the charitable organization that conducted business on behalf of the Swedenborgian church. MacKenzie, who has claimed he was an enforcer for incarcerated mobster Whitey Bulger, was later sentenced to 12 years in prison for allegedly stealing millions from the church.