Prison's Denial of Access To Religious Services As Discipline Is Invalid

In Greenhill v. Clarke, (4th Cir., Dec. 6, 2019),the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that, absent further justification, a prison disciplinary policy which denied a Muslim inmate television access to view weekly Jum'ah services violates his free exercise rights protected by RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment. The court said in part:

The VDOC’s Step-Down Program appears to be a sophisticated, well-conceived program to better inmates’ behavior and their confinement, as well as to improve safety and the overall operation of the prison. But holding inmates’ religious exercise hostage to incentivize their participation in the Program is impermissible under RLUIPA. Access to bona fide religious exercise is not a privilege to be dangled as an incentive to improve inmate conduct, and placing such religious exercise in the category of privilege to be earned is fundamentally inconsistent with the right to religious exercise that RLUIPA guarantees to prisoners.....

The court also held that the prison's grooming policy that precludes growing of a 4-inch beard imposes a substantial burden on the Muslim inmate's religious exercise. [Thanks to Will Esser via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Muslim Woman Sues Theater Over Pepperoni Pizza

Redondo Beach Patch reports on a lawsuit filed last week by an observant Muslim woman against a California movie theater chain over a pizza served at the theater. The paper recounts in part:

... [Plaintiff claims] she ordered a cheese pizza at a Redondo Beach theater in 2017 and instead was given pepperoni pizza, which she accidentally ate a portion of in the dark auditorium, violating her religious laws against consuming pork.

Kiara Rivers is suing American Multi-Cinema Inc., alleging religious discrimination, battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligence....

"As a devout Muslim, (Rivers) considers the consumption of pork a violation of her duties as a Muslim and detrimental to her spiritual purity to the point that nothing can be done to restore her spiritual integrity," the suit states.

Imam's Interpretation of Halal Held Relevant To Sincerity of Inmate's Beliefs

In Russell v. Pallito, (D VT, Nov. 25, 2019), a Vermont federal district court refused to exclude the testimony of Taysir Al-khatib, the main imam of the Islamic Society of Vermont, who was to be presented as an expert on Islamic dietary laws.  The issue arose in a suit by Justin Russell, a Muslim pre-trial detainee who claimed that Department of Corrections policies fail to provide him and similarly situated inmates a diet that meets their religious requirements. According to the court:

Russell contends that Al-khatib’s expert testimony regarding Islamic dietary law is irrelevant because the proper inquiry for purposes of his claim is whether his beliefs regarding Islamic dietary law are sincerely held, not whether they are correct as a matter of religious doctrine....

More specifically, according to Russell, “[t]he question of whether Muslims may properly subsist on a kosher diet is essentially a question of religious interpretation,” and “the validity of such interpretation is not a fact of any consequence in determining the action, and is therefore irrelevant.”

The court went on to hold:

The Court recognizes Russell’s concern regarding conflation of the sincerity and verity of his religious beliefs, and remains cognizant of its duty to refrain from adjudicating intra-faith disputes.....

But that fact alone does not render Al-khatib’s testimony about Islamic dietary requirements irrelevant as a matter of law.... Rather, evidence that some members of Russell’s religious community hold a contrary interpretation of Islamic dietary requirements may be valuable to a jury in assessing the sincerity or religious nature of Russell’s beliefs as well as whether Defendants’ actions substantially burdened those beliefs.

Supreme Court Grants Review In RFRA Damages Case

The U.S Supreme Court yesterday granted certiorari in Tanzin v. Tanvir. (Docket No.19-71, cert. granted 11/22/2019). In the case, a 3-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a plaintiff may sue federal officials in their individual capacities and may recover monetary damages from them. The holding comes in a lawsuit by three Muslims who claim that their names were placed on the "No Fly List" in retaliation for their refusal to serve as government informants. (See prior posting.) By a vote of 7-3, the 2nd Circuit denied en banc review. (See prior posting.) The SCOTUSblog case page has links to the fiilngs with the Supreme Court in the case.

USCIRF Criticizes Action In India That Targets Bengali Muslims

Yesterday the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a report titled The Religious Freedom Implications of the National Register of Citizens in India. The report says in part:

On August 31, 2019, the government of the northeastern Indian state of Assam released an updated National Register of Citizens (NRC), originally introduced in 1951 as part of India’s first census. The purpose of updating this list was to verify the citizenship of Assam residents and aid the government in identifying so-called “infiltrators” or “illegal immigrants.” India’s Union government supported this effort, and both national and state leaders from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have pushed for the implementation of an NRC in other states..... Union Home Minister Amit Shah has expressed his desire to implement a nationwide NRC.

The final NRC list excluded 1.9 million Assam residents. Moreover, a number of domestic and international organizations have expressed concern that the NRC is a targeted mechanism to disenfranchise Assam’s Bengali Muslim community, implicitly establishing a religious requirement for citizenship and potentially rendering large numbers of Muslims stateless.

India's Supreme Court Awards Disputed Ayodhya Site To Hindus

In M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, (India Supreme Court, Nov. 9, 2019), in an opinion that spans 1,045 pages, the Supreme Court of India ruled on a decades-old dispute over a piece of land claimed by both Hindus and Muslims.  BBC summarized the decision:

India's Supreme Court has ruled that the disputed holy site in Ayodhya in northern India should be given to Hindus who want to build a temple there.

The case, which has been bitterly contested for decades by Hindus and Muslims, centres on the ownership of the land in Uttar Pradesh state.

At the centre of the row is the 16th Century Babri mosque which was demolished by Hindu mobs in 1992, sparking riots that killed nearly 2,000 people.

Muslims would get another plot of land to construct a mosque, the court said.

In its opinion, the court explained:

The disputed land forms part of the village of Kot Rama Chandra or, as it is otherwise called, Ramkot at Ayodhya, in Pargana Haveli Avadh, of Tehsil Sadar in the District of Faizabad. An old structure of a mosque existed at the site until 6 December 1992. The site has religious significance for the devotees of Lord Ram, who believe that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site. For this reason, the Hindus refer to the disputed site as Ram Janmabhumi or Ram Janmasthan (i.e. birth-place of Lord Ram). The Hindus assert that there existed at the disputed site an ancient temple dedicated to Lord Ram, which was demolished upon the conquest of the Indian sub-continent by Mughal Emperor Babur. On the other hand, the Muslims contended that the mosque was built by or at the behest of Babur on vacant land. Though the significance of the site for the Hindus is not denied, it is the case of the Muslims that there exists no proprietary claim of the Hindus over the disputed property.

Reuters has more extensive reporting on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

EEOC Suit Over Insults To Muslim Employees Settled

The EEOC announced  that a consent decree was signed on Tuesday settling a suit against Haliburton Energy Services. The suit charged that two Muslim workers were subjected to taunts and name calling over their religion and national origin. One was fired for complaining about his treatment.  In the consent decree, the company agreed to pay $275,000 in damages. The decree also enjoined future violations and requires training of human resource and managerial employees. (See prior related posting.)

House Holds Hearing on Trump's "Muslim Ban"

On Sept. 24, two subcommittees of the House Judiciary Committee held a joint hearing on Oversight of the Trump Administration’s Muslim Ban. A video of the full 4-hour hearing, along with copies of the prepared testimony of numerous witnesses and letters from other interested organizations are all available on the Judiciary Committee's website. [Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]

Muslim Community Center's Claim of Discrimination In Permitting Process Must Proceed To Trial

In OT, LLC v. Harford County, Maryland, (D MD, Sept. 23, 2019), a Maryland federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to either side on almost all the claims by a Muslim group seeking permits to construct a community center. Plaintiffs contend that delays in approval were motivated by religious discrimination in violation of various constitutional and statutory provisions and imposed a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion in violation of RLUIPA.  The court said in part:

Importantly, “a government decision influenced by community members’ religious bias is unlawful, even if the government decision makers display no bias themselves....

Here, Plaintiffs contend that the sequence of events leading up to the County’s decision, departures from the County’s normal procedures, and contemporary statements by County decision-makers demonstrate that County Defendants’ actions were motived by the community’s anti-Muslim beliefs....

Conversely, County Defendants maintain that their decisions here were motivated by their desire to conform to existing practices and the County Code....

[T]he Court concludes that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to the intent of the County Defendants....

The court similarly concluded that there was a genuine dispute of fact on whether the delay imposed a substantial burden on plaintiffs' right of religious exercise.

Indian Parliament Outlaws Triple Talaq

India's Parliament yesterday gave final passage to The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019 (full text) (bill summary). The bill now goes to the President for his assent. The new law outlaws "triple talaq", the procedure under which a Muslim husband divorces his wife by uttering the word "talaq" three times to her.  The law makes talaq (including in written and electronic form) illegal and provides for a fine and up to three years in prison for anyone declaring talaq. It also allows award of child custody and subsistence to a wife against whom talaq has been invoked. The bill replaces a presidential Ordinance issued earlier this year.  In 2017, India's Supreme Court held that triple talaq is invalid and ordered the government to consider appropriate legislation on the mater. (See prior posting.)  Rediff and Reuters report on the bill. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

New Report On Muslim Inmates In State Prisons In U.S.

In a press release last week, Muslim Advocates announced the release of a report documenting the size of the Muslim population in state prisons in the U.S. and the extent to which their religious rights are accommodated. The 68-page report (full text) titled Fulfilling the Promise of Free Exercise for All: Muslim Prisoner Accommodation in State Prisons concluded in part:

[O]ur research shows that within the 34 states that provided data in response to our requests, Muslims are overrepresented in state prisons by a factor of eight relative to the general population. In some state systems, Muslims are overrepresented by a factor of closer to eighteen, with more than 20 percent of prisoners identifying as Muslim. The absolute number of Muslim prisoners has also increased over time, even as prison populations in many states have tended to decrease in the last few years. Despite Muslims constituting a significant and growing share of prisoners, many state departments of correction still have policies that are outdated, under-accommodating, or non-accommodating of Muslim prisoners.

The Appeal discusses the report.

Quebec Court Refuses To Enjoin Law Barring Officials From Wearing Religious Symbols

In Hak v. National Council of Canadian Muslims, (Quebec Super. Ct.., July 9, 2019) [opinion in French], a Quebec trial court refused to issue a temporary injunction against enforcement of the province's new law that prohibits a lengthy list of public officials, law enforcement and judicial officials as well as teachers from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their official functions. (See prior posting.) According to CBC News:

The government hoped to shield the law from constitutional challenges by invoking the notwithstanding clause; meaning critics can't appeal to the fundamental freedoms section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to get it struck down....

At several points in his decision, [Judge] Yergeau said the injunction request had a steeper hill to climb because the civil society groups couldn't argue the law violated fundamental freedoms protected by the charter.

"The plaintiffs had no other choice for success than to base themselves on purely constitutional arguments, as opposed to Charter arguments, whose validity remains uncertain," the decision reads....

He noted, in particular, the arguments that the law trampled on federal jurisdiction and violated minority rights had enough merit to warrant further consideration by the courts.

But he also said claims that the law had caused irreparable harm were "purely hypothetical and often speculative" given the motion filed so quickly after it was passed.

5th Circuit Upholds Direct Supervision Requirement For Muslim Inmate Worship Services

In Brown v. Scott, (5th Cir., July 5, 2019), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision (56 pages long) written by Judge Owen held that a 1977 consent decree allowing Muslim inmates to gather for worship without direct supervision should be vacated. While Muslim inmates had met with only indirect supervision from 1977 to 2012, that arrangement was terminated after a Jehovah's Witness inmate successfully sued arguing that the more favorable treatment of Muslim inmates violates the Establishment Clause. The termination of the special treatment for Muslim inmates, however, violated the earlier consent decree. This led prison officials to ask that the earlier decree be vacated under provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act that allow lifting of the injunction if it is no longer needed to correct an ongoing violation of rights.

Muslim inmates argued that requiring direct supervision of their services would impose a substantial burden in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The majority held, however, that it is not prison authorities that have imposed a substantial burden, but instead it is caused by a lack of Muslim volunteers from outside who will supervise services. The majority also rejected Free Exercise and Establishment Clause arguments.

The district court had concluded that Texas prison regulations favor Catholic, Jewish, Native American and Protestant inmates over Muslim inmates.  Judge Owen concluded that this does not create an Establishment Clause violation because in the prison context the more lenient Turner v. Safley test should be applied to Establishment Clause claims.

Judge King joined all of Judge Owen's opinion except for the Establishment Clause section. She held there was an Establishment Clause violation, but that the 1977 consent decree should be vacated nevertheless because it is broader than necessary to remedy the violation.

Judge Dennis in a separate opinion dissented as to the RLUIPA issue, and would not have reached the Establishment Clause or Free Exercise claims

Confrontation Clause Satisfied Even Though Muslim Witness Had Face Partly Covered

In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Smarr, (PA Super., July 3, 2019), a Pennsylvania state appellate court held that the Confrontation Clauses of the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions were not violated when a trial court allowed the sole eye-witness to a murder to testify with a colorful scarf covering her mouth and nose. The witness, a Muslim, said that she wears a face covering on Fridays, when she goes to religious services, and whenever else she feels like it. She said she was wearing it to court out of concern for her safety. Focusing on the importance of protecting the witness' free exercise rights, the court said in part:

No precedent has established that a witness’s clothing or accessories renders a physical, in-court confrontation other than face-to-face, particularly where the clothing does not obstruct the witness’s eyes, and we decline to do so under the facts of this case. We therefore hold that Smarr’s right to be brought face-to-face with his accuser was satisfied....

[T]he jury could view Brown’s eyes, and to some extent, her facial expressions; her posture, her gestures, and her body language; hear her tone of voice, her cadence, and her hesitation; and observe any nervousness, frustration, or hostility.

Cert. Filed In Challenge To School's Curriculum On the Muslim World

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court this week in Wood v. Arnold, (cert. filed 5/13/2019).  In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a high school student's Establishment Clause and compelled speech challenges to a classroom unit on The Muslim World.  One challenge was to the teacher's Power Point slide which included the statement that most Muslims' faith is stronger than that of the average Christian.  The other challenge was to the requirement on a work sheet for the student to fill in two words of the shahada. (See prior posting). Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Muslim Employees Sue Amazon Over Religious Accommodation and Discrimination

On Tuesday, Muslim Advocates filed a complaint (full text) with the EEOC charging that Amazon.com, Inc.'s Minneapolis facility discriminates against its Muslim Somali and east African workers. The complaint charges that, among other things, Amazon fails to reasonably accommodate employees' religious practices. It claims the company provides inadequate space and time for employees to pray, and does not accommodate Ramadan observance. Daily Caller reports on the lawsuit.

Enforcement of Mahr Provision In Islamic Marriage Contract Upheld

In Seifeddine v. Jaber, (MI App., April 16, 2019), a Michigan state appellate court rejected a challenge to a trial court's enforcement in a divorce action of the mahr provisions of an Islamic marriage certificate. The provision required the husband to pay $50,000 to his wife. According to the court:

[T]he trial court expressly and repeatedly stated that it was not applying religious principles or doctrines but was instead applying Michigan common law regarding contracts.... Plaintiff makes no argument challenging any particular element for establishing the existence of a contract. Nor does plaintiff cite any authority for his contention that a neutral principle of law must be derived from a statute rather than from Michigan common law when examining a religious document.

DOJ Settles RLUIPA Zoning Claims With Texas City

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has reached an agreement with the City of Farmersville, Texas to resolve allegations that the city violated RLUIPA when in 2017 it denied a Muslim organization approval for construction of a cemetery:

The settlement agreement resolves a lawsuit the United States filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. After the City denied the Islamic Association’s application to build a religious cemetery, the United States opened an investigation of the City’s actions in September 2017. In August 2018, the United States notified the City that it had concluded that the City had violated RLUIPA and intended to file suit, and offered the City an opportunity to negotiate a resolution. In September 2018, the City and the Islamic Association entered into a separate agreement allowing for the approval of the cemetery and in December 2018, the City approved the Islamic Association’s application to develop the land as a cemetery.

Here is the complaint in United States v. City of Farmersville, Texas, (ED TX, filed 4/16/2019) filed yesterday as part of the negotiations.

Clearing A Courtroom OK'd For Testimony By Muslim Woman With Uncovered Face

In Copper v. Superintendent of Sci-Greene, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59150 (ED PA, April 2, 2019), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge recommended rejecting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel brought by convicted murderer Tyreese Copper.  Copper argued that his counsel should have objected that the way in which the trial judge accommodated the religious concerns of a Muslim woman who was one of the prosecution witnesses violated his right to a public trial. The witness was wearing a burqa. The trial court judge insisted that she uncover her face so that the jury could assess her credibility. The judge however agreed to clear public spectators from the courtroom while she testified with her face cover removed.

Inmate's Suit Seeks Imam In Execution Chamber

In the wake of two widely publicized U.S. Supreme Court actions involving similar issues in Alabama and Texas, suit was filed this week by a Muslim death row inmate in Alabama who wants to have an imam present in the execution chamber when when he is executed. The complaint (full text) in Burton v. Dunn, (MD AL, April 4, 2019), alleges that Charles Burton's rights under RLUIPA, the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise clause are violated by the prison's current policy under which only the prison's mainline Protestant Christian chaplain is present in the execution chamber. Burton objects to that chaplain's presence. Stanford Law School's Legal Clinic issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to James Sonne for the lead.]