Civil Rights Suit By Student Alarm-Clock Maker Dismissed

In Mohamed v. Irving Independent School District, (ND TX, May 18, 2017), a Texas federal district court dismissed the civil rights claims brought on behalf of an African-American Muslim high school student who was arrested and suspended from school for 3 days when a home-made clock he brought to school was mistaken by his teachers for a bomb. (See prior posting.) The incident received national attention. Plaintiff (the student's father) alleged violations of the Equal Protection clause, the 4th and 5th Amendments, and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. WDBO News reports on the decision.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On Second Trump Travel Ban Executive Order

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in State of Hawaii v. Trump, (Docket No. 17-15589).  In the case, a Hawaii federal district court issued a nationwide temporary injunction against enforcement of key portions of  President Trump's second "travel ban" Executive Order. (See prior posting.) As reported by the New York Times, at issue in the arguments are whether the Executive Order can be considered a "Muslim ban" that violates the Establishment Clause.

Egyptian Muslim Cleric Accused of "Contempt of Religion"

In Egypt last Thursday, members of the Egyptian Parliament filed a lawsuit against Muslim cleric and former deputy minster in the Endowments Ministry, Salem Abdel Galil.  According to Egypt Daily News, the suit, and another one filed by different complainants, accuse Galil of contempt of religion and threatening national unity because of statements he made on May 3 during his television show "Muslims Ask."  In explaining a verse from the Qur'an, he said that Christians and Jews follow corrupt religions and are non-believers.  In a statement on his Facebook page, Galil apologized for "hurting Christians’ feelings," but said he would never apologize for his religion. Al-Mehwar TV has canceled Galil's contract, and Minister of Endowments Mokhtar Gomaa said that Galil would not be allowed to lead Friday prayers unless he retracted his comments.

FOIA Suit Seeks Information On Border Searches of Muslims

A Muslim advocacy organization this week filed a Freedom of Information Act suit in federal district court.  The complaint (full text) in Muslim Advocates v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (D DC, file 5/2/2017) alleges that plaintiff is seeking:

documents and information relating to the government’s border searches of electronic devices in the possession of persons from the seven Muslim-majority countries covered by President Donald Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order, in addition to its border searches of electronic devices in the possession of persons – including U.S. citizens – whom U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) agents perceived to be Muslim. As discussed widely in news reports, these searches – which may include the physical retention of an individual’s electronic devices and demand for their passwords – appear to have dramatically increased following the issuance of the Executive Order.

Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

India's Supreme Court To Hear Constitutional Challenge To Personal Status Laws

NewsClick yesterday carried a lengthy article surveying the background and importance of the Shayara Bano case which will be heard by a 5-judge panel of India's Supreme Court next month.  At issue is whether laws involving personal status which are governed in India by separate legal codes for different religious groups are subject to the fundamental rights protections of India's Constitution.  In this case, the issue is whether Muslim divorce through "Triple Talaq", a practice invoked pursuant to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (1937), violates women's rights to equality, life and dignity. The article summarizes in part:

In the triple talaq case the Supreme Court is confronted with this question yet again and it remains to be seen if they will decide the question or dodge it by saying that Islam itself does not recognize triple talaq and hence, there is no need to decide the larger issue of whether personal laws are amenable to constitutional checks and challenges. What is at stake is not just Muslim Personal Law but all laws governing marriage and divorce, including Hindu Law. Will the ruling party that is moving towards a Hindutva State, allow such a challenge is the question. For now the Union of India has committed itself to the challenge but may remain content with the striking down on the ground that it is un-Islamic as some groups have argued. There is a lot riding on this case, not just talaq. The issues are fundamental to constitutional gender justice for all women.

Israel Appoints First Woman As Judge On Muslim Religious Court

Haaretz reports that Israel has for the first time in the country's history appointed a woman to serve as a judge (qadi) in a Muslim religious court.  Government appointed religious courts in Israel have jurisdiction over personal status matters, particularly marriage and divorce.  The appointment of Hana Khatib, a family lawyer, was confirmed unanimously today by Israel's Judicial Appointments Committee.

UPDATE: Haaretz (4/27) has an interesting background piece on the appointment.

Female Teenage Boxer Gets Religious Dress Accommodation

According to yesterday's Rochester MN Post-Bulletin, USA Boxing, the organization that oversees amateur boxing in the United States, has granted a religious accommodation to a Muslim teenager.  Amaiya Zafar will be permitted to wear a hijab and cover her arms and legs in her first sanctioned competition.

Hawaii Federal Court Bars Enforcement of Key Provisions of Second Travel Ban

Today a Hawaii federal district court issued a nationwide temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of Section 2  (90 day ban on entry into U.S. of nationals of six Muslim-majority nations) and Section 6 (120 day suspension of entry of refugees) of President Trump's second "travel ban" Executive Order.  The Executive Order was scheduled to go into effect tomorrow. (See prior posting.)  The lawsuit was brought by the state of Hawaii and by the Imam of the Muslim Association of Hawai‘i.  In State of Hawaii v. Trump, (D HI, March 15, 2017), a Hawaii federal district court concluded that:

Because a reasonable, objective observer—enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance—would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose, the Court finds that Plaintiffs, and Dr. Elshikh in particular, are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim.

The court explained its conclusion in part as follows:

The record before this Court is unique. It includes significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor.... The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts should not look into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government decisionmakers and may not undertake a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.”... The Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry.

According to Hawaii News Now,  President Trump reacted to the ruling during a rally in Nashville, saying in part:

This is, in the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach. This ruling makes us look weak, which by the way, we no longer are, believe me.  We're going to fight this terrible ruling. We're going to fight this case as far as it needs to go, including all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Washington Post reports on today's decision. Josh Blackman's Blog has a lengthy post reviewing cases on the application of the Establishment Clause to immigration law matters and reaching a different conclusion than did the Hawaii court about the Executive Order's constitutionality..

2nd Circuit Hears Arguments On Whether Money Damages Are Available Under RFRA

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday heard oral arguments (MP3 audio of full arguments) in Tanvir v. Comey.  In the case, Muslim plaintiffs sued claiming that when they refused to become FBI informants, partly because doing so would violate their religious beliefs, the government retaliated by placing them on the No-Fly List.  The district court held that RFRA does not provide for money damages against federal officers in their personal capacities. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on the oral arguments in the appeal of that decision.

Muslim Organization Gets Rulings In Its Favor In Zoning Challenge

In an opinion covering two suits-- one by a Sufi Muslim religious organization and the other by the United States--, an Illinois federal district court concluded that the city of Des Plaines, Illinois may well have violated RLUIPA and the 1st and 14th Amendments, as well as state law, in denying a zoning amendment that would allow the Muslim group to use property it had purchased for religious and educational purposes.  In Society of American Bosnians and Herzegovinians v. City of DesPlaines, (ND IL, Feb. 26, 2017), the court denied summary judgment to both sides, but concluded that a reasonable fact finder could infer that the City imposed a substantial burden on the religious organization's free exercise of religion and that the city's parking concerns did not constitute a compelling interest. The court also concluded that the city violated RLUIPA's equal terms provision, and that there is a genuine dispute on whether the city acted with discriminatory intent. Cook County Record reports on the decision.

Kashmir Court Employees Must Offer Regular Prayers At Proper Time To Get Raises

According to WIO News, the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir has told court employees that their annual salary increases will turn on their offering prayers regularly and at the prescribed times. Ibrahim Zia, who was sworn in Saturday as Chief Justice, instructed that offering prayers is now mandatory for all court employees.  He also told employees they must work with dedication, honesty and regularity to ensure speedy justice to the public.

9th Circuit Upholds TRO Against Trump's Travel Ban On Due Process Grounds; Postpones Ruling On Religious Discrimination Issue

The U.S.9th Circuit Court of Appeals today, in a unanimous decision, refused to stay the Washington federal district court's temporary restraining order against enforcement of President Trump's Executive Order titled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States." The opinion in State of Washington v. Trump, (9th Cir., Feb. 9, 2017), concludes that the government "has failed to establish that it will likely succeed on its due process argument in this appeal."  The court put off addressing plaintiffs' religious discrimination arguments, saying:

The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye,Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254-55 (holding that a facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266-68 (1977) (explaining that circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical background of the decision and statements by decision makers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose).

The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions. In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the Government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim, we reserve consideration of these claims until the merits of this appeal have been fully briefed.

Former NYPD Officer Sues Over Anti-Muslim Discrimination

A suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by a former NYPD officer. Plaintiff, a Muslim, claims she suffered retaliation and a hostile work environment when she began to wear a hijab while on duty.  The complaint (full text) in Alamrani v. City of New York, (SD NY, filed 2/2/2017),  alleges in part:

From 2009 until 2012, Plaintiff Alamrani was ... constantly assigned to posts which do not allow her to earn overtime and was called discriminatory names on a daily basis like terrorist and Taliban. Also on a daily basis she would be told that she should not be a police officer, that she should not be allowed to wear the Hijab, that nobody wanted to work with her, that she was a disgrace to the NYPD and that nobody liked her along with other deriding comments.

In late 2012, fellow-officers tried to rip her hijab off her head. In subsequent years she was limited to working the night shift, and other retaliatory actions allegedly occurred. The suit claims violations of Title VII as well as of New York City and New York state law.  The Gothamist reports on the lawsuit.

Trump Travel Ban Will Not Apply To Israelis Born in Covered Nations

A refinement was announced yesterday to President Trump's Executive Order on entry into the U.S. of nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries.  The modification, which essentially carves out an exception for Jews from those nations now living in Israel, may strengthen arguments of opponents who contend that the Executive Order operates de facto as a "Muslim ban."  The U.S. Embassy in Israel yesterday announced:

Travelers with an existing valid visa in their Israeli passport may travel to the United States, even if they are also a national of or born in one of the seven restricted countries (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen). Embassy Tel Aviv will continue to process visa applications and issue visas to eligible visa applicants who apply with an Israeli passport, even if born in, or a dual national of, one of the seven restricted countries. Final authorization to enter the United States is always determined at the port of entry.

According to The Forward, some 140,000 Israelis, most older than 65, were born in the 7 countries covered by the travel ban. Around 45,000 were born in Iran and 53,000 were born in Iraq. No doubt almost all of these are Jews who left Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East to move to Israel. (Background.)

CAIR Sues Over Trump Executive Order

CAIR announced yesterday that it has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of President Trump's recent Executive Order on refugees and on those entering the U.S. from any of seven Muslim-majority countries. The complaint (full text) in Sarsour v. Trump, (ED VA, filed 1/30/2017) alleges that a hidden purpose of the Executive order (which the complaint calls a Muslim Exclusion Order) is to initiate the mass expulsion of Muslims lawfully living in the U.S. by denying them the ability to to renew their lawful status or receive immigration benefits. Plaintiffs claim that the order violates the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses and denies plaintiffs equal protection of the laws.  Politico reports on the lawsuit.

Egyptian Prosecutors Say Insufficient Evidence In Case Of Attack On Christian Woman

According to AP, in Egypt prosecutors have dropped a case against several members of a Muslim mob allegedly involved last May in stripping a Christian woman of her clothes and parading her naked through the streets in a village in Minya province.  The mob was reacting to a rumor that the woman's son had an affair with a Muslim woman.  Prosecutors cited a lack of evidence, but another case growing out of the same violence, which also targeted Christian homes, continues in court.

Minnesota County Rejects Muslim Cemetery

City Pages reports that in Chisago County, Minnesota, county commissioners on Dec. 21 by a vote of 3-2 rejected the recommendation of the county Planning Commission refused to approve the use of 16 acres as a cemetery for the Islamic Community of Bosniaks, a Bosnian congregation with a mosque in Minneapolis-St. Paul.  The vote came after many neighbors expressed opposition on grounds ranging from traffic concerns, to the Muslim practice of burying their dead without a casket, to openly anti-Muslim attitudes.

European Court Rejects Muslim Parents' Complaints About Mixed Swim Lessons In Schools

In Osmanoğlu and Kocabaş v. Switzerland, (ECHR, Jan. 10. 2017) (full text of opinion in French), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment rejected a challenge by Muslim parents to a Swiss educational requirement that their young daughters attend mixed swim lessons.  The Court's press release summarized the decision:

The Court ... observed that the authorities’ refusal to grant ... an exemption from swimming lessons had been an interference with the freedom of religion, that interference being prescribed by law and pursuing a legitimate aim (protection of foreign pupils from any form of social exclusion).

The Court emphasised, however, that school played a special role in the process of social integration, particularly where children of foreign origin were concerned. It observed that the children’s interest in a full education, facilitating their successful social integration according to local customs and mores, took precedence over the parents’ wish to have their daughters exempted from mixed swimming lessons and that the children’s interest in attending swimming lessons was not just to learn to swim, but above all to take part in that activity with all the other pupils, with no exception on account of the children’s origin or their parents’ religious or philosophical convictions.

The Court also noted that the authorities had offered the applicants very flexible arrangements ... such as allowing their daughters to wear a burkini.... The Court accordingly found that by giving precedence to the children’s obligation to follow the full school curriculum and their successful integration over the applicants’ private interest in obtaining an exemption from mixed swimming lessons for their daughters on religious grounds, the domestic authorities had not exceeded the considerable margin of appreciation afforded to them ... which concerned compulsory education.

A Chamber Judgment may be appealed to the Grand Chamber. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Army Grants Greater Dress and Grooming Accommodation For Sikhs and Muslims

The Army yesterday issued Directive 2017-03 revising Army uniform and grooming standards to allow greater religious accommodation, particularly for Sikh and Muslim members of the Army. The new directive allows religious accommodation to be granted at the brigade level to Sikhs to wear a turban or under-turban/patka, with uncut beard and uncut hair.  For Muslims, brigade-level approval is allowed for hijabs. The Directive allows a similar religious accommodation for beards, which would affect Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and perhaps soldiers of other religious faiths.  Certain exceptions apply, particularly in relation to those who need to wear protective masks. Also, without the need for granting of a religious accommodation, the Directive allows women to wear dreadlocks and individuals to wear certain religious bracelets. The Atlantic reports on the new Directive.

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...