Bidens Extend Wishes for Eid Mubarak To Muslims Around The World

The Muslim festival of Eid al-Fitr began at sundown last night. President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden issued a Statement (full text) yesterday extending warmest wishes and Eid Mubarak to those celebrating the end of Ramadan. The Statement says in part:

This year, as we mark Eid al-Fitr, we hold in our hearts the millions of displaced persons and refugees around the globe who are spending this sacred holiday separated from their families and unsure of their future, but still hoping for a brighter tomorrow. As a nation we must always keep faith with those seeking a better life, and uphold our commitment to serving as a beacon of hope for oppressed people around the world. And, Muslims across the United States celebrate Eid, let us renew our dedication to our foundational commitment to respecting all faiths and beliefs.

The President and First Lady later today will host a reception in the East Room to celebrate Eid.

UPDATE: Here are the President's remarks at the White House Eid reception.

British Tribunal Rejects Complaint Of Muslim Employee Over Use Of "Allahu Akbar" In Security Test

In Ali v Heathrow Express Operating Company Ltd., (EAT, April 7, 2022), the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an Employment Tribunal's dismissal of an Equality Act religious harassment complaint brought by a Muslim employee of the Heathrow Express train service. At issue was the conduct of a Heathrow Airport employee who duties involved carrying out security checks. According to the Tribunal:

[T]his involved creating and leaving suspicious objects to test how security officers responded to them.  In August 2017 it carried out a test using a bag containing a box, some electric cabling and, visible at the top, a piece of paper with the words “Allahu Akbar” written in Arabic. 

The Tribunal below held:

We conclude that in the circumstances that existed at the time it was not reasonable for the claimant to take offence at this incident. He should have understood that in adding this phrase Mr Rutherford’s team were not seeking to associate Islam with terrorism - instead they were seeking to produce a suspicious item based on possible threats to the airport.

In affirming the Employment Tribunal, the appellate court said in part:

It is not said, on appeal, that the tribunal should have concluded that these words had been chosen gratuitously with the deliberate purpose of causing upset....

We understand that a strand of the claimant’s case was that the use of this phrase was particularly insensitive, and offensive to him, not merely because it referenced Islam, but because of the sacred nature and significance of this particular phrase in religious observance.  While we do not accept that it was perverse not to regard the conduct of the second respondent as amounting in itself to the stereotyping of Muslims generally as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers, we do understand that he also says that, because such stereotyping is a significant and serious blight on the lives of Muslims, the use of these words in this context was particularly charged for him, more than, say, the use of an animal-rights slogan co-opted by some terrorists would be for a vegan.  However, we cannot say that these features point to the conclusion that the tribunal could only properly have found that the claimant’s perception that the conduct had the effects on him of the kind referred to in section 26(1)(b) was a reasonable one.

Law & Religion UK reports on the decision.

NY AG Orders Anti-Muslim Group To Stop Spying On The Muslim Community

 In an April 1 press release, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that the office's Civil Right Bureau has sent a Cease and Desist Notification (full text) to an "anti-Muslim hate group" warning it to stop its discriminatory surveillance of the Muslim community. The Notification says in part:

The New York State Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has reviewed reports alleging that your organization, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), used paid informants and infiltrators to spy on Muslim houses of worship, Muslim advocacy groups, and prominent Muslim leaders. You are advised that such conduct could violate the New York Civil Rights Law and other state and federal laws. You are hereby instructed to cease and desist any ongoing or contemplated unlawful espionage operations against Muslims and Muslim organizations within the State of New York. Discrimination has no place in New York. The OAG will use every tool at its disposal to protect Muslim New Yorkers against unlawful intimidation campaigns.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Suit Says Border Agents Questioned Muslims About Their Religious Practices

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court by three Muslim Americans who claim that they were asked religiously intrusive questions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents upon their return from international travel. Among the questions were: “How often do you pray?” “Do you attend mosque?” “Which mosque do you attend?” “Are you Sunni or Shi’a?”  The complaint (full text) in Kariye v. Mayorkas, (CD CA, filed 3/24/2022), contends in part:

Religious questioning such as this violates the U.S. Constitution. It furthers no valid—let alone compelling—government interest, and it is an affront to the First Amendment freedoms of religion and association. Moreover, because Defendants specifically target Muslim Americans for such questioning, they also violate the First and Fifth Amendments’ protections against unequal treatment on the basis of religion. Just as border officers may not single out Christian Americans to ask what denomination they are, which church they attend, and how regularly they pray, singling out Muslim Americans for similar questions is unconstitutional....

 This practice also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

 Wall Street Journal reports on the lawsuit.

Mahr Did Not Set Upper Limit Of Amounts Awardable To Wife In Divorce

In Parbeen v. Bari, (FL App., March 16, 2022), a Florida state appellate court held that a traditional Islamic prenuptial agreement-- a Mahr-- in setting an amount payable upon divorce did not eliminate the wife's right to temporary support, alimony, equitable distribution of property and attorneys' fees under Florida law. While the Mahr's secular terms are enforceable under Florida contract law, the Mahr did not set the maximum amount payable to the wife. [Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy via Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Indian Court Upholds Hijab Ban In Schools and Colleges

As reported by CBS News:

The top court in the southern Indian state of Karnataka on Tuesday upheld a ban on hijabs, or Muslim headscarves, in schools and colleges in a ruling that could deepen the religious divide in the country.

In Resham v. State of Karnataka, (High Ct. Karnataka, March 15, 2022), a 3-judge panel of the High Court of the Indian state of Karnataka in a 129-page opinion upheld the ban, saying in part:

wearing of hijab by Muslim women does not form a part of essential religious practice in Islamic faith.

First Muslim Appointed To Permanent Seat On Israel's Supreme Court

According to the Jerusalem Post, in Israel yesterday the Judicial Selection Committee appointed four new justices to the Supreme Court, one of whom is the first Muslim to serve as a permanent Justice.  The new Justice,  Khaled Kabub, fills the "Arab-Israeli seat" on the court which previously has been held by Christian Arabs (except for a temporary 9-month appointment in 1999 of Abdel Rahman Zoabi). Since 2003, Kabub has served as a judge on the Tel Aviv District Court where he has handled primarily cases involving economic crimes.

10th Circuit: Muslim Terrorism Inmate Can Sue Under RFRA For Damages

In Ajaj v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, (10th Cir., Feb. 9, 2022), the U.S. 10th circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Colorado federal district court's dismissal of a religious freedom suit brought by an inmate who is serving a sentence of 114 years for terrorist acts related to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The court summarized its holding:

Ahmad Ajaj, a practicing Muslim, ... sued to obtain injunctive relief against BOP and damages from BOP officials [alleging] violations of his rights to free exercise of religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).... He contends that the district court erred by holding (1) that his claim against the BOP for denial of his right to group prayer was moot and (2) that RFRA did not provide a claim for damages against government officials in their individual capacities.... [W]e ... reverse the challenged rulings. The mootness ruling was based on a misconception of the evidence....  And the Supreme Court has now ruled in Tanzin v. Tanvir ... that damages claims are permissible under RFRA.... We reject Mr. Ajaj’s contention that the doctrine of qualified immunity is inapplicable to RFRA claims, but we decline to resolve whether the individual defendants in this case have shown entitlement to qualified immunity, leaving that matter to the district court in the first instance.

Nevada Prison's Ban On Prayer Oil Violates RLUIPA

In Johnson v. Baker, (9th Cir., Jan. 26, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Nevada prison system violated RLUIPA when it banned a Muslim inmate from possessing a small amount of scented oil in his cell for use when he prayed, saying in part:

Given that Nevada’s prison regulation prevents Johnson from praying according to his faith, it has substantially burdened his religious exercise. Nevada also fails to show that its regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling interest....

Nevada argues that prison officials depend on their sense of smell to detect contraband and scented oil could be used to cover the smell of contraband, such as drugs....

Nevada’s prison regulations as to other scented products undermines the State’s argument. It’s undisputed that Nevada prisoners may keep many scented products in their cells....  [T]hese products all have “strong scents” and are available to purchase in larger quantities than the half-ounce of scented oil sought by Johnson.

Muslim Woman Sues Gun Range For Religious Discrimination

A religious discrimination suit was filed yesterday in a Missouri federal district court against a "faith, family and freedom" based indoor gun range that refuses admission to Muslim women wearing hijabs. The complaint (full text) in Barakat v. Brown, (WD MO, filed 12/28/2021) alleges that this policy of the Frontier Justice gun range, owned by a Christian family, violates the public accommodation anti-discrimination provisions in Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  CAIR issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Greyhound Settles EEOC Religious Accommodation Lawsuit

The EEOC announced this week that Greyhound Lines has agreed to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit brought against it on behalf of a Muslim woman who, after being accepted into the bus line's driver training program, was told she could not wear an abaya. The abaya is a loose fitting outer garment worn because of religious beliefs regarding modesty. Greyhound will pay $45,000 in damages, and will train its human resource and hiring personnel on handling of religious accommodations.

Virginia County Allows Muslim Cemetery, Settling DOJ and Private Litigation

The  Justice Department yesterday announced that it had filed a Notice of Dismissal in United States v. Stafford County Virginia, (ED VA, Oct. 14, 2021). The Department said that it is dismissing its RLUIPA lawsuit because the county has repealed the ordinances that prevented the All Muslim Association of America (AMAA) from developing a religious cemetery for Muslims. the county has also approved a site plan for the new cemetery and has settled a private lawsuit by agreeing to pay AMAA $500,000 in damages.

Muslim Women Can Move Ahead With Suit Challenging NYPD Arrest Photo Policy

In Clark v. City of New York, (SD NY, Sept. 17, 2021), a New York federal district court allowed two Muslim women to move ahead with their lawsuit under the 1st Amendment and RLUIPA challenging the New York City police department's requirement that they remove their hijab when sitting for an arrest photo. The court said in part:

Allowing an arrestee to maintain her ordinary appearance in a Booking Photograph does not undermine the legitimate interest of keeping a photographic record of arrestees... In fact, photographing the arrestee in her ordinary appearance likely furthers law enforcement’s interest in identification—rather than impeding such interest—because arrestees who have a sincere religious belief that requires them to wear a head covering are likely to be wearing that same covering when the need to identify them arises.

The court also refused to dismiss one of the plaintiff's assertion of a private right of action under the New York constitution. 

Muslim Police Officer Can Move Ahead With Complaint On Accommodation Of Beard

In Hashmi v. City of Jersey City, (D NJ, Sept. 7, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court allowed a Sunni Muslim police officer to move ahead on some, but not all, of his challenges to a Jersey City Police Department order. The Order (later amended) required officers who wear beards for religious reasons to maintain them at no more than one-half inch in length unmanicured. Plaintiff claims this conflicts with an accommodation letter previously issued to him which requires his beard to be "neat and clean." He also claims subsequent harassment and retaliation. The court rejected plaintiff's free exercise claim, finding that the Order is neutral and generally applicable. The court also rejected plaintiff's equal protection challenge, and his Title VII religious discrimination claim. However the court permitted him to move ahead with his Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim and his Title VII and state law retaliation claims.

10th Circuit: Muslim Inmate Can Move Ahead On Claim That He Was Forced To Shave Beard

In Ashaheed v. Currington, (10th Cir., Aug. 10, 2021), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Colorado federal district court's dismissal of a Muslim inmate's free exercise and equal protection claims. The Colorado corrections center requires inmates to shave their beards at intake but provides an exemption for inmates who wear beards for religious reasons. Plaintiff says he repeatedly asserted this exemption, but that Defendant-- motivated by anti-Muslim animus-- forced him to shave.

The court rejected Defendant's qualified immunity defense, saying: "The constitutional violation alleged here was clear beyond debate." The court concluded in part:

Sergeant Currington’s refusal to follow the Center’s beard-shaving policy and grant Mr. Ashaheed a religious exemption, when he previously accommodated the religious needs of non-Muslims under the Center’s personal-effects policy, shows that he burdened Mr. Ashaheed’s religion in a discriminatory and nonneutral manner.

Bidens Send Eid Greetings

Today is Eid al-Adha. Yesterday President and Mrs. Biden issued a statement (full text) sending greetings to those celebrating the holiday. The statement reads in part:

The Hajj, which convenes people from all walks of life and from every corner of the globe, is also a reminder of Islam’s commitment to equality and the shared roots of the world’s Abrahamic faiths. The United States is committed to working with the international community to emerge stronger from the pandemic, and thousands of Muslim Americans are among those eager to perform the pilgrimage next year, God willing.

Enforcement of Islamic Pre-Nup Challenged On Appeal

An appeal was filed last month in a Texas state appellate court challenging a trial court's enforcement of an arbitration clause in an Islamic pre-nuptial agreement. The petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Ayad, (TX App., filed 6/22/2021) (full text) contends that the agreement is void as a matter of law and against public policy, and was involuntarily executed. The petition contends in part:

The trial court clearly abused its discretion in failing to properly analyze the law when it validated and enforced the Islamic Pre-Nuptial Agreement and compelled arbitration in front of a Muslim Court applying solely Islamic Law....

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via  Religionlaw for the lead.]

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.

First Muslim Article 3 Judge Is Confirmed

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate by a vote of 81-16, confirmed  Zahid N. Quraishi to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey.  Quraishi is currently a federal magistrate judge.  As reported by NPR, Quraishi will be the first Muslim to be confirmed as an Article 3 federal judge.

Meat Packing Company Settles EEOC Suit Charging Discrimination Against Somali Muslim Employees

The EEOC announced yesterday that the meat processing company JBS Swift & Co. has settled an EEOC lawsuit against it that charged discrimination against Muslim employees who were immigrants from Somalia and were black. The EEOC had charged that the prayer obligations of Muslim employees were not accommodated, and that these employees were harassed when they tried to pray during regular breaks and at other times. It also charged that JBS shut off water fountains during Ramadan 2008, which stopped Muslim employees from getting water after fasting and from washing before prayers. JBS will pay up to $5.5 million to the 300 employees who are eligible to share in the judgment. According to the EEOC:

JBS will make all former employees covered under the decree eligible for rehire. It will review, update, and post its anti-discrimination policies; maintain a 24-hour hotline for reporting discrimination; investigate employee complaints; support a diversity committee; and provide annual trainings to all employees on the laws prohibiting employment discrimination. JBS also must provide clean, quiet, and appropriate locations other than bathrooms for employees’ religious observances, including daily prayers, and must also allow employees to use locker rooms or other locations that do not pose a safety risk for observation of their religious practices.