President Sends Ramadan Greetings

Yesterday President Biden issued a Statement (full text) extending best wishes from himself and the First Lady to Muslims across the U.S. and around the world as they begin the holy month of Ramadan. The Statement says in part:

Today especially, we remember the universal human right to practice, pray, and preach our faiths peacefully and openly. And together with our partners, the United States stands in solidarity with Muslims who continue to face oppression—including Uyghurs in the People’s Republic of China, Rohingya in Burma, and other Muslim communities facing persecution around the world.

3rd Circuit: Qualified Immunity Can Be Asserted in RFRA Case, But Not in This One

In Mack v. Yost, (3rd Cir., March 21, 2023), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that qualified immunity can be asserted as a defense by prison officers in a suit against them under RFRA, but also concluded that at the summary judgment stage here defendants had not shown facts demonstrating that they are entitled to the defense. The majority summarized its 48-page opinion in part as follows:

When Mack was incarcerated, he worked at the prison commissary, where two supervising prison guards singled him out for harassment because of his Muslim faith. Most significantly, the evidence as it now stands shows that, when Mack would go to the back of the commissary to pray during shift breaks, the guards would follow him and deliberately interfere with his prayers by making noises, talking loudly, and kicking boxes. Fearing retaliation if he continued to pray at work, Mack eventually stopped doing so, but the guards nevertheless engineered his termination from his commissary job. He then sued.

... The guards ... moved for summary judgment ... on the theory that they are entitled to qualified immunity.... [T]he District Court sided with them. It held that ... no clearly established caselaw would have put a reasonable person on notice of the illegality of the guards’ actions. Mack has again appealed.

We agree with Mack that granting summary judgment was wrong. While ... qualified immunity can be asserted as a defense under RFRA, the officers have not – at least on this record – met their burden of establishing that defense.... [E]vidence of the RFRA violation here involved significant, deliberate, repeated, and unjustified interference by prison officials with Mack’s ability to pray as required by his faith. Based on those facts ..., the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. But if different facts come out at trial, the officers may again raise qualified immunity....

Judge Hardiman dissented, saying in part:

Even accepting the majority’s articulation of the right at issue, I would not find it clearly established here.

The cases Mack cites, as the majority notes, are not factually analogous. And the majority identifies no other precedent—from our Court or elsewhere, before or after RFRA was enacted—sufficiently similar to deny Defendants qualified immunity.

Fatwa Council Condemns Hamas Action In Gaza

 The Islamic Fatwa Council, a non-governmental religious body based in Najaf in Iraq, describes itself as

... the first global governing judicial body specializing in deducing Fatwas from indisputable and moderate Islamic references. The IFC transcends borders and continents as its jurists and legal scholars come from all Islamic denominations and sects, reinforcing the credibility and legality of the issued verdict. It is a representative legal body of all sects of Islam, critical for denouncing and opposing all forms of violent verdicts and hateful public statements.

Last week, the Council issued a Fatwa condemning Hamas as a terrorist organization. Fatwa F2301 (full text) provides in part:

 ... The Islamic Fatwa Council has reviewed extensive documentation of Hamas behavior toward Palestinians in Gaza.... Our findings ... result in our ruling that:

A) Hamas bears responsibility for its own reign of corruption and terror against Palestinian civilians within Gaza;

B) It is prohibited to pray for, join, support, finance, or fight on behalf of Hamas-- an entity that adheres to the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood movement.

Furthermore, the Islamic Fatwa Council joins the UAE Fatwa Council and the Council of Senior Scholars of Saudi Arabia in declaring the Muslim Brotherhood movement and all of its branches as terrorist organizations that defame Islam and operate in opposition to mainstream Islamic unity, theology and jurisprudence.

Fox News reports on the Council's action. Fatwa Council officials comment on the Fatwa.

India's Supreme Court Rejects Petition on Renaming of Historical Cultural Religious Places

In Upadhyay v. Union of India, (Sup. Ct. India, Feb. 27, 2023), the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition brought by a leader of a Hindu nationalist party seeking to require the government to research and publish the "original names of ‘ancient historical cultural religious places’, named after barbaric foreign invaders." According to the court:

[Petitioner] invokes the right to dignity as flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that there is his fundamental right to culture which is protected in Articles 19 and 29. Again, he refers to Article 25 as the source of his right to religion and in regard to his fundamental right to know, he leans on Article 19(1)(a). He also has brought up the concept of ‘sovereignty’ being compromised by the continuous use of the names of the ‘brutal invaders’....

Rejecting petitioner's contention, the court said in part:

India, that is ‘Bharat’ in terms of the preamble, is a secular country....

The present and future of a country cannot remain a prisoner of the past. The governance of Bharat must conform to Rule of law, secularism, constitutionalism of which Article 14 stands out as the guarantee of both equality and fairness in the State’s action....

VOA has a lengthy background article discussing the case, explaining in part:

Beginning in the 12th century, a succession of Muslim empires — most notably the Delhi sultanate and the Mughal empire — dominated the Indian subcontinent for almost seven centuries. During Muslim rule, the growth of trade and commerce was accompanied by the brisk growth of towns and cities across the country.

The Muslim rulers established many towns, naming them after themselves or their ancestors....

In the last few years, several places with Muslim-sounding names have been renamed by BJP governments....

With the rise of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Hindutva — nationalist groups — have increased demands for renaming many Muslim-sounding locations.

FBI Agents Have Qualified Immunity in Suit by Muslims Placed on No-Fly List for Refusing to Spy on Their Communities

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court (see prior posting), a New York federal district court in Tanvir v. Tanzin, (SD NY, Feb. 24, 2023), held that FBI agents who placed or kept plaintiffs on the federal no-fly list in retaliation for their refusal to act as informants on their Muslim communities have qualified immunity in a suit for damages under RFRA. Plaintiffs contend that gathering information on fellow Muslims contravenes their religious beliefs.  The court concluded that FBI agents had not violated a clearly established law, saying in part:

The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs, who claim that, despite never posing a threat to aviation security, they were, for years, unable to visit ailing loved ones outside of the United States, burdened financially with the loss of job opportunities which required them to travel, and repeatedly forced to endure the basic indignity of being denied boarding passes for flights to which they had legitimately purchased tickets. Accepting their allegations as true, Plaintiffs were subjected to this treatment by way of the FBI’s misuse of the No Fly List simply because they were Muslim, and because they refused to spy on other members of their faith. 

Nevertheless—and notwithstanding varied criticisms of the doctrine of qualified immunity, the Court is required to apply the law faithfully to the issues before it....

At the time of Defendants’ alleged activity, no federal court had addressed claims—let alone actually held—that law enforcement pressuring individuals to inform on members of their religious communities through retaliatory or coercive means substantially burdened their religious exercise in violation of RFRA. Plaintiffs point to four cases in an attempt to make out their claim of clearly established law at the time of the alleged violations, but each of those cases are plainly distinguishable.....

Prof Sues Hamline University in Dispute Over Muslim Art Slides Shown in Art History Course

A great deal of national attention has been focused on the dispute at Hamline University over the school's refusal to renew the contract of adjunct Art History faculty member Erika Lopez Prater. A Muslim student (who was also president of the Muslim Student Association) complained to University administrators that in an online class on Islamic art Prater displayed slides of two classic paintings of the Prophet Muhammad. Because of the complaint, the University informed Prater that the class she had been scheduled to teach the following semester has been cancelled. Last week, Prater filed suit against the University in a Minnesota trial court.  The complaint (full text) in Prater v. Trustees of Hamline University of Minnesota, (MN Dist. Ct., filed 1/17/2023) alleges religious discrimination, defamation, breach of contract as well as several other causes of action.  It alleges in part:

Instead of recognizing that López Prater had displayed the images of the Prophet Muhammad for a proper academic purpose, Hamline decided to impose [the Muslim student's] interpretation of Islam on all Hamline employees and students....

[University Vice President]  Everett engaged in libel on Hamline’s behalf, publicly defaming López Prater via email to all Hamline employees and students. The email ... states in relevant part:

Several weeks ago, Hamline administration was made aware of an incident that occurred in an online class. Certain actions taken in that class were undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic....

In a January 13 statement, the University released a statement saying in part:

In the interest of hearing from and supporting our Muslim students, language was used that does not reflect our sentiments on academic freedom. Based on all that we have learned, we have determined that our usage of the term “Islamophobic” was therefore flawed. We strongly support academic freedom for all members of the Hamline community. We also believe that academic freedom and support for students can and should co-exist. How this duality is exemplified on our campuses, especially in the current multicultural environment in which we live, is an exciting, robust, and honest conversation for academics, intellectuals, students, and the public to have.

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

4th Circuit: Muslim Inmate's Free Exercise Claim Rejected; Establishment Clause Claim Remanded

In Firewalker-Fields v. Lee, (4th Cir., Jan. 17, 2023), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a Muslim inmate's 1st Amendment Free Exercise claim. Plaintiff alleged that he did not have access in jail to Friday Islamic prayers. The court said in part:

Middle River had three rules in place that kept Firewalker-Fields from attending in-person Friday Prayer: no inmate led groups; no maximum-security prisoners allowed in any in-person groups; and prisoner services and classes by volunteer or donation only. Those rules are reasonably related to justifiable prison goals and therefore do not offend the Free Exercise Clause....

... [E]ach of Middle River’s policies is reasonably related to the legitimate penological purposes of security and resource-allocation; despite the jail’s policies, Firewalker-Fields still had other ways to practice his religion, even if they were not perfect; Firewalker-Fields’s preferred solutions would have impaired the jail’s safety and its efficient operation; and Firewalker-Fields failed to propose easy and obvious alternative policies that would have solved those issues while allowing more room for his religious practice. Taken together, this shows that each challenged policy is reasonably related to legitimate penological goals and are justifiable under Turner.

The court also vacated and remanded plaintiff's Establishment Clause challenge to the jail's broadcast of Christian services every Sunday on televisions throughout the facility.  Noting the Supreme Court's recent repudiation of the Lemon test and adoption of a test based on historical practice and understanding, the court said in part:

The district court should have the initial responsibility of working through Firewalker-Fields’s Establishment Clause challenge under Kennedy.

New Michigan City Ordinance Permits Animal Sacrifice

 As reported by the Detroit Free Press, the Hamtramck, Michigan City Council on Tuesday by a vote of 3-2 voted to amend the city's Animal Ordinance to permit animal sacrifices on residential property. The new Ordinance (full text) provides in part:

Any person wishing to conduct an animal sacrifice for religious purposes must notify the City by reporting such intention to the Clerk’s Office at least one week prior to the date of animal sacrifice;

(1) Such person shall provide the exact date and time of animal sacrifice to the City and shall schedule a time for the City to conduct post sacrifice inspection of the site to ensure, in the opinion of the inspector, that the area was properly cleaned and sanitized after the sacrifice was concluded.

(2) Such person shall pay the City a fee, as set by city council annually, for the sanitation inspection. Such fee shall be paid at the time when such person informs the City of the sacrifice as required above.

(B) Any and all actions necessary to restrict the act of sacrifice from public viewing must be taken without exception. The public, for the purposes of this subsection, shall be defined as any individual who has not formally indicated their intention to view the animal sacrifice.

Hamtramck has a large Muslim population and all members of City Council are Muslim.  Some Muslims sacrifice animals for Eid al-Adha.

Indiana Court Enjoins Abortion Restrictions as Violating State's RFRA

In Anonymous Plaintiff 1 v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, (IN Super. Ct., Dec. 2, 2022), an Indiana state trial court preliminarily enjoined the state from enforcing Indiana's law restricting abortions against plaintiffs whose religious beliefs permit or require abortions in situations not allowed under Indiana law.  Plaintiffs were Jewish and Muslim, and one plaintiff of no specific denomination. The court, invoking Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, said in part:

26. This Court finds that the Plaintiffs practices regarding abortion are religious in nature: they have established that, under circumstances that would be prohibited by S.E.A. 1, their religious beliefs would compel them to have abortions....

43. The undisputed evidence establishes that the Plaintiffs do not share the State’s belief that life begins at fertilization or that abortion constitutes the intentional taking of a human life. To the contrary, they have different religious beliefs about when life begins, and they believe that under certain circumstances not permitted by S.E.A. 1, they would be required to receive abortions. Under the law, the Court finds these are sincere religious beliefs.

44. The State has not asserted a compelling interest in refusing to provide an exception to the Plaintiffs if the law were otherwise enforceable. Indiana has no interest in violating the sincere religious beliefs and exercise of the Plaintiffs....

49. The Plaintiffs argue that S.E.A. 1 is not narrowly tailored and is underinclusive, in that it provides exceptions for some abortions—though not religious exceptions—in circumstances that directly contravene the State’s purported interest. 

50. The State argues that abortion, regardless of gestational age of the zygote, embryo, or fetus, is the killing of an innocent human being, and its interest is in preventing that killing....

51. However, the statute explicitly allows abortions in circumstances that the State acknowledges constitute the “killing” of an “innocent human being”: for example, where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest and where the fetus is viable but will not live beyond three months after birth.

A different state trial court has previously enjoined enforcement of the Act on state constitutional grounds. (See prior posting.)

Indianapolis Star reports on the decision. [Thanks to Daniel Conkle via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Suit Claims School's Restroom Policy Burdens Muslim and Christian Religious Beliefs

Suit was filed this week in an Ohio federal district court challenging a school district's rule change that allows transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms that conform to their gender identity.  Plaintiffs, who identify as Muslims and Christians, claim, among other contentions, that the new rules violate their free exercise and equal protection rights, their parental rights and Title IX.  The complaint (full text) in Doe No. 1 v. Bethel Local School District Board of Educaton, (SD OH, filed 11/22/2022), alleges in part:

67. The [Muslim] Plaintiffs ... sincerely believe that Allah makes men and women in the womb as distinct and separate genders. Allah desires modesty and separateness between the sexes. Satan attempts to entice humans to change and disobey what Allah has created and desires, and believers are to stay true to Allah’s creation and commands....

68. Muslim parents are responsible for raising their children in the faith including its morals and values....  This is a fundamental part of the parents’ exercise of their own faith. The Board is imposing a substantial burden on the free exercise of that faith by placing the children in intimate facilities with members of the opposite biological sex....

79. [Seven of the] Plaintiffs ... are all active members of the Christian community.

80. For thousands of years, Judeo-Christianity has taught that their identity as people comes from God, who made human beings in his image—male and female. See, e.g., Genesis 1:26-28; Matthew 19:4-6. Therefore, a human being’s dignity comes from the image of God himself. And God’s fashioning of a human being as a man or woman at birth is a fundamental part of that dignity. One cannot impose on that dignity without transgressing the fundamental core of a Christian.

Fox News reports on the lawsuit.

European Court: Human Rights Convention Violated When French Authorities Failed to Assure Respect for Foster Child's Birth Religion

In Loste v. France, (ECHR, Nov. 3, 2022) (full text in French) (Press Release summary in English), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber judgment held that France's child welfare service violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it failed to assure that a Jehovah's Witness foster family was respecting the Muslim beliefs of its foster child's birth family. The Court's decision also dealt with a separate issue--French authorities' failure to protect the foster child from sexual abuse by her foster father. Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

European Commission Holding Conference on Halal and Kosher Slaughter

Jerusalem Post reports that today in Brussels, the European Commission, in partnership with the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the U.N. Commissioner for Equality, will hold a conference on "Freedom of religion with regard to religious slaughter." According to the European Commission:

The conference will bring together representatives of the European Union (EU) Member States and other national authorities, special envoys and coordinators on combating antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred, representatives of national Jewish, Muslim and other religious communities, international organizations and independent experts.

Religious Questioning Of Muslim Travelers By Border Officers Upheld

In Kariye v. Mayorkas, (CD CA, Oct. 12, 2022), three Muslim plaintiffs sued the Department of Homeland Security alleging that border officers routinely and intentionally single out Muslim-American travelers to demand they answer religious questions. The court, in a 71-page opinion in its official format, first dismissed plaintiffs' Establishment Clause challenge. Applying the Supreme Court's test articulated in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the court said in part:

The court finds substantial legal authority supporting the government's historically broad authority to implement security measures at the border.... Additionally, the court finds substantial authority holding that maintaining border security is a compelling government interest.

The court rejected plaintiffs' free exercise claim, finding that plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged a substantial burden on their religious exercise. It additionally concluded that even if there was a substantial burden, officers' questioning was narrowly tailored to advance a compelling governmental interest in protecting borders and preventing potential terrorism.

The court also rejected freedom of association, retaliation, equal protection and RFRA challenges to practices of border officers.

Court Rejects Religious Defense To Illegal Possession Of Firearm Charges

In United States v. Harper, (ND IA, Sept. 30, 2022), an Iowa federal district court refused to dismiss indictments charging defendant with  possession of a firearm by a felon and unlawful drug user.  Defendant argued that he is a Muslim who practices Sharia Law which calls for armed self-defense, including the possession of a firearm. The court, accepting the Report and Recommendation [Lexis link] of a magistrate judge, said in part:

There is no less restrictive means to achieve the Government’s compelling interest in uniformly applying gun laws for public safety than prosecuting Harper.

Suit By Mosque Over Zoning Denials Can Move Ahead

In Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, (ED MI, Sept. 28., 2022), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss RLUIPA and constitutional claims against the city of Troy, Michigan. Plaintiff alleged wrongful denial of necessary zoning variances so plaintiff could use its property for Muslim religious services and classes. The court said in part:

Plaintiff has identified pieces of circumstantial evidence that may lead a fact-finder to conclude Troy acted with discriminatory animus towards Muslims. Thus, a question of fact on this claim exists and summary judgment is denied....

[T]here exists a question of fact for trial as to whether ZO § 6.21 was actually applied in a neutral manner or whether it was applied for the purpose of excluding Muslim assemblies from Troy...

The record contains ample evidence to support Adam’s contention that Troy’s stated reasons for denying Adam’s variance application were pretextual and intended to prevent Adam from opening a mosque in the City. Thus, a factfinder could conclude that Adam’s constitutional rights were violated.

The court previously concluded that the city had violated the equal terms and substantial burden provisions of RLUIPA, and now ordered a hearing on damages for those violations. Detroit News reports on the decision.

Qualified Immunity Denied In Muslim Woman's Challenge To Jail's Booking Photo Policy

In Chaaban v. City of Detroit, Michigan Department of Corrections, (ED MI, Sept. 2, 2022), a Michigan federal district court denied a motion in a RLUIPA case for reconsideration of the denial of qualified immunity to corrections officials who forced a Muslim woman to remove her hijab for a booking photograph. The court concluded that it was premature to grant immunity on a motion to dismiss, saying in part:

[D]iscovery is needed to determine “whether the state of the law . . . gave [the defendants] fair warning that [the plaintiff’s] alleged treatment was unconstitutional.”... Plaintiff plausibly alleged in her complaint that prison officers threatened to make Plaintiff “sleep on the concrete floor of the booking cell without a bed, blanket, mattress or pillow” if she did not remove her hijab.... Taking this and other allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint as true ... the Court properly determined that qualified immunity is not appropriate at this time.

Biden's Send Greetings To Those Celebrating Eid al-Adha

Yesterday the Muslim world celebrated Eid al-Adha. Yesterday the White House issued a Statement (full text) from the President sending greetings from himself and Jill Biden to all of those celebrating the festival.  The Statement says in part:

The Eid traditions and Hajj rituals that commemorate the devotion of Abraham and his son to God are an opportunity for Muslims to renew their faith, and a reminder of the common roots of the world’s great Abrahamic religions. And the act of sharing the sacrifice with those less fortunate in service of God mirrors our common commitment to work together to meet the challenges of our world today.

Biden Appoints Imam To USCIRF

Last Friday, President Biden appointed Mohamed Hag Magid to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Imam Magid, among other things, is Executive Religious Director of All Dulles Area Muslim Society Center, is Chairman of International Interfaith Peace Corps and is the former President of the Islamic Society of North America. USCIRF is comprised of 9 commissioners, 3 of whom are appointed by the President.

French High Court Says City Must Ban Burkinis In Municipal Pools

 CNN reports that on Tuesday, France's highest administrative court, the Council of State, held that the city of Grenoble cannot permit Muslim women to wear the full-length "burkini" bathing suit in its municipal swimming pools. The court said that doing so would compromise principles of religious neutrality and "the equal treatment of users." The court went on to say that the city's initial decision to permit burkinis did so to satisfy religious demands. A French anti-separatism law passed last year prohibits actions whose "manifest objective is to give in to sectarian demands with religious aims."

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the Council of State's opinion in the case.

9th Circuit OK's Refusal To House Muslim Inmate Only With Co-Religionists

 In Al Saud v. Days, (9th Cir., June 8, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims under RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment brought by a Muslim inmate who sought to be housed only with other Muslim inmates. He contends he is currently unable to pray five times per day as required by his religion because inmates with whom he is now housed harass him when he prays. The court summarized the holding in part as follows:

Al Saud’s RLUIPA claim failed because denying his request to be housed only with Muslims was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. The panel concluded that the outcome of this case was largely controlled by Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2015), which held that a prison could deny a prisoner’s religious accommodation when he sought to be housed with only white people. Because both race and religion are suspect classes, the likelihood that equal protection liability would flow from housing prisoners based on religion was substantially identical to the likelihood of liability for housing prisoners based on race and, therefore, was sufficient to serve as a compelling interest.