Popularity of Kosher Food Requests In Prisons

Tablet Magazine yesterday reports on the surprising popularity of kosher food requests in prisons, saying in part:

According to the 2013 numbers, Jews are seven percent of the state prison population of New York; the fourth largest religious denomination after Protestant, Catholic and Muslim (in that order). If the numbers were accurate it would mean that nearly twice as many Jews were locked up that year as members of the Nation of Islam. But the truth is that many inmates lie and claim to be Jewish once they enter the prison system. And why do they do it? Not as a hedge against the impending arrival of the Moshiach. They do it for the kosher food.

NY Quaker Marriage Provision Cannot Be Limited To Quakers

In N.B. v. F.W., (NY County Sup Ct, Jan. 4, 2019), a New York state trial court rejected a husband's argument in a divorce proceeding that no valid marriage existed between the parties. The couple, who lived in New York throughout their 13-year purported marriage, had obtained a "self-uniting" marriage license from Pennsylvania and had a wedding ceremony in France at which the couple solemnized their own marriage in the presence of two witnesses and guests. The wife argued, among other things, that the marriage was valid under New York Domestic Relations Law Sec. 12 which recognizes self-uniting ceremonies among Friends or Quakers if solemnized in the manner practiced by their societies. In response, the husband argued that neither party to the marriage was a member of the Friends or Quakers.  The court responded:

The court's ability to hold the marriage as valid or invalid may not, however, depend on the parties' religious affiliation to members of the Friends or Quakers, or on the parties' level of religious observance. To hold otherwise would violate the First Amendment....

The court cannot deny a benefit or right to a person for not following any particular religious practice. To do so would violate the Establishment Clause. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 596 (1992). Husband's argument would prefer religiously observant Quakers over individuals such as the parties here (or vice-versa, since Husband is seeking to "free" himself from a finding of a valid marriage that would have attached to him if he were religiously observant, under his argument).

NY Catholic Schools Say They Will Ignore New State Review System

As previously reported,  last month the New York State Education Department issued guidelines for Substantial Equivalency Review of the curriculum of non-public religious and independent schools.  According to the Albany Times Union earlier this week:

In a major rebuke to the state, leaders of New York's more than 500 Catholic schools say they will boycott a proposed new review system in which local public school officials are supposed to inspect the parochial schools and determine whether they offer a “substantially equivalent” education.

“The parents who choose our schools can have great confidence in the academic rigor of our schools,” said James Cultrara, executive secretary of the state Council of Catholic School Superintendents.

But, he added, “We simply cannot accept a competing school having authority over whether our schools can operate.”

Earlier, some Hasidic Jewish yeshivas had expressed defiance of the new rules. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead].

Hasidic Jews Sue Town Over Zoning Barriers

Suit was filed this week in a New York federal district court against the village of Airmont for its actions in attempting to prevent expansion of its Hasidic Jewish community.  The complaint (full text) in Congregation of Ridnik v. Village of Airmont, (SD NY, filed 12/10/2018), alleges in part:

For Hasidic Jews living in Airmont, seeking the Village’s approval for religious gatherings places applicants in a process reminiscent of the curse of Tantalus. At great expense, applicants prepare elaborate plans in order to obtain approval, which the Village uniformly declines to provide. Instead, the Village dangles promises that the applications will be approved in the future if certain modifications are made, only to then yank any hope of approval away even after the applicants make the requested modifications. Instead of providing an approval or denial, the Village requires applicants to satisfy new conditions, often citing purported problems with the applicants’ plans on which Airmont officials had already signed-off.

Leading Hasidic Rabbi Defies New York Regulations On Yeshiva Curriculum

As previously reported, last month the New York State Education Department issued new guidelines for review of the curriculum of non-public religious and independent schools, under statutory provisions that primarily impact Hasidic Jewish yeshivas. The Forward reported last week that a leading Hasidic rabbi, Satmar Rebbe Aron Teitelbaum, is defying the New York City and New York State Education Departments, telling his followers in a speech:

We will not comply and we will not follow the state education commissioner under any circumstances. These are our words for the state education commissioner.

New York Issues Regulations For Review Of Religious Schools' Curricula

On Nov. 20, the New York State Education Department issued guidelines for Substantial Equivalency Review of the curriculum of non-public religious and independent schools (full text), along with related materials.  As reported by The Forward:

The regulations come years into a growing controversy over whether New York’s Hasidic yeshivas are providing education that is substantially equivalent to that offered in public schools, as is required by state law....

The guidelines ... are based on a controversial law passed as part of last summer’s budget deal.... The new law says that the state education commissioner, rather than local school districts, will determine equivalency for schools that meet certain criteria that were drawn only to include Hasidic yeshivas.

(See prior related posting.)

Hasidic Jewish School Sues For Right To Expand

A lawsuit was filed this week in a New York federal district court against the Village of Airmont charging that the village and its school board are engaged in a coordinated effort to prevent the local Hasidic Jewish community from expanding a religious school which operates on a 21-acre piece of land.  The 75-page complaint (full text) in Central UTA of Monsey v. Village of Airmont, New York, (SD NY, filed 11/28/2018), claims violations of RLUIPA, the 1st and 14th Amendments and the New York state constitution, contending:

Village officials have attempted to place a cap on the total number of Hasidic Jewish children that may be educated at Central UTA's Hasidic Jewish religious school, angry protesters have prevented a meeting of the Planning Board to consider Central UTA's application to build two new school buildings from occurring, and Village officials' political campaign advertisements paint an apocalyptic picture of what will happen if their opponents who support the rights of the Hasidic Jewish community are elected....

Defendants are using their political policymaking and enforcement authority to use the Village's zoning laws and ordinances to prevent and dissuade Hasidic Jews from joining their community and denying those families that have moved to the area their rights to school services that are guaranteed under the law.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Claim Filed Against Airbnb For Its Delisting of West Bank Rentals

As reported by the New York Times, last week Airbnb under pressure from Palestinian officials, anti-settlement advocates and human rights groups announced that it is removing listings for rentals in Israeli settlements in the West Bank.  In response, yesterday an arbitration claim (pursuant to the arbitration clause in Airbnb's terms of service) was filed against Airbnb by an Israeli company owned by a resident of New York.  The Statement of Claim (full text) in Bibliotechnical Blue & White Ltd. v. AIRBNB, Inc., (Amer. Arbitration Assoc., filed 11/26/2018) alleges in part:

Claimant recently registered as a user of Respondent's services. This was done in the City of New York. Claimant would like to purchase or purchase or lease property in Judea & Samaria and list it with Respondent's services using computer services in the City of New York. Thus, Respondent's policy is discriminatorily preventing Claimant from using Respondent's services in the City of New York....

Respondent has violated the New York City and New York State human rights laws by discriminating on the basis of religion, national origin and/or citizenship and also by engaging in a discriminatory boycott.

Legal Insurrection blog reports in more detail on the case.

New York Village Is Considering New Permit Requirement For Eruvs

According to yesterday's Times Herald-Record, the Village Board of Woodbury, New York is considering a new law (full text) that for the first time will require residents to obtain a permit in order erect an eruv that extends into any right of way. Currently the village's growing Hasidic Jewish population has erected a number of eruvs, and the new law is directed at creating some uniformity among them. A permit application (including photos) will be required to describe the location and dimensions of any eruv, and provide written consent from all homeowners whose property it would cross. The eruv (usually made of fishing line, or of markers on utility poles) would need to be between 8 and 20 feet high, and translucent or the same color as the pole to which it is attached. Non-complying eruvs could not cross any public road, and existing non-complying eruvs that do cross public roads will need to be removed within 90 days of enactment of the new law. The proposed law would also regulate cell towers being placed on utility poles.

Suit Seeks To Impose Vaccination Exemption On Religious School

VIN News reports on a suit filed last month in a New York state trial court by parents who are seeking to require a Jewish day school to grant their 4-year old son a religious exemption from immunization requirements.  Yeshiva Oholei Torah requires children to be immunized in order to attend, and the school does not recognize exemption requests. The suit apparently contends that the religious exemption provision in New York's Public Health Law Sec. 2164(9) is mandatory for schools. The section provides that the mandatory vaccination requirements of state law "shall not apply to children whose parent, parents, or guardian hold genuine and sincere religious beliefs which are contrary to the practices herein required, and no certificate shall be required as a prerequisite to such children being admitted or received into school or attending school." The trial court denied an emergency injunction in the case last month to the parents who claim their religious freedom is being infringed.. A hearing on a preliminary injunction will be held next week. Some four dozen measles cases have been confirmed among yeshiva students in New York and New Jersey. [Thanks to Avram Schwartz for the lead.]

DOJ Investigates Clergy Sexual Abuse in PA, NY; New Civil Suit In Illinois

CNN reported yesterday that the U.S. Department of Justice has issued subpoenas to seven of the eight Catholic dioceses in Pennsylvania in the wake of a grand jury report on clergy sex abuse since 1947. (See prior posting).  Separately, the Justice Department reportedly subpoenaed documents relating to pornography, transporting victims across state lines and cell phone and social media use from the Buffalo diocese in late May.

Meanwhile AP reports that a civil suit was filed yesterday in Illinois federal district court against all six dioceses in Illinois and the Catholic Conference of Illinois charging a continued cover-up of clergy sexual abuse.   Specific instances of child sexual abuse are charged against three of the dioceses. The suit seeks damages as well as the public disclosure of all priests that have been accused of sexual molestation.

Two Dioceses Sued Over Transfer of Known Sex Abuser Priest

Tampa Bay Times reported yesterday on a lawsuit filed against the Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg (Florida) and the Long Island, New York Diocese of Rockville Centre. The suit was filed by Mark Cattell who says that as a 9-year old in 1981 he was sexually abused multiple times by a priest, Robert Huneke, after Huneke was transferred to Christ the King Church in Tampa from a church in Long Island where he had sexually abused a teenager over a number of years.

NY Diocese Reaches $27.5M Settlement With 4 Abuse Victims

According to Talk Media News and the New York Times, the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn (NY) and an after-school program this week agreed to pay $27.5 million to settle claims by four men who, as young boys, were repeatedly raped by Angelo Serrano who worked as a volunteer religion teacher in a Brooklyn church.  The abuse occurred from 2003-2009 when the boys were between 8 and 12 years old, and took place in Serrano's apartment next door to the church where he often invited the victims for sleep-overs. This is believed to be the largest Catholic Church settlement with individual plaintiffs for sex abuse.

New York State Moves On Clergy Sex Abuse

Washington Post yesterday reported:

The New York attorney general’s office has issued subpoenas to every Catholic diocese in the state, becoming the latest U.S. state to embark on an expansive investigation of sex crimes committed and covered up by Catholic priests....

After New York’s subpoenas were issued, and first reported by the Associated Press on Thursday, New Jersey quickly followed, announcing a criminal task force focused on investigating sexual abuse by Catholic clergy. New Mexico launched an investigation this week, and Nebraska and Missouri have inquiries underway.

New York's attorney general yesterday also announced the creation of a  clergy abuse hotline and an online complaint form. All of this activity follows on a much publicized Pennsylvania grand jury report on clergy sex abuse. (See prior posting.)

No Standing To Assert Jewish Tenant's Free Exercise Objection To Saturday Eviction

Hurley v. Town of Southampton, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137089 (ED NY, Aug. 13, 2018) involves various claims by the owner of a rental property stemming from his prosecution for violating Southampton's transient rental law. In the case, a federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing for lack of standing the owner's assertion that the free exercise rights of one of his tenants were violated when he was evicted by Code Enforcement officials. Plaintiff claimed that the Saturday eviction of the tenant and his children forced the tenant, an Orthodox Jew, to drive his car on the Sabbath in violation of his religious beliefs.

Establishment Clause Challenge To New York's Carve Out of Standards For Yeshivas

A lawsuit was filed in a New York federal district court yesterday challenging the so-called Felder Amendment to New York state's 2018 Budget Bill. The Amendment, tailored to apply only to Orthodox Jewish non-public schools, allows lower secular education standards in such schools.  The complaint (full text) in Young Advocates for Fair Education v. Cuomo, (ED NY, filed 7/23/2018), contends that the Felder Amendment violates the Establishment Clause by aiding ultra-Orthodox Jewish non-public schools and entangling the government with religion. Wall Street Journal reports on the lawsuit. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

New York AG Denied Injunction Against Anti-Abortion Protesters

In People of the State of New York v. Griepp, (ED NY, July 20, 2018), a New York federal district court, in a 103-page opinion, refused to grant the New York Attorney General a preliminary injunction against anti-abortion protesters who have been clashing with volunteer clinic escorts outside a Queens medical center.  The suit alleged that the protesters violated the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACES), the New York Clinic Access Act (NYSCAA) and a similar New York City provision. The court describes the coverage of the statutes:

Using essentially identical language, both FACE and NYSCAA provide penalties for those who (1) by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction, (2) intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with a person, or attempt to do the same, (3) “because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services.” 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(1); see N.Y. Penal Law § 240.70(1)(a)–(b). NYCCAA prohibits a host of similar activities that prevent access to reproductive health care facilities. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-803(a).

After a lengthy review of the evidence, the court concluded that protesters had not violated any of these provisions. For example, it said:

[T]he OAG has introduced evidence that the protestors sometimes continued attempting to engage with a person who asked to be left alone and that the protestors sometimes attempted to engage people who were not receptive to a different protestor’s overtures. Although such conduct can be circumstantial evidence of an intent to harass, annoy, or alarm, it does not establish that intent here. The interactions on the sidewalk outside Choices were generally quite short, and there is no credible evidence that any protestor disregarded repeated requests to be left alone over an extended period or changed his or her tone or message in response to requests to be left alone in a way that suggested an intent to harass, annoy, or alarm. The OAG has failed to show that any defendant had the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm a patient, companion, or escort; thus, it has failed to show that any defendant has violated NYCCAA, as interpreted by the OAG.

A word of caution—this decision should not embolden the defendants to engage in more aggressive conduct. In a few instances noted, several of the defendants’ actions came close to crossing the line from activity protected by the First Amendment to conduct prohibited by NYCCAA. Engaging in concerted activity that suggests an intent to annoy rather than to persuade not only violates the law, but also would seem to be contrary to defendants’ stated objectives. Voluntarily discontinuing the practice of speaking to patients who have affirmatively asked to be left alone not only would evidence the defendants’ good will, but also would lessen the likelihood of future litigation directed toward their protest activities.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

No Free Exercise Violation In Refusal To Adjourn Trial For Defendant's Holy Day

In an opinion which sets out few of the facts involved, a New York state appeals court held that the Free Exercise rights of a robbery defendant were not infringed when the trial court denied his request to adjourn court proceedings from Thursday until Monday to accommodate his religious beliefs and practices.  The unanimous decision or the Appellate Division is People v. Webb, (NY App., July 18, 2018).

Father Sues Over Daycare's Policy That Disallowed Religious Jewelry

The New York Daily News reports on a lawsuit filed this week in a New York state trial court against a day care center over its policy barring students, for safety reasons, from wearing jewelry.  The school refused to allow Dmitriy Goldin's then 4-year old son to wear his Star of David necklace. According to the paper, the boy's father, who immigrated to the U.S. from Russia in 1991 because of religious persecution, argues that the daycare was required to make an exception to it no-jewelry policy to accommodate his religious beliefs:

Goldin, whose grandfather died fighting Germany in World War II, and who lost about 40 family members in the Holocaust, said he is not strict about Judaism – but wearing the Jewish star is how he and his family express their faith.

“In Russia, if you wore a Star of David back in the day, you could maybe walk 10, 15 minutes with weird looks before they’d spit on us, or cursed us out, or whatever,” he said. “In America, being able to wear the Star of David – it’s freedom.”

Court Allows Archbishop Sheen's Remains To Be Moved To Illinois

A New York trial court yesterday ruled in a rather bitter dispute that the remains of the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen should be moved from a crypt in  New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral to a Cathedral in Peoria, Illinois, where he was ordained as a priest. (See prior related posting.) In Cunningham v. Trustees of St. Patrick's Cathedral, (NY Cty., June 8, 2018), the court (on remand from the Appellate Division) relied on the belief of Sheen's niece that the move is the only way to advance the Cause for Sheen being declared a saint.  Peoria's Bishop Daniel Jenky was the Promoter for the Cause of Sainthood for Sheen, but refused to continue his advocacy until Sheen's remains are moved.  The New York Archdiocese is not interested in promoting the sainthood Cause.  The court concluded:

The evidentiary hearing revealed that the location of Archbishop Sheen's final resting place would not have been his primary concern; his focus was on souls rather than the location of earthly remains. ...[B]ecoming a saint would allow Archbishop Sheen to accomplish his highest calling-- to reach as many believers as possible and to intercede on their behalf.

The Diocese of Peoria issued a press release reacting to the decision.  WJBC and Church Militant both reported on the decision.