New Indictment Against Lev Tahor Over Kidnapping Of Minor

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York yesterday announced the issuance of a superseding indictment (full text) bringing additional charges against leaders and members of the extremist Jewish sect Lev Tahor.  The new indictment in United States v. Helbrans, (SDNY, April 20, 2021) charges defendants with conspiring to transport a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. It also repeats former charges of use of false documents and international parental kidnapping of a girl and her brother. The 250-member Lev Tahor sect is currently based in Guatemala.  The indictment stems from initially successful attempts to kidnap and return to Guatemala a 14-year old girl whose uncle had her married in a religious ceremony to a 19-year old member of the sect for purposes of a sexual relationship to procreate. The girl's mother had fled from Guatemala to New York with the girl and her brother. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Christian Wedding Photographer Sues Over NY Public Accommodation Law

Suit was filed this week in a New York federal district court challenging on 1st Amendment grounds the application of New York's public accommodation law to a Christian wedding photographer.  Among other things, the law broadly prohibits sexual orientation discrimination.  The complaint (full text) in Emilee Carpenter, LLC v. James, (WD NY, filed 4/6/2021), alleges in part:

[T]he Accommodations Clause ... makes it unlawful for Emilee to treat photography requests for same-sex engagements and weddings different from photography requests for opposite-sex weddings—whether by responding to the former more slowly, by always referring the former to another photographer, or by offering any part of her services to the latter but not the former, such as posting wedding photographs or blogs for opposite-sex weddings on her website but not posting wedding photographs or blogs for same-sex weddings.

... In short, the Accommodations Clause forces Emilee to celebrate same-sex engagements or weddings and would require her to promote messages that violate her religious beliefs or require her to participate in religious ceremonies that violate her religious beliefs, something she cannot do....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Synagogues Lose Suit Over Repealed Zoning Law

In Orthodox Jewish Coalition of Chestnut Ridge v. Village of Chestnut Ridge, New York, (SD NY, March 31, 2021), a New York federal district court dismissed a suit by Orthodox Jewish synagogues contending that the village's former zoning law violated RLUIPA, the free exercise clause and the New York constitution. The court held RLUIPA's safe harbor provision protects municipalities that correct their laws from damage suits under RLUIPA. It also dismissed plaintiffs' equal protection claim because they failed to show that the old zoning law was enacted with discriminatory intent. The court found that claims for prospective relief were moot and that certain other claims were not ripe.

Court Upholds NY Law Barring Discrimination Against Employees Because Of Reproductive Health Decisions

In Slattery v. Cuomo, (ND NY, March 31, 2021), a New York federal district court dismissed free exercise, free speech, freedom of association and vagueness challenges to a New York Labor Law §203-e  which prohibits employers from discriminating or taking retaliatory action against an employee because of the person's reproductive health decision making. The law was challenged by a pro-life crisis pregnancy center which required its employees to agree with, adhere to and convey the Catholic view on abortion and sexual relations outside of marriage. The court concluded that the law does not target the Catholic religion in violation of the free exercise clause. Rejecting plaintiffs' free speech challenge, the court said in part:

Section 203-e does not serve to limit any of Plaintiffs’ advocacy against abortion, promotion of certain religious views, and public arguments for particular versions of sexual morality. The statute does not prevent the Plaintiffs, who provide medical information to pregnant women, from telling those women that they should not get abortions, urging them not to use contraception, or telling them about Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. The statute simply prohibits employers from taking employment action based on the reproductive health decisions of an employee or potential employee. Hiring, firing, or refusing to hire an employee is conduct, not speech, and the law does not implicate Plaintiffs’ First-Amendment rights in that.

New York's Repeal Of Religious Exemption From Vaccination Requirement Is Upheld

In F.F. v. State of New York, (App. Div., March 18, 2021), a New York state appellate court rejected parents' constitutional challenges to New York's repeal of the religious exemption from mandatory vaccination for school children. The court upheld the repeal, finding that it was a neutral law of general applicability prompted by the measles outbreak, even though the repeal eliminated a religious exemption. The court said in part:

[W]e do not find that the timing of the repeal reveals political or ideological motivation; rather, the record reflects that the repeal simply worked its way through the basic legislative process and was motivated by a prescient public health concern....

[W]e reject plaintiffs' claims that, based upon statements by some of the legislators, the repeal was motivated by religious animus. Significantly, the 11 statements alleged to suggest religious hostility were attributed to only five of the over 200 legislators in office at any given time.... More importantly, many of the statements do not demonstrate religious animus, as plaintiffs suggest, but instead display a concern that there were individuals who abused the religious exemption to evade the vaccination requirement based upon non-religious beliefs.... The repeal relieves public school officials from the challenge of distinguishing sincere expressions of religious beliefs from those that may be fabricated.

Consent Decree Orders End To Village's Zoning Rules That Discriminate Against Orthodox Jewish Residents

Yesterday a New York federal district court in United States v. Village of Airmont, (SD NY, March 15, 2021), entered a consent decree requiring modification of the village's zoning code. A press release by the Department of Justice describes the order:

[The preliminary injunction mandates] that the Village... immediately cease enforcement of zoning code provisions enacted in 2018 that discriminate against Orthodox Jewish residents in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act....  [T]he zoning code provisions at issue limit the amount of space in private homes that can be used as a Residential Place of Worship..., restrict whom residents are allowed to invite into their own homes to pray, and expand the use of an arbitrary, drawn-out application process designed to delay and effectively deny permits for even minor alterations to private houses.... [T]he Government presented evidence that the provisions had been motivated by discriminatory animus and served no legitimate governmental purpose....

New York's No-Fault Divorce Law Did Not Infringe Wife's Religious Freedom

In King v. New York, (ND NY, Feb. 26, 2021), a New York federal district court rejected a wife's contention that New York's no-fault divorce law violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses by infringing her Christian religious belief that marriage is permanent and cannot be dissolved by the state. The court said in part:

... [A] finding that H. King must remain married against his will because of L. King’s religious convictions would defy all logic and reason, and create a much larger Establishment Clause issue than the one L. King argues exists today....

Moreover, ... there is no constitutional injury here for the independent reason that the divorce that gave rise to this litigation only dissolved L. King’s and H. King’s legal marriage recognized by the State of New York; the divorce did not affect the status of their “religious marriage.”

Required Measles Inoculation Upheld

In W.D. v. Rockland County, (SD NY, Feb. 22, 2021), a New York federal district court dismissed free exercise, equal protection and due process challenges to an order of the Rockland County Department of Health requiring children between 6 months and 18 years of age to be vaccinated against measles in order to enter any place of public assembly, including for educational or religious purposes. The order did not apply to children with medical exemptions, but did apply to those with religious exemptions. Rejecting plaintiffs' free exercise challenge, the court said in part:

Here, the Emergency Declaration is subject to rational basis review because it is both facially neutral and generally applicable.... Under rational basis review, Defendants have demonstrated that the Declaration served the legitimate government purpose of protecting the County’s community from the measles outbreak.... Moreover, even if strict scrutiny applied, the Emergency Declaration satisfies that standard as well. 

New York COVID-19 Restrictions On Houses of Worship Enjoined

In a case on remand from the 2nd Circuit, a New York federal district court (without opposition from the state) has issued an injunction against New York state's COVID-19 restrictions on houses of worship.  The court in Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo, (ED NY, Feb. 9, 2021) said in part:

In light of the decisions by the Supreme Court, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y. v. Cuomo ... and the Second Circuit, Agudath Israel of Am. v. Cuomo ..., specifically finding that “both the fixed capacity and percentage capacity limits on houses of worship” in  the red and orange zones “are subject to strict scrutiny,” ... Defendant has agreed to an injunction against enforcement of the 25% and 33% capacity limits in red and orange zones, respectively.... Subsequently, Defendant’s counsel has represented in status conferences that before the end of February 2021 EO 202.68 will be amended to remove houses of worship.

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants a permanent injunction against enforcement of EO 202.68’s 25% capacity or maximum of 10-people, and 33% capacity or maximum of 25-people limitations on houses of worship, respectively in red and orange zones.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Jewish Camps Sue County Claiming Discrimination

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by an Orthodox Jewish organization that operates two summer camps in the Catskill Mountains. The complaint (full text) in Oorah, Inc. v. Schoharie County, N.Y., (ND NY, filed 2/5/2021), alleges in part:

2. Over the past decade, Oorah has time and again been subjected to official action discriminating against it on the basis of its Orthodox Jewish character by Defendants. The goal of these arbitrary and discriminatory actions has been to thwart the operation of Oorah’s religious programs and to deter Oorah’s staff, volunteers and participants from the practice of their Jewish faith. Oorah has repeatedly been forced to obtain relief against Schoharie County in the state courts in order to allow it to operate its religious facilities.

3. This hostility rose to a crescendo in 2020, when Defendants... exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to shut down Oorah’s operations completely in an illegal,  premeditated, arbitrary and discriminatory manner.

Yeshiva World reports on the lawsuit.

2nd Circuit Invalidates New York's Fixed Capacity Limits For Houses of Worship

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court in a widely noted decision enjoined while appeals are pending New York's 10 and 25 person occupancy limits on houses of worship in red and orange zones of high COVID infections. (See prior posting.) Now the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has come down with a decision in that pending appeal.  In Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo, (2nd Cir., Dec. 28, 2020), (in a decision that also covers the suit brought by the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn), the court held that these limits imposed on houses of worship are subject to strict scrutiny, and that they are not narrowly tailored to stem the spread of COVID-19. It remanded the cases to the district court, instructing it to issue a preliminary injunction. It also ordered the district court to determine in the first instance whether alternative limits in the governor's Order of 25% and 33% of capacity can satisfy strict scrutiny. In reaching its conclusion, the court said in part:

[T]he [Governor's] Order does not impose generally applicable public-health guidelines, like requiring masks and distancing or limiting capacity by time. Instead, the Governor has selected some businesses (such as news media, financial services, certain retail stores, and construction) for favorable treatment, calling them “essential,” while imposing greater restrictions on “non-essential” activities and religious worship. That lack of general applicability is also subject to strict scrutiny.

Further, although the Governor asserts that “all” activities not restricted by the Order present lesser risks of COVID-19 transmission than religious worship, he has never claimed that the unrestricted category of “essential” activities was created based on transmission risk. Instead, “[t]he only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as ‘essential’ as what happens in secular spaces.”

Reuters reports on the decision.

DOJ Sues New York Village Over Discriminatory Zoning Aimed At Orthodox Jews

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed a RLUIPA lawsuit against the Village of Airmont, New York alleging that it has used its zoning code to discriminate against the Orthodox Jewish community.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. Village of Airmont, (SD NY, filed 12/2/2020), alleges that since the expiration of a prior consent decree, the Village has adopted a new zoning code, and has applied it in a discriminatory manner, that prevents Orthodox Jews from gaining zoning approval for home synagogues and a school. It has also enforced regulations in a manner that prevents Jews from clearing trees on their property to erect sukkahs, and prevents the installation of mikvahs. First Liberty Institute issued a press release with additional background. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Supreme Court Enjoins, Pending Appeal, New York's COVID-19 Capacity Limits On Houses of Worship

The U.S. Supreme Court late last night, in a 5-4 decision, enjoined-- while appeals are pending-- New York's 10 and 25 person occupancy limits on houses of worship in red and orange zones of high COVID infections. In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, (Sup. Ct., Nov. 25, 2020), in a decision that also applies to Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo, the Court's per curiam opinion said in part: 

[S]tatements made in connection with the challenged rules can be viewed as targeting the “ ‘ultra-Orthodox [Jewish] community.’ ”... But even if we put those comments aside, the regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.

In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential” may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of “essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities....

[T]here are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services. Among other things, the maximum attendance at a religious service could be tied to the size of the church or synagogue....

Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.

Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, stating in part:

The only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as “essential” as what happens in secular spaces. Indeed, the Governor is remarkably frank about this: In his judgment laundry and liquor, travel and tools, are all “essential” while traditional religious exercises are not. That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First Amendment forbids....

Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical.

Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion arguing that while the restrictions pose serious concerns, the Court should not rule on them because the houses of worship before the Court are no longer in red and orange zones. He also criticized Justice Gorsuch's attack on the dissenters in the case.

Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, explaining why he disagrees with Chief Justice Roberts' approach.

Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented, pointing out that the houses of worship are no longer under the challenged capacity limits and saying in part:

The nature of the epidemic, the spikes, the uncertainties, and the need for quick action, taken together, mean that the State has countervailing arguments based upon health, safety, and administrative considerations that must be balanced against the applicants’ First Amendment challenges.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

It is true that New York’s policy refers to religion on its face. But as I have just explained, that is because the policy singles out religious institutions for preferential treatment in comparison to secular gatherings, not because it discriminates against them....

Finally, the Diocese points to certain statements by Governor Cuomo as evidence that New York’s regulation is impermissibly targeted at religious activity—specifically, ... New York’s Orthodox Jewish community.... The Diocese suggests that these comments supply “an independent basis for the application of strict scrutiny.”... I do not see how.... Just a few Terms ago, this Court declined to apply heightened scrutiny to a Presidential Proclamation limiting immigration from Muslim-majority countries, even though President Trump had described the Proclamation as a “Muslim Ban,”....

 New York Times reports on the decision.

New York AG Sues Buffalo Diocese and Former Bishops For Handling Of Sex Abuse Complaints

New York's Attorney General, in a 218-page complaint, yesterday filed suit against the Catholic Diocese of Buffalo, two of its former bishops and its Apostolic Administrator over the handling of complaints of sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable adults. The complaint (full text) in People of the State of New York v. Diocese of Buffalo, (NY County Sup. Ct., filed 11/23/2020), alleges in part:

The Attorney General brings this lawsuit to obtain remedial and injunctive relief for the persistent violation of New York nonprofit law by the Diocese of Buffalo .... For nearly two decades, the Diocesan Corporation ignored standards established by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ... to address and prevent the sexual abuse of minors by U.S. clergy. In direct defiance of the USCCB’s public commitment to reform, the Diocesan Corporation, through the conduct of its senior leadership, evaded key provisions of these standards, ignoring requirements for the investigation and review of alleged clergy sexual abuse....

[T]hrough their actions and inactions in response to the sexual abuse crisis, the Diocesan Corporation and its two most senior leaders ... violated multiple provisions of the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law ... and Estates, Powers and Trusts Law....

The Attorney General seeks injunctive relief to accomplish three objectives: provide mechanisms for independent review of the Diocesan Corporation’s response to alleged sexual abuse; require reporting to the Attorney General for a period of five years; and mandate external oversight of an appropriate remedial and compliance plan. This action also seeks to hold Bishop Malone and Auxiliary Bishop Grosz individually responsible for violating their secular duties as fiduciaries of the Diocesan Corporation by enjoining them from future service in a secular role as a director or officer of any charitable organization subject to New York law and by obtaining damages against and restitution from them for the waste of charitable assets caused by their misconduct.

The New York attorney general also issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. New York Times also reports on the lawsuit.

NY Court Approves Sale of Christian College Campus To Yeshiva

Under New York law, court approval (or approval by the attorney General) is required for sale of assets of a non-profit educational corporation. In In re Nyack College, (Sup Ct NY County, Nov. 13, 2020), the court approved the sale of Nyack College's South Nyack campus to Yeshiva of Viznitz D'Khal Torath Chaim in Ramapo. Nyack, a Christian College.  According to Lower Hudson News, the Yeshivah plans to operate Jewish religious schools for 250 college age students and 250 high school students.

Brooklyn Diocese Asks Supreme Court To Enjoin COVID-19 Church Capacity Limits

Yesterday, an Emergency Application for Writ of Injunction (full text) was filed by the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn in its challenge to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's limitations on the number of persons who can attend a worship service during the COVID-19 pandemic. (See prior posting.) The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, refused to grant an injunction pending appeal to the Diocese and to a group of Jewish synagogues in the challenge to special restrictions on spots in which clusters of COVD-19 cases have broken out. SCOTUSblog reports on yesterday's filing.

UPDATE: On Nov. 16, the synagogues filed a similar Emergency Application. (Full text). SCOTUSblog has more on the filing.

2nd Circuit Denies Injunction Pending Appeal Of NY Governor's Cluster Zone Limits On Houses of Worship

In Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo, (2d Cir., Nov. 9, 2020), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision refused to grant an injunction pending appeal to a group of Jewish synagogues and to the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn in a case challenging New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's restrictions on spots in which clusters of COVD-19 cases have broken out. (See prior posting.) The majority said in part:

The Court fully understands the impact the executive order has had on houses of worship throughout the affected zones. Nevertheless, the Appellants cannot clear the high bar necessary to obtain an injunction pending appeal. The challenged executive order establishes zones based on the severity of the COVID-19 outbreaks in different parts of New York. Within each zone, the order subjects religious services to restrictions that are similar to or, indeed, less severe than those imposed on comparable secular gatherings....

Thus, while it is true that the challenged order burdens the Appellants’ religious practices, the order is not “substantially underinclusive” given its greater or equal impact on schools, restaurants, and comparable secular public gatherings.

Judge Park dissented, saying in part:

Here, the executive order does not impose neutral public-health guidelines, like requiring masks and distancing or limiting capacity by space or time. Instead, the Governor has selected some businesses (such as news media, financial services, certain retail stores, and construction) for favorable treatment, calling them “essential,” while imposing greater restrictions on “non-essential” activities and religious worship. Such targeting of religion is subject to strict scrutiny.

Hamodia reports on the decision.

Court Upholds New York's COVOD-19 Cluster Action Initiative

In Soos v. Cuomo, (ND NY, Oct. 30, 2020), a New York federal district court refused to enjoin New York's Cluster Action Initiative begun in early October that targets specific areas for enhanced COVID-19 restrictions.  Houses of Worship were a specific concern of Gov. Cuomo in issuing the executive order creating the Initiative. The court said in part:

To find in plaintiffs' favor under these circumstances would be to second-guess the State's medical experts and scientific and public health findings with respect to what constitutes an "essential" business, which would run afoul of Jacobson and its progeny.... Indeed, the State has arguably shown that, according to their medical and public health experts, religious gatherings pose a unique risk to the spread of COVID-19, and, thus, "although the [Initiative] establishes rules specific to religious gatherings, it does so because they are gatherings, not because they are religious."... 

Accordingly, for purposes of the pending motion, the court is satisfied that the Initiative was guided by science and data, and not a mere desire to target religion, and thus, the Initiative does not exceed the "broad limits" described in Newsom. Additionally, plaintiffs' claims are unlikely to succeed on the merits even applying strict scrutiny review because the injunction is not in the public interest....

New York's Zip-Code Targeted COVID-19 Limits Are Upheld

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, (ED NY, Oct. 16, 2020), a New York federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to the Diocese in its challenge to New York's COVID-19 cluster action initiative that targets specific zip codes. A TRO had previously been denied. (See prior posting.) Rejecting plaintiff's arguments, the court said in part:

[T]he excerpts from the Governor's public comments do not transform a neutral law into a religiously targeted one. The evidence shows that Governor Cuomo is clearly aware and concerned that EO 202.68 burdens religious practice, and particularly the religious practice of Orthodox Jews, but awareness that the burden of a law falls unequally does not establish that the law was designed to target religious groups. Indeed, as the Governor reportedly told a group of Jewish community leaders, although the policy is a "very blunt" instrument, its purpose is to "get the numbers down in the zip codes." ... The court reads the Governor's statement to say that EO 202.68 is targeted temporarily at all gatherings in the areas where there are spikes in COVID-19 positivity rates, not at religious gatherings in particular.

Rockland County (NY) Synagogues Sue Over Targeted COVID-19 Order

Another lawsuit challenging New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's Oct. 6 Executive Order targeting Covid-19 hot spots was filed on Wednesday by three Hasidic Jewish congregations in Rockland County (NY).  The complaint (full text) in Congregation Yesheos Yakov v. State of New York, (SD NY, filed 10/14/2020), alleges that the Order was directed at "activities of specific minority religious communities during one of the most important religious holidays in their faith." Alleging numerous violations of the 1st and 14th Amendments, the complaint says in part:

2. The Governor freely and repeatedly admitted his decision was not driven by science, or data, but, by “fear.”

3. Based on this fear, and not on any epidemiological or other objective data, Governor Cuomo’s Executive Order No. 202.68 ... established colorcoded COVID-19 “hot-spot” zoning areas subject to gathering limits and restrictions that singled out as “hot-spots” known enclaves of the Hasidic and strictly-observant Jewish Orthodox communities.

PJ Media reports on the lawsuit.