Diocese Not Liable in Bankruptcy for Sex Abuse Without Agency Relationship with Abuser or Abuser's Institution

In In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, (SD NY, July 15, 2024), a New York federal district court affirmed a bankruptcy court's dismissal of appellants' claims that they were sexually abused as children by clergy and staff at religious institutions in the diocese's territory. The court said in part:

... [T]o adequately assert state law tort claims, Claimants must plead that the Debtor had some control over the abusers or the religious institutions where the abuse occurred....  In other words, Claimants were required to plead the existence of an employment or agency relationship between the Diocese and the alleged abusers, or an agency relationship between the Diocese and the religious institutions.   

The bankruptcy court properly determined that Claimants offered no non-conclusory allegations to support either theory of liability....

The bankruptcy court correctly observed that “the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution bar courts from interpreting issues of religious Canon Law to resolve disputes.”...  Instead, “the claimants must show that an employment or agency relationship existed between the Debtor and abuser or Religious Institutions/Orders, based on facts relevant to those theories as they are normally established in the secular context.”... [T]he resolution of the issue presented in this case ... does not, however, depend upon any interpretation of Canon Law that would violate the First Amendment.  Here, Claimants fail to state a claim because the allegation that the Diocese revoked the faculties of one abuser accused in connection with a claim that is not at issue in this appeal is insufficient to plausibly allege that the specific abusers at issue here were employees or agents of the Diocese, or that their institutions were agencies of the Diocese.... [A]n allegation that the Diocese hired, fired, supervised, or disciplined an individual not at issue in this appeal does not support an inference that the Diocese has the power to control all clergy or staff at Catholic institutions within its geographic territory or exercised that power over any specific abuser in this appeal....

2nd Circuit: Trial Court Must Make Further Findings in Wedding Photographer's Challenge to NY Public Accommodation Law

In Emilee Carpenter, LLC, dba Emilee Carpenter Photography v. James, (2d Cir., July 12, 2024), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a New York federal district court's dismissal of a free speech challenge by a wedding photographer to New York's public accommodation law that bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  The photographer refuses because of her religious and personal beliefs to photograph same-sex weddings.  The court held that the case must be remanded for further fact finding in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's intervening decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. The court said in part:

... [W]hether Carpenter’s actual wedding photography services constitute expressive conduct is an open threshold question for the district court to consider on remand...

To state a compelled speech claim, it is not enough for a plaintiff to show that the service at issue involves a medium of expression.  The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the expressive activity is her own – that is, she created the expressive content herself or, by compiling or curating third-party content in some forum, she is also engaged in her own expressive activity....

Here, to the extent Carpenter is using her photographs or website to host the expressive content of third parties (such as the wedding couple who hired her), rather than her own, the district court must determine ... whether the law compels Carpenter’s own speech....

Specifically, the court should assess whether Carpenter’s blogging is more akin to, for instance, advertisement than to a service Carpenter offers to the general public, which her customers purchase from her—in other words, whether Carpenter’s blogging is a good or service regulated by New York’s public accommodations laws....

The court rejected the photographer's expressive association, free exercise, Establishment Clause and vagueness claims, saying in part:

Nowhere in her complaint does Carpenter allege that she offers as a service to the public her active religious participation in the weddings that she photographs.  New York’s laws therefore do not require Carpenter to sing, pray, follow an officiant’s instructions, act as a “witness” of the union “before God,” or otherwise participate in any same-sex wedding....

Courthouse News Service and ADF report on the decision. 

Church Ceremony Without Marriage License Was Enough to Create a Civil Marriage In New York

In L.F. v. M.A., (NY Cnty. Sup. Ct., July 9, 2024), a New York state trial court, in a divorce action, held that a ceremony at a Coptic Orthodox Church in New York was sufficient to consider the parties civilly married even though they did not obtain a civil marriage license. Defendant had contended that the ceremony was merely a family blessing, and that the parties were never married.  According to the court:

At stake is not just the status of the parties' young child in common or spousal maintenance, but potentially millions of dollars in what would be marital assets versus separate property.

In a prior decision, the court ordered the Bishop who performed the ceremony to testify about it. In the current decision, the court said in part:

... [T]he parties participated in a religious solemnized ceremony, one that so looked like a wedding that the church's Father H.H. prepared the marriage certificate, and until one day before his testimony here, never thought anything other than that the parties were married that day in that ceremony. Plaintiff believed she was married — that is undisputed. Defendant now states that he did not think he was married, but his actions during the years immediately after the ceremony paint a clear and undisputed picture that he could have only thought that he was married and not otherwise.... In reaching its determination, the Court must, and does, apply neutral principles of law, and does not reach into religious details of a ceremony within the Coptic Orthodox Church. The court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Plaintiff has more than carried her burden that there was indeed a religious marriage ceremony that day, and further, that both parties so understood, as well, as did Father H.H. (and at least some of their wedding's witnesses).

United Methodist Church Is Not a Jural Entity That Can Be Sued Under NY Child Victims Act

In Chestnut v. United Methodist Church, (NY App. Div., July 10, 2024), a New York state appellate court held that the "United Methodist Church" is not a jural entity that can be sued under New York's Child Victims Act. Plaintiff, who alleged that she was sexually abused as a young child over a 4-year period by a youth group leader who was also the son of a clergyman, named 6 defendants. She alleged that United Methodist Church was in a principal-agent relationship with the Woodbury, New York church that employed the abuser. The court said in part:

Here, the issue of whether United Methodist Church is a jural entity capable of being sued does not concern a religious controversy, and, therefore, does not require the interpretation or application of ecclesiastical doctrine. Instead, the issue of whether United Methodist Church may be considered an unincorporated association rests entirely on neutral principles of law....

... [W]e conclude that the defendants established that United Methodist Church ... is a religious denomination ... and not a jural entity amenable to suit as an unincorporated association. It is undisputed that United Methodist Church does not have a principal place of business, does not have its own offices or employees, and does not and cannot hold title to property, and there is no proof in the record that United Methodist Church has incorporated or held itself out as a jural entity in any other jurisdiction....

... United Methodist Church governs itself through the efforts of United Methodists from all over the world who, at various levels, propose and adopt policies and procedures in the Discipline to be followed by, among others, local churches, annual conferences, and the various corporate entities at the general church level, such as GCFA. Given this unique structure, the hierarchical nature of United Methodist Church's "connectional" structure does not, in and of itself, suggest that United Methodist Church is an unincorporated association or anything other than a religious denomination.

Claims That College Encouraged Jewish Plaintiffs to File Antisemitism Claims Are Dismissed

As previously reported, five Orthodox Jewish faculty members at New York's Kingsborough Community College are suing the school, the faculty union and various faculty members asserting religious hostile work environment and retaliation claims. Two of the faculty member defendants in turn filed cross claims against the school (which is part of City University of New York) alleging breach of contract and First Amendment violations. They alleged that the school was complicit with plaintiffs in attempting to retaliate against them for their expression of anti-Israel views. In Lax v. City University of New York, (Kings Cty. NY Sup. Ct., July 5, 2024), a New York state trial court dismissed the cross claims. The court said that cross claimants had not alleged any retaliatory animus or adverse action taken by the school. The court said in part:

CUNY, as a governmental entity, cannot be held liable for failing to prevent plaintiffs from allegedly violating Wetzel and Perea's right to free speech since CUNY was not charged with any affirmative duty to silence plaintiffs regarding their complaints of discrimination and anti-Semitism....

Having an anti-Israel political agenda is not a protected group under the NYSHRL or the NYCHRL....

... Wetzel and Perea have not alleged that CUNY instigated or encouraged plaintiffs to file their EEOC complaints or to otherwise accuse them of anti-Semitism. 

--[CORRECTED] 

[Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.] 

Court Upholds Firing of Nurse with Religious Objections to Flu Vaccine

In French v. Albany Medical Center, (ND NY, June 12, 2024), a New York federal district court upheld a hospital's firing of a nurse who refused for religious reasons to receive the flu vaccine. Plaintiff based her religious exemption claim on teachings of the "Israelite" religion which she adopted in 2018. Rejecting plaintiff's claim that the hospital violated Title VII by refusing to accommodate her religious beliefs, the court said in part:

[T]he Court concludes that Plaintiff's requested accommodation was not reasonable as it was a blanket exemption request which would have allowed her to continue interacting with staff and vulnerable patients while unvaccinated. This exemption would have caused an undue hardship on Defendant.

The court also rejected plaintiff's claims of disparate treatment and retaliation, saying in part:

Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that her religion was a motivating factor in Defendant's decision to suspend and terminate her.

New York's Top Court Says That Religious Employer Exemption from Abortion Coverage Mandate Is Not Too Narrow

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v Vullo, (NY Ct. App., May 21, 2024), New York's highest appellate court rejected a claim that the "religious employer" exemption to the state's requirement that health insurance policies cover medically necessary abortion services is too narrow.  The exemption is available only to an employer that meets 4 criteria-- it is a non-profit organization whose purpose is the inculcation of religious values and it primarily employs and serves persons who share the entity's religious tenets. Plaintiffs, which are religiously affiliated entities, contend that their free exercise rights are infringed because they do not meet the criteria for the exemption, The court said in part:

... [B]oth the regulation itself and the criteria delineating a "religious employer" for the purposes of the exemption are generally applicable and do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Neither the existence of the exemption in the regulation nor the defined criteria allow for "individualized exemptions" that are standardless and discretionary, nor do they allow for comparable secular conduct while discriminating against religious conduct.

Reuters reports on the decision.

Religious Discrimination Claim for Denial of Personal Leave Moves Ahead

In Balchan v. New Rochelle City School District, (SD NY, May 7, 2024), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss claims of religious discrimination, retaliation for submitting claims of religious discrimination, and a due process claim for stigmatization plus loss of employment. Plaintiff is a Jewish woman who was employed as the school district's Medial Director. At issue are disciplinary charges brought against her for allegedly using personal leave days for a vacation and the stigmatizing report by a hearing officer in connection with those charges. The court details the factual background in part as follows:

Plaintiff observes Jewish holidays including, but not limited to, Yamim Nora’im (a/k/a the “Days of Awe”), Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur..... Plaintiff alleges that her personal scheme of things religious evolved over the course of her life, and that marriage to her Trinidadian husband resulted in her “meld[ing] many of her Jewish religious beliefs into her new Trinidadian identity.” ...

... Specifically, Plaintiff’s “personal scheme of things religious required that she take personal leave during [the Days of Awe] to adjust, meditate, repair her connection to [God], and re-focus . . . .” Accordingly, she planned a trip with her family to Trinidad and Tobago which she alleges was “religious in nature given its relation to the Jewish high holy days” and what had been going on in her personal and professional life....

Court Says NY Proposed Amendment on Abortion, Sexual Orientation and Gender May Not Go on Ballot

In Byrnes v. Senate of the State of New York, (Livingston County NY Sup. Ct., May 7, 2024), a New York state trial court held that the proposed state Equal Protection constitutional amendment must be removed from the November 2024 ballot because the state legislature did not follow the proper procedures in approving the amendment for placement on the ballot.  The proposed amendment (full text) would expand the state constitution's Equal Protection clause by adding ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes and reproductive healthcare and autonomy) to race, color, creed and religion that are already protected against discrimination by the clause. The clause covers discrimination by private individuals and firms as well as by the state and the proposed amendment provides that no characteristic listed in the section shall be interpreted to interfere with the civil rights of any other person based on any of the other characteristics listed. The court held that the state legislature's failure to wait 20 days for an Attorney General's opinion on the proposed amendment before taking the initial vote on it invalidated the Resolution proposing the amendment. The City reports on the decision.

NY Sues Crisis Pregnancy Centers for False Advertising

New York's Attorney General filed suit this week in a New York state trial court against eleven crisis pregnancy centers and their parent organization alleging that they have violated the state's deceptive business practices and false advertising laws in promoting abortion pill reversal. The complaint (full text) in People of the State of New York v. Heartbeat International, Inc., (NY County Sup. Ct., filed 5/6/2024), alleges in part:

There is no competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate Defendants’ claims about APR’s efficacy and safety, including the central promise that APR can “reverse” the “abortion pill.”  The process has never been FDA approved, and researchers and major medical professional associations in the United States and abroad, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (“ACOG”), have warned that it is unproven and unscientific. 

New York Attorney General Letitia James issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Dismisses Suit Over Disclosure of Clergy-Penitent Conversation

In Stephens v. Metropolitan New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, (Dutchess Cty. NY Sup. Ct., April 29, 2024), a New York state trial court dismissed a suit for breach of fiduciary duty, infliction of emotional distress, hostile work environment and defamation brought by an Episcopal clergyman, who was also on the Roster of Ministers of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Plaintiff had sought out pastor Christopher Mietlowski for a confidential confessional conversation about an extramarital affair. Despite the assurance of confidentiality, Mietlowski disclosed the information to the bishop of the New York Synod of the ELCA who in turn disclosed the information to plaintiff's wife who was also a pastor. The bishop also disclosed the information to the Episcopal Church which suspended plaintiff's license to officiate. Subsequently, ELCA removed plaintiff from its roster of clergy.

The court held that even though New York has codified the clergy-penitent privilege, that provision does not give rise to a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty when a conversation between a congregant and a member of the clergy is disclosed. The court also rejected plaintiff's claims growing out of his removal from the roster of ministers of the ELCA saying that this was an ecclesiastical decision about a minister's qualifications to serve which is beyond the power of civil courts to review.

Denial of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate Upheld

 In Matter of Ferrelli v State of New York, (App. Div., April 16, 2024), a New York state appellate court upheld the denial of religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate imposed for employment in the New York court system, The court held that the mandate was a neutral law of general applicability and thus was subject only to rational basis review. The court went on:

Marie Zweig, submitted her initial religious exemption application asserting that because of her Christian belief in the sanctity of life, she could not "in good conscience receive or benefit from the use of vaccines that are either tested on or produced using human cell lines derived from voluntarily aborted fetuses." On the supplemental form, Zweig acknowledged that she took over-the-counter medicines and would continue to do so, stating that she had "no knowledge that they were originally developed with the use of cell lines from aborted fetuses and [she] [has] determined that [she] can take them in good conscience" because "they were developed and approved long before they were tested on fetal cell lines." Respondents denied Zweig a religious exemption on the grounds that she failed to set forth a sincerely held religious belief....

... While reasonable people may disagree, upon review of Ms. Zweig's application, this Court cannot conclude that respondents' determination to deny her a religious exemption was so irrational as to be arbitrary and capricious....

Inmates Sue Claiming Religious Need to Watch Solar Eclipse

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by six inmates at the Woodbourne Correctional Facility in Sullivan County, New York seeking to enjoin a 3-hour statewide prison lock down scheduled for April 8 that will prevent inmates from viewing the solar eclipse.  Plaintiffs are Christian, Muslim, Santerian and Atheist. The complaint (full text) in Zielinski v. New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, (ND NY, filed 3/29/2024), alleges that plaintiffs "have each expressed a sincerely held religious belief that April’s solar eclipse is a religious event that they must witness and reflect on to observe their faiths." The complaint sets out the nature of each plaintiff's religious belief. It alleges that the lock down violates plaintiffs' rights under RLUIPA, the Free Exercise and the Equal Protection Clauses. CBS News reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: AP, April 5, reports:

Thomas Mailey, a spokesperson for the corrections department, said the department has agreed to permit the six individuals to view the eclipse, while plaintiffs have agreed to drop their suit with prejudice.

Husband's Defamation Action Against Organization Assisting His Wife in Obtaining a Get Is Dismissed

 In Satz v. Organization for the Resolution of Agunot, Inc., (SD NY, March 28, 2024), a New York federal district court dismissed a husband's suit alleging defamation and several other torts brought against an organization that assists Jewish women who have obtained divorces in civil courts but whose husbands refuse to provide them with a Jewish bill of divorce ("Get").  According to the court:

ORA posted on its website a graphic bearing Plaintiff’s picture, labeling him a “GET-REFUSER,” and asserting that “GET REFUSAL IS DOMESTIC ABUSE”.... ORA also posted a copy of a “Psak Din,” a ruling by a rabbinical court, which states that Plaintiff’s “recalcitran[ce]” justifies doing “anything that is not a criminal offense . . . to cause him to comply” with rabbinical court proceedings....

Expressions of opinion are not actionable....  Taken in context, ORA’s statement on the flyer posted on its website that “GET-REFUSAL IS DOMESTIC ABUSE” is not a statement of fact....  In this context, the statement that Get-refusal is domestic abuse clearly is an expression of opinion by an advocacy organization....

Finally, Plaintiff takes issue with the flyer’s statement that “Jewish law forbids” various forms of association with Plaintiff....  [A]djudicating the truth or falsity of ORA’s statement about what “Jewish law forbids,” would impermissibly entangle the Court in an “inquiry . . . into religious law.”...

New York courts also apply a qualified privilege to statements “fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral.” ... [T]here is a colorable argument that rabbis presiding over Get proceedings are engaged in the discharge of a moral duty and, therefore, the statements in the Psak Din, which ORA republished, are privileged.....

For this Court to adjudicate whether ORA defamed Plaintiff by republishing the Psak Din, the Court would have to determine the truth of the challenged statements in the Psak Din, which would impermissibly entangle the Court in questions of Jewish law.

3 More Leaders of Extremist Jewish Sect Convicted in 2018 Kidnappings

In a March 27 announcement (full text), the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York said in part:

Yoil Weingarten, Yakov Weingarten, and Shmiel Weingarten, leaders of Lev Tahor, an extremist Jewish sect based in Guatemala, have been found guilty of kidnapping a 12-year-old boy and a 14-year-old girl and transporting the 14-year-old girl outside the United States to continue a sexual relationship with her adult male ‘husband.’  With this verdict, all nine Lev Tahor leaders and operatives charged for these heinous crimes have been held accountable.

Rockland/ Westchester Journal News has a lengthier account of the convictions for the 2018 kidnappings, saying in part:

A jury in White Plains federal court took less than four hours to reject the claims of Shmiel, Yakev and Yoil Weingarten that the girl and her 12-year-old brother ... were rescued from abusive treatment in New York and that reuniting the girl with her community and 20-year-old husband had nothing to do with sex.

They face up to 30 years in prison, including a minimum of 10 years on the charge of transporting a minor for sex. They were also convicted of conspiracy charges and international parental abduction. U.S. District Judge Nelson Roman scheduled sentencing for July 9.

(See prior related posting.)

Denial of Church's Property Tax Exemption Did Not Violate RLUIPA

In Sandstrom v. Wendell, (WD NY, March 22, 2024), a New York federal district court rejected RLUIPA challenges to local tax officials' denial of a tax exemptions for two properties owned and converted to religious use by the Church of the Holy Redemption. Plaintiff, pastor of the church, argued that his religious exercise was substantially burdened by the denial. Tax officials contended that the Church did not qualify for a tax exemption. The court held in part:

[D]espite Plaintiff’s attempts to recharacterize his claims as amounting to a zoning challenge, ... Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged any burden on his religious beliefs apart from having to apply for tax-exempt status or being required to pay taxes.  At its core, Plaintiff is seeking a federal court ruling on a local tax matter, which is specifically circumscribed by the Tax Injunction Act and principles of comity....

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged that he submitted a meaningful application to challenge the controversy or gave Defendants an opportunity to commit to a position intended to be “final.”  Plaintiff does not allege that he completed the necessary requirements to challenge the properties’ status, commenced any appeal of the determination, or that such efforts would be futile, weighing against a finding that the claims are ripe....

Religious Marriage Without Marriage License and Later Annulled by Religious Court Is Still Recognized By New York

 In T.I. v. R.I., (NY Sup Ct Kings Cty, March 20, 2024), a New York state trial court held that the state would recognize a couple's marriage that was performed in a Jewish religious ceremony even though the couple did not obtain a civil marriage license and the marriage was annulled eight years later by a religious tribunal.  In a long-running dispute between the parties, there had been a prior divorce action which the parties discontinued and there had been protection orders in favor of the wife against the husband issued by the Family Court and Criminal Court. Now the husband, claiming that no marriage between them existed any longer, sought to have the wife's divorce action dismissed so that the court could not issue orders for him to pay child support, spousal maintenance or equitable distribution of property. According to the court:

The husband contends that the rabbinical court invalidated the parties' religious marriage on two Jewish religious concepts: 1) based upon "concealment" because the wife did not disclose her alleged mental health history to him prior to the religious solemnization ceremony; and 2) because the person who conducted the solemnization ceremony was not, although unknown to the parties, authorized to do so by at least some portion of the religious community....

Nothing related to the wife's request for a civil divorce requires this Court to address or assess the religious issues that the husband brought before the rabbinical court or that may have been part of the rabbinical court's determination and, as such, the husband's theory that the issue of whether the wife can seek a divorce of any marriage recognized by the State of New York is not prohibited by the First Amendment. Here, the determination of whether a marriage recognized by the State of New York exists between the parties separate and apart from any religious marriage rests not upon religious doctrine but upon neutral principles of law.

Any religious determinations and any ramification of religious doctrine made by the rabbinical court as to the parties' religious marriage are separate and apart from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over whether, based on neutral principles of law, there exists here a marriage recognized by the State between the parties....

New York's Removal of Religious Exemption from School Vaccination Requirement Is Upheld

In Miller v. McDonald, (WD NY, March 11, 2024), a New York federal district court upheld New York's removal of religious exemptions from its mandatory requirement for vaccination of school children. It rejected Free Exercise challenges by Amish individuals and schools, finding, in part in reliance on the 2nd Circuit's We the Patriots decision, that the law was both neutral and generally applicable, and thus did not trigger heightened scrutiny.  The court said in  part:

... Plaintiffs allege that PHL § 2164 is not neutral because “the State targeted religious adherents by eliminating [the] long-standing religious exemption while leaving the medical exemption process in place.”... This allegation fails to establish non-neutrality.  Nothing in the text of PHL § 2164 as amended demonstrates any hostility to religion.  To the contrary, PHL § 2164 is neutral on its face, neither targeting religious belief nor singling it out for particularly harsh treatment.  And, as previously noted, We the Patriots affirmatively held that the repeal of a previously existing religious exemption is not, of itself, hostile to religion....

Moreover, the legislative history related to the repeal of the non-medical exemption contains no evidence of hostility towards religious belief.  Those sponsoring the relevant legislation in both the New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly made clear that their concern was public health...

The We the Patriots court explained that “where a law provides for an objectively defined category of people to whom the vaccination requirement does not apply, including a category defined by medical providers’ use of their professional judgment, such an exemption affords no meaningful discretion to the State” and thus does not render the law not generally applicable.

Jewish Students Sue Columbia University Charging Pervasive Antisemitism

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by Jewish and Israeli students at Columbia University charging the University with widespread antisemitism.  The complaint (full text) in Students Against Antisemitism, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, (SDNY, filed 2/21/2024) alleges violations of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, of New York state and city Human Rights and Civil Rights Laws, breach of contract and deceptive business practices. The 114-page complaint reads in part:

Columbia ... has for decades been one of the worst centers of academic antisemitism in the United States.  Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel ...antisemitism at Columbia has been particularly severe and pervasive.... 

Columbia’s antisemitism manifests itself in a double standard invidious to Jews and Israelis.  Columbia selectively enforces its policies to avoid protecting Jewish and Israeli students from harassment, hires professors who support anti-Jewish violence and spread antisemitic propaganda, and ignores Jewish and Israeli students’ pleas for protection.  Those professors teach and advocate through a binary oppressor-oppressed lens, through which Jews, one of history’s most persecuted peoples, are typically designated “oppressor,” and therefore unworthy of support or sympathy.  Columbia permits students and faculty to advocate, without consequence, for the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel, the only Jewish country in the world....

... Columbia has permitted endemic antisemitism to exclude Jewish and Israeli students from full and equal participation in, and to deprive them of the full and equal benefits of, their educational experience at Columbia, and has invidiously discriminated against them by, among other things, failing to protect them in the same way Columbia has protected other groups.... [I]t has responded to antisemitism with at best deliberate indifference....

Columbia Spectator reports on the lawsuit.

Former Editor of Yiddish Children's Magazine Sues Rabbinical Courts and Others Under RICO and Sherman Act

Suit was filed last month in a New York federal bankruptcy court against several rabbinical courts, rabbis, and other defendants charging Sherman Act and RICO violations. Plaintiff was the co-owner of a Yiddish language children's magazine who claims his former partner conspired with others to destroy his business. (Full text of 93-page complaint in In re Paneth v. Reiner, (ED NY Bkrptcy, filed 1/17/2024)). Shtetl has published a lengthy summary of the complaint, saying in part:

... Paneth claims that investor David Reiner used money and influence to sway leading Haredi rabbinical courts to coerce Paneth into a rabbinic arbitration process over disputes relating to the operation and management of Kindlein magazine.

... Ultimately, the complaint says, the rabbinical courts and Reiner collectively violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by colluding to put Paneth out of business and thereby eliminate Reiner’s only competition. They also sought to deprive Paneth of any employment opportunities and to ostracize him from the Hasidic world, the complaint says.