Draft Executive Order Would Expand Free Exercise Protections

The Nation reported yesterday on a leaked copy of a draft Executive Order on Religious Freedom which is currently being circulated by the White House, saying:

The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act. 

The draft titled Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom is set out in full in The Nation report.  The Order provides in part:

“Religious organization” shall be construed broadly to encompass any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations, operated for a religious purpose, even if its purpose is not exclusively religious, and is not limited to houses of worship or tax-exempt organizations, or organizations controlled by or associated with a house of worship or a convention or association of churches.

Sec. 3 Religious Freedom Principles and Policymaking Criteria. All executive branch departments and agencies (“agencies”) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, adhere to the following principles and criteria when formulating and implementing regulations, actions, or policies:

(a) Religious freedom is not confined to religious organizations or limited to religious exercise that takes place in houses of worship or the home. It is guaranteed to persons of all faiths and extends to all activities of life.

(b) Persons and organizations do not forfeit their religious freedom when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts: or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments....

Baptist Joint Committee Appoints New Executive Director

In a press release issued earlier this week, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty announced that it has chosen Amanda R. Tyler as its next executive director. She will replace Brent Walker who is retiring.  The Baptist Joint Committee is a D.C.-based advocacy group that promotes both religious liberty and separation of church and state.

Suit Challenges Illinois Amendments To Health Care Right of Conscience Act

On Friday, two pro-life pregnancy care centers and a pro-life physician filed suit in Illinois state court challenging SB 1564, the recently enacted Illinois law amending the state's Health Care Right of Conscience Act. (See prior posting.)  The complaint (full text) in Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford v. Rauner, (IL Cir. Ct., filed 8/5/2016) alleges that the new law violates Illinois' Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as plaintiffs' religious freedom, free speech and equal protection rights under the Illinois constitution. The complaint describes the provisions that would require plaintiffs to violate their religious and moral beliefs:

S.B. 1564 requires Plaintiffs and other medical facilities and physicians to choose between referring for abortions, transferring a patient to an abortion provider, or provide a patient asking for an abortion with a list of providers they reasonably believe may perform the abortion.

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

House Holds Hearing On HR 2802, First Amendment Defense Act

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform yesterday held a hearing on Religious Liberty and H.R. 2802, The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA). The Committee's website has extensive video and transcripts of the hearing.  As described by the Committee, FADA (full text of HR 2802) is a reaction to the Supreme Court's Obergefell  decision and would prohibit the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person because the person believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction about marriage. Among the witnesses was the lead plaintiff in the Obergefell case. Washington Blade reports on the hearing. Think Progress focuses on Rep. Cummings statements. On Monday, a group of interfaith religious and advocacy organizations sent the committee a letter (full text) opposing the bill.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Condemns Recent State Religious Liberty Bills

Yesterday the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a statement (full text) condemning recent state enactments and proposals protecting religious liberty at the expense of equal treatment for the LGBT community.  The statement reads in part:

Religious freedom is an important foundation of our nation. However, in the past, ‘religious liberty’ has been used to block racial integration and anti-discrimination laws. Those past efforts failed and this new attempt to revive an old evasive tactic should be rejected as well. The North Carolina and Mississippi laws, and similar legislation proposed in other states, perverts the meaning of religious liberty and perpetuates homophobia, transphobia, marginalizes the transgender and gay community and has no place in our society.

The Commission said that it will shortly release a new report on the issue of religious liberty.

Two members of the 8- member Commission (Gail Heriot and Peter Kirsanow) issued a separate statement (full text) in their individual capacities asking their Commission colleagues "to please take a deep breath."  They argued in part:

none of [the state bills] deserves to be referred to in the derisive terms used by the Commission majority. Those that deal with religious liberty issues are not merely using religion as a “guise” or “excuse” as the Commission majority alleges. All of them address real issues in reasonable ways; none is simply an attack on the LGBT community.

This separate statement was not posted on the Commission's website, but instead on the website of The New American Civil Rights Project with a link to the statement appearing in an ADF press release.

SSI Benefit Formula Does Not Violate Free Exercise Rights

In Herron v. Social Security Administration, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50343 (ED VA, April 14, 2016), a Virginia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51224, March 10, 2016) and dismissed a free exercise and other constitutional challenges to the manner in which SSI benefits are computed.  Under Social Security rules, if an SSI recipient lives in the same household as his or her spouse, a portion of the spouse's income may be attributed to the SSI recipient in computing benefits.  Plaintiff Bridget Herron claimed that this rule requires her to live with her fiance before (or without) marriage, in violation of her religious beliefs, in order to avoid a reduction in benefits.

As to Herron's allegation that the SSA [Social Security Administration] policies interfere with the free exercise of her religious beliefs, the SSA determines benefits based on income, and the policies were not "undertaken for religious reasons." ... If Herron wishes to marry in accordance with her religious beliefs, the SSA's policies do not prevent her from doing so. Because Herron fails to allege facts sufficient to challenge the rationality of the SSA's policies, she fails to plausibly allege the elements of a violation of her constitutional rights as to her right to marry and her right to the free exercise of her religious beliefs.

The court also concluded that Herron had not exhausted her administrative remedies.

Virginia Governor Vetoes "Religious Freedom" Bill As Discriminatory

As he had promised, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, yesterday vetoed Senate Bill 41 that protected clergy, religious and religiously affiliated organizations and their employees and volunteers acting in the scope of their employment from being required to participate in the solemnization of any marriage or from receiving adverse treatment of any kind by the state because the person acted on the basis of a sincere religious or moral belief that marriage should be only the union of one man and one woman. (See prior posting.) In his veto message (full text), McAuliffe described the bill as one that shields "those who actively discriminate against same-sex couples" from civil liability.  McAuliffe said in part:

Although couched as a “religious freedom” bill, this legislation is nothing more than an attempt to stigmatize.  Any legitimate protections  ... are duplicative of the First Amendment ...; Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia; and the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  Any additional protections are styled in a manner that prefers one religious viewpoint—that marriage can only validly exist between a man and a woman—over all other viewpoints.  Such a dynamic is not only unconstitutional, it equates to discrimination under the guise of religious freedom.

This legislation is also bad for business and creates roadblocks as we try to build the new Virginia economy.

Washington Times reports on the governor's action.

Israel's Attorney General Says Bill Restoring Orthodox Control of Mikvehs Is Invalid

As previously reported, last month a 3-judge panel of Israel's High Court of Justice held that state-funded mikvehs  (ritual bath facilities) operated by Orthodox-controlled religious councils must be open for use by the Conservative and Reform Jewish movements for their conversion ceremonies as well as for Orthodox conversions. (See prior posting.)  In response, a bill was introduced into the Knesset (Parliament) by a member of the Orthodox United Torah Judaism Party to reverse the Court's ruling by requiring mikvehs to be run in accordance with Jewish law as interpreted by the ultra-Orthodox Chief Rabbinate.  The bill passed its preliminary reading in the Knesset last week.  Haaretz reports that yesterday Israel's Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit submitted a legal opinion to the government concluding that the bill is invalid because it violates the rights to freedom of religion, human dignity and equality.

Georgia Legislature Passes Wide-Ranging Religious Freedom Bill

As reported by CNN, the Georgia General Assembly yesterday passed HB 757 (full text), the Free Exercise Protection Act. It contains wide-ranging religious freedom protections:

1. The bill protects clergy from any civil suit or tax penalty for performing or refusing to perform any marriage or other religious rite. It also provides that any individual is free to attend or not attend any marriage ceremony or other religious rite.
   
   
2. The bill prohibits local governments from requiring any business to operate on Saturday or Sunday.
   
   
3. The bill provides that churches and religiously affiliated organizations are not required to rent space to another person for an event that is objectionable to the religious organization. Also such organizations are not required to provide social, educational or charitable services that violate the organization's sincerely held religious beliefs.
   
   
4. The bill provides that no faith-based organization is required to hire or retain as an employee any person whose religious beliefs or practices (or lack of either) are not in accord with the organization's sincerely held religious belief.
   
   
5. The bill enacts RFRA language. The government may not substantially burden a person's religious exercise, except in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest that is furthered by the least restrictive means.  This provision, however is limited by several exceptions, including a provision that the RFRA language shall not be construed to "permit invidious discrimination on any grounds prohibited by federal or state law." It should be noted that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity are not prohibited by Georgia law, or by federal law as traditionally interpreted.
   
   
6. The bill waives sovereign immunity for suits seeking injunctive or declaratory relief or reasonable attorney's fees in various suits against the state under the statute.

Gov. Nathan Deal has said that he will veto any bill that allows discrimination in order to protect people of faith. (See prior posting.)  It is unclear whether the non-discrimination language included in HB 757 is sufficient to overcome the governor's objections.

Presidential Proclamation: Religious Freedom Day

The White House yesterday issued a Presidential Proclamation (full text) declaring today as Religious Freedom Day 2016.  It marks the anniversary of the adoption on Jan. 16, 1786 of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom.  President Obama's Proclamation included an extensive discussion of his Administration's initiatives to further religious liberty:

Here at home, my Administration is working to preserve religious liberty and enforce civil rights laws that protect religious freedom -- including laws that protect employees from religious discrimination and require reasonable accommodation of religious practices on the job. We will keep upholding the right of religious communities to establish places of worship and protecting the religious rights of those so often forgotten by society, such as incarcerated persons and individuals confined to institutions. We will also continue to protect students from discrimination and harassment that is based on their faith, and we will continue to enforce hate crime laws, including those perpetrated based on a person's actual or perceived religion. This work is crucial, particularly given the recent spike in reports of threats and violence against houses of worship, children, and adults simply because of their religious affiliation. 

As we strive to uphold religious freedom at home, we recognize that this basic element of human dignity does not stop at our shores, and we work to promote religious freedom around the globe. We are working with a broad coalition against those who have subjected religious minorities to unspeakable violence and persecution, and we are mobilizing religious and civic leaders to defend vulnerable religious communities. In addition, we are calling for the elimination of improper restrictions that suppress religious practice, coordinating with governments around the world to promote religious freedom for citizens of every faith, and expanding training for our diplomats on how to monitor and advocate for this freedom.

Poll On Attitudes Toward Religious Liberty

AP reported yesterday on the release of a new AP-NORC poll that shows Americans do not value religious liberty equally for all religious groups:

Solid majorities said it was extremely or very important for the U.S. to uphold religious freedom in general. However, the percentages varied dramatically when respondents were asked about specific faith traditions, according to a poll by The Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Eighty-two percent said religious liberty protections were important for Christians, compared with 61 percent who said the same for Muslims. About seven in 10 said preserving Jews' religious freedom was important, while 67 percent said so of Mormons. People who identified with no religion were ranked about even with Muslims in needing support to live out their beliefs.

India's Supreme Court Balances Religious Rights Against Social Reform

In Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. Government of Tamil Nadu, (India Sup. Ct., Dec. 16, 2015), the Supreme Court of India came down with a complicated holding on the constitutionality of an administrative order ("GO") adopted by the State of Tamil Nadu that attempts to eliminate the hereditary priesthood in Hindu temples.  It provides instead that "any person who is a Hindu and  possessing the requisite qualification and training" is eligible for appointment.  This was challenged by an association representing Hindu priests as well as by individual priests as infringing Constitutional rights of freedom of religion and of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.  India's First Post describes the Supreme Court's holding:

[T]he crucial purpose of the GO was to eliminate the monopoly of Brahmins as priests in the temples of Tamil Nadu. The idea was to open these positions to all suitable candidates from all castes who had obtained the appropriate training in the centres set up by the government.

The petitioners on the other hand contended that this GO went against the fundamental tenets of the Hindu religion, represented here by the agama shastras which prescribed how the rituals were to be carried out and who could be appointed as priests to Hindu temples. It was argued that following the agama shastras were “essential religious practices” protected under Article 26 of the Constitution which if deviated from on the basis of a GO, would amount to an invasion of the right of a denomination to carry out its religious practices.

[The Supreme Court] ... upheld the [GO] but with a rider that appointments made under it can be challenged on a case-by-case basis, as being contrary to the agama sastras or customs. But crucially, the agama sastras or customs may themselves be subject to scrutiny by the court to see if they are contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India. The court has thus tried to strike a balance between two very contradictory impulses in our polity: The right to practice one’s religion and the social reform of religious practices.

Groups Say Texas Refusal To Accept Syrian Immigrants Infringes Religious Liberty of Resettlement Agencies

In an article yesterday, the New Republic reports that a number of faith-based refugee resettlement groups in Texas believe that the state's Health and Human Services Commission is infringing their religious liberty.  In a Nov. 19 letter, the Commission's Executive Commissioner told resettlement agencies that they should discontinue immediately any plans they have to resettle Syrian refugees in Texas.  This follows a Nov. 16 letter (full text) from Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to President Obama telling the President that Texas will not accept any Syrian refugees out of fear that they could be terrorists. Bee Moorhead, executive director of Texas Impact/Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy, criticizes the Governor's position, saying:

Religious freedom is now the rhetorical currency of the right, but it’s turning out to be in implementation that what’s politically expedient for the right is not affirmative of religious freedom.

Church Sues Seeking Use of Public Housing Community Rooms For Worship Services

Last week, a Christian church in Lansing, Michigan filed a federal lawsuit challenging the policy of the Lansing Housing Commission on use of community rooms in public housing developments. The Commission bars use of the rooms for religious worship services, while allowing them to be used by religious and non-religious groups for other activities.  The complaint (full text) in His Healing Hands Church v. Lansing Housing Commission, (WD MI, filed 10/14/2015), says that it will shortly be too cold in Michigan for the church to hold services outside as it is now doing.  The lawsuit contends that the city has violated the Establishment Clause as well as the  church's free speech, free exercise, and equal protection rights. An ADF press release announced the filing of the lawsuit.

Pope Francis Speaks On Religious Liberty At Independence Hall

Pope Francis today during his visit to Philadelphia, delivered an address in front of Independence Hall.  The talk (full text) billed as the Address of Pope Francis at the Meeting for Religious Liberty was delivered to an audience comprised of many representatives of the immigrant community in the United States.  The Pope said in part:

Religious freedom certainly means the right to worship God, individually and in community, as our consciences dictate.  But religious liberty, by its nature, transcends places of worship and the private sphere of individuals and families. 

Our various religious traditions serve society primarily by the message they proclaim.  They call individuals and communities to worship God, the source of all life, liberty and happiness.  They remind us of the transcendent dimension of human existence and our irreducible freedom in the face of every claim to absolute power.  We need but look at history, especially the history of the last century, to see the atrocities perpetrated by systems which claimed to build one or another “earthly paradise” by dominating peoples, subjecting them to apparently indisputable principles and denying them any kind of rights.... 

In a world where various forms of modern tyranny seek to suppress religious freedom, or try to reduce it to a subculture without right to a voice in the public square, or to use religion as a pretext for hatred and brutality, it is imperative that the followers of the various religions join their voices in calling for peace, tolerance and respect for the dignity and rights of others.

CNN reported on the Pope's remarks, pointing out that Francis made "no explicit references to any of the U.S. Catholic bishops' recent battles over religious rights."

Church Denied Injunction Against Noise From Downtown Festival

A Nevada federal district court last week refused to grant a preliminary injunction to a downtown Las Vegas church that fears noise and road closings from the annual Life Is Beautiful festival will interfere with its ability to hold its regular weekend services.  The festival is scheduled for this coming weekend.  While the parties worked out some compromises, the festival would not agree to cancel concerts on two stages near the church on Saturday and Sunday nights. The church refused suggestions to move its services elsewhere.  In Amistad Christiana Church v. Life Is Beautiful, LLC, (D NV, Sept. 18, 2015), the court rejected the argument that the grant of the special use permit to the festival violates the church's free exercise rights. The permit does not selectively burden the church.  The court relied heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court's statement in its 1988 Lyng case that: "The Free Exercise Clause simply cannot be understood to require the Government to conduct its own internal affairs in ways that comport with the religious beliefs of particular citizens." The court also rejected the church's private nuisance claim.

Proposed Legislation Would Exempt Christian Scientists From ACA Individual Mandate

On Thursday, the House Ways and Means Committee voted (legislative history)  to forward on to the full House of Representatives H.R. 2061, the Equitable Access to Care and Health ("EACH") Act (full text). The proposed bill would extend the current religious conscience exemption in the Affordable Care Act that applies to Amish and Old Order Mennonites to also include Christian Scientists. (Background). The bipartisan bill currently has 170 co-sponsors in the House.  An identical Senate Bill (S. 352) has 30 co-sponsors.  The bill is still in committee in the Senate.

Canadian Court Says Aboriginal Religious Freedom Not Infringed By Approval of Ski Resort

In Ktunaxa Nation Council v. Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, (BC Ct. App., Aug. 6, 2015), the Court of Appeal for the Canadian province of British Columbia held that the provincial government did not infringe the religious freedom of the aboriginal Ktunaxa Nation when it granted Glacier Resorts, Ltd. the right to build a year-round ski resort in the Jumbo Valley region of southeastern British Columbia’s Purcell Mountains. A number of accommodations in the plans were made to accommodate the Ktunaxa. However, according to the Ktunaxa:

the proposed resort lies at the heart of a sacred area of paramount spiritual importance within their claimed traditional territory, as it is the Grizzly Bear Spirit’s home. They claimed that if the development of the resort was permitted, the Spirit would leave, and they would no longer be able to receive physical or spiritual assistance and guidance from the Spirit, which would have a profound negative impact on their identity and culture.

The court held that Sec. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects freedom of conscience and religion

does not apply to protect the vitality of religious communities where the vitality of the community is predicated on the assertion by a religious group that, to preserve the communal dimension of its religious beliefs, others are required to act or refrain from acting and behave in a manner consistent with a belief that they do not share.

The Townsman reports on the decision.

Inspector General Issues Report On Protection of Conscience Rights In the Military

Last week (July 22), the U.S. Department of Defense Inspector General issued a report on Rights of Conscience Protections for Armed Forces Service Members and Their Chaplains.  The 2014 Defense Authorization Act called for the report, which was to focus on the extent to which the Armed Forces are complying with regulations designed to protect the conscience, moral principles and religious beliefs of members of the military and military chaplains.  In a posting earlier this week, God and Country Blog is critical of the report for looking too narrowly at issues regarding negative consequences short of formal reprimands flowing from religious expression.

NYT Magazine Chronicles Plight of Christians In the Middle East

Today's New York Times Magazine carries a long article, captioned in its online version: Is This the End of Christianity in the Middle East?,with the subtitle: "ISIS and other extremist movements across the region are enslaving, killing and uprooting Christians, with no aid in sight." The article comments:

It has been nearly impossible for two U.S. presidents — Bush, a conservative evangelical; and Obama, a progressive liberal — to address the plight of Christians explicitly for fear of appearing to play into the crusader and ‘‘clash of civilizations’’ narratives the West is accused of embracing. In 2007, when Al Qaeda was kidnapping and killing priests in Mosul, Nina Shea, who was then a U.S. commissioner for religious freedom, says she approached the secretary of state at the time, Condoleezza Rice, who told her the United States didn’t intervene in ‘‘sectarian’’ issues. Rice now says that protecting religious freedom in Iraq was a priority both for her and for the Bush administration. But the targeted violence and mass Christian exodus remained unaddressed.