Egyptian Cabinet Declares Muslim Brotherhood a "Terrorist" Group

Ahram Online reports that yesterday Egypt's Cabinet officially designated the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, making it subject to Article 86 of the Egyptian penal code. According to the Washington Post, this means that hundreds of charities and non-governmental organizations affiliated with the Brotherhood will be closed down, and anyone who belongs to the Brotherhood, promotes it or funds it, will be subject to prosecution. The move comes in the wake of Tuesday's bombing of the Daqahliya security directorate in the city of Mansoura which many blame on the Brotherhood despite claims of responsibility from the Islamist militant group Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis. Some legal experts say that the terrorist designation may face legal problems on appeal, arguing that it is only the judiciary or the interim President who holds temporary legislative powers, not the Cabinet, that could make such a declaration.

The Washington Post calls yesterday's developments "a stunning turnaround for the decades-old Islamist organization, which rose to the height of political power in 2012 with the election of Mohamed Morsi — a former Brotherhood leader — as president in Egypt’s first open democratic election."

UPDATE: AP reports that on Thursday, the government arrested a number of Muslim Brotherhood members, froze the assets of 1,000 charities and NGO's linked to the Brotherhood, placed 100 Brotherhood schools under government supervision and warned that holding a leadership post in the Muslim Brotherhood could be grounds for the death penalty.

UPDATE 2: The New York Times (Dec. 26) reports:

After widespread confusion and concern about the funds cutoff, in particular, government officials partly reversed course on Thursday night, saying that the organizations whose funds had been frozen — more than a thousand of them — would be allowed access to money to continue operating.

Somalian Ministry Bans Christmas Celebrations

Ghana Web reports that yesterday in Somlia top officials of the Ministry of Justice and Religious Affairs held a news conference to announce that Chrismas celebrations would be banned in Somalia. Sheikh Ali Dhere, Director of Religious Matters at the Ministry told the news conference:

We alert fellow Muslims in Somalia that some festivities to mark Christian Days will take place around the world in this week.  It is prohibited to celebrate those days in this country.

Director General of the Ministry, Sheikh Mohamed Khayrow Aden, added that copies of the directive had been delivered to hotels and meeting places in Mogadishu. Officials said nothing about whether the ban applies to non-Muslim foreign workers and residents. This is the first time since 1991 that such a ban has been issued.

Egyptian Government Forces Seize Al Azhar

PressTV reports that in Cairo, Egypt yesterday, security forces of the army-backed Egyptian government took control of all buildings and dormitories at Al Azhar University, apparently in order to crack down on student activists.   Al Azhar is the chief center of Sunni Islamic learning in the country.

4 Oklahoma Christian Colleges Win Contraceptive Mandate Preliminary Injunction

On Monday, yet another federal district court decided a challenge by religious non-profits to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate final rules.  In Southern Nazarene University v. Sebelius, (WD OK, Dec. 23, 2013), an Oklahoma federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to four Christian universities-- Southern Nazarene, Oklahoma Wesleyan,  Oklahoma Baptist, and Mid-America Christian-- which object to providing coverage for contraceptives they regard as abortifacients. The court concluded that the self-certification accommodation provided for religious non-profits in the ACA final rules violates RFRA.  The court said in part:

The self certification is, in effect, a permission slip which must be signed by the institution to enable the plan beneficiary to get access, free of charge, from the institution’s insurer or third party administrator, to the products to which the institution objects. If the institution does not sign the permission slip, it is subject to very substantial penalties or other serious consequences. If the institution does sign the permission slip, and only if the institution signs the permission slip, institution’s insurer or third party administrator is obligated to provide the free products and services to the plan beneficiary. It is no answer to assert, as the government does here, that, in self-certifying, the institution is not required to do anything more onerous than signing a piece of paper.... The government’s argument rests on the premise that the simple act of signing a piece of paper, even with knowledge of the consequences that will flow from that signing, cannot be morally (and, in this case, religiously) repugnant – an argument belied by too many tragic historical episodes to be canvassed here.

The court went on to find that the government had not demonstrated a compelling interest in enforcing the mandate, saying in part:

[T]he number of exemptions and exceptions ... is not just a convenient straw man: granting that there may well be a plausible basis for every exception that has been carved out of the mandate, the government’s arguments for a compelling interest in applying the mandate in every particular to these universities ring hollow in light of the collective effect of those exceptions and exemptions.

AP reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Obama and Other World Leaders Send Christmas Greetings

It is Christmas Day, and political leaders around the world have broadcast or posted holiday greetings. From the White House, Christmas greetings come from President Obama in his Weekly Address, saying in part:

So many people all across the country are helping out at soup kitchens, buying gifts for children in need, or organizing food or clothing drives for their neighbors.  For families like ours, that service is a chance to celebrate the birth of Christ and live out what He taught us – to love our neighbors as we would ourselves; to feed the hungry and look after the sick; to be our brother’s keeper and our sister’s keeper.

Other world leaders have also sent Christmas greetings to their nations and the world.  Here are Christmas greetings from Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper. According to The Guardian, Queen Elizabeth's annual Christmas broadcast this afternoon will include  behind-the-scenes video filmed after the christening of Prince George of Cambridge. The Times of Israel reprints part of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Christmas greetings to Christians around the world. Associated Press of Pakistan reprints the Christmas greetings sent by Pakistani President Mamnoon Hussain.  And from a not-quite head of state, here is a Christmas and New Year message from Maryam Rajavi, President elect of National Council of Resistance of Iran.

Same-Sex Marriages Move Ahead In Utah As State Continues Seeking Stay

The Salt Lake Tribune reported yesterday on the flurry of motions being filed by the state of Utah seeking to obtain a stay of the federal district court's decision handed down Friday (see prior posting) legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. On Friday morning, the district court denied a stay, and the state quickly filed its third motion with the 10th Circuit seeking a stay while it appeals the district court ruling.  The 10th Circuit had previously denied an emergency stay pending a decision by the district court on granting a stay, as well as denying an anticipatory request to stay the expected district court's refusal of a stay. (Full text of order.)  Meanwhile, according to yesterday's Deseret News, approximately 700 same-sex marriage licenses have been issued across the state since Friday.  Some county clerks, however, are still refusing to issue same-sex licenses, and a lawsuit has been filed by a same-sex couple against the Utah County clerk's office to force them to issue a license.  Cache County officials closed the Clerk's office completely, stopping issuing traditional marriage licenses as well.

UPDATE: The Salt Lake Tribune reports that around 6 p.m., Dec. 24, the 10th Circuit again denied the state's motion for a stay of the district court's order. A spokesman for the Utah attorney general's office said that any county clerks that continue to refuse to issue licences to same-sex couples risk being held in contempt of court. Here is the full text of the order denying a stay during appeal, and which also directs expedited consideration of the appeal of the district court decision. ScotusBlog reports that Utah will file an appeal of the denial of a stay with the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday.

Clergy Abuse Lawsuit Settled By Diocese and Religious Order

The Kansas City Star reported Sunday on the settlement this month of a clergy sex abuse lawsuit filed against Catholic priest James Urbanic by a man who alleges that, as a high schooler, he was sexually abused by Urbanic in the 1970's.  Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are the Kansas City-St. Joseph (MO) Diocese and Urbanic's religious order, Missionaries of the Precious Blood, each of whom contributed half of the $130,000 settlement.  Urbanic taught religion at a Catholic high school in St. Joseph. The suit alleges that the Diocese and the religious order failed to take action when they received reports about Urbanic in the 1970's.  It was only after a 2011 investigation that Urbanic was removed from the public ministry.

Two Pennsylvania Religious Non-Profit Cases Rule Against Contraceptive Mandate Accommodation

In Perisco v. Sebelius, (WD PA, Dec. 20, 2013), a Pennsylvania federal district court granted the unopposed motion by the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh and the Catholic Diocese of Erie to convert a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the contraceptive coverage mandate granted in November (see prior posting) into a permanent injunction. The permanent injunction provides that the bishops will not have to authorize any charitable or educational entity under their control to sign the self-certification form called for in the final Affordable Care Act rules that set up an accommodation for religious non-profits, and that various charitable and educational affiliates will not need to comply with the mandate. In a statement following the decision, Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik said that the government now is likely to appeal the decision to the 3rd Circuit. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports on the decision.

In Geneva College v. Sebelius, (WD PA, Dec. 23, 2013), a Pennsylvania federal district court granted a preliminary injunction, upholding Geneva College's objection under RFRA to complying with the final Affordable Care Act rules creating an accommodation for religious non-profits that object to the contraceptive coverage mandate. In June, the court had already granted Geneva College a similar preliminary injunction in connection with its student health insurance policies. (See prior posting.)  Now it has granted a similar injunction as to the College's health plan for its employees, finding that requiring the College to submit the self-certification form called for by the final rules likely creates a substantial burden on Geneva's religious exercise:

... [I]ts submission of the self-certification form is not too attenuated from the provision of the objected to services. Instead, it is the necessary stimulus behind their provision.... Courts should not undertake to dissect religious beliefs and second-guess where an objector draws the line when analyzing substantial burden questions.

Pittsburgh Post Gazette reports on the decision.

Ohio Must Recognize Same-Sex Spouses On Death Certificates

In Obergefell v. Wymyslo, (SD OH, Dec. 23, 2013), an Ohio federal district court today in a 50-page opinion held that despite its statutory and constitutional provisions to the contrary, Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages that were validly performed in other states for purposes of indicating on an Ohio death certificate the deceased's marital status and the identity of the surviving spouse. The court said in part:

... [U]nder the Constitution of the United States, Ohio must recognize valid out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples on Ohio death certificates, just as Ohio recognizes all other out-of-state marriages, if valid in the state performed, and even if not authorized nor validly performed under Ohio law, such as marriages between first cousins, marriages of certain minors, and common law marriages. 

That is, once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away, because the right to remain married is properly recognized as a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

Moreover, as this Court held in its initial Orders this summer and reaffirms today, by treating lawful same-sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sex marriages (e.g., marriages of first cousins, marriages of certain minors, and common law marriages), Ohio law, as applied to these Plaintiffs, violates the United States Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.... 

The court's decision does not invalidate Ohio's refusal to issue marriage licenses for same-sex marriages in the state.  The court says that there is a possibility the state's concerns about same-sex marriage are more compelling in the context of marriage creation than in the context of marriage recognition. Reporting on today's opinion, AP says that Ohio will appeal the decision.

New IRS Exempt Organizations Director Designated

BNA Daily Report for Executives (subscription required) reported Friday that Tamera Ripperda, now in the IRS Large Business and International Division, will be appointed the new director of the Internal Revenue Service's Exempt Organizations unit. Ripperda will succeed former director Lois Lerner who retired in a controversy over the handling of applications from various conservative groups for tax exempt status.

Indiana Appeals Court: Sex Change of Spouse Does Not Invalidate Marriage Despite Same-Sex Marriage Ban

In In re Marriage of Melanie Davis and Angela Summers, (IN App., Dec. 20, 2013), the Indiana Court of Appeals held that a marriage between a man and a woman that is valid when  entered does not become void when one of the spouses is diagnosed with gender dysphoria and has his or her birth certificate amended to reflect a change in gender.  Even though Indiana law bars same-sex marriage, this ban does not apply to a marriage that is valid in Indiana when entered. [Thanks to William Baude at Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

Recent Articles and Publications of Interest

From SSRN:

• Anne Herzberg, Second Class Rights: How Amnesty International & Human Rights Watch Fail Women in the Middle East, (December 16, 2013).
• Dian Kartika Rahajeng, Sharia Governance: Sharia Supervisory Board Model of Islamic Banking and Finance in Indonesia, (December 11, 2013).
• Alex Reed, Playing Devil's Advocate: The Constitutional Implications of Requiring Advocacy Organizations to Present Opposing Viewpoints, (New York University Review of Law & Social Change, Vol. 37, No. 3, 2013).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Michael C. Dorf, Liberalism's Errant Theodicy. (Reviewing James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues), 93 Boston University Law Review 1469-1479 (2013).
• Steven H. Sholk, A Guide To Election Year Activities of Section 501(c)(3) Organizations, (June 7, 2013).
• USCIRF Policy Brief, Egyptian Constitutional Review: Initial Analysis of the Provisions on Freedom of Religion or Belief and Related Rights in the December 2013 Egyptian Draft Constitution, (December 2013).

Two Important Decisions Handed Down On Contraceptive Coverage Accommodation For Religious Non-Profits

District court decisions continue to be handed down at a rapid pace in challenges by religious non-profits to the final Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate rules. Those rules (see prior posting) provide an accommodation for religious non-profits under which insurers or third party administrators will offer contraceptive coverage, instead of the objecting non-profit.

In University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, (ND IN, Dec. 20, 2013), an Indiana federal district court rejected Notre Dame's claim that its rights under RFRA and the 1st Amendment are infringed by applying the accommodation in the final rules to its self-insured employee plan and its health insurance policies offered to students. The court summarized its 39-page decision as follows:

Notre Dame wants to eat its cake, and have it still, at the expense of Congress, administrative agencies, and the employees who will be affected. Notre Dame is free to opt out of providing the coverage itself, but it can’t stop anyone else from providing it. But that is essentially what Notre Dame is requesting.... Notre Dame can’t claim to be “pressured” to do something it has done, will do, and would do regardless of the contraception requirement. If Notre Dame opts out of providing contraceptive coverage, as it always has and likely would going forward, it is the government who will authorize the third party to pay for contraception. The government isn’t violating Notre Dame’s right to free exercise of religion by letting it opt out, or by arranging for third party contraception coverage.

Rick Garnett comments briefly on the decision at Mirror of Justice.

Meanwhile, the D.C. federal district court handed down a much longer (94 pages), more complicated and nuanced decision in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Sebelius, (D DC, Dec. 20, 2013).  It held that under RFRA the accommodation does not impose a substantial burden on Catholic University's religious exercise when applied to the University's health plans offered through two insurance companies:

Through its self-certification, the religious organization declares its intention to step out of the process. That cannot be accurately characterized as an act that “facilitates” the employees’ access to the services.

However the court reached a starkly opposite result for co-plaintiff Thomas Aquinas College which offers its employees a self-insured health care plan administered by a third party administrator:

the obligation to take affirmative steps to identify and contract with a willing third-party administrator if the existing third-party administrator declines [to provide contraceptive coverage directly] forces the religious organization to do something to accomplish an end that is inimical to its beliefs. This involves the organization in facilitating access to contraceptive services, which the College has averred it cannot do, and it entails the critical element of modifying one’s behavior. Therefore, the College has met its burden to identify a burden on religious exercise imposed by the regulations governing self-insured plans.

The court then went on to dismiss for lack of standing challenges by several other educational, charitable and religious organizations that provide their employees health insurance through the Archdiocese's "church plan."  The court relied on a belated concession made by the government in this and some other cases that it lacks authority to enforce the requirement that third party administrators of "church plans" furnish contraceptive coverage on behalf of objecting organizations because the enforcement authority is derived from ERISA which does not apply to "church plans." The court explained:

Although the church plan plaintiffs are self-insured, and they are under the same obligation as Thomas Aquinas to self-certify and to transmit the form to the third-party administrator, that conduct does not give rise to a concrete, actual or imminent, cognizable injury in fact when it is performed by the church plan plaintiffs because there is no reason to believe that anything will happen after that. 

Additionally the court rejected plaintiffs' 1st Amendment free exercise and Establishment Clause claims and many of their free speech claims.  However it held unconstitutional as a free speech violation a provision in the regulations barring religious non-profits from directly or indirectly seeking to influence the third party administrator's decision to make arrangements for contraceptive services.

Finally the court addressed an argument that has been lurking in the background but was apparently pressed for the first time here-- that the contraceptive coverage mandate violates the Weldon Amendment which prohibits government agencies from discriminating against health care entities that do not provide, refer or provide coverage for abortions. The court said that it:

does not need to wade into this blend of science and theology and decide whether emergency contraceptives are “abortion-inducing” products or simply contraceptives in order to find that the mandate is consistent with the Weldon Amendment..... [T]here is no indication that the contraceptive mandate discriminates ... because they do not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. 

In a press release issued Saturday, the Archdiocese of Washington said it will immediately appeal the decision.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Moore v. Cruse, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176071 (SD OH, Dec. 13, 2013), an Ohio federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal of an inmate's complaint that his free exercise rights were infringed when an officer insisted that in order to wear religious headgear ("koofi") in the gym he must provide the proper religious affiliation paperwork.

In Beiler v. Jay County Sheriff, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176641 (ND IN, Dec. 17, 2013), an Indiana federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that the jail's policy that one-on-one clergy visits to be conducted via video monitor effectively denied him visits with his minister.

In Hall v. Sutton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176115 (SD IL, Dec. 16, 2013), and Illinois federal district court modified and adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176858, Oct. 3, 2013) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that during Ramadan he was not given a bag meal to replace his missed lunch, and his complaint that in 2010 the Eid prayer service was held one day late.

In Gooden v. Muse, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176994 (WD VA, Dec. 17, 2013), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint claiming that an officer lied to him about whether bologna on his food tray contained pork.

In Simmons v. Adamy, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176993 (WD NY, Dec. 17, 2013), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that many of his library call-out times were scheduled in conflict with Ramadan, weekly Quranic classes and weekly Jumu'ah services.

In Chambers v. Roberts, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177261 (D KA, Dec. 18, 2013), a Kansas federal district court gave an inmate 30 days to cure the deficiencies in his complaint seeking access to a Sweat Lodge once a week instead of once a month and a personal Prayer Pipe with Sacred Tobacco daily instead of weekly. The court also denied class action status.

In Casey v. Pallito, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177237 (D VT, Dec. 18, 2013), a Vermont federal district court adopted in part a magistrate's recommendation (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178152, July 25, 2013), and dismissed an inmate's complaint over separating him from another inmate to whom he was providing religious counseling.  The action was taken to protect the other inmate from sexual predation. The court however allowed plaintiff to move ahead with a challenge to his being removed from his law library job.

In Rogers v. Stanback, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178412 (MD NC, Dec. 19, 2013), a North Carolina federal magistrate judge recommended denying a TRO and preliminary injunction sought to prevent prison authorities from confiscating from plaintiff's cell a photocopy of the Nation of Gods and Earth flag that plaintiff says he had in order to prove his legal claims.

In Depaola v. Virginia Department of Corrections, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178837 (WD VA, Dec. 20, 2013), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a Nation of Islam inmate's claim that he was denied the Eid-ul-Adha feast on one occasion and was denied a Christmas feast meal. The court allowed plaintiff to proceed with his complaints regarding a TB screening injection that contains alcohol; the common fare diet that he claims does not satisfy his religious beliefs; and food allegedly served under unsanitary conditions.

In Hickman-Bey v. Livingston, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179012 (SD TX, Dec. 20, 2013), a Texas federal district court granted a Muslim inmate preliminary injunction allowing him to grow a quarter-inch beard during the pendency of his lawsuit, and barring officials from harassing or retaliating against him.

Nigeria and Uganda Parliaments Pass Harsh Anti-Gay Laws; Final Approval By President/ Prime Minister Uncertain

Daily Trust reports that last week Nigeria's National Assembly gave final approval to the conference committee's version of the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Bill 2011.  It imposes a 14-year prison sentence on same-sex couples who enter a marriage or civil union.  Ten year prison sentences are prescribed for anyone who witnesses or aids or abets a same-sex union.  Section 2 of the bill provides:

Any person, who registers, operates or participates in gay clubs, societies and organisations or directly or indirectly make public show of same sex amorous relationship in Nigeria commits an offence and shall each be liable on conviction to a term of 10 years in prison.

The bill still needs the signature of President Goodluck Jonathan to become law.  Amnesty International on Friday called on the President to reject the bill. (AFP).

Meanwhile, on Friday, Uganda's Parliament passed an anti-homosexuality law described as draconian.  The Guardian reports on some of its provisions:

British campaigner Peter Tatchell noted that the bill extends the existing penalty of life imprisonment for same-sex intercourse to all other same-sex behaviour, including the mere touching of another person with the intent to have homosexual relations.

Promoting homosexuality and aiding and abetting others to commit homosexual acts will be punishable by five to seven years jail.... "These new crimes are likely to include membership and funding of LGBT organisations, advocacy of LGBT human rights, supportive counselling of LGBT persons and the provision of condoms or safer sex advice to LGBT people.

"A person in authority – gay or heterosexual – who fails to report violators to the police within 24 hours will be sentenced to three years behind bars."

He added: "Astonishingly, the new legislation has an extra-territorial jurisdiction. It will also apply to Ugandan citizens or foreign residents of Uganda who commit these 'crimes' while abroad, in countries where such behaviour is not a criminal offence. Violators overseas will be subjected to extradition, trial and punishment in Uganda.

The Guardian adds:

[The bill] was opposed by Ugandan prime minister Amama Mbabazi, who argued that not enough MPs were present for a quorum, a challenge that might yet discourage Museveni from signing the bill into law. The threat of a withdrawal of western aid could also play into his decision.

Court Says Catholic Hospitals' Pension Plan Does Not Qualify As "Church Plan" Under ERISA

In an important decision for religiously affiliated hospitals, a California federal district court has held that the pension plan for employees of  Dignity Health, a 16-state non-profit Catholic healthcare provider, does not qualify for the "church plan" exemption in ERISA.  In Rollins v. Dignity Health, (ND CA, Dec. 12, 2013), the court rejected the legal analysis set out by the Internal Revenue Service in a series of private letter rulings, as well as the reasoning of several courts in other circuits.  Instead it held that 29 U.S.C. § 1002(33)(A) clearly requires that to qualify as a church plan, the plan must be established by a church or association of churches.  It rejected Dignity Health's argument that so long as a plan is maintained by a church-affiliated organization, it can qualify as a church plan, even if it was not established by a church.  As reported by Law360, this holding allows plaintiff to move forward with her class action claim that under ERISA, Dignity Health's plan is underfunded by $1.2 billion.  Four similar lawsuits have been filed against other Catholic health care systems by the law firms involved in this litigation.

Two More Courts Issue Preliminary Injunctions In Non-Profit Challenges To Contraceptive Mandate Accommodation

Yesterday, two more federal district courts granted preliminary injunctions in RFRA challenges by religious non-profits to the final rules designed to accommodate their objections to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate. In Legatus v. Sebelius, (ED MI, Dec. 20, 2013), a Michigan federal district court held that requiring the non-profit organization Legatus to fill out the self-certification form indicating its religious objections amounted to a substantial burden on its free exercise of religion, since the form triggers provision of contraceptive coverage by the insurer. The court also concluded that the government is unlikely at trial to be able to show that it has a compelling interest for imposing the burden, or that it has used the least restrictive means to achieve it goals.

In Reaching Souls International, Inc. v. Sebelius, (WD OK, Dec, 20, 2013), an Oklahoma federal district court, relying largely on the 10th Circuit's Hobby Lobby decision in a for-profit case, found that the accommodation created a substantial burden on free exercise.  It granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement against all nonprofit religious organizations that provide benefits to employees through health plans sponsored by the Southern Baptist Convention's GuideStone Financial Resources. Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the decision. [Thanks to Luke Goodrich for the lead.]

Emory Committee Reportedly Clears Rabbi-Law Prof of Violating University Policies

The Jewish Channel on Thursday reprinted a press release from Emory University reporting on a special Institutional Review and Investigation Committee's conclusions regarding charges that Emory law Professor Michael Broyde created several online pseudonyms as alternate identities. (The press release-- undated in the reprint-- does not appear to have been posted, at least yet, by Emory University on its website.)  The Jewish Channel's prior investigative reports have been at the center of the charges.  Broyde, who is also a rabbi, admitted to having used pseudonyms to to submit letters to Jewish journals, post blog comments (including ones commenting on his own work), and to join a rival rabbinical group (International Rabbinic Fellowship) to gain access to its listserv.  (See prior posting.)  According to Emory's press release:

the Committee found that Professor Broyde used a pseudonym exclusively for activities in his rabbinic capacities, not in his scholarly capacities connected with Emory University. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the conduct did not violate Emory policies that govern allegations of research misconduct, and the University accepted the Committee’s conclusions.

Nevertheless, candor is an extremely important value for the legal profession, the Law School, and the University, and Professor Broyde has pledged that in the future he will not engage in any conduct that conflicts with this value.

The Committee did not find evidence to support charges of an additional pseudonym used by Broyde. (See prior posting.) The Jewish Channel yesterday criticized the thoroughness of the Committee's investigation.

Federal Court Strikes Down Utah's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday, a Utah federal district court declared Utah's state constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage invalid under the due process and equal protection clauses of the federal constitution and enjoined the state from enforcing provisions of Utah law that prevent a person from marrying another person of the same sex. In Kitchen v. Herbert, (D UT, Dec. 20, 2013), the court said in part:

If, as is clear from the Supreme Court cases discussing the right to marry, a heterosexual person’s choices about intimate association and family life are protected from unreasonable government interference in the marital context, then a gay or lesbian person also enjoys these same protections. ... The Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence removed the only ground—moral disapproval—on which the State could have at one time relied to distinguish the rights of gay and lesbian individuals from the rights of heterosexual individuals.

Moving to plaintiffs' equal protection challenge, the court held that none of the reasons put forward to justify the ban-- responsible procreation, optimal child rearing, proceeding with caution, preserving the traditional definition of marriage-- survive even "rational basis" review.

Utah's Attorney General quickly moved to stay the court's order, filing a motion (full text) in district court as well as a motion (full text) in the 10th Circuit.  The court's decision and plans for appeal are discussed at Scotus Blog, Christian Science Monitor, and the Salt Lake Tribune. An op-ed in the St. George (UT) News contrasts the quick appeal of the ruling with the still-uncertain reaction of state officials to a federal court decision last week invalidating a large part of Utah's law banning polygamy.

In Ogden, Weber County officials had originally announced the the county Clerk's office would be open for one hour today to process marriage license applications, but reversed that decision, turning away over 200 people in line.  According to the Salt Lake Tribune, county Clerk Ricky Hatch apologized to those waiting, and later explained that the decision not to open was made in part because there was no security in place for the building and in part because he was "advised that opening the office for 'special circumstances' may violate equal-protection laws, as the county had never before opened on a Saturday to accommodate a particular group or event."

Canada's Supreme Court Strikes Down Country's Laws Restricting Activities Relating To Prostitution

In a decision today in which 3 religious groups were among the numerous interveners, the Supreme Court of Canada held unconstituitonal three provisions of Canada's criminal code which prohibit certain activities related to prostitution.  In Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, (Sup. Ct. Can., Dec. 20, 2013), the Court held unanimously that the prohibition on keeping or being in a bawdy‑house; living on the avails of prostitution; and communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution, are unconstitutional under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Sec. 7 which protects life, liberty and security, saying in part:

The prohibitions all heighten the risks the applicants face in prostitution — itself a legal activity.  They do not merely impose conditions on how prostitutes operate.  They go a critical step further, by imposing dangerous conditions on prostitution; they prevent people engaged in a risky — but legal — activity from taking steps to protect themselves from the risks.

However the Court suspended the effectiveness of its judgment for one year in order to give Parliament time to enact a new approach to regulating prostitution.  CBC News reports on the decision. In a press release reacting to the decision, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada(one of the Interveners in the case) said:

In light of today’s decision, we urge the federal government to enact new laws to protect vulnerable women, children and men from victimization and being trafficked.

The Catholic Civil Rights League and Christian Legal Fellowship (the other religious interveners) also issued press releases reacting to the decision. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]