Religion Clause

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Suit Asks Ohio To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages On Birth Certificates

A suit was filed by three couples on Monday in an Ohio federal district court to require state officials to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed elsewhere when issuing birth certificates. The complaint (full text) in Henry v. Wymyslo, (SD OH, filed 2/10/2014) alleges that state and local health department officials will permit only one parent from married same-sex couples to be listed on the birth certificate of their children. It continues:

Plaintiffs challenge this unequal treatment as unconstitutional. These same Defendants were recently ordered to recognize valid out-of state marriages between same-sex couples on death certificates..... The reasoning from that case compels recognition of same-sex marriages on birth certificates.

Cincinnati Enquirer reports on the filing of the lawsuit.

DC Circuit: RFRA Does Not Protect Guantanamo Detainees

In Aamer v. Obama, (DC Cir., Feb. 11, 2014), the D.C. Circuit denied a preliminary injunction to Guantanamo detainees who brought a habeas corpus action to challenge the government's force feeding protocol used to protect the health of detainees engaged in protest hunger strikes. Among the detainees' claims was that their force feeding violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it prevents them from from engaging in communal prayers during Ramadan. Judge Tatel's majority opinion (which also dealt at length with other issues) held that RFRA’s protections do not extend to Guantanamo detainees. He reaffirmed prior precedent in the D.C. Circuit that nonresident aliens do not qualify as protected “person[s]” within the meaning of RFRA. Judge Williams, dissenting, did not reach the RFRA issue because he urged dismissal of the entire action on jurisdictional grounds. [Thanks to Arthur Spitzer for the lead.]

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Nevada Tells 9th Circuit It Will No Longer Defend Its Same-Sex Marriage Ban

According to AP, Nevada's attorney general yesterday filed a statement with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals informing the court that the state will no longer defend its ban on same-sex marriage. The move comes in the pending appeal in Sevcik v. Sandoval, in which a Nevada federal district court upheld the ban against an Equal Protection Clause challenge. (See prior posting.) The attorney general told the court:

After thoughtful review and analysis, the state has determined that its arguments grounded upon equal protection and due process are no longer sustainable.

Nevada's Governor Brian Sandoval agrees with the attorney general.

As described by SCOTUSblog, the state changed its position after considering the 9th Circuit's decision last month in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, (9th Cir., Jan. 21, 2014) holding that heightened scrutiny must be applied to equal protection claims based on sexual orientation. The case held that peremptory jury challenges may not be made on the basis of sexual orientation.

Developments In Utah Same-Sex Marriage Litigation

Numerous amicus briefs have been filed in the 10th Circuit in Kitchen v. Herbert, the appeal of the Utah federal district court's decision striking down the ban on same-sex marriage in Utah. Of particular interest is the amicus brief (full text) filed yesterday by major religious organizations urging reversal of the district court. The brief, filed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; National Association of Evangelicals; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; and Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod argues:

Undermining the husband-wife marital institution by redefining it to include same-sex couples will, in the long term, harm vital child-welfare interests that only the husband-wife definition can secure. The result will be more mothers and fathers concluding that the highest end of marriage is not the welfare of their children but the advancement of their own life choices. We know, from personal experience over numerous decades of ministering to families and children, that more focus on satisfying adult needs will not benefit vulnerable children.

The Salt Lake Tribune has a summary of the over 20 briefs filed in support of Utah's position, and reports at more length on the brief filed by religious organizations.

Meanwhile, last month the ACLU filed a lawsuit (press release) seeking to require Utah to recognize as valid the more than 1000 same-sex marriages performed in the state after the district court struck down the ban and before the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the decision. The complaint (full text) in Evans v. State of Utah, (UT 3d Dist. Ct., filed 1/21/2014), argues that by not fully recognizing the marriages, the state has deprived couples of liberty and property interests protected by the due process clause of the Utah constitution and by 42 USC Sec. 1983:

By placing recognition of their marriages “on hold,” the State of Utah has placed the legal status of all same-sex married couples, including Plaintiffs and their families and children, in legal limbo and created uncertainty as to their rights and status in virtually all areas of their lives.

The ACLU provides links to other documents and items relating to the case.

Home Schooler Sues To Play On Christian School's Atlhletic Teams

The Central Pennsylvania Patriot-News yesterday reported on a lawsuit by the mother of a home-schooled high school freshman who wants to play on a Christian school's soccer and basketball teams. Under the rules of the Pennsylvania Intercollegiate Athletic Association, home schoolers are allowed to play on public school teams in district in which they live. Here the parents want the boy to be able to participate on the teams of Covenant Christian Academy, also located in the boy's home district. Plaintiff says that PIAA is misinterpreting its own rules, and is also denying her the constitutional right to direct the education of her son. The suit was originally filed in state court, but defendants are seeking to remove it to federal court.

St. Louis Diocese Provides Court With List of Accused Priests and Victims

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch yesterday, the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis has complied with a trial court's order to turn over to the court and plaintiff's attorney in a pending lawsuit the names of priests who have been accused of sexually abusing minors over a 20-year period, as well as contact information of the victims. The order comes in a suit filed in 2011 by a woman who says she was abused by a now-defrocked priest. Last week the Missouri Supreme Court rejected the Archdiocese's challenge to the trial court's order. The list remains under seal. The trial court will appoint an attorney to make first contact with the victims, rather than having that contact come from plaintiff's lawyer.

Monday, February 10, 2014

Neighbor Sues Over Home's Use As Synaogue

KDFW News reported last week on a lawsuit in Dallas, Texas against a rabbi who is using a home in a residential neighborhood as a meeting place for his 25-person Orthodox Jewish congregation. David Schneider, who lives in the home across the street and was recently elected head of the homeowners association, says that the rabbi is violating homeowners association rules. Schneider is seeking $50,000 in damages contending that the synagogue has lowered his property values. Religious services are held in the synagogue twice a day, and Rabbi Yaakov Rich has filed a certificate with the City of Dallas notifying it of his use of the building as a synagogue, known as Congregation Toras Chaim. Liberty Institute is defending the synagogue, contending that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act protects the right to use the home for religious meetings and worship. (Press release.)

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Cultural Property Designation For Mount Taylor

In Rayellen Resources, Inc. v. New Mexico Cultural Properties Review Committee, (NM Sup. Ct., Feb. 6, 2014), the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the decision of the state's Cultural Properties Review Committee to recognize 400,000 acres of public land on Mount Taylor as a registered cultural property under the New Mexico Cultural Properties Act. The mountain is a sacred site for the Navajos and several other Native American tribes. The court held that it was permissible for the Committee to use federal National Register guidelines and then went on to reject arguments that the Committee has misapplied these guidelines:

the Committee made numerous findings relating to Mount Taylor’s eligibility for listing, including that the nomination satisfied three of the four possible federal criteria because Mount Taylor was associated with significant contributions to our history and with persons significant in our past, and it offers a past and potential future yield of information about our history. Although these findings undoubtedly include a religious component, because religion is part of culture and history, the findings are nonetheless based primarily on historical evidence.... [S]ubstantial evidence supports the Committee’s findings on Mount Taylor’s historic eligibility....

The court, applying the Lemon test, also rejected the argument that the listing of Mount Taylor violates the Establishment Clause.

Sunday, February 09, 2014

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Wall v. Wade, (4th Cir., Feb. 3, 2014), the 4th Circuit vacated a Virginia federal district court's dismissal of damage claims and held that it is unconstitutional for a prison to condition inmates' participation in Ramadan observances on their providing some physical indicia of Islamic faith, such as a Quran, Kufi, prayer rug, or written religious material obtained from the prison Chaplain’s office.

In Holtz v. Karr, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12519 (WD WA, Jan. 23, 2014), a Washington federal magistrate judge recommended that a Muslim inmate be permitted to proceed with his claims against the county alleging that jail policies interfere with his ability to practice Islam and are religiously discriminatory. Plaintiff's complaint covers religious living units, diet, and religious dress, items and prayer.

In Stevens v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12586 (MD PA, Jan. 31, 2014), a Pennsylvania federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13098, Jan. 14, 2014) and dismissed claims by a Native American inmate for $1 billion in damages for crushing his spirits; a "review of all religious freedoms towards Native American[s]"; and a written apology published in a newspaper after he did not hear his name called out for the Hoop worship service.

In Mitchell v. Fox, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13845 (ED WA, Feb. 4, 2014), a Washington federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that his copy of the Qur'an was damaged and later taken and that two prayer books were taken during a search. He could have obtained another copy of the Qur'an from the chaplain.

In Gray v. Lewis, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13899 (ND CA, Feb. 4, 2014), a California federal district court permitted an inmate who was a follower of the Yahweh religion to move ahead with his complaint that he was denied kosher meals.

In Fowler v. CDCR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13922 (ED CA, Feb. 3, 2014) and Nible v. CDCR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13924 (ED CA, Feb. 4, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend complaints by inmates that they were deprived of outdoor worship space chapel access, religious items and funds to practice the Asatru/Odinic religion, while mainstream religions were supported.

In Palermo v. New Hampshire State Prison, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14096 (D NH, Feb. 4, 2014), a New Hampshire federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with his complaint that prison officials refused to recognize his religion; provide him with religious items or a religious diet; or allow him to receive religious posters or attend group worship.

In Ali v. Stephens, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14460 (ED TX, Feb. 4, 2014), a Texas federal magistrate judge granted a Muslim inmate a TRO and preliminary injunction allowing him to wear a one-quarter inch beard, but denied a TRO and preliminary injunction on his request to wear a full beard and to wear his kufi cap throughout the prison at all times.

In Reiske v. Bruno, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14696 (D CT, Feb. 6, 2014), a Connecticut federal district court refused to grant an inmate who is a second degree Wicca priest a TRO or preliminary injunction to require prison authorities to recognize his Wicca religion and allow him to purchase various religious items such as candles, oils, bowls and rope.

In Fox v. Stephens, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15272 (SD TX, Feb. 6, 2014), a Texas federal district court dismissed an inmate's free exercise claims because they were not appropriately raised by a habeas corpus action and because the suit is subject to the 3-strike bar for frivolous in forma pauperis litigation.

Nigeria Cracking Down on Gays

Today's New York Times carries a long front-page article titled Wielding Whip and a Hard New Law, Nigeria Tries to ‘Sanitize’ Itself of Gays. Here is an excerpt:

Rights advocates say they have recorded arrests in multiple Nigerian states, but the country’s north has experienced the toughest crackdown. Mr. Jonathan’s national ban has redoubled the zeal against gay people here and elsewhere, according to officials and residents in Bauchi, where Shariah law prevails and green-uniformed Hisbah, or Islamic police officers, search for what is considered immoral under Islam.

“It’s reawakened interest in communities to ‘sanitize,’ more or less, to talk about ‘moral sanitization,’ ” Dorothy Aken’Ova, executive director of Nigeria’s International Center for Reproductive Health and Sexual Rights, said of the law. “Where it was quiet before, it’s gotten people thinking, ‘Who is behaving in a manner that may be gay?’ It’s driven people into the closet.”...

“God has not allowed this thing; we are not animals,” said Umar Inuwa Obi, 32, a student who said he was in the mob that hurled stones and bottles at the court and the prison van transporting the gay suspects two weeks ago.

“In Shariah court you are supposed to kill the man,” Mr. Obi said, adding that he favored this judgment. “But the government has refused. That’s why they started throwing stones and bottles.”

(See prior related posting.)

Justice Department Will Give Nation-Wide Recognition To Lawful Same-Sex Marriages

In a speech (full text) to the Human Rights Campaign dinner last night, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department will issue a new policy memorandum on Monday to formally instruct all Justice Department employees to give lawful same-sex marriages full and equal recognition in carrying out Justice Department activities in all states.

This means that same-sex spouses will be able to refuse to testify against their spouses in federal court proceedings, even in states that do not recognize same-sex marriages. Same-sex marriages will be treated the same as heterosexual marriages in bankruptcy proceedings, allowing same-sex couples to file jointly for bankruptcy and making alimony owed to a former same-sex spouse generally non-dischargeable. Federal inmates in same-sex marriages will have the same spousal visitation, furlough, correspondence and compassionate release rights as opposite-sex spouses. Same -sex spouses will be recognized in various benefit programs administered by the Department of Justice-- the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program; the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund; and the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program.

HRC issued a press release reacting to Holder's remarks, saying: "Today, our nation moves closer toward its ideals of equality and fairness for all."

UPDATE: Here is the Memorandum issued by the Attorney General.

Saturday, February 08, 2014

Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Suit Over Disturbing Church Bells

In Devaney v. Kilmartin, (D RI, Feb. 6, 2014), a Rhode Island federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a Narragansett, Rhode Island resident's complaint about constantly ringing church bells. The court described plaintiff's complaint:

the Amended Complaint focuses on St. Thomas More Church’s electronically-amplified bells, located across the street from Mr. Devaney’s home, which he contends have gonged and pealed 700 times per week at upwards of 100 decibels for at least thirteen years. The Amended Complaint adds another nearby church, St. Peter’s Episcopal Church, which Mr. Devaney avers has rung its electronically-amplified bells hourly during daylight “beginning after Plaintiff moved to his home” eighteen years ago. Mr. Devaney alleges that the constant ringing has caused emotional distress and denied him peaceful enjoyment of his property....

Recommending dismissal without prejudice, the magistrate judge concluded:

While Mr. Devaney’s exasperation is clear as a bell in his Amended Complaint, the connection between his pique and a plausible federal cause of action is not. It is conceivable that he may have an important claim arising under the United States Constitution; however, his pleading does not articulate one.

WPRI reports on the decision.

Australian Court Says Wearing Kippah Does Not Excuse Absence of Bike Helmet

In Thomas v. Kent, (WASC, Feb. 4, 2014), the Supreme Court of Western Australia upheld the conviction of Simon Thomas for riding a bicycle without wearing a protective helmet. Thomas claimed that he was not wearing his helmet because he was wearing a kippah (a Jewish skullcap). Thomas said that he wears a kippah on three occasions each year, one of which is his birthday. But the court said that there had been no evidence introduced as to the religious reason for not placing a helmet over the skullcap, nor was there evidence that wearing a kippah made wearing a helmet impractical. News.com.au reports on the decision.

Pentagon Says New Supplier For Kosher MREs Will Be Found

According to a JTA report earlier this week, the Pentagon says it is committed to supporting the religious dietary requirements of service members. The statement comes after Agudath Israel of America complained to the top military chaplain that a solicitation by the Defense Logistics Agency last April for bids to cover halal and kosher MREs (meals ready-to-eat) was reissued last month to cover only halal MREs. The Defense Department acknowledges it was unsuccessful in obtaining bids for kosher MREs, but says it has issued a new solicitation and expects to select a supplier by April. Meanwhile it has sufficient kosher MREs on hand to meet the needs of Jewish members of the military deployed to the Central Command region (which includes the Middle East and Afghanistan).

Friday, February 07, 2014

In Fragmented Decision, Washington Supreme Court Finds Discrimination Exemption For Religious Non-Profits Unconstitutional As Applied

The Washington state Supreme Court yesterday answered certified questions from a federal district court in a fragmented decision. In Ockletree v. Franciscan Health System, (SA Sup. Ct., Feb. 6, 2014), the state's high court responded to two questions of state constitutional law: (1) Does the exclusion in the Washington Law Against Discrimination for religious non-profit organizations violate the state constitution's equal privileges and immunities clause or its free exercise clause. (2) If not, is the exclusion unconstitutional when applied to prevent a suit by an employee who claims discrimination unrelated to any religious purpose, practice or activity of defendant. The suit involved a claim of discrimination on the basis of race and disability in the firing of a security guard by a Catholic hospital.

In the lead opinion, 4 justices answered the first certified question in the negative, concluding that "WLAD's definition of 'employe'... does not involve a privilege or immunity" and "does not involve the appropriation of money or application of property, and therefore does not fall within the prohibition of article I, section 11 's establishment clause."

Dissenting, 4 justices disagreed, saying: "WLAD grants religious nonprofits immunity from a right of action that belongs to all Washington citizens by virtue of citizenship. Under the privileges and immunities clause, the legislature cannot grant such immunity to one class of corporations unless there are reasonable grounds for excluding others. Because WLAD grants immunity from discrimination claims that are unrelated to the employer's religious beliefs, it is not necessary to alleviate a concrete and substantial burden on religious exercise."

In a separate opinion, Justice Wiggins provided a 5th vote for answering the first certified question in the negative, concluding that the exclusion is not unconstitutional on its face. However he also provided a fifth vote for answering the second certified question in the affirmative, but only after insisting that the second certified question needs to be reframed, saying:

The original second certified question improperly focused on whether the employer discriminated on religious grounds, which requires courts to engage in excessive entanglement with religious doctrines and practices. Washington courts would be asked to determine what constitutes a particular religion's purpose, practice, and activity and determine whether the reason for the discrimination is related. This is an intrusive inquiry into religious doctrine.

When the exemption is applied to a person whose job qualifications and responsibilities are unrelated to religion, there is no reasonable ground for distinguishing between a religious organization and a purely secular organization. Therefore, I agree with the dissent that the exemption is invalid when applied to an employee like Ockletree, assuming that there is no relationship between his duties and religion or religious practices.

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

Law Prof-Rabbi Resigns From Rabbinical Group To Avoid Ethics Probe Over Online Pseudonyms

TJC reported yesterday that Emory University law professor Rabbi Michael Broyde has resigned from the Rabbinical Council of America rather than face an ethics investigation by the organization over charges that he created false identities to use online 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.) The RCA had already given Broyde an indefinite leave of absence from his membership and from his longstanding role as a rabbinical court judge at the Beit Din of America. Apparently Broyde's latest resignation applies only to the RCA and not to his Bet Din role. Previously Emory Law School cleared Broyde of violating university rules since his conduct related only to activities in his rabbinic capacity. (See prior posting.)

Cert. Petitions On Prison Grooming Rules

Yesterday a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Jones v. Thompson. In the case (decided as Knight v. Thompson), the 11th Circuit rejected several Native American inmates' RLUIPA challenges to Alabama prison system grooming rules that prohibit them from wearing long hair as required by their religion. The 11th Circuit held that the short-hair policy for male inmates is the least restrictive means of furthering compelling governmental interests in security, discipline, hygiene and safety. (See prior posting.) A cert. petition (full text) was filed last September in another unrelated case also raising the constitutionality of prison grooming policies-- Holt v. Hobbs. Whether or not to grant cert. in that case, involving a Muslim inmate, is on the calendar for the Court's Feb. 21 conference. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Douglas Laycock for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Addition of Cross To Los Angeles County Seal

Yesterday, the ACLU announced that it has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a number of plaintiffs challenging the recent decision by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to modify the county seal by adding a cross atop the depiction of the San Gabriel Mission already on it. (See prior posting.) The complaint (full text) in Davies v. Los Angeles Board of County Supervisors, (CD CA, filed 2/6/2014), contends that the cross violates the Establishment Clause as well as provisions in the California constitution that protect free exercise and bar the expenditure of public funds to aid religion. Los Angeles Times reports on the filing of the lawsuit.

Cert. Petition Filed In California Change Therapy Ban Case

Yesterday a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Pickup v. Brown. In the case, the 9th Circuit upheld the constitutionality of California Senate Bill 1172 that bans state-licensed mental health providers from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with patients under 18. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.