Dover Schools Pay $1 Million To Plaintiffs For Lawyers' Fees

The Dover (Pennsylvania) Area School District, which in December lost a high profile case challenging its attempts to teach about intelligent design, has now agreed to pay $1 million to cover the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. Lawyers say the settlement was designed to discourage school boards from considering similar action in the future. Yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the school board unanimously approved the agreement at its public meeting yesterday. Board member Bryan Rehm, a plaintiff in the case, abstained.

School's Lease With Church OK Under Georgia Constitution

In Taetle v. Atlanta Independent School System, (Jan. 17, 2006), the Georgia Supreme Court held that the Georgia constitution was not violated by a school district leasing classroom space from a church to create a kindergarten annex. The lease, entered into in order to alleviate overcrowding in the public school, also provided that that the school system would pay for renovations and improvements on the church's property, for which it would receive a credit for rents owed. The court held that Georgia's prohibition on use of public funds to aid any church or sectarian institution did not preclude this sort of arms-length commercial lease.

German Man Prosecuted For Insulting the Quran

In Muenster, Germany, authorities are prosecuting a 61-year-old businessman under Section 166 of the German Criminal Code that prohibits insulting faiths, religious societies or organizations dedicated to a philosophy of life in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace. The businessman printed the word "Koran" on toilet paper and sent it to a mosque in Duisburg and to German television stations. Prosecutors say the case was brought to their attention by a complaint the government of Iran sent to the German foreign ministry in Berlin. Yesterday's Expatica reported on the case.

UPDATE: On Feb. 23, the AP reported that the businessman charged in the case was convicted of disturbing the peace and given a one-year suspended jail sentence.

Court Upholds Student's Dismissal For Suggesting Church

The decision has just become available in Watts v. Florida International University, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40310 (SD Fla., June 9, 2005). The case, decided by a Florida federal judge some 8 months ago, involved John Watts, a state university student, who was terminated from a Master of Social Work program "for inappropriate behavior related to patients, involving religion". Watts recommended to a patient that she seek a bereavement support group. When the patient inquired where she could find such a group, Mr. Watts provided several options, one of which was "church," because the patient's assessment indicated that she was Catholic. The mention of a religious alternative was apparently the offending behavior. The court held that dismissing the student for giving this advice did not violate either his right to free speech or to the free exercise of religion. Watts did not show how preventing him from providing the information to the patient constituted a substantial burden on the exercise of his central religious beliefs.

Bahrain Defers Ratification of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Bahrain's parliament yesterday refused to ratify the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has already been adopted by 146 other nations. Today's Gulf Daily News says that instead, Parliament referred the matter to its Foreign Affairs, Defense and National Security Committee to include reservations stemming from conflicts between the Convention and Islamic Sharia law. Among the concerns expressed by members of Parliament is the Convention's protection of the right to convert to another religion and the right of women to marry without their fathers' consent.

Anti-Harassment Training Does Not Infringe Free Exercise of Religion

Last Friday in Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, (ED Ky., Feb. 17, 2006), a Kentucky federal district court held school training classes aimed at reducing anti-gay harassment did not burden students' free exercise of religion. The classes did not require any student to disavow his or her religious beliefs, or to endorse homosexuality, bisexuality or transgendered persons. The ACLU had joined the school district in defending against a challenge to the anti-harassment training sessions. (ACLU release.) Students challenging the training sessions were represented by the Alliance Defense Fund.

Preliminary Thoughts On Today's O Centro Decision

The Supreme Court's O Centro decision today, upholding a preliminary injunction requiring an exemption from U.S. drug laws for the sacramental use of hallucinogenic tea (see prior posting), is interesting for several reasons.

First, there was some uncertainty as to how broadly the Court would rule. (See prior posting.) In its actual decision, the Court resolved both the narrow issue of the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction under RFRA, and broader substantive issues of the meaning of RFRA. On the issue of the standard for a preliminary injunction, the Court ruled clearly "that the burdens at the preliminary injunction stage track the burdens at trial." It is the government's burden to show a likelihood of success on the merits at trial. It is not up to the challengers to prove that the government would likely fail at trial.

On the broader issue, the Court made it clear that when RFRA requires the government to show a compelling interest in order to substantially burden a person's exercise of religion; generalized interests are insufficient:

RFRA requires the Government to demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law 'to the person' -- the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.

This does not mean that there can never be a compelling interest in uniformly applying a law to everyone. The Court says that if religious accommodations would seriously compromise the Government's ability to administer a law, that could be a compelling interest. The Court points to cases holding that exemptions to paying Social Security taxes could undermine the tax system, and exemptions to Sunday blue laws could undermine the need for a uniform day of rest. But the Court thought that O Centro was different:

Here the Government's argument for uniformity is different; it rests not so much on the particular statutory program at issue as on slippery-slope concerns that could be invoked in response to any RFRA claim for an exception to a generally applicable law. The Government's argument echoes the classic rejoinder of bureaucrats throughout history: If I make an exception for you, I'll have to make one for everybody, so no exceptions. But RFRA operates by mandating consideration, under the compelling interest test, of exceptions to 'rule[s] of general applicability.'

This reasoning would seem to extend beyond RFRA and apply also to cases under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

The Court does not totally preclude the possibility that at trial, the Government will eventually be able to carry its burden of showing a compelling interest and that the Controlled Substances Act was the narrowest means of furthering that interest. It seems to particularly leave open that possibility in connection with the government's argument that it had a compelling interest in complying with the 1971 U.N. Convention on Psychotropic Substances. But so far the government has not, in the Court's view, made a persuasive case.

Finally, the Court did not accept the invitation of at least one amicus brief to focus on the constitutionality of RFRA as applied to the federal government. The opinion's language, however, suggests that while the Court previously struck down the application of RFRA to the states, it has little doubt about the constitutionality of RFRA as applied to federal regulations that impinge upon religious practices.

Supreme Court Upholds Church's Right To Use Hallucinogenic Tea

In a unanimous 8-0 decision today in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (full opinion), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Bush administration cannot block a New Mexico church from using a hallucinogenic tea for religious purposes. Bloomberg News reports:

The U.S. Supreme Court, saying law enforcement goals in some cases must yield to religious rights, ruled that the Bush administration can't block a New Mexico church from using a hallucinogenic tea.

In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court today said the church, a 130-member branch of a Brazilian denomination, is protected by the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The justices upheld a preliminary injunction barring federal prosecution of church leaders.

The case put the Bush administration in the unusual position of opposing religious groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals, both of which backed the New Mexico church. The government contended the tea, known as hoasca, is dangerous and illegal.

Here are excerpts from the Court's Syllabus of its opinion:

The courts below did not err in determining that the Government failed to demonstrate, at the preliminary injunction stage, a compelling interest in barring the UDV's sacramental use of hoasca....
The Government's argument that, although [under RFRA] it would bear the burden of demonstrating a compelling interest at trial on the merits, the UDV should have borne the burden of disproving such interests at the preliminary injunction hearing is foreclosed by Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656, 666....
Also rejected is the Government's central submission that, because it has a compelling interest in the uniform application of the Controlled Substances Act, no exception to the DMT ban can be made to accommodate the UDV.... RFRA and its strict scrutiny test contemplate an inquiry more focused than the Government's categorical approach.... [T]he Government's mere invocation of the general characteristics of Schedule I substances cannot carry the day.... The peyote exception has been in place since the Controlled Substance's Act's outset, and there is no evidence that it has undercut the Government's ability to enforce the ban on peyote use by non-Indians.
The Government argues unpersuasively that it has a compelling interest in complying with the 1971 U.N. Convention [on Psychotropic Substances].... At this stage, it suffices that the Government did not submit any evidence addressing the international consequences of granting the UDV an exemption, but simply relied on ... the general (and undoubted) importance of honoring international obligations and maintaining the United States' leadership in the international war on drugs. Under RFRA, invocation of such general interests, standing alone, is not enough.

Bill Introduced To Strip Federal Courts of Jurisdiction Over Legislative Prayer

Today's Indianapolis Star reports on the latest reaction to an Indiana federal district court decision last year banning sectarian prayer in the state's House of Representatives. That decision is on appeal to the U.S. 7th Circuit court of Appeals. Indiana's U.S. congressman Mike Sodrel however would like to short-circuit the appeal. Last week he introduced federal legislation to remove federal court jurisdiction over the content of prayer in state legislatures. Sodrel will hold a news conference this morning to discuss the bill.

Europeans Urge Changes In Afghanistan's Supreme Court; Islamists Demur

Today's Christian Science Monitor reports that in Afghanistan, a crisis may be brewing over whether the country's Supreme Court will move away from its strict Islamic focus and will be modernized. Presently all 9 justices are mullahs. Earlier this year at the London Conference on Afghanistan, the country agreed to reform its justice system. (Text of 2006 Afghanistan Compact.) On February 11, European diplomats delivered a demarche to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, calling for compliance with the agreement to address existing gender imbalance in the judiciary, and particularly in appointments to the Supreme Court.

This however is likely to meet opposition from Islamic scholar Fazel Hadi Shinwari who presently heads Afghanistan's Supreme Court and whose rulings have reflected strict compliance with Sharia. Responding to the European pressure for professionalization of the Court, Shinwari said: "Anything that is according to the Koran is fine with me, but if you go against the Koran, you Europeans will have to tell Karzai to get rid of this old man who is in charge of the Supreme Court. I'm ready to resign, but then there will be lots of problems, just as the desecration of the image of the prophet Muhammad, peace be unto him, caused 60,000 people to go out into the streets. The same thing will happen here."

As to pressure to address gender imbalance in the judiciary, Shinwari who is both Chief Justice and head of Afghanistan's Council of Islamic Scholars says: "We have many women judges here, but a woman cannot be a judge over the general country, and she cannot sit in this chair. If a woman becomes a top judge, then what would happen when she has a menstruation cycle once a month, and she cannot go to the mosque? Also, a woman judge cannot give an execution order, according to Islamic law."

Court Issues Revised Opinion In Florida Drivers' License Case

A Florida state court of appeals has issued a revised opinion in a case it decided last September upholding requirements of the state's Motor Vehicles Department regarding drivers' license photos. The Department refused to permit a Muslim woman to be photographed in a veil, but permitted her unveiled photo to be taken by a woman photographer. The revised opinion in Freeman v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Feb. 13, 2006), deletes references in the original opinion to deposition testimony of the license applicant regarding her beliefs about veiling, but reaches the same conclusion as the original opinion. On Religionlaw listserv, a post by Eugene Volokh discusses the modification in the court's opinion.

Editorial Commentary: The Cartoon Controversy and the False Holocaust Analogy

Today in Austria, British revisionist historian David Irving goes on trial for violating Austria’s law against Holocaust denial. In the wake of the Muhammad cartoon affair, some in the Muslim world have attempted to draw parallels between the caricatures of Muhammad and neo-Nazi propaganda. An Iranian newspaper editor thought that an appropriate response to Danish publication of the Muhammad drawings was a contest calling for Holocaust cartoons. Others have urged that laws banning neo-Nazi propaganda, Nazi symbols or Holocaust denial, enacted in several European countries, are precedents for new legislation prohibiting drawings insulting to Islam. However, the attempted analogies are false ones, even though few commentators have noted the asymmetry involved.

The fundamental difference between Neo-Nazi propaganda and the "cartoon affair" is the well-recognized difference in U.S. constitutional law between incitement cases and hostile audience cases. Incitement cases, to which U.S. courts apply the clear-and-present-danger test, involve situations in which we fear that listeners will so strongly agree with the speaker that language will quickly move to conduct. That is the concern with neo-Nazi propaganda and marches. Given the history of mid-20th century Europe, and the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries, a real fear exists that those who agree with neo-Nazis will quickly be recruited to persecute and resort to violence against Jews.

Hostile audience cases, on the other hand, are cases in which the listeners vociferously disagree with the speaker. The fear is not that listeners will follow the speaker’s urgings, but that listeners will attack the speaker or otherwise exert a hecklers’ veto. In these cases, American constitutional law protects the speaker, except in the most extreme of circumstances. The Muslim cartoons are problematic because of the reaction of a hostile audience, the reaction of Muslims who are offended by them. No one realistically fears that the cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban will so convince the Danes that Muslims are terrorists that they will begin to violently attack Muslims. Non-Muslims in general recognize the cartoons as exaggerations or over-generalizations. The fear—justified in the reality—is that some Muslims, insulted by the cartoons, will react violently against those who have published them. American law generally protects speakers from this kind of hostile reaction.

Understanding this distinction does not solve the problem of the cartoons. But hopefully it does prevent us from using false analogies in seeking a solution. Balancing the interests of listeners and speakers is difficult. Western democracies have, by and large, come down heavily in favor of the rights of speakers and have told listeners who are offended by the ideas being expressed to walk away, turn the page, switch off the broadcast, stay away from the presentation, or reply with ideas that are more convincing to listeners. Muslim protesters around the world do not agree with that resolution of the conflicting values at stake. But they need to at least recognize that the problem is different from that posed by neo-Nazi attempts to find sympathizers who would like to revive Hitler’s "final solution".
--- HMF

Arizona Bill Would Permit Opt-Out From College Assignments

In Arizona last week, the Senate Committee on Higher Education approved a bill that would require university faculty to offer alternative course work for students who find an assignment offensive to their sexuality, morality or religion. According to the Associated Press, Sen. Thayer Verschoor introduced the bill after a community college student complained to him after he was assigned to read Rick Moody's The Ice Storm, which contains scenes of sexuality and drug use.

Appeals In Ritual Beheading By Indigenous Indonesian Tribe

Today's Jakarta Post discusses pending appeals of murder convictions of members of the indigenous tribal community of Naulu in the interior of Seram Island, Maluku, in Indonesia. The tribe carries on its tradition of ritual decapitation. A segment of the Nauli people are convinced that unless human heads are offered when repairing or replacing a clan house, illness or death will result. The chief of the Nuane community, Sahune Matoke, said his members were motivated by the belief that performing the customary ritual was a sacred mission. "They had no idea of any punishment for such a killing." Samson Tahapary, a lawyer filing an appeal for the Naulu said, "The government knows of the unlawful tradition but no action has been taken to make the Naulu people understand the law. " Samson added, "The judges' decision will not be a means to increase my clients' awareness and provide further guidance. So I'm filing an appeal for proper consideration of nonjudicial matters before passing a verdict."

Recent Articles and Upcoming Conference

Recent law review articles form SmartCILP:

• Ivan E. Bodensteiner, The Demise of the First Amendment As a Guarantor of Religious Freedom, 27 Whittier Law Review 415-434 (2005).
  
• E. Frank Stephenson, An Argument for Tax Reform Based on Judeo-Christian Ethics: A Rejoinder, 36 Cumberland Law Review 103-113 (2005-2006).

Upcoming Conference:

• Fundamentalism and the Rule of Law, Cardozo School of Law, March 14, 2006.
  

No Federal Court Jurisdiction In Priest Abuse Case

In Doe v. Archdiocese of Denver, (Feb. 7, 2006), the Colorado federal district court refused to find a federal question supporting federal court jurisdiction present in a child sexual abuse claim against a priest and the Archdiocese. It held that the claims of negligent supervision and retention, vicarious liability, and fraud against the Archdiocese, and claims against the priest for breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy do not raise free exercise or establishment clause problems.

Science Association Denounces States' Anti-Evolution Efforts

Meeting in St. Louis, yesterday the Board of Directors of the world's largest general scientific organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), criticized state legislative efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution and "deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens in an increasingly technological, global community." (AAAS release.) Their statement said that science and religion "need not be incompatible. Science and religion ask fundamentally different questions about the world. Many religious leaders have affirmed that they see no conflict between evolution and religion. We and the overwhelming majority of scientists share this view." The AAAS statement was released in connection with an event for teachers at the group's 2006 Annual Meeting: "Evolution on the Front Line".

Private Maryland Center Refuge For Christian State Legislators

Today's Baltimore Sun profiles Querencia House, an unmarked rented residence two blocks from the Maryland State House that since 2004 has served as a refuge for the capital's conservative Christians. Each week that the legislature is in session, Christians gather at the privately-funded center to pray for the president, the governor and state legislators and to ask that the kingdom of God be realized in Maryland. Del. Gail H. Bates says she feels lifted up by their support. Begun by Barb Stiegler, a former missionary, the house was the idea of Sen. Janet Greenip who was was looking for a quiet place in the capital during the legislative session. "I felt that the Christians here needed to be together sometimes," she said. "A place where they could be Christian."

Inside A High School Bible Class

A lengthy article by a Wilmington, North Carolina Star-News reporter gives insight into what is actually taking place in the classroom in a New Testament course offered in Wilmington high schools. Teachers are hired and paid by a church-supported group, the Executive Committee of the Bible. As recounted by the reporter:

At Harris's class last week there was nothing close to preaching. He asked students questions about aspects of the Bible, like which events in world history explained why the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. At another, he talked about the tensions leading to the Protestant Reformation. But other moments arguably reinforced a traditional brand of Christian thinking. Harris referred to creation and made statements such as the Bible is one book, which has 66 smaller books, 40 authors and one central theme: "The redemption of man through Jesus Christ."

Rick Holliday, New Hanover County School's executive director of instructional services said that the classes have been renamed to reflect a more historical bent. The course that was "In the Beginning" is now "Old Testament I" and "The Life of Christ" is now "New Testament I." The school is also insisting that miracles are not treated as history, but instead as something “the Bible says”. Holliday says that the goal is to give the community what it wants and to follow the constitution, but adds, "That's a tough balancing act".

NH Supreme Court Rejects Foreign Islamic Divorce Of NH Domiciliaries

On Valentine's Day, the New Hampshire Supreme court rejected a husband's claim that his Islamic divorce a day before his wife filed in New Hampshire should have prevented the New Hampshire trial court from asserting jurisdiction to end their marriage. The case, In the Matter of Sonia Ramadan and Samer Ramadan (NH Sup. Ct., Feb. 14, 2006), is discussed in yesterday's Concord Monitor. Samer Ramadan claimed that he validly divorced his wife under Islamic law by declaring "I divorce you" three times in succession in her presence. He then telephoned an attorney in Lebanon and declared, with two witnesses listening, that he had divorced his wife. Two months later, a religious magistrate in Lebanon issued a decree confirming that divorce. However, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the Lebanese decree had no legal effect because both husband and wife were domiciled in New Hampshire when the wife's divorce petition was filed.

The court decided that another issue raised by the husband was moot. The trial court's initial temporary decree had ordered the husband "not [to] speak about the Petitioner as a Muslim/Muslim woman to the children or within hearing of the children." Since that provision was not in the final divorce decree being appealed, the Supreme Court held it did not have to determine whether it amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.