Appeals Court Rejects Ban on Children Attending Mother's Church

In Stancek v. Stancek, (MN App., March 10, 2014), the Minnesota Court of Appeals resolved a child custody dispute between separated parents as to their three daughters. Before the parties separated, they belonged to Word of Life Church where the wife's parents were pastors, and where one of the children attended kindergarten. When the couple became estranged, the Church's board of trustees sent the father a letter prohibiting him from attending the church. The trial court awarded legal and physical custody of the children to the father. It also prohibited the mother from taking the children to the Word of Life Church because "that would likely lead to the alienation of the children from their father ... or result in an uncomfortable worship scenario for the children...." Without reaching the free exercise and establishment clause arguments, the Court of Appeals held:

The record does not support the finding that it is “impossible” for the children to attend Word of Life Church..... The district court’s conclusion... is modified so that mother’s provision of care for the children (as an alternative to daycare) may be either at her home or at any daycare facility where she works (without regard to whether the facility is located at her church)..... Similarly, the prohibition on the children attending or otherwise being part of the Word of Life congregation is unsupported by the findings as modified, and the prohibition is therefore reversed.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Break-Away Church Property Dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied certiorari in Falls Church v. Protestant Episcopal Church, (Docket No. 13-449, cert. den. 3/10/2014). (Order List.) In the case, the Virginia Supreme Court ordered that a break-away local congregation must convey most of its property to The Episcopal Church by reason of TEC's "Dennis Canon," but remanded as to personal property acquired by the local congregation after its vote to disaffiliate from TEC. (See prior posting.) Religion News Service reports on the Court's denial of review. [Thanks to Bob Tuttle for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Indiana's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

The Indianapolis Star reports that last Friday a lawsuit was filed in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's statutory ban on same-sex marriages and on recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. In a press release, state Attorney General Greg Zoeller said:

As Indiana's Attorney General I will represent our state and defend our statute now and on any appeal to the best of my skill and ability, as I swore an oath to do.  As state government’s lawyer, I must defend the state’s authority to define marriage at the state level within Indiana’s borders.  People of goodwill have sincere differences of opinion on the marriage definition, but I hope Hoosiers can remain civil to each other as this legal question is litigated in the federal court.

Meanwhile the state legislature effectively delayed until at least 2016 any vote on a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in the state. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Required Signs In Pregnancy Counseling Centers Held Unconstitutional

In Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County, (D MD, March 7, 2014), a Maryland federal district court enjoined the enforcement of a Montgomery County Maryland Resolution that requires each "limited service pregnancy center" to post to post a sign in its waiting room that reads:

(1) “the Center does not have a licensed medical professional on staff”; and (2) “the Montgomery County Health Officer encourages women who are or may be pregnant to consult with a licensed health care provider”.

The court held that the Resolution is a content-based regulation that compels non-commercial speech, and thus triggers strict scrutiny review. It concluded:

The record produced by Defendants is simply insufficient to sustain this regulation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. Assuming arguendo that the County has a compelling interest in positive health outcomes for pregnant women, the critical flaw for the County is the lack of any evidence that the practices of LSPRCs are causing pregnant women to be misinformed which is negatively affecting their health. It does not necessarily follow that misinformation will lead to negative health outcomes.

Alliance Defending Freedom issued a press release announcing the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Julia Chamberlin & Amos N. Guiora, Polygamy: Not 'Big Love' But Significant Harm, (Women's Rights Law Reporter, Rutgers University School of Law (2014 Forthcoming)).
• Sean T. Murphy, No More Christian Doctors, (February 24, 2014).
• Michael A. Helfand & Barak D. Richman, The Challenge of Co-Religionist Commerce, (Duke Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Sahar F. Aziz, Veiled Discrimination, (March 3, 2014).
• Kenneth Lasson, Sacred Cows, Holy Wars: Exploring the Limits of Law in the Regulation of Raw Milk and Kosher Meat, (March 6, 2014).
• Rabia Belt, When God Demands Blood: Unusual Minds and the Troubled Juridical Ties of Religion, Madness, and Culpability, (March 1, 2014).
• Teemu Ruskola, What is a Corporation? Liberal, Confucian, and Socialist Theories of Enterprise Organization (and State, Family, and Personhood), (Seattle University Law Review, Vol. 37, p. 637, 2014).

From SSRN (non-US law):

• Richard Moon, Religious Accommodation and Its Limits: The Recent Controversy at York University, (Constitutional Forum, Vol. 23, Forthcoming).
• Nathalie Des Rosiers, Free Religions or Freedom from Religion? Canada, Federalism and Religion, (February 23, 2014).
• Jeroen Temperman, Recognition, Registration, and Autonomy of Religious Groups: European Approaches and Their Human Rights Implications, (in: David Kirkham (ed.), State Responses to Religious Minorities (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2013), pp. 151-165).
• AliReza ShakarBeigia, Peyman Akbari & Ghodrat Heydari, Expansion of Citizenship Rights Based on Religious Teachings Jurisprudence and Law, (Scientific Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences (2014) 3(2) 48-53).
• Michelle Biddulph & Dwight G. Newman, Eweida v United Kingdom, (Australian International Law Journal, Vol 20, 2013: 183-188).
• Hanna Lerner, Permissive Constitutions, Democracy, and Religious Freedom in India, Indonesia, Israel, and Turkey, (World Politics, Volume 65, Issue 4 (October 2013), pp. 609-655).
• Engy Abdelkader, Myanmar's Democracy Struggle: The Impact of Communal Violence Upon Rohingya Women and Youth, (Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, 2014).

From SmartCILP:

• Michael W. McConnell, Why Protect Religious Freedom? (Reviewing Brian Leiter, Why Tolerate Religion?), 123 Yale Law Journal 770-810 (2013).
• Capt. Malcolm H. Wilkerson (U.S. Army), Picking Up where Katcoff Left Off: Developing a Framework for a Constitutional Military Chaplaincy, 66 Oklahoma Law Review 245-286 (2014).
• Tung Yin, Were Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber the Only White Terrorists?: Race, Religion, and the Perception of Terrorism, 4 Alabama Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Law Reveiw 33-87 (2013). 

Malaysia Bans Comic Book That Refers To Super Hero As "Allah"

Time reports that in Malaysia last week, the Home Ministry banned distribution of the Malay language issue of Ultraman the Ultra Power comic book for its use of "Allah" in describing its super hero.  The offending sentence has been translated as: "He is considered, and respected as, ‘Allah’ or the Elder to all Ultra heroes." The Home Ministry says that the comic book contains elements that can undermine public security and societal morals, and warned that the language threatens to confuse Muslim children and damage their faith.  Some in Malaysia have taken to social media to deride the government's response. According to CNA, anyone distributing the banned comic book could face a sentence of three years in prison. This latest order adds to the long-running controversy over the use of "Allah" by non-Muslims-- particularly the use by Malay speaking Catholics to refer to God. (See prior posting.)

Fired Gay Catholic School Vice-Principal Sues

Last Friday, a lawsuit was filed in state court in Seattle, Washington by a former Catholic high school vice-principal Mark Zmuda who was fired after he married his same-sex partner last December.  According to The Guardian, the suit alleges violation of Washington's law against discrimination, breach of implied contract, wrongful termination, violation of the consumer protection act, and tortious interference.  The Guardian reports:

Zmuda does not dispute that he signed an employment contract that required him to uphold Catholic teachings. However, his complaint claims that the school misrepresented its employment environment as being one of inclusion and anti-discrimination both on its website and in its employee handbook.

The school's president, Sister Mary Tracey knew earlier on that Zmuda is gay. He complied with her request not to bring his partner to school events. After the marriage, Sister Mary told Zmuda that if he would divorce his husband, the school would pay the costs of a commitment ceremony in place of a wedding, and would allow him to keep his job. The school is seeking dismissal of the suit on the basis of its 1st Amendment right to make its own decisions on matters of faith and doctrine.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Wiseman v. Cate, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26373 (ED CA, Feb. 27, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's complaint that Muslim inmates in the Halal food plan are provided Halal meat at dinner but are only provided vegetarian meals at breakfast and lunch.

In Rowe v. Indiana Department of Corrections, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27060 (SD IN, March 3, 2014), an Indiana federal district court denied cross motions for summary judgment and permitted an inmate to continue to pursue his free exercise and RLUIPA challenges to prison policies that call for the zero tolerance on security threat groups, prohibit visits from ex-prisoners, limit the number of books that can be possessed, limit certain inmate-to-inmate correspondence, bar item censorship of religious publications, and ban the swastika.

In Esposito v. Quatinez, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28452 (ED NY, March 5, 2014), a New York federal district court permitted plaintiff who was involuntarily committed to the psychiatric unit of Stony Brook University Hospital to continue to pursue her claim that requiring her to remain hospitalized violates her free exercise rights because her religious beliefs require that she not affiliate herself through receipt of treatment with a hospital that performs abortions.

In Baumgarten v. Howard County Department of Corrections, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28590 (D MD, March 6, 2014), a Maryland federal district court permitted a Jewish inmate to proceed with his complaint that he was repeatedly denied kosher meals for which he had been approved. Plaintiff is seeking damages.

In Mitchell v. Cicchi, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28738 (D NJ, March 6, 2014), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed, without prejudice, a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was barred from participating in the jail's Eid festival because of his maximum security status.

Court Holds Middle School In Florida Not Covered By Federal Equal Access Act

In Carver Middle School Gay-Straight Alliance v. School Board of Lake County, Florida, (MD FL, March 6, 2014), a Florida federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to the Gay-Straight Alliance that sought recognition as an official student organization in a Florida middle school.  The court held that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that a middle school constitutes a "secondary school" for purposes of coverage under the federal Equal Access Act. That Act leaves the definition of secondary school to state law, and Florida statutes are unclear about whether this includes middle schools.  The court also held that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their 1st Amendment free speech claim because the refusal to recognize the group was reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns in light of the age of the students involved.

First Guilty Plea In Coerced Jewish Divorce Extortion Operation

The New Jersey U.S. Attorney's Office announced that David Hellman, a 31-year old personal trainer, pleaded guilty yesterday in federal court to traveling in interstate commerce to commit extortion in an attempt to coerce a Jewish man in New York to give his wife a "get"-- a Jewish divorce document. Hellman was part of a group of men-- including two rabbis-- who allegedly charged women tens of thousands of dollars to use violence against their recalcitrant husbands who refused to grant a Jewish divorce after a civil divorce had been obtained. They were arrested in an FBI sting operation. (See prior posting.) Hellman was the first of the group charged to plead guilty.  His bail conditions include a $500,000 bond and GPS monitoring. He faces a possible sentence of as much as 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The Newark Star-Ledger reports on the case.

UPDATE: The March 11 Asbury Park Press reports that two additional defendants involved have pleaded guilty to charges of traveling in interstate commerce to commit extortion.

Purdue Reaches Compromise With Donor Over Reference To God on Plaque

Purdue University's controversy with a donor over the wording on a plaque has been settled with a compromise. As previously reported, suits and counter-suits were threatened when the University balked at placing on a conference room dedication plaque the donor's requested inscription that referred to "the understanding of God’s physical laws." Now, according to yesterday's Purdue Eponent, the University has agreed to revised language which shows the reference as a quotation from the donor. Also the University will add a second plaque nearby which will make clear that the quote is not Purdue's language and that the University is aware of its legal obligations of neutrality.

EEOC Releases Guidance On Religious Garb and Grooming Accommodation

The EEOC announced yesterday the release of two related technical assistance publications on the law regarding religious dress and grooming in the workplace. A Question and Answer document titled Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities is a guide (including examples) to when and how employers must accommodate employees' religiously-based requests on clothing, religious dress, head coverings, hair style and beards. The related Fact Sheet summarizes the basic requirements of Title VII.

The new guidance comes as the Department of Justice announced the filing of a federal lawsuit against the Philadelphia (PA) school district charging it with discrimination against a Muslim school police officer who was reprimanded for wearing a beard in violation of an October 2010 policy change that prevents school police and security officers from wearing beards longer than one-quarter inch. The employee, Siddiq Abu-Bakr, has worn a longer beard for the 27 years he has worked for the school district.

Google Denied Stay of Order To Take Down "Innocence of Muslims", But En Banc Rehearing Is Possible

As previously reported, last month in Garcia v. Google, Inc.,  the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a preliminary injunction should be granted to require the controversial film "Innocence of Muslims" to be removed from YouTube.  The decision came in a copyright suit filed by Cindy Lee Garcia who acted in a portion of the film. The decision was filed on Feb. 27, but apparently several days before the public release of the opinion the court ordered Google to take down the video.  In a Feb. 27 motion, Google sought a stay pending a petition for an en banc rehearing (full text), saying:

The Court last Wednesday issued a sealed order directing that Defendant-Appellee Google Inc. take down “all copies” of the video "‘Innocence of Muslims’ from YouTube.com and from any other platforms under Google’s control" and that Google "take all reasonable steps to prevent further uploads of ‘Innocence of Muslims’ to those platforms." Google has complied with the Court’s order, but in light of the intense public interest in and debate surrounding the video, the video should remain accessible while Google seeks further review.

In an Order (full text) issued Feb. 28, the court denied a stay and ordered Google to comply with the take down mandate within 24 hours, but added that "this order does not preclude the posting or display of any version of “Innocence of Muslims” that does not include Cindy Lee Garcia’s performance."

In the latest development, yesterday the court issued an Order (full text) stating that one judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear en banc the request for a stay. The court gave the parties until March 12 to file briefs on whether an en banc rehearing should be granted. [Thanks to Edward Lee via CyberProf listserv for the lead.]

New Congressional Ahmadiyya Muslim Caucus Formed

The Washington Times and AFP report on the launch last Friday (2/28) of a new Congressional Ahmadiyya Muslim Caucus, co-chaired by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA). Some 15,000 to 20,000 Ahmadis live in the United States. Many orthodox Muslim groups consider the Ahmadis apostates because of their theological beliefs, and they have been persecuted particularly in Pakistan and Indonesia.  An Ahmadiyya spokesman said that the new Congressional caucus will advocate for the rights of all persecuted religious communities.  The Council on American-Islamic Relations expressed mixed feelings about the new caucus, saying: "we question Rep. Wolf’s involvement and genuine concern for issues of importance to our community given his long history of working with anti-Muslim fringe groups and causes." [Thanks to Mahmood Ahmad for the lead.]

Ukraine's Jewish Leaders Dispute Putin's Charges Of Anti-Semitism In Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin held a news conference (full text) on Tuesday at which he attempted to justify recent Russian actions in Ukraine. He said in part:

What is our biggest concern? We see the rampage of reactionary forces, nationalist and anti-Semitic forces going on in certain parts of Ukraine, including Kiev.

JTA reported yesterday that an open letter to Putin from Ukraine's Jewish community took issue with his remarks about anti-Semitism.  Posted on the website of the Association of Jewish Organizations and Communities of Ukraine, the letter written in Russian (full text English translation) and signed by 21 leaders of Ukraine's Jewish community said in part:

Your certainty about the growth of anti-Semitism in Ukraine, which you expressed at your press-conference, also does not correspond to the actual facts. Perhaps you got Ukraine confused with Russia, where Jewish organizations have noticed growth in anti-Semitic tendencies last year.... The Jews of Ukraine, as all ethnic groups, are not absolutely unified in their opinion towards what is happening in the country. But we live in a democratic country and can afford a difference of opinion.

Suit Challenges Wyoming Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

National Center for Lesbian Rights announced yesterday that it has filed a state court lawsuit challenging Wyoming's statutory ban on same-sex marriage and the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Unlike a number of other states, Wyoming's same-sex marriage ban is found only in state statutes, and is not embodied in the state constitution.  Also the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions is merely a practice that is not supported by specific statutory provisions.   The complaint (full text) in Courage v. Wyoming, (WY Dist. Ct., filed 3/5/2014), alleges that the statutory ban on same-sex marriage and the practice of refusing to recognize same-sex marriages from elsewhere violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Wyoming state Constitution.  It also alleges that the practice of refusing to recognize out-of-state same sex marriages violates Wyoming statutory provision (Sec. 20-1-111) that provides: "All marriage contracts which are valid by the laws of the country in which contracted are valid in this state." Unlike suits filed recently in other states, this lawsuit does not contain claims that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the federal constitution. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Senate Rejects Obama's Nominee To Head DOJ Civil Rights Division

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate rejected President Obama's nominee for Assistant Attorney General to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice-- Debo Adegbile.  Politico reports that several Senate Democrats joined Republicans in the 47-52 vote against cloture that had the effect of defeating the nomination.  Adegbile was opposed by law enforcement groups and some senators because of his previous work with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in helping the convicted killer of a Philadelphia police officer try to overturn his death sentence. Following the vote, President Obama issued a statement (full text), saying in part:

The Senate’s failure to confirm Debo Adegbile to lead the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice is a travesty based on wildly unfair character attacks against a good and qualified public servant.  Mr. Adegbile’s qualifications are impeccable.  He represents the best of the legal profession.... The fact that his nomination was defeated solely based on his legal representation of a defendant runs contrary to a fundamental principle of our system of justice....

British Broadcast Agency Approves KFC's Parody Christmas Ad Campaign

In Britain, broadcast industry self-regulation requires all broadcast ads to be pre-approved to make certain that they comply with the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising.  Most of the pre-clearance is done by Clearcast-- an agency created by the country's largest broadcasters.  Huffington Post reported yesterday that Kentucky Fried Chicken has obtained clearance for its tongue-in-cheek Christmas ad campaign that some complained mocked Christian worship:

The two television ads and a video on demand ad featured a group of carol singers outside a house singing the lyrics: "We showed up at your house again singing all our stupid songs", with the male homeowner replying: "Normally I'd hose you down, but now it just seems wrong."

Affidavit Does Not Establish Applicability of Ministerial Exception Doctrine

Hough v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Erie, (WD PA, March 4, 2014), is an Age Discrimination In Employment suit brought by three former Catholic parochial school teachers who were not hired into a consolidated Catholic school system created when their school closed. The Diocese moved for summary judgment claiming that the "ministerial exception" doctrine precludes plaintiffs' lawsuit.  The only evidence that plaintiffs qualify as "ministers" for purposes of the exception were affidavits from the diocese's Vicar for Education stating that all parochial school teachers are considered to be ministers of the faith-- instruction in religious truth and values is infused in all parts of the curriculum. The Pennsylvania federal district court denied defendants' the motion for summary judgment, saying in part:

Although the Supreme Court refused to provide a bright line test for a determination of when someone is accorded ministerial status, Defendants’ argument – that all teachers are considered to be ministers by Defendants – was not enough, in and of itself, for the high court in Hosanna-Tabor.

German Home School Family That Was Denied SCOTUS Review Gets Deferred Status From DHS

Fox News reports that in a surprising development yesterday, one day after the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the home schooling asylum case of Romeike v. Holder (see prior posting), the Department of Homeland Security granted "indefinite deferred status" to the Romeike family.  This means that the German family which home schools its children largely because of the family's Christian religious beliefs will not be deported back to Germany where laws prohibit home schooling.  The Romeike family who moved to Tennessee in 2008 were originally granted asylum in 2010, but government appeals of the immigration judge's ruling led to a reversal.