Religion Clause

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Virginia Legislature Passes Student Religious Expression Bill; Veto Expected

As reported by Metro Weekly, yesterday the Virginia General Assembly gave final passage to SB 236 which protects student religious expression in public schools. The vote was 20-18 in the Senate and 64-34 in the House of Delegates. The bill would protect voluntary student prayer and prayer gatherings before, during and after school; wearing of clothing or jewelry displaying religious messages; and expression of religious viewpoints by neutrally selected student speakers at graduation and similar events. As reported in Tuesday's Roanoke Times, Gov. Terry McAuliffe's office has said that the governor will veto the bill out of concern for its constitutionality and its unintended consequences.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports, as expected, that Gov. McAuliffe vetoed the bill on April 4. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

9th Circuit: Court Should Order Removal of "Innocence of Muslims" From YouTube

In Garcia v. Google, Inc., (9th Cir., Feb. 26, 2014), 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 suit was filed by Cindy Lee Garcia who acted in a portion of the film. As explained by the court:

The film’s writer and producer ...cast Garcia in a minor role [in a film with the working title "Desert Warrior."] Garcia was ... paid approximately $500 for three and a half days of filming. “Desert Warrior” never materialized. Instead, Garcia’s scene was used in an anti-Islamic film titled “Innocence of Muslims.” Garcia first saw “Innocence of Muslims” after it was uploaded to YouTube.com and she discovered that her brief performance had been partially dubbed over so that she appeared to be asking, “Is your Mohammed a child molester?”

These, of course, are fighting words to many faithful Muslims and, after the film aired on Egyptian television, there were protests that generated worldwide news coverage. An Egyptian cleric issued a fatwa, calling for the killing of everyone involved with the film, and Garcia soon began receiving death threats. She responded by taking a number of security precautions and asking that Google remove the video from YouTube.

As summarized by the court:

The panel concluded that the plaintiff established a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim of [copyright] infringement of her performance within the film because she proved that she likely had an independent interest in the performance and that the filmmaker did not own an interest as a work for hire and exceeded any implied license to use the plaintiff’s performance.

Volokh Conspiracy has an extensive analysis of the decision. (See prior related posting.)

UPDATE: On Feb. 28, the 9th Circuit issued a revised preliminary injunction (full text) making it clear that the injunction "does not preclude the posting or display of any version of “Innocence of Muslims” that does not include Cindy Lee Garcia’s performance." [Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

Arizona Governor Vetoes Anti-Gay Religious Freedom Bill

As reported by the Arizona Daily Star, yesterday Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed H.B. 1062, the controversial amendments to the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act that would, among other things, have allowed businesses to invoke religious freedom claims to refuse to serve gays and lesbians, particularly in the context of same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) Announcing her decision at a news conference (full text of remarks), Brewer said that the bill is unneeded and "could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want." In her formal Veto Letter (full text), Brewer said in part:

Senate Bill 1062 ... does not seek to address a specific and present concern related to Arizona businesses. The out-of-state examples cited by proponents of the bill, while concerning, are issues not currently existing in Arizona. Furthermore, the bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences. The legislation seeks to protect businesses, yet the business community overwhelmingly opposes the proposed law. Moreover, some legislators that voted for the bill have reconsidered their votes and now do not want this legislation to become law.

Federal District Court Strikes Down Texas Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday in De Leon v. Perry, (WD TX, Feb. 26, 2014), a Texas federal district court held unconstitutional Texas' statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriages and their prohibition on recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Granting a preliminary injunction, the court said:

[T]oday's Court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution. Furthermore, Supreme Court precedent prohibits states from passing legislation born out of animosity against homosexuals (Romer), has extended constitutional protection to the moral and sexual choices of homosexuals (Lawrence), and prohibits the federal government from treating state-sanctioned opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages differently (Windsor).

Applying the United States Constitution and the legal principles binding on this Court by Supreme Court precedent, the Court finds that Article I, Section 32 of the Texas Constitution and corresponding provisions of the Texas Family Code are unconstitutional. These Texas laws deny Plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex. The Court finds this denial violates Plaintiffs' equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The court however stayed the execution of the preliminary injunction pending final disposition of any appeal to the 5th Circuit. According to the Dallas Morning News , state attorney general Greg Abbott says the state will appeal. Washington Post places the decision in a broader context. Texas Gov. Rick Perry yesterday issued a statement (full text) reacting to the decision, saying in part:

it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens. The 10th Amendment guarantees Texas voters the freedom to make these decisions, and this is yet another attempt to achieve via the courts what couldn't be achieved at the ballot box.

Protester At Center of SCOTUS Decision On Military Base Protests Was Catholic Worker Movement Adherent

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Apel, (US Sup. Ct., Feb. 26, 2014), held that a federal statute which makes it a crime to re-enter a military installation after the base commander orders a person not to do so applies to a protest area at Vandenberg Air Force Base that is open to the public. The Court describes John Dennis Apel, the protester involved in the case, as an antiwar activist. It says nothing about the religious basis for Apel's protests found in his involvement in the Catholic Worker Movement. Here is some insight into Apel's religious beliefs from a Dec. 2013 article reprinted on the Pacific Life Community's website:

[Apel] and a dedicated core of volunteers — including his wife of 15 years, Tensie — provide food and clothes to the community’s poor. They run a summer children’s program and a weekly free medical clinic.

The couple are devotees of the Catholic Worker movement, a social reform cause committed to social justice, pacifism and voluntary poverty that they’ve dedicated most of their adult lives to promoting.

They receive no salary — the couple and their two young children survive on his Social Security income, as well as donations and the charity of others.

For more than a dozen years, as part of Mr. Apel’s deep peace-oriented belief system, he has regularly stood outside the gates of Vandenberg, protesting what he believes is an immoral military mission. He has been arrested 15 times, and received “ban and bar” citations that restrict his ability to protest near the classified military installation.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

New Ukraine Acting President Turchynov Is Baptist Pastor

Christianity Today reports that Ukraine's new Acting President who took office on Sunday is not only a well-respected opposition politician, but is also a Baptist pastor. BBC reports that the interim President, Olexander Turchynov, was the top aide to former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko (who was imprisoned by the now ousted President Viktor Yanukovych). Turchynov preaches regularly at one of the Baptist churches in Kiev. In an article today, Religion News Service speculates:

Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov is neither Ukrainian Orthodox nor Eastern Rite Catholic, and that may be the key to his success at a time when fissures between East and West are threatening to split the country,

Missouri County Treasurer Will Accept Same-Sex Marriages From Other States In Unclaimed Property Claims

According to Monday's Columbia Daily Tribune, in Boone County, Missouri (which includes Columbia) County Treasurer Nicole Galloway has announced she will recognized same-sex marriages from out of state. This means that after the death of a spouse, a surviving same-sex spouse can obtain unclaimed property of the deceased being held by the county. The county treasurer took the step despite the provision in Sec. 33 of the Missouri Constitution that provides: "That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman." Galloway said: "In Boone County and in my office, we accept legal documents from every state in America, and this is just an extension of that." [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Lesbian Employee Forced To Watch Religious Anti-Gay Video Loses Claim For Harassment

As reported by the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, a Sonoma County, California trial court yesterday issued a tentative decision (full text) in White v. GC Micro Corp., (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 25, 2014). Plaintiff in the case, a lesbian in a committed domestic partnership, was recruited by GC Micro's CEO to move from Colorado to California to work for the company. She was fired after 5 months. The supervisor in charge of training sales staff made derogatory remarks about plaintiff's sexual orientation and lifestyle, and required her to watch a video featuring a minister who had "outspoken disdain for homosexuality" and believed "that all homosexuals are sinners." However, according to the court, plaintiff "does not allege that the video contained any inappropriate material." The court allowed plaintiff to move ahead with a sexual orientation discrimination claim and a fraud claim against the company, but dismissed with leave to amend the claims against the CEO and supervisor personally. The court dismissed completely plaintiff's claim for harassment.

Suit Challenges World War I Memorial Cross

A humanist organization and three individuals yesterday filed suit challenging the constitutionality of a 40-foot tall cross erected nearly 90 years ago as a memorial to those killed in World War I. The cross is located on a median between roadways in Bladensburg, Maryland. The complaint (full text) in American Humanist Association v. Maryland- National Capital Park and Planning Commission, (D MD, filed 2/25/2014) contends that the county's:

ownership, maintenance and prominent display on public property of the Bladensburg Cross amounts to the endorsement and advancement of religion (and, specifically, an endorsement of and affiliation with Christianity) in violation of the Establishment Clause.

American Humanist Association issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Universities In Crossfire Over Bibles In Hotel Rooms

Two state universities find themselves in the cross fire of rival advocacy groups over the issue of Gideon Bibles in the night stands at university hotels and conference centers. The Blaze reported yesterday that after complaints by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Iowa State University's Hotel Memorial Union agreed to remove bibles from in-room night stands and place them instead in its downstairs library and reading room. The University of Wisconsin-Extension also agreed to remove bibles from guest rooms in its conference center. Now however Alliance Defending Freedom has told both universities that the 1st Amendment does not require them to remove the Bibles, and doing so amounts to viewpoint discrimination.

Greek Jews Sue Germany In European Court For Return of Ransom Paid To Nazis

AP reports that the Jewish community of Thessaloniki, Greece last week filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights in a suit against Germany seeking to recover the $69 million in ransom paid in 1942 to Nazi occupiers for the release of thousands of Jewish men aged 18-45 who were forced as slave laborers to work on construction projects across Greece. Soon after their release, the city's entire Jewish population was sent to German death camps anyway. Greece's Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit last year on jurisdictional grounds.

Obama Criticizes Uganda President's Signing of Anti-Gay Law

As he said he would, yesterday Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed into law a harsh Anti-Homosexuality bill. CNN reports that at the public signing of the bill, Museveni said he would not allow the West to impose its values on Uganda. In response, the White House issued a statement (full text) reading in part:

Instead of standing on the side of freedom, justice, and equal rights for its people, today, regrettably, Ugandan President Museveni took Uganda a step backward by signing into law legislation criminalizing homosexuality. As President Obama has said, this law is more than an affront and a danger to the gay community in Uganda, it reflects poorly on the country's commitment to protecting the human rights of its people and will undermine public health, including efforts to fight HIV/AIDS....

Court Rules That Illinois Same Sex Couples Can Wed Immediately In Cook County

In Lee v. Orr, (ND IL, Feb. 21, 2014), an Illinois federal district court, in a 4-page opinion, held that Illinois statutes barring same-sex marriages violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Illinois has already enacted a law allowing same-sex marriages, but that law does not take effect until June 1. (See prior posting.) In this decision, however, the court ruled that same-sex couples need not wait for June:

There is no reason to delay further when no opposition has been presented to this Court and committed gay and lesbian couples have already suffered from the denial of their fundamental right to marry.

However because the suit was filed only against the Cook County Clerk, the court's decision applies only to marriage licenses issued by Cook County. The Chicago Tribune reports that same-sex couples began lining up for marriage licenses within an hour after the ruling was issued.

Temporary Injunction Issued Stopping North Carolina School Voucher Program

According to the Lincoln (NC) Times-News, after a hearing last Friday, a North Carolina trial court judge issued a temporary injunction barring the state (at least for the time being) from moving ahead with a lottery to choose families to receive school vouchers for use at private schools next year. The state has received over 4,700 applications for the 2,400 vouchers that would be awarded to income-eligible families. According to the Times-News report:

Friday’s arguments focused on what the state constitution allows and whether the legislature improperly took money away from the state’s public schools to give to private schools. Opponents of the bill have argued that vouchers would send money to schools that discriminate based on religion or disability.

One school that has come under fire is Raleigh Christian Academy, which requires its students and parents to sign a contract stating they are in 100 percent agreement with its fundamental doctrinal practices. Their school application states, “we are not a church school for those in cults, i.e. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness, Christian Science, Unification Church, Zen Buddhism, Unitarianism, and United Pentecostal.”

(See prior related posting.)

Missouri Catholic Diocese Settles Two Abuse Lawsuits

Last week, the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph settled two separate state court lawsuits stemming from the child pornography activities of priest Shawn Ratigan. AP reports that last Friday a court approved a settlement of $1.275 million in a suit brought by parents whose daughter was photographed in nude and semi-nude poses by Ratigan when the girl was 10 to 12 years old. A $525,000 settlement in a second suit was approved last Wednesday in a suit involving a girl who was photographed by Ratigan when the girl was 9 years old. In each of the suits, thejudge also entered a $500,000 default judgment against Ratigan who was sentenced to 50 years in prison last year. In 2012 Bishop Robert Finn was convicted of a misdemeanor for failing to authorities his suspicion of child abuse by Ratigan. Finn was sentenced to two years probation. (See prior posting.)

Monday, February 24, 2014

Arizona Legislature Passes RFRA Amendments To Allow Businesses To Refuse To Serve Gays On Religious Grounds

The Arizona legislature on Thursday passed and sent to the governor SB 1062 which amends the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act to extend its coverage to the exercise of religion by corporations and other business organizations. The bill also provides that its protections may be asserted in lawsuits even if the government is not a party. (Background form Arizona Center for Policy.) The controversial bill is designed to permit businesses that oppose homosexuality or same-sex marriage on religious grounds to refuse to provide goods or services if it violates their religious beliefs. ABC News reports that Gov. Jan Brewer is still deciding whether or not to sign the bill. Some suggest that if the controversial bill becomes law, it could lead to boycotts in connection with the Super Bowl scheduled for Arizona next year. AP reports further on the legislation.

Professor Loses On Claim of Retaliation For Religious Speech Aimed At Students

In Payne v. University of South Mississippi, (SD MI, Feb. 21, 2014), a Mississippi federal district court held that the 1st Amendment does not preclude a faculty member at a public university being disciplined for religious speech made as part of his duties as a professor. According to the court:

A graduate student employed in a program administered by Plaintiff ... complained: “Sometimes during conversations with Dr. Payne, religion or Bible verses are usually brought up by him in some way. This makes me and others very uncomfortable. . . . While in Scotland with CJA staff, Dr. Payne made the statement that anyone who is not a Christian is going to hell.” She continued: “I have been told to go pray about certain issues when they are being discussed with Dr. Payne numerous times. . . . I do not feel comfortable when told to go pray from my supervisor instead of dealing with the situation.”

The court dismissed plaintiff's 1st Amendment retaliation claim.

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Howard v. Connett, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19231 (D NV, Feb. 14, 2014), a Nevada federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to defendants on an inmate's claims that Nation of Islam services are held only once monthly and he is not released regularly for other Muslim services[ on his claim that he was deprived of his Qur'an for 12 days while in disciplinary segregation; and on his claim of a conspiracy to deprive him of medical treatment based on animus toward his religion.

In Hoeck v. Miklich, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20381 (D CO, Feb. 19, 2014), a Colorado federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations in part and allowed an inmate to proceed with his claims against certain defendants complaining that the practices of his "Biblical Christian" faith were not accommodated.

In Karsjens v. Jesson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20911 (D MN, Feb. 19, 2014), a Minnesota federal district court allowed plaintiffs to proceed with their claim that portions of the Minnesota civil commitment sex offender program violate their free exercise rights. Plaintiffs claim they are monitored during religious services and private meetings with clergy, are not allowed to wear religious apparel or have certain religious property, are not allowed communal religious feasts and cannot receive Kosher or Halal meals.

In Rahman v. Fischer, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20846 (ND NY, Feb. 20, 2014), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation and dismissed a number of claims but permitted a Muslim inmate to proceed with his complaint that he was denied access to the sink to make ablution.

In Pelayo v. Hernandez, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20616 (ND CA, Feb. 18, 2014), a California federal district court dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's complaint that he was prevented from entering the dining hall at breakfast because he was carrying a pocket Bible and thin Bible folder.

In Walker v. Artus, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21745 (ND NY, Feb. 21, 2014), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations and dismissed a complaint that Muslim inmates in the special housing unit are not allowed to attend congregate religious services, nor are they allowed to watch or listen through closed circuit transmissions.

7th Circuit Affirms Denial of Preliminary Injunction to Notre Dame In Contraceptive Coverage Challenge

In University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, (7th Cir., Feb. 21, 2014), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, in a 2-1 decision, denied a preliminary injunction to Notre Dame University in its challenge to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate as applied to religious non-profits. Handing down its decision only 9 days after hearing oral arguments, the majority in an opinion by Judge Posner affirmed the district court, saying in part:

We imagine that what the university wants is an order forbidding Aetna and Meritain to provide any contraceptive coverage to Notre Dame staff or students pending final judgment in the district court. But we can’t issue such an order; neither Aetna nor Meritain is a defendant (the university’s failure to join them as defendants puzzles us)..... Furthermore, while a religious institution has a broad immunity from being required to engage in acts that violate the tenets of its faith, it has no right to prevent other institutions, whether the government or a health insurance company, from engaging in acts that merely offend the institution..

If the government is entitled to require that female contraceptives be provided to women free of charge, we have trouble understanding how signing the form that declares Notre Dame’s authorized refusal to pay for contraceptives for its students or staff, and mailing the authorization document to those companies, which under federal law are obligated to pick up the tab, could be thought to “trigger” the provision of female contraceptives....

The novelty of Notre Dame’s claim—not for the exemption, which it has, but for the right to have it without having to ask for it—deserves emphasis. United States law and public policy have a history of accommodating religious beliefs.... What makes this case and others like it involving the contraception exemption paradoxical and virtually unprecedented is that the beneficiaries of the religious exemption are claiming that the exemption process itself imposes a substantial burden on their religious faiths. The closest analogues we have found are cases in which churches seeking rezoning or variances claim that the process for obtaining permission is so cumbersome as to constitute a substantial burden on religious practice....

The process of claiming one’s exemption from the duty to provide contraceptive coverage is the opposite of cumbersome. It amounts to signing one’s name and mailing the signed form to two addresses. Notre Dame may consider the process a substantial burden, but substantiality—like compelling governmental interest—is for the court to decide.

The majority also rejected Notre Dame's establishment clause challenge, and left its free speech challenge for further development in the district court.

Judge Flaum dissenting said in part:

Having to submit the EBSA Form 700, Notre Dame maintains, makes it “complicit in a grave moral wrong” by involving it with a system that delivers contraceptive products and services to its employees and students.

The majority has trouble accepting this position, in part due to the university’s statement that its signature will “trigger” contraceptive coverage, because the majority understands federal law to require contraceptive coverage regardless of what Notre Dame signs or does not sign.... Yet we are judges, not moral philosophers or theologians; this is not a question of legal causation but of religious faith. Notre Dame tells us that Catholic doctrine prohibits the action that the government requires it to take. So long as that belief is sincerely held, I believe we should defer to Notre Dame’s understanding.

Wall Street Journal reports on the decision.