EEOC Wins Settlement In Religious Discrimination Suit Against Auto Dealership

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced last week that a federal district court in Chicago has entered a consent decree in a suit brought by the EEOC against a suburban Chicago auto dealership, Rizza Buick GMC Cadillac, Inc.  The suit charged that managers made offensive ethnic and religious slurs against three Arab Muslim employees, including mocking and insulting references to the Qur'an and the manner in which Muslims pray. Under the settlement, the dealership will pay a total of $100,000 in damages plus undertaking reporting and employee training to prevent future violations. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Supreme Court Will Decide Much-Watched Hobby Lobby Case Today

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court will hand down the much-awaited decisions in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores  and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell. These challenges to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate raise a number of difficult and interesting religious liberty questions. Here are SCOTUS Blog's resource pages on Hobby Lobby and Conestoga. Also SCOTUS Blog will be live blogging from the courtroom here. The opinions in the cases will be posted here by the Supreme Court as soon as they are announced. Religion Clause will be reporting on the decisions and their implications, probably with a rolling post or with several posts during the day and beyond.

ISIS Declares Caliphate In Parts of Syria and Iraq

As reported by Time, the Sunni group ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) today declared a new Caliphate on the territory it holds in Syria and Iraq.  Its statement (full text) declared ISIS leader Abu Baker al-Baghdadi to be the Caliph, and changed ISIS' name to merely Islamic State.  The lengthy statement included this explanation:

The time has come for those generations that were drowning in oceans of disgrace, being nursed on the milk of humiliation, and being ruled by the vilest of all people, after their long slumber in the darkness of neglect – the time has come for them to rise. The time has come for the ummah of Muhammad (peace be upon him) to wake up from its sleep, remove the garments of dishonor, and shake off the dust of humiliation and disgrace, for the era of lamenting and moaning has gone, and the dawn of honor has emerged anew. The sun of jihad has risen. The glad tidings of good are shining. Triumph looms on the horizon. The signs of victory have appeared.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Kaufman v. Pugh, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84532 (WD WI, June 20, 2014), a Wisconsin federal district court dismissed a complaint by a now-released prisoner that authorities refused to authorize an atheist study group. Injuntive relief was dismissed as moot, and a damage claim dismissed on qualified immunity grounds.

In Staple v. Commonwealth, 2014 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 388 (PA Commnw. Ct., June 26, 2014), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court denied both a writ of mandamus and a declaratory judgment to an inmate seeking return of several religious books that were confiscated because he had altered him.

In Neal-El v. Beitzel, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84943 (D MD, June 23, 2014), a Maryland federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that for one week he was removed from the list of those permitted to attend Moorish Science Temple services while officials investigated an unfounded report that he was involved in activities jeopardizing security.

In Marron v. Miller, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86629 (WD VA, June 24, 2014), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that his religious books were confiscated as contraband because they were inscribed with his religious name rather than the name recognized by the prison system.

District Court Denies Injunction Against ACA Non-Profit Rules; 3rd Circuit Issues Temporary Stay

In Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia v. Burwell, (ED PA, June 27, 2014), a Pennsylvania federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to several Catholic charitable organizations that object to the Affordable Care Act rules providing for execution of an opt-out form in order to avoid the requirement to cover contraceptive services under their self-insured health care plan. (Full text of complaint.) After a non-profit opts out, ERISA requires the third party administrator to directly cover contraceptive services. The court concluded that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits because the government may not be able to enforce the ERISA requirement against the "church plan" at issue. Even if that is not the case, the court found that the self-certification form is not what triggers the furnishing of contraceptive services by the third-party administrator.

Plaintiffs quickly filed a motion for a stay pending appeal, and the 3rd Circuit issued an order (full text) temporarily granting the stay, but requiring the parties to file responses addressing the impact of the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby and Conestoga decisions (to be handed down Monday) on the issues presented. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports on the decision.

Puerto Rico Appeals Court Applies Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Vega v. Barbara Ann Roessler Church, Inc., 2014 PR App LEXIS 1954 (PR Ct. App., May 30, 2014), the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision applied the "ministerial exception" doctrine to dismiss a claim by a minister that he was unfairly dismissed as pastor of his church. The opinion is in Spanish.

Plaintiff Lacks Standing In Establishment Clause Challenge To ACA Individual Mandate

In Cutler v. United States, (D DC, June 25, 2014), the District of Columbia federal district court dismissed a challenge to the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate.  Plaintiff based his challenge primarily on a claim that the narrow religious exemption in 26 USC Sec. 5000A(d)(2) violates the Establishment Clause by allowing the government to "regulate and track a person’s religion, and . . . to favor one religion over another." The court concluded that plaintiff lacks standing to raise this claim:

Plaintiff is non-observant in his religion and does not assert that a religious exemption should be extended to him.... Plaintiff’s argument is as follows: there is an exemption to the individual mandate for certain religious groups, he is not a member of any of those groups, and, therefore, he is not able to claim that exemption. It follows that Plaintiff’s challenge to the religious exemption solely is based on the general existence of the exemption and not on the exemption’s specific application to him...

... Further, even if the Court were to find that religious exemption violated the exercise of Congress’ Commerce Power in violation of the First Amendment, Plaintiff would be in the same position. He would be subject to the individual mandate and would be required to either obtain health insurance coverage or pay the penalty. The only difference would be that no one else could claim a religious exemption.

The court went on to conclude that even if plaintiff had standing, the religious exemption provisions do not violate the Establishment Clause.

Former Vatican Diplomat Defrocked On Sex Abuse Charges; Criminal Trial Will Follow

Vatican Information Service reported on Friday:

The first stage in the canonical trial against the former apostolic nuncio in the Dominican Republic, Josef Wesolowski, has been concluded with the laicisation of the prelate.

According to Al Jazeera, in August the Vatican recalled Wesolowski from his position in the Dominican Republic after rumors that he had sexually abused teenage boys there. Dominican authorities were unable to charge him because he had diplomatic immunity. Weslowski has two months to appeal Friday's decision by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.  After that, he will face criminal charges in a Vatican City State Tribunal. In the meantime, the Vatican says that it will limit his freedom of movement "in conformity with the gravity of the case."

7th Circuit Stays District Court's Invalidation of Indiana's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

In Baskin v. Bogan, (7th Cir., June 27, 2014), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay pending appeal of a federal district court' decision striking down Indiana's laws barring same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) Fox59 reports on the appellate court's action and reactions to it.

White House Sends Greetings As Ramadan Begins

Ramadan begins tonight. The White House released a statement (full text) from the President extending greetings from the American people to Muslims communities in the U.S. and around the world. The statement reads in part:

... Ramadan is also an occasion when Muslims around the world reaffirm their commitment to helping the less fortunate....  Here in the United States, we are grateful to the many Muslim American organizations, individuals, and businesses that are devoted to creating opportunity for all by working to reduce income inequality and poverty, not only through their charitable efforts, but also through their initiatives to empower students, workers and families with the education, skills and health care they deserve.

President Obama went on to announce that again this year the White House will host an iftar dinner during Ramadan.

Christian Teacher Loses Suit Challenging Required Removal of Religious Postings In Classroom

In Silver v. Cheektowage Central School District, (WD NY, June 24, 2014), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing most of the discrimination claims brought by a Christian high school science teacher who was required to take down from her classroom her display of several Bible verses, other statements about God and a picture of three crosses on a hill. She was also told to prevent guest speakers from promoting religion.  The court rejected teacher Joelle Silver's Establishment Clause and free speech claims and most of her equal protection claims, saying that the school has authority to take action to avoid litigation claiming Establishment Clause violations.  The court also characterized as "inapposite" the teacher's comparison of her displays to those by the school social worker that were designed to create a welcoming environment for LGBT students. The court however recommended permitting plaintiff to proceed with a claim that school policies relating to her role as advisor to the student Bible Study Club were selectively enforced. News 4 reports on the decision. American Freedom Law Center issued a press release announcing the decision.

Turkey's Constitutional Court Says Female Lawyers Can Wear Headscarves In Courtrooms

On Wednesday, Turkey's Constitutional Court ruled 16-1 that the rights of a Muslim female lawyer had been infringed when she was not permitted to enter a courtroom wearing a headscarf.  According to Daily Sabah, the Council of State, the country's highest administrative court, ruled in 2013 that women lawyers had the right to register at the Bar Association with a photo showing them wearing a headscarf. However some judges were still banning headscarves in their courtrooms. The Constitutional Court said this week that such bans violate Art. 10 (equality before the law) and Art. 24 (freedom of religion and conscience) of Turkey's Constitution.

Council Revokes Invitation To Wiccan To Deliver Invocation

WHNT News reports that the Huntsville, Alabama City Council pulled back the invitation it originally extended to a Wiccan clergyman to deliver the invocation at yesterday's City Council meeting.  Wiccan Blake Kirk had been scheduled to deliver the opening prayer, but when the Council agenda was publicly released several Council members received "community concerns" about a Wiccan being invited. Kirk said he gave the invocation earlier this year and no one asked him to identify his faith.

European Court Holds Russia Violated Rights of Jehovah's Witnesses

In Krupko v. Russia, (ECHR, June 26, 2014), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Russia violated the European Convention on Human Rights Art. 5 (right to liberty and security) and Art. 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) when in 2006 police disrupted a Jehovah's Witness religious meeting and arrested some of the participants. The court awarded 36,000 Euros as damages and costs. The court issued a press release on the case. RAPSI reports on the decision.

Christian College Denied Relief Against Contraceptive Coverage Mandate Accommodation

In Wheaton College v. Burwell, (ND IL, June 23, 2014), an Illinois federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to a Christian liberal arts college that objects to complying with the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate accommodation for religious non-profits.  It concluded that the 7th Circuit's decision in University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius (see prior posting) is controlling on it:

Because the majority opinion in Notre Dame stands squarely in the path of the principal relief that Plaintiff seeks, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate the requisite likelihood of success on the merits of its claims.

The court added however that if the Supreme Court's upcoming decision in Hobby Lobby calls into question any material aspect of the Notre Dame decision, any party may file a motion for reconsideration.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Massachusetts Abortion-Clinic Buffer Zone Law

The U.S. Supreme Court today in McCullen v. Coakley, (S.Ct., June 26, 2014) struck down the Massachusetts statute that creates a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics. The law prevents anti-abortion sidewalk counselors from entering the buffer zone.  The Court's majority decision written by Chief Justice Roberts struck down the law on narrow free speech grounds. While the state has a legitimate interest in preserving access to clinics, and while this is a neutral statute, it burdens more speech that in necessary to accomplish that purpose.  The Chief Justice explains:

Petitioners wish to converse with their fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks—sites that have hosted discussions about the issues of the day throughout history. Respondents assert undeniably significant interests in maintaining public safety on those same streets and sidewalks, as well as in preserving access to adjacent healthcare facilities. But here the Commonwealth has pursued those interests by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a tradi­tional public forum to all speakers. It has done so without seriously addressing the problem through alternatives that leave the forum open for its time-honored purposes. The Commonwealth may not do that consistent with the First Amendment. 

Justice Scalia's opinion, joined by Justices Kennedy and Thomas, concurring only in the judgment, criticizes the majority's approach:

Today’s opinion carries forward this Court’s practice of giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents. There is an entirely separate, abridged edition of the First Amendment applicable to speech against abortion.... The ... Court’s analysis today, invalidat­ing the law at issue because of inadequate “tailoring,” is certainly attractive to those of us who oppose an abortion­ speech edition of the First Amendment. But think again. This is an opinion that ... continues the onward march of abortion-speech-only jurisprudence. 

Justice Alito also wrote a separate opinion concurring only in the judgment. The New York Times reports on the decision.

7th Circuit: Church Lacks Standing To Appeal Injunction Against City On Cross Display

In Cabral v. City of Evansville, Indiana, (7th Cir., June 25, 2014), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of standing an appeal of an Indiana federal district court's injunction barring Evansville from permitting a church's proposed display of 31 six-foot tall crosses on 4-block Riverfront area. The district court concluded that the display would violate the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) The city of Evansville did not appeal; the church involved (West Side Christian) which had been an intervenor in the case below did.  The 7th Circuit concluded that since the injunction ran only against the city, vacating it would not necessarily remedy any injury West Side suffered.  The city could still refuse to permit the display. In addition, any decision the 7th Circuit made on the merits would affect only the city which is not a party to the appeal.  The court concluded that in order to obtain standing, West Side would need to apply for a permit and have it denied by the city because of the district court's injunction.  The 7th Circuit then added:

We caution, however, that West Side’s road ahead might not necessarily get any easier if it ever attains standing to challenge the injunction. We question whether a reasonable observer would be put on notice that the “Cross the River” display is strictly private speech given the sheer magnitude of a display that takes up four blocks and has two signs alerting citizens that it is a private display.

Indiana's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Invalidated; Motion for Stay, Appeal Filed As Some Counties Issue Licenses

In Baskin v. Bogan, (SD IN, June 25, 2014), an Indiana federal district court held that Indian's ban on same-sex marriage, and on recognizing same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, is unconstitutional. The court found that the ban infringes the fundamental right to marry protected by the due process clause, and discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the equal protection clause, adding:

The court has never witnessed a phenomenon throughout the federal court system as is presented with this issue. In less than a year, every federal district court to consider the issue has reached the same conclusion in thoughtful and thorough opinions – laws prohibiting the celebration and recognition of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. It is clear that the fundamental right to marry shall not be deprived to some individuals based solely on the person they choose to love. In time, Americans will look at the marriage of couples, such as Plaintiffs, and refer to it simply as marriage-- not as same-sex marriage.  These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such.

The Indianapolis Star reports that county clerks in several counties began issuing licenses for same-sex marriages yesterday. As reported by WTHR, Indiana's Attorney General quickly filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal (full text) and a notice of appeal to the 7th Circuit (full text). Two county clerks' offices also filed notices of appeal. Meanwhile the Attorney General contacted all counties stating that while only the five county clerks named in the lawsuits are required to comply with the court's order, everyone should "show respect for the judge and the orders that are issued."

10th Circuit Says Utah's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional

In Kitchen v. Herbert, (10th Cir., June 25, 2014), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage, but stayed its mandate pending disposition of any appeal. The majority summarized its 66-page opinion:

We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.

Among the justifications rejected by the court was Utah's argument that allowing same-sex marriage "would create the potential for religious-related strife."  Judge Kelly dissenting in part argued that there is no fundamental right to same-gender marriage.

The Salt Lake Tribune reports on the decision. In a statement released yesterday, the Utah attorney general's office says it will file a petition for certiorari seeking Supreme Court review.

Seattle Archdiocese Reaches $12.1 Million Settlement With Abuse Claimants

Reuters reported yesterday that the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle has agreed to settle claims brought by 30 men who were sexually abused 30 to 60 years ago in two diocesan high schools staffed by the Christian Brothers of Ireland teaching order. The lawsuits alleged that the Archdiocese failed to shield the victims from known abusers.  According to a press release from the Archdiocese, the $12.1 million settlement was funded by archdiocesan insurance programs. The Christian Brothers previously reached a $16.5 million settlement with 400 victims.