Religion Clause

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Russian Court In Controversial Decision Bans Salafist Translation of Qur'an

In Russia last week, the Novorossiysk Oktyabrsky District Court ruled that a translation of the Qur'an into Russian by Azerbaijani philosopher Elmir Kuliyev should be banned under the federal law barring extremist materials, and that copies of it should be destroyed. The translation was published in Saudi Arabia in 2002. According to Interfax and AP, Ravil Gainutdin, head of the Council of Muftis of Russia, strongly criticized the court's ruling in an open letter to President Vladimir Putin released Monday. He said the ruling violates freedom of religion protections in the Russian Constitution and international law, and called for the case to be retried with experts on Islam as witnesses. However, Farid Salman, the head of the Ulema Council of the All-Russian Muslim Board, has a different opinion. He agreed with the court's ruling, saying that Kuliyev's views reflect "the Salafi school, not the sect of Islam that is traditionally practiced by Russia's Muslims."

UPDATE: Forum 18 has more details on the decision and the mixed reaction to it among Russian Muslims.

New Google Website Simplifies Comparative Constitutional Analysis

Google announced yesterday that it has launched Constitute, a new website, created by the Comparative Constitutions Project that digitizes and makes searchable the world's 160 national constitutions. Particularly relevant to Religion Clause readers, by browsing and clicking Constitute's topics menu, a user can easily pull up the relevant texts from the constitutions of 150 countries on freedom of religion. Mashable has more on the new website.

Ceremonial Renaming of Street Leads to Unusual Lawsuit Claiming Religious Liberty Violation

In August, in what the local press called "street naming season in Patterson," the Patterson, New Jersey City Council renamed a section of Van Houten Street on which the Jalalabad Jam-E-Masjid mosque is located as Alhaj Forman Ali Street to honor a local Muslim who was said to have played an instrumental role in the founding of the Islamic Foundation of New Jersey that built the mosque. The seemingly innocuous resolution however has become extremely controversial in the Bangladeshi Muslim community of Patterson.

According to yesterday's Patterson Press, leaders of the mosque say that they were not consulted on the ceremonial resolution, and that the renaming violates their religious beliefs. They say that it is a fundamental principle of Islam that the mosque belongs to the entire community, and no one person or family may be honored above others in connection with their contribution to the mosque. They say that many members threaten to leave the mosque because it has been tainted as a place of worship by the naming of the street in front of it in honor of one person. They also claim that Councilman Mohammed Aktraruzzman who proposed the ceremonial resolution did so to repay his political supporters, and that the resolution exaggerates Ali's contributions to the Muslim community. City Council is scheduled to vote today on whether to rescind the August resolution. Ahead of that vote, on Sunday, mosque leaders filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the actions of city officials violated their free exercise rights.

Abercrombie Settles Two EEOC Lawsuits; Will Modify "Look Policy" To Accommodate Hijab

Clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has settled two lawsuits brought by the EEOC challenging the company's "look policy" under which Abercrombie refused to permit Muslim employees to wear a hijab (head scarf). AP and Religion News Service yesterday reported that the company will now permit employees to wear the hijab. In the settlements, Abercrombie also will pay $48,000 in damages to Hani Khan who was fired when a new district manager visited the store and saw her head scarf. (See prior posting.) It will pay $23,000 to Halla Banafa who was not hired after she wore a hijab to her job interview. (See prior posting.)

Monday, September 23, 2013

Egyptian Court Outlaws Muslim Brotherhood; Leaders Arrested; Assets Frozen

AP reports that in Egypt yesterday, the Cairo Court for Urgent Matters ordered the Muslim Brotherhood banned and its assets confiscated. The ruling covers the Brotherhood itself, as well as its affiliates and any institution receiving financial support from it. The court ordered confiscation of all the organization's assets, and the creation of an independent committee to manage the group's funds until further orders from the court. In ordering the ban, the court said that the Brotherhood had used Islam "as a cover to activities that violate Islam and its rulings." If the ban is upheld on appeal, authorities will be able to close down the Brotherhood's network of businesses, schools, hospitals and charities. For 85 years prior to 2011, the Brotherhood had been outlawed and operated under cover in Egypt. Separately, AP reports that on Tuesday authorities arrested senior leaders of the Brotherhood and the Cairo Criminal Court froze the assets of 14 Brotherhood leaders, including Mohammed Badie.

Ontario Legislature Rejects Quebec Limits On Religious Dress

As previously reported, last month Quebec's ruling Party Quebecois announced it would introduce a Charter of Quebec Values which, among other things, will ban public employees from wearing religious head coverings or visible crucifixes in the workplace. Last Thursday, as reported by JTA, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario unanimously passed a resolution (full text at pg. 3) disagreeing with Quebec's move. The resolution provides:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Government of Ontario should oppose any legislation that would restrict or prohibit people's freedom of expression and religion in public places and affirm that Ontario greatly values our diverse population and the social, cultural and economic contributions they make to help our society thrive.

Rhode Island High School Gets New Secular Mural

In 2012, a Rhode Island federal district court in a high profile Establishment Clause case ordered Cranston (RI) High School to take down a prayer mural that had hung in the school's auditorium for 50 years. (See prior posting.) Last week, to celebrate its 50th reunion, the Class of 1963 that had presented the original mural to the school replaced it with a new one that eliminates all religious references. According to Friday's Providence Journal, the new mural contains seven lines to guide students, in the form of an acrostic with the first letter of each line spelling "Falcons". The Class also presented a new banner containing the school creed to replace the old one that had also hung in the auditorium.

UPDATE: The Cranston Patch (9/23) reports that there has been a delay in hanging the new mural because of typos discovered in it. Also it needs to be confirmed that they comply with the fire code.

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Davis v. Abercrombie, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131525 (D HI, Sept. 13, 2013), a Hawaii federal district court dismissed the governor of Hawaii as a defendant in a suit complaining that plaintiffs were unable to observe their Native Hawaiian religion at two private prisons in Arizona in which Hawaii houses inmates. The court also dismissed as to all defendants a claim under the Hawaii constitution.

In Chernetsky v. Nevada, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132804 (D NV, Sept. 17, 2013), a Nevada federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132806, Aug. 14, 2013) and refused to permit a Wiccan inmate to file an amended complaint asserting constitutional claims that were previously abandoned on appeal.

In Muhammad v. Jenkins, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132913 (SD NY, Sept. 13, 2013), a New York federal district court denied qualified immunity in a suit against a parole officer who allegedly for retaliatory reasons barred a Nation of Islam parolee from attending the mosque of his choice and refused to extend his curfew so he could attend evening classes there. Claims against the parole board chairwoman were dismissed.

In Mendez v. Amato, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132346 (ND NY, Sept. 17, 2013), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132909, June 18, 2013) and dismissed a general claim by a former jail inmate that involuntary protective custody inmates were precluded from practicing religion when they were isolated from general population religious services.

In Penwell v. Holtgeerts, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133011 (WD WA, Sept. 16, 2013), a Washington federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133014, July 9, 2013), and dismissed a Christian inmate's complaint that regulations barring him from wearing his wedding rings in jail violated his free exercise and equal protection rights.

In Scott v. Ellis, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133319 (D NJ, Sept. 18, 2013), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that the warden ordered he not be allowed to participate in the Eid prayer.

In Walters v. Santa Clara Department of Corrections, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134386 (ND CA, Sept. 19, 2013), a California federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's RLUIPA and free exercise complaints over the adequacy of his Halal diet and over a threat to end his Halal diet if he continued to trade food.

Mortgage Company Wins Preliminary Injunction In Contraceptive Coverage Challenge

In Armstrong v. Sebelius, (D CO, Sept. 17, 2013), a Colorado federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to Cherry Creek Mortgage Co. and its Evangelical Christian owners who claim their religious liberty is infringed by the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate. Earlier this month, the 10th Circuit (full text of Sept. 5 opinion), citing its Hobby Lobby decision, reversed an earlier district court denial of a preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the district court. An unusual feature of this case is the fact that challengers only realized belatedly that their existing health insurance policy covered the contraceptives to which they object. (See prior posting.) In granting the preliminary injunction, the court said:

Here, the status quo is that Cherry Creek Mortgage has been and still is providing the coverage to which plaintiffs object. That being so, the preliminary injunction does not preserve the status quo, which is the stuff of most injunctions, but instead alters it. The answer is that the status quo would be Cherry Creek’s refusing to provide coverage for what they classify as abortifacients had they not unwittingly begun to provide the coverage and then run into an insurmountable roadblock when they directed their insurer to terminate the coverage.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Labor Department Recognizes Same-Sex Marriages Under ERISA

On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Labor issued Technical Release No. 2013-04 providing guidance on applying the Supreme Court's Windsor decision to regulations under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code relating to employee benefit plans. (News release.) The Technical Release provides in part:

the term "spouse" will be read to refer to any individuals who are lawfully married under any state law, including individuals married to a person of the same sex who were legally married in a state that recognizes such marriages, but who are domiciled in a state that does not recognize such marriages. Similarly, the term "marriage" will be read to include a same-sex marriage that is legally recognized as a marriage under any state law....

The terms "spouse" and "marriage," however, do not include individuals in a formal relationship recognized by a state that is not denominated a marriage under state law, such as a domestic partnership or a civil union, regardless of whether the individuals who are in these relationships have the same rights and responsibilities as those individuals who are married under state law. The foregoing sentence applies to individuals who are in these relationships with an individual of the opposite sex or same sex.

[Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Christian Universities Sue Challenging Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

Yet another lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate has been filed, this time by four Christian universities-- Southern Nazarene, Oklahoma Wesleyan, Oklahoma Baptist, and Mid-America Christian. The complaint (full text) in Southern Nazarene University v. Sebelius, (WD OK, filed 9/20/2013) contends that the final regulations (see prior posting) creating a compromise for religious non-profit organizations that object to furnishing contraceptive coverage is insufficient. The lawsuit contends that the final version of the regulations:

still conscripts the Universities into the government’s scheme, forcing them to obtain an insurer or third-party claims administrator and submit a form that specifically causes that insurer or third-party administrator to arrange payment for the objectionable drugs, so that such coverage will apply to the Universities’ own employees as a direct consequence of their employment with the Universities and of their participation in the health insurance benefits the Universities provide them.

Alliance Defending Freedom issued a press release yesterday announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Church Denied Relief On Denial of Property Tax Exemption

In Church of the Isaiah 58 Project of Arizona, Inc. v. La Paz County, Arizona, (AZ App., Sept. 12, 2013), an Arizona state appellate court affirmed the state tax court's dismissal of a church's suit for injunctive and declaratory relief after the church was wrongly denied a property tax exemption. The county tax assessor had claimed that the only acceptable evidence for granting an exemption was an Internal Revenue Service Letter of Determination. For a subsequent year, however, the county accepted a letter from the Arizona Department of Revenue instead. The court held that the state's anti-injunction statute bars injunctive relief because taxing authorities acted under a "semblance of authority." Also, declaratory relief was properly denied because the church did not pay the assessed taxes before filing suit.

Cert. Petitions Filed In Two Contraceptive Coverage Mandate Cases

Scotus blog reports that on Thursday, petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court were filed in two separate cases challenging the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate. One petition (full text) seeks review of the Third Circuit's decision in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius. In a 2-1 decision in the case, the majority held that "for-profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise," and the conscience rights of the owners of a corporation do not pass through to the corporation. (See prior posting.) The second petition (full text) seeks review of Tenth Circuit's decision in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. In the case in an en banc decision, a majority held that that corporations have free exercise rights and that the contraceptive coverage mandate substantially burdens those rights without a compelling governmental interest. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to James Oleske via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Judge Reverses Magistrate,Says Child Can Be Named "Messiah"

In Newport, Tennessee yesterday, a Cocke County Chancery Court judge reversed a widely publicized decision handed down last month by a Child Support Magistrate who ruled that parents could not name their 7-month old child "Messiah". Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew said: "The word Messiah is a title and it's a title that has only been earned by one person and that one person is Jesus Christ." (See prior posting.) According to USA Today:

Chancellor Telford E. Forgety Jr. overturned Ballew's decision, ruling that the lower court acted unconstitutionally. He said the lower court violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, and added that the court's purpose was to determine the last name of the child, not his first name.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Can Navy Yard Shooter's Interest In Buddhism Shed Light On His Mental State?

In the aftermath of yesterday's mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, the Washington Post explores the question of whether shooter Aaron Alexis' interest in Buddhism can help in understanding Alexis' mental state:

Buddhism can seem particularly appealing to "mentally unbalanced people seeking to right the ship of their lives, to self-medicate, to curb their impulses, or to give them a firmer grip on reality," Clark Strand, a contributing editor to the Buddhist publication Tricycle magazine and a former Zen monk, said in an interview....

[Buddhist blogger Justin] Whitaker posed this: Are there particular issues for people who delve deeply into meditation, but disconnected from Buddhism’s history and theology?

Religious Freedom Agency Loses Attempt To Dismiss Former Employee's Discrimination Suit

In Ghori-Ahmad v. U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, (D DC, Sept. 17, 2013), the DC federal district court refused to dismiss claims of religious and national origin discrimination, and of retaliation, bought by a former employee of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Ghori-Ahmad, a lawyer and expert on South Asian affairs, is a Muslim of Indian descent who in 2009 was originally offered a full-time job with USCIRF, but then had the offer rescinded and ended up with only a 90-day position that the agency refused to extend. Her lawsuit claims that her original offer was withdrawn, and her temporary position was not extended, because of anti-Muslim bias of two of the USCIRF commissioners. (See prior posting.) The court first rejected USCIRF's claim that as a matter of law Ghori-Ahmad was an independent contractor with the agency, not an employee covered by the anti-discrimination provisions of the Congressional Accountability Act when her position was not extended. It held that factual issues remain as to her status. The court also rejected USCIRF's claim that no materially adverse action had been taken against Ghori-Ahmad. The court, however, did dismiss plaintiff's detrimental reliance claim, refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear it.

Yemeni Court Imposes Sharia Punishment of Amputation; Rights Group Objects

AFP reports that for the first time in over ten years, a court in Yemen has sentenced a defendant convicted of robbery to the punishment of amputation, as prescribed by shariah law. Earlier this week, a court in Sanaa ordered amputation of the right hand and left foot of defendant who attacked his victim and robbed him of cash he was carrying in a vehicle belonging to a money exchange firm. Amnesty International has called on Yemen to commute the sentence, saying it amounts to torture in violation of international law.

6th Circuit Rejects Closely-Held Business Challenge To Contraceptive Mandate

In Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, (6th Cir., Sept. 17, 2013), the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a preliminary injunction in an Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate challenge. The suit was brought by two related closely-held businesses (a corporation and an LLC) and by their Catholic owners. The shareholder-owners describe the companies as "the business form through which [they] endeavor to live their vocation as Christians in the world." The court held, however, that the coverage mandate falls on the corporations, not their owners, so owners cannot bring a free exercise claim in their individual capacities. As to the claim by the businesses themselves, the court held that a for-profit secular corporation "is not a 'person' capable of 'religious exercise' as intended by RFRA." Christian Science Monitor reports on the decision.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Bahrain Government Sues To Dissolve Islamic Scholars' Council

GulfNews reports that yesterday Bahrain's Ministry of Justice, Islamic Affairs and Endowments filed suit to dissolve the Islamic Scholars’ Council, seeking to shut it down and liquidate its financial assets. The government says that the Scholars' Council has refused to become a member of the new Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs and instead is operating illegally as a cover for political activity.