UN Human Rights Official Calls For Taliban To Allow Equal Education For Women and End Child Marriage

Last week (Aug. 24), Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, issued a lengthy statement (full text) in response to an Aug. 17 news conference by Taliban leaders in Afghanistan.  The Taliban stated that women could work and girls could go to school "as long as such activities are in accordance with Sharia law." Alsalem said in part:

According to the Quran, no one has the right to impose religion, including religious law, on anyone else (verse 2:256).  This egalitarian approach to religious authority has found expression in the rich plurality and diversity of religious understanding and schools of jurisprudence (madhahib) which we have until today. Notably, women, like men also have an equal right and responsibility to interpret Sharia. It would be important that this rich diverse heritage would be allowed to continue all over the Muslim World, including in Afghanistan....

The  principles of justice and equality between the sexes mean that women and girls are entitled to seeking and accessing education on an equal footing as men. The first verses of the Quran that were revealed to the Prophet commanded all human beings, both man and woman to "learn" (Iqra') (verses 96:1-5) and to seek knowledge (verses 16:78; 17:85, and 20:114)....

As reports have been recently resurfaced of increased forced marriages, including child marriages, it is important to underline that for a Muslim marriage contract to be valid it needs to fulfill several requirements – key being that both individuals give their free consent....

Islamic jurisprudence on this is clear: All marriages must be carried out by mature individuals who have the mental, legal, intellectual, and physical capacity to give consent. This requirement means that child marriages are by definition null and void. In essence, a forced marriage is equivalent to rape, which is an abhorrent crime that is strictly forbidden in Islamic law and considered as hiraba (unlawful societal warfare), and for which the prescribed punishments are severe.

Another Challenge To Ban On Transgender Discrimination In Health Care

Last week, the American College of Pediatricians, the Catholic Medical Association and an individual physician filed suit in a Tennessee federal district court challenging as a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as of free speech and freedom of association protections, rules and interpretations of the Affordable Care Act that prohibit discrimination by medical providers on the basis of gender identity. The Obama Administration originally adopted the prohibition; the Trump Administration reversed the prohibition; and the Biden Administration returned to the discrimination ban.  In the meantime, challenges proceeded through the courts. Now, the complaint (full text) in American College of Pediatricians v. Becerra, (ED TN, filed 8/26/2021), alleges in part:

Two courts have already recognized that this mandate is illegal and enjoined it in favor of plaintiffs in those cases. Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Becerra...; Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Azar.... But both injunctions protect only the plaintiffs in those cases, not the plaintiffs or their members here.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Marc Spindelman, Justice Gorsuch's Choice: From Bostock v. Clayton County to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, (13 ConLawNOW 11 (2021).
• Sherif Girgis, Defining "Substantial Burdens" on Religion and Other Liberties, (August 26, 2021).
• Veena Roshan Jose, Bracketing Liberty for the Public Health Cause,  (Lexgentia Law Journal of Llyod Law College 2020).
• Gregory S. Gordon, On the Early Release of the “Rwandan Goebbels”: American Free Speech Exceptionalism and the Ghost of the Nuremberg-Tokyo Commutations, (in Morten Bergsmo, Mark Klamberg, Kjersti Lohne and Christopher B. Mahony (eds.), Power in International Criminal Justice, Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, Brussels, 2020).
• Kim D. Ricardo, Was Justice Ginsburg Roe-ght?: Reimagining U.S. Abortion Discourse in the Wake of Argentina’s Marea Verde, (August 15, 2021).
• Maria Marais, A Duty Perspective on the Hate Speech Prohibition in the Equality Act, (PER / PELJ 2021(24)).
• John Rice, The Road to Bostock, (FIU Law Review,  2021).

From SmartCILP:

• Brett Geier & Ann E. Blankenship-Knox, When Speech Is Your Stock in Trade: What Kennedy v. Bremerton School District Reveals about the Future of Employee Speech and Religion Jurisprudence, 42 Campbell Law Review 31-80 (2020).

Denial Of Religious Exemption From Vaccine Mandate OK'd

In Harris v. University of Massachusetts, (D MA, Aug. 27, 2021), a Massachusetts federal district court rejected student Cora Cluett's objections to the manner in which her request for a religious exemption from the school's COVID-19 vaccine requirement was handled. According to the court:

[Student Affairs Vice Chancellor DeVeau] denied her appeal, since he determined from the substance of her request that she was Roman Catholic and concluded from his research that the COVID-19 vaccine would not violate tenets of that faith.... In interpreting Cluett’s faith to be Roman Catholic, De Veau stated “[i]f this is incorrect, please let me know.”... De Veau then cited a statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that receiving the COVID-19 vaccines was “morally justified.”

The court held first that insofar as plaintiff was asserting state law claims against state officials, these are barred by the 11th Amendment because Ex parte Young only creates an exception for federal constitutional claims. As to Cluett's 1st Amendment Free Exercise claims, the court said in part:

... UMass is under no constitutional obligation to offer a religious exemption to its Vaccine Requirement. See Nikolao v. Lyon, 875 F.3d 310, 316 (6th Cir. 2017) ....  Certainly, once the university offers religious exemptions, it must not administer them in an unconstitutional way.... Here, however, Cluett has not alleged anything to suggest that Defendants have administered their religious exemption policy in a way that burdens some religions but not others, ... or that Defendants have coerced her in her religious practices....

Bishop's Suit for Indemnification Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Kawimbe v. The African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., (ND GA, Aug. 27, 2028), a Georgia federal district court dismissed a suit by the Bishop of a church district covering part of South Africa.  The bishop's suit sought indemnification from the Church (a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation) for his successful defense before a church tribunal of charges bought against him by a minister in South Africa. The court held that the suit is not precluded by the ministerial exception doctrine because "the Church’s decision to deny Kawimbe indemnification does not implicate its right to select its ministers." The court concluded however that the suit should be dismissed under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, saying in part:

Under Pennsylvania law, if a representative of a non-profit corporation succeeds on the merits in an action or proceeding brought against him “by reason of” his representative status, the non-profit corporation must indemnify him...

To determine whether Kawimbe is or was a representative of the Church, the Court would be required to scrutinize “the composition of [the Church and AMEC’s] hierarchy,” including the nature of Kawimbe’s role as a bishop, which are matters of “core ecclesiastical concern.”...

[T]o determine whether the internal proceeding was brought “by reason of” Kawimbe’s role as a representative of the Church, the Court would have to consider the responsibilities and powers given to Kawimbe in his role as bishop and whether the accusations against him involved those responsibilities and powers. This inquiry would necessarily entangle the Court in matters of church governance. 

Ban On Cockfighting Does Not Violate Pastor's Free Exercise Rights

 In Plumbar v. Landry, (MD LA, Aug. 26, 2021), a Louisiana federal district court rejected a free exercise challenge to Louisiana's ban on cockfighting. Plaintiff who challenged the law was pastor of Holy Fight Ministries, a church that believes cockfighting is an essential part of its faith.  The court held that the ban is a neutral, generally applicable statute whose purpose is to prevent animal cruelty.

2nd Circuit Upholds Denial Of Preliminary Injunction Against Abortion Protesters

In New York ex rel. James v. Griepp, (2d Cir., Aug. 26, 2021), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a New York federal district court's refusal to grant a preliminary injunction against anti-abortion protesters who had been clashing with volunteer clinic escorts outside a Queens medical center. The decision came after the court earlier vacated its prior opinion in the case. (See prior posting.) The 2nd Circuit now said in part:

[T]he district court concluded that the Attorney General had not demonstrated irreparable harm. Some members of this Court might have reached different conclusions, both as to the existence of violations and as to the appropriateness of a preliminary injunction. But many of the issues are close ones, and we cannot say that the district court abused its considerable discretion in denying a preliminary injunction....

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

No Judgment On Pleadings In Mosque's RLUIPA Lawsuit

In Minhal Academy of Turnersville, Inc. v. Township of Washington,(D NJ, Aug. 25, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court denied plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings in a RLUIPA challenge to the Township's refusal to allow a mosque to continue to operate in a commercial condominium complex. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ denial of a use variance has made their religious exercise inconvenient and costly, but nothing more. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiffs’ motion on this ground because they have not conclusively shown that Defendants’ denial caused them substantial hardship....

Plaintiffs are not entitled to judgment on the pleadings on their equal terms claim because the Complaint does not identify a “nonreligious assembly or institution” that received comparatively better treatment under the zoning laws at issue here....

[I]n order to establish their RLUIPA nondiscrimination claim, Plaintiffs must show that the Township treated Plaintiffs worse than non-Muslim comparator institutions because Plaintiffs are Muslim.... 

Ultimately the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ fact intensive RLUIPA nondiscrimination claim should be resolved with a complete factual record.

Suit Challenges Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemption

Suit was filed yesterday in a Maine federal district court on behalf of over 2000 health care workers (all filing anonymously) challenging Maine Governor Janet Mills' order that all health care workers be vaccinated against COVID-19, without any accommodation or exception for religious objections. Medical exemptions are still available.  The complaint (full text) in Jane Does 1-6 v. Mills, (D ME, filed, 8/25/2021), alleges free exercise and religious discrimination violations, saying in part:

The dispute in this case is not about what accommodations are available to Plaintiffs or whether accommodation of Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious objections can be conditioned on compliance with certain reasonable requirements....The dispute is about whether Defendants are required to even consider a request for reasonable accommodation of Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs....

Plaintiffs all have sincerely held religious beliefs that preclude them from accepting or receiving any of the three available COVID-19 vaccines because of the connection between the various COVID-19 vaccines and the cell lines of aborted fetuses, whether in the vaccines’ origination, production, development, testing, or other inputs....

Plaintiffs have all informed their respective employers that they are willing to wear facial coverings, submit to reasonable testing and reporting requirements, monitor symptoms, and otherwise comply with reasonable conditions that were good enough to permit them to do their jobs for the last 18 months with no questions asked.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Conviction and Sentence of Mother Emanuel Church Shooter Uphehld

In United States v. Roof, (4th Cir., Aug. 25, 2021), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 149-page opinion, affirmed the hate crime and obstructing religion convictions of Dylan Roof who shot and killed nine members of Charleston, South Carolina's Mother Emanuel Church who were attending a Bible study group. Roof's attorneys raised 19 separate issues on appeal. The court concluded that proof of religious hostility is not required for a conviction under the religious obstruction statute, 18 USC § 247(a)(2). It also concluded that Congress did not exceed its powers under the 13th Amendment when it enacted the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 249. The court also upheld the death sentence imposed, saying in part:

No cold record or careful parsing of statutes and precedents can capture the full horror of what Roof did. His crimes qualify him for the harshest penalty that a just society can impose. We have reached that conclusion not as a product of emotion but through a thorough analytical process, which we have endeavored to detail here. In this, we have followed the example of the trial judge, who managed this difficult case with skill and compassion for all concerned, including Roof himself.

ABC reports on the decision.                       

6th Circuit Upholds Michigan's Classroom Mask Mandate

In Resurrection School v. Hertel, (6th Cir., Aug. 23, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, rejected free exercise, equal protection and due process challenges to Michigan's previous COVID-19 mask order for schools.  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a Catholic elementary school. All 3 judges agreed that the case is not moot because the mask requirement might be re-imposed.  The majority, however, held:

[T]he district court ... correctly concluded that because the requirement to wear a facial covering applied to students in grades K–5 at both religious and non-religious schools, it was neutral and of general applicability.

Judge Siler filed an opinion dissenting in part. Detroit News, reporting on the decision, says that the school will seek en banc review.

Suit Says Social Worker Sexually Assaulted Children At Jewish Social Service Agency

A suit was filed one day before the expiration of the two-year look-back period under New York's Child Victims Act by two anonymous plaintiffs against a clinical social worker and several Jewish organizations. (Full text of 75-page complaint in Doe v. Klar, (NY County Sup. Ct., filed 8/13/2021)).  The Forward describes the lawsuit:

A rabbi sexually assaulted children while he was supposed to be treating them for mental health issues, and the prominent Jewish institutions he worked for covered it up, claims a lawsuit filed in New York August 13.

Rabbi Yaakov David Klar allegedly carried out his abuse while he was a social worker at Chai Lifeline, a national Jewish social services provider, and as a teacher at the Pupa Cheder in Monsey, N.Y....

Klar allegedly began years of abuse of the plaintiff in 2002, when the lawsuit alleges the defendants already knew or should have known of the rabbi’s predatory history....

Only later did they enter a “secret arrangement” to allow Klar to leave quietly — and they never reported his suspected actions to the authorities, according to the lawsuit.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Helen M. Alvare, Church Autonomy after Our Lady of Guadalupe School: Too Broad? Or as Broad as it Needs to Be?, (Texas Review of Law & Politics, Vol. 25, pp. 319-375, 2021).
• Richard Osborne, A Country Divided: Refining the Ministerial Exception to Balance America’s Diversity, (March 1, 2021).
• L. Joe Dunman, Religion in the Law: An Open Access Casebook, (1st Ed., August 11, 2021).
• William Smiley, The Other Muslim Bans: State Legislation Against "Islamic Law", (Journal of Islamic Law, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020).
• Ian Murray, Donor Advised Funds: What Can North America Learn from the Australian Approach?, ((2020) 6 Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law 260).
• Tobias Scheunchen, Lost in Translation: Mahr-Agreements, US Courts, and the Predicament of Muslim Women, (Journal of Islamic Law, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Mohd Rameez Raza & Raj Shekhar, The Hagia Sophia Decision: Does It Stand the Test of 'Rule of Law'?, (Oxford Political Review 2020).
• Sohaira Siddiqui, Triple Divorce and the Political Context of Islamic Law in India, (Journal of Islamic Law, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021).
• Suman Acharya, Religious Philosophy: Islamic Legal System, (July 22, 2021).
• Shailendra Kumar & Sanghamitra Choudhury, Decoding the Elements of Human Rights from the Verses of Ancient Vedic Literature and Dharmaśāstras: An Exegetical Study, (Literature 2021).
• Hamidin Hamidin & Alfitri Alfitri, Safeguarding Women’s Constitutional Rights in the Judicial Reviews of Marriage Law on the Minimum Married Age Limit, (Mazahib Jurnal Pemikiran Hukum Islam 20, no. 1 (2021): 103-142).
• Mohd Rameez Raza & Shereen Abdin, The Law of Blasphemy vis-a-vis the Modern World: Violation of Freedom of Speech and Expression, (Manupatra 2020).
• Mohd Rameez Raza & Raj Shekhar, Sexual Minorities ‘The Invisibles’: Social Morality vs Constitutional Morality,  (International Conference on Contemporary Issues in Indian Legal System 2020, Geeta Law Institute).
• Shahabuddin Shahab, The Effect of Forgiveness in Crime on Body Parts or Organs in the Jurisprudence of Islamic Religions, (International Journal of Advanced Studies of Scientific Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2021).
• Shahbaz Akhtar, Nature of Islamic Law, (July 18, 2021).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Harvard Journal of Islamic Law, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Spring 2021) (includes Roundtable on Islamic Law & Legal History).
• Symposium: Is This a Christian Nation?, Roger Williams Law Review, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Spring 2021).
• Mark Weston Janis, Connecticut 1818: From Theocracy to Toleration, 52 Connecticut Law Review 1701-1710 (2021).
• Victor I. Vieth & Pete Singer, Wounded Souls: The Need for Child Protection Professionals and Faith Leaders to Recognize and Respond to the Spiritual Impact of Child Abuse, 45 Mitchell Hamline Law Review 1213-1234 (2019).

School Board Cannot Remove Teacher's Suit To Federal Court

In Vlaming v. West Point School Board, (4th Cir., Aug. 20, 2021), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a school board defendant cannot remove a former teacher's suit against it to federal court.  The teacher filed suit in a Virginia state court after being fired for refusing to call a transgender student by pronouns consistent with the student's gender identity. The teacher asserted only state law claims. At issue in the case were two federal statutory provisions on removal of cases to federal court. As to one of those provisions, the court's majority opinion said in part:

28 U.S.C. § 1443, the civil rights removal statute ... provides for removal of a civil action ... commenced in state court “[f]or any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.” The Board argues ... they either fired Vlaming in order to comply with Title IX, or they refused to permit Vlaming to discriminate, or to grant him an exception to their policies because of his religious beliefs, on the grounds that doing so would be inconsistent with Title IX. Precedent, however, precludes Title IX from being the type of “law providing for equal rights” referenced in § 1443(2).

The Supreme Court has limited the meaning of a “law providing for equal rights” in § 1443 to only those concerning racial equality....

Judge Floyd filed a concurring opinion, disagreeing in part with the reasoning of the majority. [Post revised to reflect concurring opinion.]

Illinois Appeals Court Upholds $220,000 Damage Award For Denying Transgender Employee Correct Restroom Access

In Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sommerville, (IL App., Aug. 13, 2021), an Illinois state appellate court upheld the Illinois Human Rights Commission's award of $220,000 in damages against Hobby Lobby for violating the Illinois Human Rights Act by refusing to allow a transgender woman employee to use the woman's restroom. The court said in part:

Hobby Lobby argues that the Commission misunderstood the Act, improperly conflating “sex” with “sexual orientation.” Specifically, it argues that it limited access to its bathrooms based on sex, not gender identity, and that the Act permitted it to do so. It also argues that “sex” means “reproductive organs and structures,” and thus Sommerville (who has not had a surgical vaginoplasty or labiaplasty) is of the male sex...

Hobby Lobby contends that an individual's “sex”—the status of being male or female—is an immutable condition. However, the plain language of the Act does not support this conception. There is simply no basis in the Act for treating the “status” of being male or female as eternally fixed....

[T]he record establishes that Sommerville's sex is unquestionably female. She has undergone years of effort and expense to transition, and she appears to be and comports herself as a woman. Of even greater significance, her status of being female has been recognized not only by the governments of this state and the nation but also by Hobby Lobby itself, all of which have changed their records to acknowledge her female sex....

Reason reports on the decision.

Religious Objections To Medical College's COVID Vaccination Requirement Upheld

In Magliulo v. Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, ((WD LA, Aug. 17, 2021), a Louisiana federal district court issued a temporary restraining order barring a medical college from conditioning plaintiff students' enrollment on their receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The students had requested an exemption from the college's requirements for religious reasons-- they believed the vaccine was derived from aborted fetal tissue. The college would grant the exemption only if the objecting students complied with extensive restrictions. The court held that Louisiana statutes allow students to assert religious or philosophical objections to the vaccine requirement. It also concluded that the refusal to exempt religious objectors violates the free exercise clause of the Louisiana constitution and the Louisiana Preservation of Religious Freedom Act.  The Louisiana Attorney General had backed the students' position in the case, and the AG's Office issued a press release discussing the decision.

Expedited Asylum Procedures Proposed By DOJ and DHS

The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice announced yesterday that they are publishing a 140-page Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (full text) to expedite handling of asylum claims for individuals encountered at or near the border. Asylum may be granted to a noncitizen who shows past, or a well-founded fear of future, persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The NPRM summarizes the proposed changes:

Under the proposed rule, such individuals could have their claims for asylum, withholding of removal ...  or protection under ... the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ... initially adjudicated by an asylum officer within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.... [I]ndividuals who are denied protection would be able to seek prompt, de novo review with an immigration judge....

5th Circuit En Banc Upholds Texas "Dismemberment Abortion" Ban

In Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton, (5th Cir., Aug. 18, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, by a vote of 9-5 (with 3 judges recused), upheld a Texas law enacted in 2017 that bans abortions performed through the standard dilation and evacuation procedure-- a procedure that the Texas law terms "dismemberment abortions." The majority opinion joined by 7 of the 9 judges said in part:

SB8 refers to the prohibited method as "live dismemberment" because doctors use forceps to separate, terminate, and remove the fetus. SB8 requires doctors to use alternative fetal-death methods. The district court declared SB8 facially unconstitutional. It held that SB8 imposes an undue burden on a large fraction of women, primarily because it determined that SB8 amounted to a ban on all D&E abortions.... Instead, the record shows that doctors can safely perform D&Es and comply with SB8 using methods that are already in widespread use.....

The safety, efficacy, and availability of suction to achieve fetal death during abortions in weeks 15 and 16 combined with the safety, efficacy, and availability of digoxin to do the same in weeks 18–22 mean that the plaintiffs have utterly failed to carry their heavy burden of showing that SB8 imposes an undue burden on a large fraction of women in the relevant circumstances.

Chief Judge Owen and Judge Ho each filed a concurring opinion. Judge Dennis filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Judges Stewart and Graves, saying in part:

Today, in a Sisyphean return to form, our court upholds a Texas law that, under the guise of regulation, makes it a felony to perform the most common and safe abortion procedure employed during the second trimester. In an opinion that fortunately lacks fully binding precedential effect, the en banc plurality disregards the two major lessons of June Medical. First, it ignores on-point Supreme Court precedent in multiple ways....  [T]he Supreme Court has already decided this exact case, holding that a Nebraska law was unconstitutional because it could be interpreted to be the sort of ban that the Texas statute openly embodies.... Second, ... the en banc plurality fails to defer to the district court’s well-reasoned and well-supported factual findings regarding the burdens and benefits associated with the Texas law... 

Judge Higginson filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by Judge Costa. Texas Tribune reports on the decision.

Challenge To Superseded COVID Order Dismissed As Moot

In Solid Rock Baptist Church v. Murphy, (D NJ, Aug. 16, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed as moot a challenge to a now superseded COVID-19 executive order by the governor of New Jersey limiting the number of people who could attend an indoor religious service. The court also held it will abstain under the Younger doctrine.

Amended Complaint Allowed In Suit Over Transcendental Meditation In Schools

In Separation of Hinduism From Our Schools v. Chicago Public Schools, (ND IL, Aug. 17, 2021), an Illinois federal district court granted in part plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint in a suit challenging Chicago Public Schools' "Quiet Time" program which was led by a Transcendental Meditation instructor. In a previous opinion, the court dismissed claims against a private foundation and the University of Chicago which helped implement the program. (See prior posting.) Now the court holds that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the private foundation and the University were joint participants with the state to be state actors who can violate constitutional rights. However the court accepts the University's defense that its participation was not part of an official policy or custom-- a necessary component of liability under 42 USC §1983. The court also held that the complaint adequately states claims against the University, the foundation and the public schools under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.