Church Camp Loses Challenge To Zoning Decision On Neighboring Dairy Farm

In House of Prayer Ministries, Inc. v. Rush County Board of Zoning Appeals, (IN App., Jan. 16, 2018), an Indiana state appeals court rejected a challenge by a church summer camp to a zoning board decision granting a special exception to a dairy farm to operate a concentrated animal feeding operation one-half mile from the summer camp.  The church argued in part that the grant of the special exception substantially burdens its religious exercise by "imperiling the health of the children" at its camp.  The court first held that the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act is not available to the church here because a RLUIPA claim can be raised only by a person with a property interest in the land that is regulated.  RLUIPA does not extend to other property that is merely affected by a land use decision as to neighboring land.

The court went on to hold that Indiana's state Religious Freedom Restoration Act was also not violated:

The [Board of Zoning Appeal's] apparent assessment that House of Prayer will not be substantially burdened in the exercise of its religion by the grant of the special exception is supported by substantial evidence.

Indiana Lawyer reports on the decision.

Christian Camp Says Nearby Dairy Farm Approval Violates RLUIPA

A lawsuit was filed last month in an Indiana state trial court by a Christian youth camp which objects to a zoning board's approval of a large dairy farm nearby. The complaint (full text) in House of Prayer Ministries, Inc. v. Rush County Board of Zoning Appeals, (filed 5/16/2016), alleges that the 1400 cows and three large waste lagoons on the farm will expose campers to noxious odors and harmful air emissions that will "interfere with Harvest Christian Camp's thirty-year mission and ability to provide a safe, healthy, and Christian rural setting for thousands of children and teens to be educated, enriched spiritually, and enhanced by the outdoors...."  This, the complaint alleges, amounts to a substantial burden that violates the camp's rights under RLUIPA, the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First and 14th Amendments and the state constitution's equal privileges and immunities clause. RLUIPA Defense blog reports on the case.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Yah'Torah v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 346 (NJ App., Feb. 21, 2014), a New Jersey appellate court concluded that  a Jewish inmate had not shown that his free exercise or RLUIPA rights were violated by the refusal of prison authorities to furnish him goat or sheep meat, grape juice, pistachio nuts, cashew nuts, honeydew melon or watermelon, onions, goat cheese, and leeks to celebrate the New Moon festival.

In Santo Mujahid Islaam v. Greco, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21866 (D NJ, Feb. 21, 2014), a New Jersey federal district court allowed an inmate to proceed with his complaint that he was denied the right to attend Muslim Friday prayer services. Other inmates named in the complaint were given the option of joining the action upon payment of filing fees.

In Toppin v. Kornegay, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21888 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 21, 2014), a North Carolina federal district court rejected a Native American inmate's claim that a search of his cell involving handling of his sacred items box violated his free exercise rights.

In Lizama v. Hendricks, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22955 (D NJ, Feb. 20, 2014), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed without prejudice an inmate's complaint that one of the defendants failed to provide him with his kosher meal.

In Winder v. Maynard, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23038 (D MD, Feb. 24, 2014), a Maryland federal district court dismissed a complaint by a Wiccan inmate that his celebration of the Samhain Feast was impaired when authorities refused to allow Wiccans to prepare and serve pork products through the prison kitchen facilities.

In Johnson v. Lowry, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23216 (ND IN, Feb. 21, 2014), an Indiana federal district court permitted a Native American inmate to move ahead with his free exercise and RLUIPA injunctive action challenging the prison's refusal to allow him to possess various religious items in his cell and to have group services.

In Buckner v. Allen, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22695 (MD AL, Feb. 24, 2014), an Alabama federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23724, Feb. 3, 2014) and dismissed a complaint by a Native American inmate alleging denial of tobacco use during religious ceremonies, interruption of ceremonies, limited use of fires and sweat lodge, allowance of gang members on ceremonial grounds, and the chaplain's desecration of religious items by touching them.

In Davis v. Pierce, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25030 (SD TX, Feb. 27, 2014), a Texas federal magistrate judge rejected Native American inmates' challenges to the ban on inmates smoking the ceremonial pipe, infrequent Native American religious services, the grooming policy and the ban on medicine bags outside of cells.

In Hodges v. Sharon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25453 (ED CA, Feb. 26, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge permitted a Messianic Jewish inmate to proceed with his free exercise, RLUIPA and equal protection claims alleging denial of various religious practices, including weekly services and holiday celebrations.

In Godbey v. Wilson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25436 (ED VA, Feb. 26, 2014), a Virginia federal district court dismissed complaints by an inmate who is an Asatru adherent that he is not allowed to drink alcoholic mead during religious ceremonies or wear his hlath (headband with symbols on it) outside the prison chapel.

In Begnoche v. Derose, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25580 (MD PA, Feb. 28, 2014), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to dismiss a Native American inmate's free exercise claims against 3 defendants alleging that they failed to provide him with a spiritual advisor, denied him religious items such as prayer feathers and denied him a special food tray during the Green Corn feast celebration.

In Free v. Garcia, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25128 (WD OK, Feb. 27, 2014), an Oklahoma federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26100, Feb. 14, 2014) and dismissed claims (some with and some without prejudice) that an inmate who is a House of Yahweh adherent did not receive his requested religious meals. A motion to amend the complaint was referred back to the magistrate judge.

Recent Prisoner Free Excercise Cases

In Perez v. Westchester County Department of Corrections, (2d Cir., Nov. 19, 2009), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs who obtained a settlement requiring prison authorities to serve Muslim prisoners halal meat were "prevailing parties" for purposes of the award of attorneys' fees and that the fee caps in the Prison Litigation Reform Act apply even though some of the plaintiffs were released before the successful resolution of the litigation.

In Pressley v. Madison, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107231 (ND GA, Nov. 17, 2009), a Georgia federal district judge permitted a Muslim plaintiff to move ahead with her complaint that she was not permitted to wear her hijab covering her head while temporarily transferred for two days from prison to a county jail. The suit asks for an injunction to prohibit Barrow County Jail from depriving Muslim women of their hijabs and also seeks several million dollars in damages.

In Williams v. Cate, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107920 (ED CA, Nov. 10, 2009), a California federal magistrate judge allowed a prisoner who was a member of the House of Yahweh faith to proceed against some of the defendants named in his lawsuit for alleged violations of the free exercise and equal protection clauses, as well as RLUIPA. The lawsuit alleged refusals to accommodate plaintiff's religious dietary requirements, failure to hold House of Yahweh religious services and discrimination in funding from the religious services budget.

In Morris v. Woodford, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107612 (ND CA, Nov. 18, 2009), a California federal district court held that a prisoner had stated a cognizable claim under the 1st Amendment and RLUIPA. His complaint alleged denial and confiscation of his Qu'ran and other Islamic study and prayer materials.

In Lynch v. Huffman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107476 (SD IN, Nov. 17, 2009), an Indiana federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when his request to see a chaplain was ignored while he was in administrative segregation for two months. He did not allege this imposed a substantial burden on his religious exercise. Moreover the claim was now moot.

Cloture Voted On Hamilton's Nomination For 7th Circuit

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate voted 70-29 to invoke cloture and thus end debate on the nomination of Indiana federal district judge David Hamilton to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. (See prior related posting.) As reported by the Christian Science Monitor, opponents raised a number of issues, including Hamilton's short stint after college with ACORN and a decision he wrote invalidating Indiana's informed consent abortion law that would have required two trips to a clinic to obtain an abortion. However, the greatest focus by opponents were Hamilton's two related 2005 decisions holding that the Indiana House of Representatives, in opening its sessions with sectarian prayer, violated the Establishment Clause. (See prior postings 1, 2.)

The most strident criticisms accused Hamilton of "prohibiting prayers that mention Jesus Christ in the Indiana House of Representatives, but allowing prayers that mention Allah." (Red State blog.) That charge grew out of language in Hamilton's second opinion explaining the scope of the injunction. It specifically banned sectarian prayer, including Christian prayer that uses the name of "Christ." Hamilton emphasized that the only sectarian prayers that seem to have been offered in the Indiana House were Christian ones. Non-sectarian prayer, addressing God more generically, is permitted. Hamilton wrote:

The Arabic word "Allah" is used for “God” in Arabic translations of Jewish and Christian scriptures. If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic Allah, the Spanish Dios, the German Gott, the French Dieu, the Swedish Gud, the Greek Theos, the Hebrew Elohim, the Italian Dio, or any other language's terms in addressing the God who is the focus of the non-sectarian prayers contemplated in Marsh v. Chambers, the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others. If and when the prayer practices in the Indiana House of Representatives ever seem to be advancing Islam, an appropriate party can bring the problem to the attention of this or another court.

The Senate is scheduled to take its final vote on Hamilton's nomination today.

UPDATE: On Thursday the Senate gave final approval to Hamilton's nomination by a vote of 59-39.

Republicans Delay Committee Vote On 7th Circuit Nominee Over His Establishment Clause Decisions

At the request of Republican members of the Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee postponed a vote that was to have taken place yesterday on the nomination of Indiana district judge David Hamilton to serve on the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. According to yesterday's Indianapolis Star, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions said that Republicans needed more time to review Hamilton's record on the district court. Sessions pointed particularly to Hamilton's rulings holding that the opening of sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives with sectarian prayer was a violation of the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) Subsequently the decision was reversed on standing grounds by the 7th Circuit. Hamilton testified at his nomination hearings that the law on taxpayer standing changed between his decision and the reversal by the 7th Circuit.

Senate Judiciary Hearing Held On Nominees for Civil Rights Division, Judgeships

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on three nominees (webcast of hearing):

• Thomas E. Perez, to be Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice. (See prior posting.)
• David F. Hamilton, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit. (See prior posting.)
• Andre M. Davis, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit. (See prior posting.)

CQ reports that the most controversial of the nominations is that of David Hamilton. Apparently, this is because as a federal district court judge, Hamilton wrote two decisions holding that the Indiana House of Representatives, in opening its sessions with sectarian prayer, violated the Establishment Clause. (See prior postings 1, 2.) Republicans boycotted the first Judiciary Committee hearing on Hamilton on April 1, claiming that Democrats were moving too quickly on it. Only one Republican (Oklahoma's Tom Coburn) was in attendance yesterday.

Obama Picks Author of Indiana Legislative Prayer Decision For 7th Circuit Vacancy

In his first judicial nomination, President Barack Obama yesterday selected Indiana federal district judge David Hamilton for a seat on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. (White House press release.) Hamilton was the author of two related 2005 opinions holding that the Indiana House of Representatives, in opening its sessions with sectarian prayer, violated the Establishment Clause. (See prior postings 1, 2.) Ultimately the 7th Circuit dismissed the case on standing grounds. (See prior posting.) Judge Hamilton, whose nomination must be confirmed by the Senate, was supported by both Indiana senators, Democrat Evan Bayh and Republican Richard Lugar. Reporting on the nomination, the AP says that the American Bar Association has resumed its historical role in evaluating judicial nominees-- giving Hamilton a "well qualified" rating. The Bush administration did not consult the ABA on its judicial picks.

Presidential Events Around the Country Are Being Opened by Vetted Prayers

In a little-noticed development, President Barack Obama's town halls and speaking events around the country are being opened with invocations from invited clergy. Yesterday's U.S. News & World Report says that in an unprecedented move, the White House is not only asking clergy who are recommended by local politicians to deliver opening prayers, but is requiring vetting of the text with the White House Office of Public Liaison before it is delivered. The practice has so far not engendered controversy because the prayer is delivered before the President arrives at the event, and before cable television begins its coverage.

At least three recent events have followed this pattern: a town hall in Elkhart, Indiana; a speech in Ft. Myers, Florida on the stimulus bill; and an appearance near Phoenix (AZ) to unveil the mortgage bailout plan. At the Phoenix event, the invocation was delivered by a member of the Tohono O'odham Nation. He was required to depart from the Native American practice of improvised prayer, writing his text in advance so it could be e-mailed to the White House. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, complained: "The only thing worse than having these prayers in the first place is to have them vetted, because it entangles the White House in core theological matters."

Clergy Led Prayer Is Back In Indiana House

The Indy Star reports that this week, for the first time since January 2006, the Indiana state House of Representatives opened its session with a prayer led by a clergyman. In late 2005, a federal district court enjoined sectarian prayer in the House, but in late 2007 that decision was reversed by the 7th Circuit that held plaintiff lacked standing. (See prior postings, 1, 2.) In 2006, House members had gathered at the back of the Chamber to pray. In 2007 and 2008, the House Speaker read a nonsectarian prayer from the podium. But now clergy-led prayer has returned. Rev. Matthew Barnes opened Tuesday's session with a non-sectarian invocation that asked for God's guidance and blessings, but did not mention Jesus.

UPDATE: Thursday's Fort Wayne Journal Gazette says that the Indiana Senate will open its 2009 sessions with prayers offered by Senate members and by visiting clergy.

Recent Prisoner Free Excercise Cases

In Smith v. Kyler, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12586 (MD PA, Feb. 20, 2008), a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected the claims of a Rastafarian prisoner that his free exercise and equal protection rights, as well as his rights under RLUIPA, were violated by authorities' refusal to provide weekly group prayer services led by a Rastafarian prayer leader.

In Lane-El v. Indiana Department of Corrections, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13192 (SD IN, Feb. 20, 2008), an Indiana federal district court rejected plaintiffs' claims that their free exercise and equal protection rights, as well as their rights under the Indiana constitution, were violated when the Assistant Superintendent at Pendleton Correctional Instituiton temporarily suspended religious activities of the Moorish Science Temple of America. The suspension was ordered so that officials could investigate claims that inmates were being charged money to have their names placed on the list of those who could attend Moorish Science services.

In Odom v. Dixion, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11748, (WD NY, Feb. 15, 2008), a New York federal magistrate judge dismissed, for failure to demonstrate proof, claims by a prisoner that his constitutional rights were violated by the denial of properly prepared kosher meals.

In Scott v. High Desert State Prison, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12170, (ED CA, February 6, 2008), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed, with leave to amend, a prisoner's RLUIPA complaint that was too vague for the court to determine whether or not it was frivolous. Plaintiff, a member of the House of Yahweh, alleged that religious vendors were not approved and prison chaplains were ordered to deprive him of his right to religious activities.

In Bridgewater v. Scribner, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12264 (ED CA, Feb. 6, 2008), a California federal magistrate judge permitted a Muslim prisoner to continue with his claim that his free exercise rights were violated when was prevented from attending a festival to commemorate one of the five holy pillars of Islam. However, plaintiff was required to file an amended complaint if he wished to proceed as to certain of the defendants.

7th Circuit Denies En Banc Review In Indiana Legislative Prayer Case

Yesterday's Indianapolis Star reports that the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a petition for en banc review in Hinrichs v. Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Indiana General Assembly. (See prior posting.) In October, a 3-judge panel in the case, in a 2-1 decision, dismissed for lack of standing a suit brought by four Indiana taxpayers challenging the opening of sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives with Sectarian prayers.

Indiana Senate Moves To Non-Sectarian Opening Prayer

Facing threats of a lawsuit, Indiana' Senate on Tuesday switched to a non-sectarian opening prayer. Yesterday's Indianapolis Star reports that the ACLU, which had previously sued the Indiana House to challenge its sectarian opening prayers, had threatened a similar suit against the Senate after it opened with an overtly Christian prayer in November. (See prior related posting.)

Indiana Senate Opens With Sectarian Invocation

Prayer in the Indiana legislature remains in the news. Now that the constitutional challenge by taxpayers to opening House sessions with sectarian prayer has been dismissed on standing grounds (see prior posting), the Indiana state Senate is getting into the fray. On Tuesday, State Sen. Dennis Kruse offered the opening invocation, and ended it with the words: "We pray this in the name and beloved power of our Lord Jesus Christ and for his sake, Amen." (Anderson, IN Herald Bulletin). Yesterday's Indianapolis Star says that Senate President Pro Tem David Long specifically permitted the sectarian prayer, concluding that the Senate was on safe legal ground now that the suit against the House speaker has been dismissed. However House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer said state Attorney General Steve Carter advised him not to permit sectarian prayer in the House because the 7th Circuit's standing opinion is subject to a pending motion for en banc review. ACLU attorney Ken Falk said that his organization would likely sue on behalf of someone who was subjected to the prayer if the Senate continues the use of sectarian invocations.

En Banc Review Sought In Indiana Legislative Prayer Case

According to today's Indianapolis Star, the ACLU of Indiana has petitioned the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for en banc review of the decision in Hinrichs v. Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Indiana General Assembly, (7th Cir., Oct. 30, 2007). In October, a 3-judge panel, in a 2-1 decision, dismissed for lack of standing a suit brought by four Indiana taxpayers challenging the opening of sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives with Sectarian prayers. (See prior related posting.)

7th Circuit Holds Taxpayers Lack Standing To Challenge Indiana Legislative Prayer

Yesterday in Hinrichs v. Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Indiana General Assembly, (7th Cir., Oct. 30, 2007), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that Indiana taxpayers lack standing to challenge the opening of Indiana legislative sessions with sectarian prayers. The majority applied two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions-- DaimlerChrsyler Corp. v. Cuno, a 2006 case that held state taxpayer suits in federal court must meet the same criteria as federal taxpayer suits, and Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., a 2007 case that interpreted federal taxpayer standing narrowly. The majority opinion in the 7th Circuit relied on the fact that there was no specific legislative appropriation establishing the program that invited guest ministers to deliver invocations. The majority said that the minimal costs associated with the program have nothing to do with the content of the prayers offered. Judge Wood dissenting argued that the House Rule calling for opening each session with prayer is a legislative act that creates a pocketbook injury to plaintiff taxpayers, and therefore gives them standing.

Covering yesterday's decision, the Indianapolis Star quotes ACLU attorney Ken Falk. He says if the legislature resumes sectarian prayer, his group would be willing to file suit on behalf of a person who would likely have standing-- someone who regularly attends legislative sessions and must listen to the prayers.

Meanwhile the American Jewish Committee issued a release saying that yesterday's decision "is extremely alarming because it denies taxpayers the right to challenge a legislative act that in practice gives preferential access to Christian clergy in determining who shall present a daily legislative prayer." Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter released a statement in support of the decision, saying: "Legislative prayer is a worthy act that I think the State should protect within relevant legal precedents."

Numerous prior postings on the case can be accessed at this link. Links to a recording of the Sept. 2006 oral arguments before the 7th Circuit , and to the earlier opinion staying the lower court's injunction pending appeal, are also available online.

Indiana Senate Moves Back To Opening Prayers

According to yesterday's Ft. Wayne News-Sentinel, for the first time since 2005, Indiana's Senate opened its session with an oral prayer rather than a moment of silence. The Senate had moved to a moment of silence after a federal district judge said that sectarian prayers used to open sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives were unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) However the Senate's new President Pro Tem, David Long, said members felt it was important to go back to an oral prayer, even if they cannot mention the word Jesus. The Senate prayers will be given by one of six senators at first, Long said. He hopes more Senators will participate later, though some of them feel uncomfortable following judicial guidelines in praying.

Indiana House Speaker Has Not Decided About Opening Prayer

Last year, an Indiana federal court ruled that the Indiana House of Representatives had violated the Establishment Clause by opening its sessions with specifically sectarian prayers. (See prior posting.) After the ruling, House members gathered in the back of the House Chamber before the sessions began to offer prayers, rather than switching to non-sectarian prayers from the podium. The state Senate, even though it was not a party to the litigation, switched to a moment of silence at the opening of their sessions. The Indianapolis Star reports that as of Friday, current House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer had not decided whether, when the new session opens tomorrow, the House will have an official invocation as has been the tradition for 189 years. He says that whatever he does will be consistent with the court's order. The court's decision is currently on appeal.

UPDATE: On Monday, House Speaker Pat Bauer opened the 2007 session of the Indiana General Assembly with a non-sectarian prayer whose text had been approved by state Attorney General Steve Carter. The same prayer will be read every day as the opening invocation. (Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal).

7th Circuit Hears Arguments In Indiana Legislative Prayer Case

The Associated Press reports that yesterday the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in Hinrichs v. Bosma, a case in which a federal district court banned the Indiana House of Representatives from opening its sessions with sectarian prayer. (See prior posting.) Interestingly, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief supporting Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma, and participated in oral argument. The brief argued that the trial court had imposed too strict a standard, effectively banning any mention of Jesus Christ or other sectarian references. The brief said that opening prayers in the U.S. Congress often have some mention of a specific deity. Today's Indianapolis Star reports on details of oral argument that focused in part on whether prayers offered by legislators should be considered personal speech or government speech. Meanwhile Indiana House officials plan to try to raise money from the public to pay the legal fees involved in the appeal, instead of continuing to use taxpayer funds for the costs of the private law firm hired to represent House members in the litigation. (Indianapolis Star.)

7th Circuit Asked To OK Sectarian Prayer In Indiana Legislature

This week, according to the Indianapolis Star, Indiana state House of Representatives Speaker Brian C. Bosma filed the anticipated appeal to the 7th Circuit a lower court ruling that prohibited the House from opening its sessions with prayers that mention Jesus or endorse a particular religion. Both the Indiana House and Senate had passed resolutions directing Bosma to appeal the decision. (See prior posting.)