Bermuda Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

In a 49-page opinion handed down last week, a Bermuda trial court judge legalized same-sex marriage in the island nation (which is classified as a British Overseas Territory).  In Godwin v. Registrar General, (Bermuda Sup. Ct., May 5, 2017), the court held that the Registrar General violated the Human Rights Act of 1981 (HRA) when it denied a  marriage license to a same-sex couple. The court concluded that the provision of the HRA that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the provision of services applies to the Registrar General's action.  The Royal Gazette reports on reaction to the ruling.

6th Circuit: Damage Action Against Kim Davis Is Not Moot

In Ermold v. Davis, (6th Cir., May 2, 2017), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a damage action against Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis brought by a same-sex couple who had been denied a marriage license by Davis.  The district court had dismissed the case because subsequent legislative action and an Executive Order by the governor assured that marriage licenses are now being issued to same-sex couples. The court held, however, that where a suit only seeks damages for past injury, a change in defendant's conduct does not moot the controversy.  Judge Siler also filed a concurring opinion emphasizing that the district court still might find that Davis was protected by Kentucky's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Jonas J Monast, Brian C. Murray & Jonathan B. Wiener, On Morals, Markets, and Climate Change: Exploring Pope Francis' Challenge, (Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 80, 2017).
• Jonathan F. Will, I. Glenn Cohen & Eli Y. Adashi, Personhood Seeking New Life with Republican Control, (Indiana Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Tara A. Smith, Religious Liberty or Religious License? Legal Schizophrenia and the Case against Exemptions, (Journal of Law and Politics, Vol. 32, Fall 2016).
• Tara A. Smith, What Good Is Religious Freedom? Locke, Rand, and the Non-Religious Case for Respecting It, (Arkansas Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 4, 2017).
• Michael J. Perry, A Global Political Morality: Human Rights, Democracy, and Constitutionalism, (Emory Legal Studies Research Paper 17-431 (2017)).
• Jonathan F. Will, Religion As a Controlling Interference in Medical Decision-Making by Minors, (October 19, 2016).
• Sarah Khanghahi, Thirty Years after Al-Khazraji: Revisiting Employment Discrimination Under Section 1981, (64 UCLA Law Review 794 (2017).

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

• Atta Ul Mustafa, Proposed Procedural Amendments to Check Misuse of Blasphmey Laws in Pakistan, (July 4, 2016).
• Matthew S. Erie, The Traveling Waqf: Property, Religion, and Mobility Beyond China, (Islamic Law and Society, Vol. 25, (1-2, Special Issue on Waqfs) (February 2018)).
• Paul Johnson & Robert M. Vanderbeck, Sexual Orientation Equality and Religious Exceptionalism in the Law of the United Kingdom: The Role of the Church of England, (April 25, 2017).
• Dwight G. Newman, Ties that Bind: Religious Freedom and Communities (Introduction), (in Dwight Newman, ed., Religious Freedom and Communities (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2016)).
• Darren Rosenblum, Sex Quotas and Burkini Bans, (Tulane Law Review, Vol. 92, 2017).

From SmartCILP:

• Herman D. Hofman, For Richer or For Poorer: How Obergefell v. Hodges Affects the Tax-Exempt Status of Religious Organizations that Oppose Same-Sex Marriage, 52 Gonzaga Law Review 21-57 (2016/17).
• 2015 Richard J. Childress Memorial Lecture: Religious Freedom, Social Justice and Public Policy. Keynote lecture by Lawrence G. Sager; contributions by Christopher C. Lund, Matthew T. Bodie, Elizabeth Sepper, Jeffrey A. Redding and B. Jessie Hill. 60 St. Louis University Law Journal 585-710 (2016).

Roy Moore Announces Run For U.S. Senate Seat From Alabama

In Alabama this week, Roy Moore who has been suspended for the rest of his term as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court because of his defiance of same-sex marriage rulings (see prior posting) announced that he will formally resign from his judicial position in order to run for the United States Senate.  The Republican primary for the seat is scheduled for August (with a potential run off in September). The special election itself is scheduled for December 12.  The Senate seat initially opened up when former Senator Jeff Sessions was appointed U.S. Attorney General. According to AL.com, Moore will face several opponents in the primary, including incumbent Sen. Luther Strange who was appointed on an interim basis to Sessions' seat by Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, and Dr. Randy Brinson, president of the Christian Coalition of Alabama.  In his announcement, Moore said in part: "My position has always been God first, family then country. I share the vision of President Donald Trump to make America great again."

Alabama Supreme Court Affirms Suspension of Chief Justice Over Defiance of Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday, a specially composed panel of judges sitting as the Supreme Court of Alabama unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Alabama Court of the Judiciary suspending Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore for the remainder of his term. Six judges joined in the court's opinion, while one judge concurred only in the result. In Moore v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, (AL Sup. Ct., April 19, 2017), the court in a 66-page opinion agreed that Moore violated various provisions of the Code of Judicial Ethics when he issued directions to Alabama judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite federal court decisions and orders to the contrary, including the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision.  AL.com reports that Moore remains defiant

Suit Says Clerk Harassed Same-Sex Couples Seeking Marriage Licenses

A suit was filed earlier this week in a West Virginia federal district court contending that personnel in the Gilmer County Clerk's Office harassed same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses.  The complaint (full text) in Brookover v. Gilmer County, (D WV, filed 4/17/2017), alleges in part:

When Deputy Clerk Debbie Allen saw that a same-sex couple was applying for a marriage license, she ... launched into a tirade of harassment and disparagement. She slammed her paperwork down on her desk, screaming that the couple was an “abomination” to God and that God would “deal” with them.... Another clerk joined in ... by shouting “it’s [Allen’s] religious right” to harass same-sex couples while performing the official state duties of the Clerk’s office.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Dismisses Fanciful Suit Designed To Discredit Same-Sex Marriage

A Kentucky federal district court has dismissed a rather fanciful lawsuit filed by opponents of same-sex marriage designed to emphasize plaintiffs' belief that only traditional marriage should be recognized.  In Sevier v. Bevin, (ED KY, March 31, 2017), the court describes plaintiffs' claims:

They identify themselves as "machinist" and "zoophile", respectively, and, together, allege the Commonwealth violated the following constitutional rights by denying Sevier's request for a marriage license permitting him marry his laptop and Ording's request for a marriage license permitting her to many an animal: (1) the right to due process; (2) the right to equal protection; (3) the right to freedom of association; and ( 4) the right to travel. They also claim that the denial of their request for a marriage license is a violation of the Supremacy and Establishment Clauses of the United States Constitution, and also amounts to discrimination on the basis of race.

The court concluded that: "The Plaintiffs' Complaint or Amended Complaint fail to establish any plausible entitlement to relief. "  In a press release on the decision, Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver said: "To marry a laptop computer or a parrot is nonsense, but the same was said about same-sex marriage, and yet there are now five lawyers on the U.S Supreme Court who pulled that rabbit out of a hat."

Photographer Challenges Public Accommodation Law

Earlier this week a suit was filed in a Wisconsin state trial court challenging Madison City Code § 39.03(5) which makes it illegal for public accommodations to deny “equal enjoyment” because of someone’s sexual orientation or political beliefs or to publish “any communication” that denies facilities or that conveys a person’s patronage is “unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable” because of someone’s sexual orientation or political beliefs. It also challenges Wis. Stat. §106.52 that has similar provisions regarding sexual orientation. The complaint (full text) in Amy Lynn Photography Studio, LLC v. City of Madison, (WI Cir. Ct., filed 3/7/2017), contends that these legal provisions impede the ability of photographer Amy Lynn to rely on her Christian religious beliefs in deciding which clients to offer her visual storytelling service:

Amy loves to photograph and post about weddings so that others can see God’s love and character displayed in the beauty of marriage. Amy also wants to photograph for and post about pro-life pregnancy health clinics so that others can see God’s love and character displayed in the sanctity of life. These desires have grown as Amy has seen our culture increasingly question the value of marriage and the sanctity of human life.

To counteract that trend, Amy not only promotes certain content, she avoids certain content. Amy can hardly promote her beliefs while glamorizing contrary ideas. Amy therefore cannot photograph or write about things celebrating pornography, racism, violence, abortion, or any marriage besides marriage between one man and one woman, such as same-sex marriage. Nor can she photograph or write about organizations that promote those beliefs.

But Madison’s and Wisconsin’s public accommodation laws forbid that freedom.

An ADF press release announced the filing of the lawsuit.

Wyoming Supreme Court Censures Judge Who Refused To Perform Same-Sex Marriages

In a 3-2 opinion yesterday, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that a judge who, because of religious objections, refuses to perform same-sex marriages violates the Wyoming Code of Judicial Conduct.  In Neely v. Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics, (WY Sup. Ct., March 7, 2017), Justice Fox wrote for the majority, saying in part:

This case is not about same-sex marriage or the reasonableness of religious beliefs.... This case is also not about imposing a religious test on judges. Rather, it is about maintaining the public’s faith in an independent and impartial judiciary that conducts its judicial functions according to the rule of law, independent of outside influences, including religion, and without regard to whether a law is popular or unpopular.

Responding to petitioner's free exercise argument, the majority stated:

Allowing Judge Neely to opt out of same-sex marriages is contrary to the compelling state interest in maintaining an independent and impartial judiciary.

However, rejecting the Commission's recommendation that Judge Neely be removed from office, the majority said:

Weighing these factors, we find that Judge Neely’s misconduct warrants a public censure. We further find that Judge Neely must perform her judicial functions, including performing marriages, with impartiality. She must either commit to performing marriages regardless of the couple’s sexual orientation, or cease performing all marriage ceremonies.

Justice Kautz, joined by Justice Davis, dissented, saying in part:

The majority’s position that Judge Neely violated Rule 1.2 is based on the mistaken conclusion that Judge Neely refused “to follow the law of the land.” As discussed above, the undisputed evidence shows that Judge Neely made no such refusal. She did not state that she would deny marriage to same sex couples, but rather said she would assist such couples in finding someone to perform their civil marriage ceremony. The law does not require Judge Neely personally to perform every marriage.

Focusing on the majority's free exercise argument, the dissenters said in part:

Apparently some individuals might find it offensive that Judge Neely said she would decline to personally perform a same-sex marriage and instead would refer them to someone else. There is no compelling state interest in shielding individuals from taking such an offense.

AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Gabe Rusk for the lead.]

Canada's Supreme Court Will Review Two Trinity Western Law School Cases

On Feb. 23, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear appeals in Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario) (summary of case) and Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, et. al. (British Columbia) (summary of case). At issue is the question of whether the Law Societies in various provinces can refuse to accredit Trinity Western University Law School because of its code of conduct based on evangelical Christian teachings.  In particular, the law school refuses to recognize same-sex marriages and requires students to sign its Community Covenant that, among other things, prohibits sexual intimacy outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. TaxProf Blog has more on the Supreme Court's action. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

British Appeals Court Refuses To Extend Civil Partnerships To Heterosexual Couples

In Steinfeld & Keidan v Secretary of State for Education, (EWCA, Feb. 21, 2017), Britain's Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, rejected a challenge to British law that allows same-sex couples, but not opposite-sex couples, to enter civil partnerships as an alternative to marriage.  The differential treatment was challenged as a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibition on discrimination (Article 14) and right to respect for private and family life (Article 8). As explained in the Court's Summary of the decision, all of the judges agreed that the ban on civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples creates a potential violation of Articles 14 and 8.  However two of the three judges concluded that the limitation is permissible because it is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and is proportionate.  The Secretary of State is taking further time to assess whether, since the introduction of same-sex marriage, civil partnership should be phased out or should instead be extended to opposite-sex couples. CNN reports on the decision.

Washington Supreme Court Says Florist's Refusal To Sell For Same-Sex Wedding Violated State Law

In a widely followed case, the state of Washington's Supreme Court yesterday unanimously upheld a trial court's decision that a florist's religiously-motivated refusal to sell arranged flowers for a same-sex wedding violates the Washington Law Against Discrimination.  In State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc.,WA Sup. Ct., Feb. 16, 2017), the court, summarizing its 59-page decision, said:

Discrimination based on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We therefore hold that the conduct for which Stutzman [the florist shop owner] was cited and fined in this case-refusing her commercially marketed wedding floral services to Ingersoll and Freed because theirs would be a same-sex wedding-constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the WLAD. We also hold that the WLAD may be enforced against Stutzman because it does not infringe any constitutional protection. As applied in this case, the WLAD does not compel speech or association. And assuming that it substantially burdens Stutzman's religious free exercise, the WLAD does not violate her right to religious free exercise under either the First Amendment or article I, section 11 [of the state constitution] because it is a neutral, generally applicable law that serves our state government's compelling interest in eradicating discrimination in public accommodations.

A press release from ADF says that florist Barronelle Stutzman will seek U.S. Supreme Court review in the case. Links to pleadings and court rulings in the case can also be found on ADF's case page. (See prior related posting.) Tri-City Herald reports on the decision.

Trump Keeps Special Envoy For LGBTI Rights At State Department

Foreign Policy this week reports that  the Trump Administration has decided to keep Obama-appointee Randy Berry in his State Department position of Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons. According to Foreign Policy:

The special envoy position was created during the Obama years to fight back against the discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people around the globe. Conservative groups have called the office an attempt to “entrench the LGBTI agenda” into the United States government, and accuse it of browbeating countries opposed to gay-friendly school textbooks and same-sex marriage.

Berry repeatedly stressed that his goal was to convince foreign governments to stop violence against gays and lesbians rather than pressure every nation to allow same-sex marriage. 

Berry, who is an openly gay career Foreign Service officer, will also stay on as deputy assistant secretary to the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, a position to which he was appointed in the last hours of the Obama administration. Christian evangelical groups had called for Trump to dismiss Berry.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Andrew Koppelman, If Liberals Knew Themselves Better, Conservatives Might Like Them Better, (20 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1201 (2017))
• Graham Polando, Restraining Free Exercise: Protection Orders and Church Attendance, (February 5, 2017).
• B. Jessie Hill, Kingdom Without End? The Inevitable Expansion of Religious Sovereignty Claims, (Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 20, 2017).
• Robin Fretwell Wilson, Unpacking the Relationship between Conscience and Access, (Forthcoming, Law, Religion, and Health in the United States, Holly Fernandez Lynch, I. Glenn Cohen, Elizabeth Sepper, eds. Cambridge U. Press 2017).
• Sahar F. Aziz, Losing the 'War of Ideas': A Critique of Countering Violent Extremism Programs, (Texas International Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Christian Turner, Submarine Statutes, (February 8, 2017).
• Mary Anne Case, Forms of Patriarchy in Amoris Laetitia and in the Papacy of Francis, (U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 613 (2017)).
• Claudia E. Haupt, Antidiscrimination in the Legal Profession and the First Amendment: A Partial Defense of Model Rule 8.4(g), (19 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law Online (2017 Forthcoming)).
• Gertrude N. Levine & Samuel J. Levine, Internet Ethics, American Law, and Jewish Law: A Comparative Overview (21 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y 37 (2016)).

From SSRN (Focus on individuals):

• Andrew Koppelman, Kent Greenawalt, Defender of the Faith, (Texas Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Michael John DeBoer, Justice Brent E. Dickson, State Constitutional Interpretation, and the Religion Provisions of the Indiana Constitution, (Indiana Law Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2016).

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

• Shital Prakash Kharat, Effect of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 – Judicial Response, (February 6, 2017).
• Grant Robert Hooper, From the Magna Carta to Bentham to Modern Australian Judicial Review: Themes of Practicality and Spirituality, (Australian Institute of Administrative Law (AIAL) Forum, Vol. 84, pp. 22-44, 2016).

From SSRN (LGBT Rights):

• Reva Siegel, Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash: Consensus, Conflict, and Constitutional Culture, (February 9, 2017).
• Susan Frelich Appleton, Obergefell's Liberties: All in the Family, (Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 77, No. 5, 2016).
• Malcolm Langford, Revisiting Joslin v. New Zealand: Same-Sex Marriage in Polarised Times, (E. Brems and E. Desmet, Integrated Human Rights in Practice: Rewriting Human Rights Decisions (Edward Elgar, 2017)).
• Katherine Pratt, The Tax Definition of 'Medical Care': A Critique of the Startling IRS Arguments in O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner, (23 Michigan Journal of Gender & Law 313 (2016)).
• Robin Fretwell Wilson, Squaring Faith and Sexuality: Religious Institutions and the Unique Challenge of Sports, (Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Vol. 34, No. 385, 2016).
• Robin Fretwell Wilson, The Nonsense About Bathrooms: How Purported Concerns over Safety Block LGBT Nondiscrimination Laws and Obscure Real Religious Liberty Concerns, (Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2017).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Michael J. Churgin, Is Religion Different? Is There a Thumb on the Scale in Refugee Convention Appellate Court Adjudication in the United States? Some Preliminary Thoughts, [Abstract], 51 Texas International Law Journal 213-228 (2016).
• David L. Hudson, Jr. & Emily H. Harvey, Dissecting The Hybrid Rights Exception: Should It Be Expanded or Rejected?, [Abstract], 38 University of Arkansas Little Rock Law Review 449-475 (2016).
• Hon. Gail T. Kulick, Tadd M. Johnson, Rebecca St. George, & Emily Segar-Johnson, From Dysfunction and Polarization to Legislation: Native American Religious Freedom Rights and Minnesota Autopsy Law, 42 Mitchell Hamline Law Reveiw 1699-1721 (2016).
• Law, Religion and the Family Unit After Hobby Lobby: A Tribute to Professor Harry Krause, 2016 University of Illinois Law Review 1227-1808.
• Symposium: Law and Religion In an Increasingly Polarized America,(Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vo. 20, No. 4, 2017).
• Symposium on Religious Liberty and Christian Higher Education, (Two Kingdoms Network, Concordia University, 2017). The Symposium, among others, includes Howard M. Friedman, The Future of Religious Liberty.

Draft Executive Order Would Expand Free Exercise Protections

The Nation reported yesterday on a leaked copy of a draft Executive Order on Religious Freedom which is currently being circulated by the White House, saying:

The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act. 

The draft titled Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom is set out in full in The Nation report.  The Order provides in part:

“Religious organization” shall be construed broadly to encompass any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations, operated for a religious purpose, even if its purpose is not exclusively religious, and is not limited to houses of worship or tax-exempt organizations, or organizations controlled by or associated with a house of worship or a convention or association of churches.

Sec. 3 Religious Freedom Principles and Policymaking Criteria. All executive branch departments and agencies (“agencies”) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, adhere to the following principles and criteria when formulating and implementing regulations, actions, or policies:

(a) Religious freedom is not confined to religious organizations or limited to religious exercise that takes place in houses of worship or the home. It is guaranteed to persons of all faiths and extends to all activities of life.

(b) Persons and organizations do not forfeit their religious freedom when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts: or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments....

Prosperity Gospel Pastor, Bishop Eddie Long, Dies

As reported by CNN and AP, controversial Atlanta area mega-church pastor, Bishop Eddie Long, died Sunday morning of cancer at age 63. At its height, his New Birth Missionary Baptist Church where he preached a "prosperity gospel" had 25,000 members.  CNN summarizes his career:

Long was a national figure and one of the most innovative and polarizing pastors in the contemporary church. He was also a paradox.

He was a preacher who led an infamous march against same-sex marriage and denounced homosexuality, but he also settled a lawsuit by four young men who said he pressured them into sexual relationships....

He was a man who gave away cars and paid the college tuition of needy people, but he also was investigated by Congress after a charity he created had provided him with a million-dollar home and a Bentley luxury car.

"When he spoke, black people all over the country listened to him," said Shayne Lee, a sociologist who studies the black Pentecostal church. "He was part of the repackaging of Christianity for post-civil rights African-Americans."

Top Ten Religious Liberty and Church-State Developments of 2016

Each year in December, I attempt to pick the most important church-state and religious liberty developments of the past year.  This was a busy year, and a number of the important developments amounted to themes that spanned many months.  So here are my Top Ten picks for the rather chaotic year that is currently coming to an end. I welcome e-mail comment from those who disagree with my choices.

1. The unexpected death of Justice Scalia leaves the Supreme Court split on important issues, including the challenges to the Obamacare contraceptive coverage mandate.

2. Religion plays unusual roles in the Presidential election contest.  Donald Trump raises issues of Muslim immigration, repeal of the Johnson amendment, draws support from Evangelicals despite a personal history that might raise questions with religious conservatives, and receives support from the alt-Right which includes anti-Semitic elements.  Hillary Clinton who has deep personal religious roots does not emphasize these in her campaign.

3. Transgender rights-- particularly access to bathrooms-- become a religious as well as political issue as the Obama administration asserts that existing anti-discrimination provisions in federal law cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

4. Supreme Court grants review in ERISA "church plan" exemption cases.  Billions of dollars in potential underfunding of retirement plans by religiously-affiliated health care systems around the country are at issue.

5. Fallout from the legalization of same-sex marriage continues as various wedding service providers assert the right to refuse to serve same-sex couples, Mississippi's Conscience Protection Act is struck down, and Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore appeals his suspension growing of his resistance to accepting the Supreme Court's marriage equality ruling.

6. Latin crosses as part of veterans' memorials, in parks, and on county seals and the like become the latest focus of the battle over religious displays on public property.

7. State "Blaine Amendments" again become the focus of attention as the Supreme Court grants review in the Trinity Lutheran Church case and Oklahoma voters defeat a proposal to eliminate Blaine Amendments from the state constitution.

8. Federal and state RFRA's continue to be asserted, often but not always unsuccessfully, in unusual contexts-- e.g. challenging "In God We Trust" on currency, as a defense to tax evasion charges, as a defense to food stamp fraud, in connection with bankruptcy discharges, and in treatment of transgender employees.

9. Congress expands the U.S. role in protecting international religious freedom by passing the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act.

10.  Justice Department sues cities under Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act for placing zoning impediments in the way of mosque construction.

For an alternative view of the Top Ten Religious Liberty Stories of 2016, see this post by Baptist Joint Committee blogger Don Byrd.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Belinda Carpenter, Gordon Tait, Carol Quadrelli & Ian Thompson, Investigating Death: The Emotional and Cultural Challenges for Police, (Policing and Society, 26(6), pp. 698-712 (2015)).
• Neil James Foster, Churches and the Law of Sanctuary in Australia, (March 4, 2016).
• Neil James Foster, How Should Religious Marriage Celebrants Respond If Same Sex Marriage Is Introduced in Australia?, (September 25, 2015).
• Fabienne Bretscher, The Swiss Judiciary and International Human Rights Bodies: A Closer Look at Muslim Religious Practices in Public Schools, (June 14, 2016).
• Joel Nolette, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt: Judicial Review When the Court Wants To, (Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2016).
• Susan A. Bandes, Compassion and the Rule of Law, (International Journal of Law in Context vol. 13 issue 2 (2017 Forthcoming)).
• Eric Franklin, A More Charitable Charity: Administrative Necessity Provides an Opportunity to Promote Altruism in Charities, (December 14, 2016).

From SSRN (Islamic Law);

• Ibrahim Nuruddeen Muhammad, Waqf Based Philanthropy: A Definition and Obstacles to Waqf Knowledge Acquisition in North-Western Nigeria, (1st Kano Waqf International Conference (KWIC) (Dec. 2016).
• Sakirman MSI, Indonesia Islamic Law Study on Children Nasab,  (December 21, 2016).
• Avner M. Emon, Fiqh (A Historiography), (Fiqh: The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law, Edited by Anver M. Emon and Rumee Ahmed (2016)).
• Avner M. Emon, Ijtihad, (Ijtihad: The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law Edited by Anver M. Emon and Rumee Ahmed (2015).

From SmartCILP:

• Reza Afshari, LGBTs in the Islamic Republic of Iran. (Reviewing Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights in Iran: Analysis from Religious, Social, Legal and Cultural Perspectives, by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission), 38 Human Rights Quarterly 814-834 (2016).
• Nehaluddin Ahmad, Ahmad Masum & Abdul Mohaimin Ayus, Freedom of Religion and Apostasy: The Malaysian Experience, 38 Human Rights Quarterly 736-753 (2016).
• Jeffrey A. Herman, Resolving ERISA's "Church Plan" Problem, 31 A.B.A. Journal of Labor & Employment Law 231-256 (2016).
• B. Jessie Hill, The First Amendment and the Politics of Reproductive Health Care, 50 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 103-122 (2016).

Firing Clerk Who Refused To Process Same-Sex Marriage Licenses Did Not Violate Title VII

In Summers v. Whitis, (SD IN, Dec. 15, 2016), an Indiana federal district court held that an Indiana County Clerk did not violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when she fired a deputy clerk who refused, on religious grounds, to process marriage licenses for same-sex couples. The court held:

Here, the court finds no objective conflict between Summers’ duties as a deputy clerk and her religious opposition to same-sex marriage. When it came to marriage licenses, Summers’ job merely required her to process the licenses by entering data and handing out information. Specifically, she had to pull up the application, verify that certain information was correct, collect a statutory fee, print a form, and record the license in a book for public record. At bottom, she was simply tasked with certifying–on  behalf of the state of Indiana, not on her own behalf– that the couple was qualified to marry under Indiana law. The duties were purely administrative.

To be clear, Summers did not perform marriage ceremonies or personally sign marriage licenses or certificates. She was not required to attend ceremonies, say congratulations, offer a blessing, or pray with couples. Her employer did not make her express religious approval or condone any particular marriage. Summers remained free to practice her Christian faith and attend church services. She was even free to maintain her belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Thus, she was not forced to “choose between [her] religious convictions and [her] job.”...

... [T]he court does not question the sincerity of Summers’ beliefs. She maintains that “it’s not God’s law to have [same-sex couples] marry,” ... and has pointed to select verses from the Bible in support. That is fine; she has every right to believe that. However, that belief, no matter how sincerely espoused, does not objectively conflict with the purely administrative duty to process marriage licenses. Summers’ desire to avoid handling forms related to activities of which she personally disapproves is not protected by federal law. Title VII is not a license for employees to  perform only those duties that meet their private approval.

The court held, alternatively, that any religious conflict was with federal law, not with an employment requirement.

Alabama's CJ Roy Moore Files Brief In Appeal of His Suspension

As previously reported, in September Alabama's 9-member Court of the Judiciary (COJ) concluded that Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore violated various Canons of Judicial Ethics in issuing an order to state probate judges telling them they had a duty under Alabama law to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The COJ suspended Moore from office for the remaining two years of his term.  This decision is now on appeal to a specially constituted bench of the Alabama Supreme Court, the regular Justices having recused themselves. Yesterday, Moore filed a 95-page brief setting out his arguments. The brief summarizes them in part as follows:

The JIC [Judicial Inquiry Commission and the COJ did not have the jurisdiction or authority to review the Administrative Orders of the Chief Justice, as such authority is placed solely in this Court.

The COJ violated Rule 16 by imposing a de facto removal (i.e., permanent suspension without pay) upon Chief Justice Moore without the unanimous concurrence of all sitting members....

All charges against Chief Justice Moore must be dismissed because they have no legal basis and are not supported by clear and convincing evidence.... 

Section 159 of the Alabama Constitution, which imposes an automatic suspension upon the mere filing of a complaint with the COJ, represents a gross violation of due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment....

The JIC violated the confidentiality mandated by the Alabama Constitution and Rule 5 by disclosing information about Chief Justice Moore’s matter prior to filing charges and the penalty should be dismissal of all charges.

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