Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Friday, July 09, 2010
29 State AG's File Amicus Brief Supporting National Day of Prayer
UPDATE: On July 8, sixty-seven members of the US House of Representatives also filed an amicus brief (full text) seeking reversal of the trial court's decision. (ACLJ Release.)
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Massachusetts Federal District Court Strikes Down DOMA
Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, (D MA, July 8, 2010), is a suit brought by same-sex couples and survivors of deceased same-sex spouses who were denied various federal marriage-based benefits available to heterosexual couples. The court held that DOMA violates the equal protection clause. It held that it need not decide whether to apply strict scrutiny because the statute lacks a rational basis to support it. In the court's view: "Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves."
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D MA, July 8, 2010), was brought by Massachusetts-- which recognizes same-sex marriage-- contending that DOMA violates the 10th Amendment by intruding on areas of exclusive state authority. It also argued that the law exceeds Congress' Spending Clause powers by forcing the state to discriminate against its own citizens in order to receive federal funds. The court agreed with the challenge holding that DOMA imposes an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds, impermissibly interferes with state domestic relations laws, and regulates Massachusetts "as a state," interfering with its ability to structure its traditional functions. The New York Times reports on today's decisions.
Washington State Pharmacy Board Backs Down On Rules In Pre-Trial Compromise
Egypt's Constitutional Court Freezes Ruling Requiring Coptic Church To Remarry Divorced Men
11th Circuit Upholds Limits on Feeding Large Groups In Parks
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
State In India Wants To End Prohibition; Ignores Baptist Church In Its Plans
Hawaii Governor Vetoes Civil Unions Bill; Litigation Planned
Lawsuit Says Public Utilities In Arizona Town Discriminated Against FLDS Apostates
German Magazine Says Catholic Church Is Following Conservatives In Reactions To Abuse Cases
Cath News today however reports that Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is about to release a set of changes to the Church's internal rules for disciplining priests that will extend the canon law statute of limitations for bringing charges against an abusive priest from 10 years after the victim's 18th birthday to 20 years after. It will also for the first time define child pornography as a grave offense subject to the Congregation's jurisdiction.This spring, it looked as though the Catholic Church was finally going to confront charges of sexual abuse head on. Following recent police raids in Belgium, however, the Vatican has once again closed ranks....
The conservatives in the church state see the zero-tolerance policy of US bishops as a means of curtailing the rights of accused priests. By contrast, liberal spirits are pushing to rapidly investigate and refer cases to secular authorities. It currently looks as if the conservatives have regained the upper hand....
German bishops Robert Zollitsch and Reinhard Marx were ... given a dressing down. Benedict reproaches them for not being tender enough with their fellow bishop Walter Mixa when he came under fire amid allegations of violence towards children in his care.
The Holy Father has clearly shown how to treat, in the true Christian spirit, those brothers who have strayed from the flock. He announced that, "following a period of healing and reconciliation," Bishop Mixa, like other retired bishops, would again be available for pastoral duties.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
5th Circuit Upholds Neutrality Policy For Texas Education Agency Staff
we find it hard to imagine circumstances in which a TEA employee's inability to publicly speak out for or against a potential subject for the Texas curriculum would be construed or perceived as the State's endorsement of a particular religion.(See prior related posting.)
Iranian Ministry Sets Acceptable Islamic Male Hair Styles
7th Circuit En Banc Interprets Equal Terms Provision of RLUIPA
Report Focuses On Restrictions Limiting Feeding of Homeless
The report argues that targeting churches, service providers and volunteers by placing restrictions on providing food to homeless people is part of a broader trend toward criminalizing homelessness.The report focuses on areas such as zoning restrictions, limits on use of public property, food safety laws, and police harassment. The report then sets out examples of innovative food programs and proposes various local, state and national legislative actions to help alleviate hunger.
Monday, July 05, 2010
Two Women Appointed Syariah Judges In Malaysia
Concern Expressed Over Obama Administration's Use of Term "Freedom of Worship"
ACLU Says Catholic Hospitals Violate Law By Refusing Abortions To Save Mothers' Lives
Recent Articles of Interest
- J. Thomas Oldham, Book Review: 'Almighty God Created the Races' by Fay Botham, (Journal of Law and Religion, Forthcoming).
- Intisar A. Rabb, Islamic Legal Maxims as Substantive Canons of Construction: Ḥudūd-Avoidance in Cases of Doubt, (Islamic Law and Society, Vol. 17, pp. 63-125, 2010).
From SmartCILP:
- Roberta Rosenthal Kwall, Intellectual Property Law and Jewish Law: A Comparative Perspective on Absolutism (Reviewing David L. Lange and H. Jefferson Powell, No Law: Intellectual Property in the Image of an Absolute First Amendment), 22 Yale Journal of Law & Humanities 143-170 (2010).
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases
In Stevens v. Skolnick, (9th Cir., July 1, 2010), the 9th Circuit concluded that denial of a TRO to an inmate who was refused permission to conduct his daily Native American prayer practice is not an appealable final order.
In Forde v. Baird, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63375 (D CT, June 25, 2010), a Connecticut federal district court held that RFRA requires a federal prison to grant an exemption from non-emergency cross-gender pat down searches to a female Muslim inmate whose religion prohibits her from being touched by men outside of her close family.
In Porter v. Beard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63431 (WD PA. June 21, 2010), a Pennsylvania federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63413, May 12 2010) and allowed an inmate to proceed with claims that his free exercise rights were violated when authorities seized and destroyed his medicine bag.
In Putzer v. Donnelly, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63707 (D NV, June 16, 2010), a Nevada federal district court approved a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63708, May 11, 2010) and rejected challenges to prison policy that allows one Jewish inmate to light Sabbath candles for all Jews in the prison before Friday evening services that are open to all. Plaintiff claimed he had a right to attend the candle lighting service.
In Kole v. FCI Danbury, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63986 (D CT, June 25, 2010), a Connecticut federal district court allowed an inmate to proceed with her RFRA and free exercise challenges to a decision by prison officials to change vendors for Kosher for Passover food, creating a rise in commissary prices for inmate for the food. Plaintiff alleged that the price increase made the food "essentially unavailable" to inmates.
In Gauthier v. Anderson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64190 (WD LA, June 28, 2010), a Louisiana federal district court adopted the recommendations of a federal magistrate (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64236, April 21, 2010) and dismissed a frivolous an inmate's complaint that he was not allowed to attend regular church services while he was in lock-down for 2 1/2 months.
In Rouser v. Rutherford, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64856 (ED CA, June 28, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing for lack of evidence and failure to state a claim under RLUIPA and the Free Exercise clause a prisoner's charge that he was disciplined for rules violations solely because of his Wiccan religion. The disciplinary action grew out of a prison riot between several Wicca members and members of a Southern Hispanic gang.
In Holley v. Johnson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65356 (WD VA, June 30, 2010), a Virginia federal district court upheld a prison's ban on all Five Percenter publications, even if the particular publication does not advocate violence. The court also dismissed plaintiff's claim to entitlement to the Common Fare Diet, rejecting the magistrate's contrary recommendation.
In Hernandez v. Arizona Department of Corrections, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65250 (D AZ, June 11, 2010), an Arizona federal district court permitted an inmate to move ahead against certain defendants on his claim that he is regularly provided kosher food trays that are missing food items and he is not provided with a nutritionally equivalent substitution.
In Belatedly Released Opinion, Judge Says Religion Is Not Basis for Recusal
Friday, July 02, 2010
Schools' Released Time Program Challenged
Principals Have No Qualified Immunity For Limiting Student Distribution of Religious Materials
UPDATE: An amended opinion was filed on Nov. 29, 2010 adding that nothing in the opinion prevents the district court from granting qualified immunity if the facts show this was something other than non-disruptive student-to-student speech.
Pennsylvania Ban on Blasphemous Business Names Struck Down
Suit Challenges School's Refusal To Permit Distribution of Bibles
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Overly Broad Zoning Ordinance Is Prior Restraint On Expressive Religious Use of Land
On plaintiff's free exercise and RLUIPA claims, the court held that there are factual disputes which a jury must decide as to whether the Township's zoning law was applied discriminatorily. The court rejected equal protection and due process claims brought by plaintiffs. Some of plaintiffs' proposed construction violated a restrictive covenant on the property. The court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a RLUIPA challenge to the Zoning Board's enforcement of the restrictive covenant, since any burden on plaintiff's free exercise of religion is caused by the restrictive covenant and not by Zoning Board action.
NY City Council Saves Concerts As Court Enjoins Them For Being Too Close To Synagogues
Appeal Filed In Delaware School Board Invocation Case
Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Bar Negligent Supervision Claim Against Church
Appeal In Italian Crucifix Case Heard By European Court's Grand Chamber
Kagan Gets Some Questions on Religion Clauses
In general, I think, what both First Amendment clauses are designed to do - and this is the way in which they work hand in hand with each other - what they're both designed to do is to ensure that you have full rights as an American citizen. You are a part of this country, no matter what your religion is, and to ensure that religion just never functions as a way to put people because of their religious belief or because of their religious practice at some disadvantage with respect to any of the rights of American citizenship. So, I think that that's the sort of overall purpose of both parts of the amendment.The full transcripts are worth reading.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Supreme Court Refuses Review Of School Rules On Distributing Materials
Groups Urge Congressional Hearings on Faith Based Initiative
As a candidate, President Obama promised to reinstate constitutionally required religious liberty protections and end federally funded religious discrimination in the Faith-Based Initiative. Yet, eighteen months after President Obama’s inauguration, the White House and all the federal agencies are still operating under the same inadequate safeguards against proselytizing and insufficient constitutional protections imposed by the previous Administration.[Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]
Court Says Pooled Investment Funds Are Part of Delaware Diocese Bankruptcy Estate
Prop 8 Opponents Say CLS v. Martinez Supports Them
In Christian Legal Society, the Supreme Court definitively held that sexual orientation is not merely behavioral, but rather, that gay and lesbian individuals are an identifiable class. Writing for the Court, Justice Ginsburg explained: "Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context."
Kagan's Religion Comes Up In Unusual Contexts At Confirmation Hearings
At another point in the hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) began to question Kagan about terrorism issues, focusing on the arrest in Detroit last Christmas Day of an attempted airline bomber. Graham asked: "Where were you on Christmas Day?" Kagan responded humorously: "Like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant."
Don Byrd is live blogging from the hearings on church-state issues that arise.
En Banc Rehearing Denied In Challenge To Inauguration Prayer and Oath
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Reasons For Belgian Raid On Church Headquarters Disclosed
New Australian Prime Minister Says She Will Not Pretend Religious Beliefs For Votes
I'm not a religious person. I was brought up in the Baptist Church but during my adult life I've, you know, found a different path. I'm of course a great respecter of religious beliefs, but they're not my beliefs. I am not going to pretend a faith I don't feel. And for people of faith the greatest compliment I could pay to them is to respect their genuinely held beliefs and not to engage in some pretence about mine. I think it's not the right thing....
For, you know, people of faith what I would say to them is I grew up in a Christian Church, a Christian background, a Baptist Church, I won prizes for catechism for being able to remember Bible verses. I am steeped in that tradition but I've made decisions in my adult life about my own views.... What I can say to Australians broadly of course is that I believe you can be a person of strong principle and values from a variety of perspectives. And I've outlined mine to you.
Advocacy Groups React To CLS v. Martinez
- ACLU
- Alliance Defense Fund
- American Center for Law & Justice
- American Jewish Committee
- Americans United for Separation of Church and State
- Baptist Joint Committee
- Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
- Christian Legal Society
- Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
- Hastings College of Law
- Interfaith Alliance
- Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations
Citizens Link suggests that the decision may have limited impact because few if any other schools have an "all-comers" rule for student groups. Most have a rule that bars discrimination on specified grounds, such as race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. The majority avoided passing on the constitutionality of this sort of rule. The Chronicle of Higher Education also reviews reactions to the decision.
Report Released on Canadian Zoning Laws and Religious Freedom
Cert. Denied In Abuse Suit Against Vatican
Monday, June 28, 2010
Supreme Court Upholds Hastings Law School's All-Comers Policy for Registered Student Organizations
In Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of Law v. Martinez, (Sup. Ct., June 28, 2010), CLS argued that all-comers rule violates its rights to free speech, expressive association and free exercise of religion. The majority ruled only on the "all comers" rule that the parties specified applied in their stipulation of facts. It refused to pass on the question of whether the narrower non-discrimination policy as written that prohibits discrimination only on specified bases, including religion and sexual orientation, is unconstitutional because it targets beliefs based on religion or having to do with particular kinds of sexual behavior.
The majority in an opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, held that Hastings' policy is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to a limited public forum for registered student organizations. She summarized:
The First Amendment shields CLS against state prohibition of the organization's expressive activity, however exclusionary that activity may be. But CLS enjoys no constitutional right to state subvention of its selectivity.
Responding to concerns about a takeover of a group by opponents who wish to sabotage it, Justice Ginsburg wrote that membership or leadership positions can be conditioned on "requirements designed to ensure that students join because of their commitment to a group’s vitality, not its demise."
Justices Stevens and Kennedy filed separate concurring opinions. Justice Stevens argued that even as written, the non-discrimination policy is constitutional. Justice Kennedy emphasized the informal learning that is furthered through student interaction by the all-comers policy.
Justice Alito wrote a dissent, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas. The dissent argued that the Court should focus on the non-discrimination policy as written, since that was the policy originally invoked to deny CLS registration. That policy, the dissent argues, amounts to viewpoint discrimination since only religious groups are required to admit students who do not share their views. Political groups or groups formed around other causes can limit membership. The dissent goes on to argue that even limiting the analysis to the broader all-comers rule, the policy is unconstitutional. It was adopted as a pretext to suppress a particular viewpoint and it is not reasonable in light of the purposes of the student organization policy which is promoting diversity among student organizations.
Pakistan Monitoring Major Websites For Sacrilegious Content
Recent Articles of Interest
- Brian Michael McCall, Consulting the Architect when Problems Arise – The Divine Law, (June 24, 2010).
- Eugene Volokh, Freedom of Speech and the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Tort. Cardozo Law Review, UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 10-14 (2010).
From SmartCILP:
- Kyle Persaud, A Permit to Practice Religion for Some But Not for Others: How the Federal Government Violates Religious Freedom When It Grants Eagle Feathers Only to Indian Tribe Members, 36 Ohio Northern University Law Review 115-138 (2010).
Belgian Police Search of Cathedral and Church Offices Condemned
The police arrived at 10:30 Thursday morning to the headquarters of the Archdiocese of Malines-Brussels, where the bishops of Belgium were meeting for their monthly meeting. The authorities detained the bishops at the headquarters for nine hours as they searched the offices and the Cathedral of Malines.
At that time they drilled holes in the two graves of cardinals Jozef Ernest Van Roey and Leon Joseph Suenens, deceased archbishops of Malines-Brussels, located in the crypt of the cathedral, and then sent cameras down in search of hidden documents.
In addition to the headquarters of the archbishopric of Brussels, the authorities seized some 500 confidential files In Leuven, Belgium, from the office of Peter Adriaensses, president of the commission for the treatment of sexual abuses. The home of former archbishop of Malines-Brussels, Cardinal Godfried Danneels, was also searched.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Compromise Lets Israel's High Court Release School Parents From Jail
Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases
In Jackson v. Raemisch, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61130 (WD WI, June 21, 2010), a Wisconsin federal district court dismissed a suit by a Muslim inmate formerly employed in the prison's food service area where inmates were not permitted to pray. The court held that plaintiff's RLUIPA claim for injunctive relief to allow prayer was mooted because he no longer works for food services. Defendants were granted qualified immunity as to plaintiff's claim for damages under the First Amendment. Plaintiff's equal protection claim was dismissed for lack of evidence. However he was permitted to pursue a claim for retaliation.
In Jones v. McFadden, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61559 (ED CA, May 27, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed a complaint by a Muslim inmate that breakfast pastries served to inmates during a lock down contained pork products. The court held that mere negligence in checking the ingredients before serving them to Muslim inmates did not support a free exercise claim. A conscious or intentional act is required.
In Smith v. Marshall, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61323 (CD CA, June 21, 2010), a California federal district court adopted the recommendations of a federal magistrate (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61371, May 11, 2010) and dismissed a complaint by a Muslim prisoner that he was denied prayer oil purchased for him by a third party because he had met his limit for receiving packages, and in buying prayer oil himself (which was allowed) he was required to pay use tax.
In Allen v. Weimer, 2010 Kan. App. Unpub. LEXIS 458, (KS Ct. App., June 18, 2010), a Kansas appellate court held that an inmate who was dismissed from his prison job with a private employer could not validly claim violation of his religious rights when he untruthfully represented that he could work 8-hour days, even though he knew his religious call out was during that 8-hour period.
In Johnson v. Delaunay, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62038 (SD NY, June 18, 2010), a New York federal district court upheld a Department of Corrections policy that permits an inmate to participate in a religion's programs only if the individual is registered in the Department of Corrections database as belonging to that religion. It also rejected damage claims on sovereign immunity grounds.
In Cooper v. Evans, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61998 (SD IL, May 28, 2010), an Illinois federal magistrate judge refused to dismiss an inmate's claims that he was denied a lacto-ovo diet required by his Buddhist religious beliefs. The court rejected defendants' claims that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
In Raheem v. Miller, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62230 (WD OK, June 23, 2010), an Oklahoma federal district court adopted the recommendations of a magistrate (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62148, May 14, 2010) and permitted an inmate to proceed with some of his RLUIPA claims based on denial of a kosher/halal diet. However the court dismissed his claim seeking damages for emotional distress.
In Amaker v. Goord, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62350 (WD NY, June 23, 2010), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62349, March 25, 2010) and found that the New York Department of Corrections violated RLUIPA when it allowed Rastafarians to wear dreadlocks, but did not permit them to be worn by members of other religious groups. Prison officials argued that wearing of dreadlocks by plaintiffs who were members of Nation of Islam was not required by their religious faith. The court concluded however that officials may not impose restrictions based on governmental assessments of the validity to a religious denomination of a particular practice.
Religious Limits On Arbitrators Invalidated By British Appellate Court
Britain To Appoint Its First Catholic Woman As Ambassador to the Vatican
DC Circuit: Researchers Have Standing To Challenge Change In Stem Cell Grant Policy
$1.15M Settlement Reached In Church Zoning Case
In April, the parties submitted a proposed settlement, but nearby landowners intervened to object to the settlement. The court ordered the town's Board of Selectmen to confer with town zoning bodies on the matter. Now, apparently after such consultation, a settlement has been reached. In addition to payment of damages and attorneys fees, the town has agreed to a separate settlement that makes completion of the Church and school building possible.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Pagan Group Is Suing To Obtain Property Tax Exemption
Friday, June 25, 2010
Concerns of Britain's Office for Judicial Complaints Over Judge's Comments Are Disclosed
Court Says Hawaii Church's Challenge To Cannabis Laws Is Not Ripe
Secularists Begin Billboard Campaign Objecting To "Under God" in Pledge
New Focus On Elena Kagan's Religious Liberty and Church-State Views
Americans United for Separation of Church and State has written to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee raising concerns about Kagan's "views on the critical relationship between religious liberty claims and civil rights laws" and about "her position on core Establishment Clause values, such as the principle that the government may not fund 'pervasively sectarian' organizations." (Press release, full text of letter).
Several Jewish groups have weighed in on the Kagan nomination. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations wrote to to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee saying that "Kagan has demonstrated a reassuring appreciation for the rights guaranteed by the Free-Exercise clause and a growing respect for a balanced approach to the Establishment Clause which allows for appropriate government support for the work of religious organizations." (Press release, full text of letter). The Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism wrote members of the Judiciary Committee recommending a number of questions that should be asked of Kagan. They cover not just church-state matters, but also issues such as the death penalty, corporate election contributions, abortion, gay marriage, environmental laws and Presidential powers. (Full text of letter). The Rabbinical Alliance of America (representing 850 right wing Orthodox rabbis) issued a strong statement denouncing the Kagan nomination, releasing it through Christian Newswire.
The Secular Coalition for America issued a statement opposing the Kagan nomination "until she makes her support for church-state separation much more clear and emphatic." It also sent a letter to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee with suggested questions for Kagan.
Meanwhile, US News & World Report says that one of the key issues that Republican Judiciary Committee members will raise with Kagan is her praise in 2006 for activist Israeli Supreme Court Judge Aharon Barak. In presenting Barak with an award at Harvard Law School, Kagan called him "my judicial hero."
The Judiciary Committee hearings begin on Monday, June 28. The Committee has extensive materials on the nomination posted on its website. The hearings will also be webcast through the Committees website.
Hindu American Leader Writes On Political Candidates From Dharma Faiths
Jindal and Haley, as brilliant and dynamic trailblazers, have thrown open the doors to political office, laying waste to minefields of ethnic slurs and perverse allegations that naysayers put in their way. Race is not an impediment to high office, and that is something to celebrate, no doubt. But in their public remonstrations of their parent's faiths, Jindal and Haley tell well over three million Hindu and Sikh Americans that their time has not yet come as people of faith. And in their absolute denial of their religious heritage, they deny something far greater: a society that privileges pluralism, that no one religion has the monopoly on Truth, and that Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Pagans, agnostics and atheists may invest differently towards the afterlife, but can live in this life with all of the humanity, generosity and yes, frailty of any of those that presume to lead our states or nation today.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Supreme Court Rejects Facial Challenge To Release of Petition Signers, But Says As-Applied Challenge May Win
While there was broad agreement on the result, the case produced six separate opinions, including a dissent by Justice Thomas who argued that the facial challenge should succeed because there are always less restrictive means for the state to use to preserve the integrity of the referendum process. Various concurring opinions differed on the strength of the remaining as-applied challenge in the case. (See prior related posting.) The Wall Street Journal reports on today's decision.
FLDS Member Gets 17 Years For Sexual Assault of Minor In Celestial Marriage
Fired Prison Chaplain States Valid 1st Amendment Claim
The court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the facts alleged by Holmgren were sufficient to establish a First Amendment violation. She at least raised a factual question as to whether she was speaking as a citizen rather than as part of her employment duties. Her criticisms involved a matter of public concern, and her right to speak about the issue outweighs the state's interest in an orderly work place. Defendant does not have qualified immunity because case law clearly establishes Holmgren's right not to be fired for raising potentially illegal conduct by government officials.
Native Americans Seek To Stop Reservoir Construction At Cemetery Site
New York Legislature Passes Anti-Bullying Bill
No student shall be subjected to harassment by employees or students on school property or at a school function; nor shall any student be subjected to discrimination based on a person's actual or perceived race, color, weight, national origin, ethnic group religion, religious practice, disability, sexual orientation, gender, or sex by school employees or students on school property or at a school function.The bill, which will now go to Gov. Patterson for his signature, also requires school boards to develop policies and guidelines to foster a school environment free from harassment and discrimination.
Archdiocese Accused of Fraud In Sex Abuse Lawsuit Seeking To Skirt Statute of Limitations
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Court Refuses To Halt Civil Rights Investigation of Home School Group
Volunteer Police Chaplain Fired Over Ties To Holy Land Foundation Case
High School Diplomas Drop "In the Year of Our Lord"
Gay Pride Organizers Seek To Exclude Anti-Gay Christian Evangelist
UPDATE: Our Twin Cities (6/24) reports that organizers of the Twin Cities Pride Festival have filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking an emergency order to reverse the decision of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board that would allow homosexual critic Brian Johnson to hand out at the festival written materials supporting his message of sin and repentance.
UPDATE2: On Top Magazine (6/26) reports that federal district court judge John Tunheim has refused to bar Brian Johnson from Loring Park during the Gay Pride event. Event organizers said: "As long as Mr. Johnson and his family do not create a disturbance, they can walk the Festival and distribute their leaflets and Bibles to willing attendees. But should their behavior be as troubling as it was at last year's festival, we shall ask Minneapolis Police to remove them."
Court Upholds Nebraska's Funeral Picketing Law
The government interest underlying the NFPL is distinguishable from, and more significant than, the government interest underlying the statute addressed in [Phelps-Roper v.] Nixon. There, the Eighth Circuit ruled that a state’s interest in protecting funeral attendees as a group was outweighed by Phelps-Roper’s First Amendment right.... However, it is not apparent that the ruling in Nixon would apply to a statute designed to protect a much narrower group: family members of the deceased.Relying instead on a 6th Circuit decision upholding Ohio's funeral picketing law (see prior posting), the court concluded that Nebraska's law:
is narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, i.e., the protection of family members attending funeral and burial services, and leaves ample alternative channels for Phelps-Roper’s communications that are protected by the First Amendment.Yesterday's Wichita (KS) Eagle reports on the decision.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Michigan High Court Rejects Catholic School's Zoning Appeal
ZBA member Laporte validly questioned plaintiff's attorney about the basis for the assertion that religious use should be favored over secular uses. Nothing in the exchange demonstrates bias against Catholics or Catholic primary education. The questions were asked to clarify plaintiff’s attorney’s own statements. Nothing in the minutes of the ZBA hearing supports the conclusion that the ZBA denied plaintiff the variance because of a bias against plaintiff's religious affiliation.