Religion Clause

Wednesday, August 03, 2011

Women's Group in Lebanon Rejects Muslim Opposition To Family Violence Bil

Lebanon's Daily Star today reports that the Lebanese Women's Council has issued a statement supporting a proposed law to protect women from domestic violence. The statement comes after both Dar-al Fatwa, the country's highest Sunni organization, and the Higher Shiite Council came out in oposition to the bill that was approved by the Cabinet and sent to Parliament in April 2010. Dar-al-Fatwa claimed that the proposed law is a Western idea designed to destroy the Muslim family. It is also concerned that the law undermines the role of religious courts.

Federal Government Asserts State Secrets Privilege In Mosque Surveillance Lawsuit

AP reported yesterday that the federal government has taken the unusual step of asserting the state secrets privilege in a motion to dismiss most of a lawsuit filed in federal district court in southern California against the FBI over its use of informants to infiltrate mosques. The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU of Southern California and CAIR alleged that targeting Muslim Americans amounts to religious discrimination and asked for the FBI to turn over or destroy all information gathered through the investigation.It also sought damages for emotional distress for three named plaintiffs. (See prior posting.) The motion filed Monday by Attorney General Eric Holder asserts that it could cause significant harm to national security if the government is required to disclose the subjects of a 2006 mosque-surveillance operation, disclose why it was undertaken and describe how the monitoring was carried out.

Tuesday, August 02, 2011

Religious Employer Exception Added To Required Women's Preventive Care Coverage

A memo from McDermott, Will and Emery reports that the recently issued federal guidelines on preventive health care services for women have been amended to provide an exemption for religious employers. The guidelines under the Affordable Care Act require that various preventive services for women be covered fully, without co-payment, co-insurance or deductibles. Among the covered items are contraceptive services. However, pursuant to new authority granted to it in a release from the Department of Labor, Treasury and HHS issued on July 28 (full text), the Health Resources and Services Administration has exempted various religious employers from the required contraceptive coverage. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

UPDATE: The Heritage Foundation (Aug. 2) claims that the definition of religious employer in the new exemption is too narrow.

Mexico Electoral Commission Orders Fines Against Catholic Archdiocese

Time reported yesterday on a decision handed down last month by Mexico's Federal Electoral Institute (IFE). It ordered the country's Interior Minister to impose substantial fines on Mexico City's Catholic archdiocese and its spokesman Rev. Hugo Valdemar for violating provisions of the Religious Associations Law that ban religious organizations from publicly endorsing or opposing political candidates. Earlier this year, the archdiocese urged voters to not vote for political parties that support legalized abortion or gay marriage.

Australian State Charges Worldwide Jehovah's Witness Organizations Under Working With Children Act

JW News reported last week that the Australian state of Victoria has filed criminal charges against the entire worldwide corporate and religious hierarchy of the Jehovah's Witness church, claiming failure to comply with Victoria's Working With Children Act 2005. The Act requires a Working With Children Check on individuals who are engaged in child-related work. It is claimed that The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society were notified of their obligation to comply with the law and were offered assistance in doing so, but they refused. Five separate Jehovah's Witness organizations were each charged with 7 criminal violations. Each charge carries a fine of up to AUS$144,000 ($157,766 US).

Alabama Clergy Sue Claiming Immigration Law Infringes Churches' Free Exercise Rights

WSFA reports that a federal lawsuit challenging Alabama's new immigration law was filed yesterday by leaders of the Episcopal, Methodist and Roman Catholic churches in the state. The suit claims that the law (full text) which goes into effect in September infringes plaintiffs' right to the free exercise of religion by barring members of faith communities from carrying out their social ministries to help aliens obtain food, clothing, shelter and worship. Sec. 13 of the statute prohibits any person, among other things, from encouraging an alien to reside in the state in reckless disregard of the fact that the alien's presence will be in violation of federal law.

Jeffs Seeks Judge's Recusal Based on Revelation From God

In San Angelo, Texas, the sexual assault trial of FLDS leader Warren Jeffs continues. Yesterday, for the third time, Jeffs attempted to disqualify Judge Barbara Walther. As reported by the Deseret News, this time Jeffs based his motion on what he said was a revelation from the Lord on Sunday. Addressing himself directly to the judge, Jeffs said: "I, your lord, say to you, I shall bring to light your evil intent now, before all people, to destroy my Church on earth." Jeffs' recusal motion contained an appendix containing what he said were revelations to the 19th century Mormon leader Joseph Smith and 29 Orders from the Lord.

Monday, August 01, 2011

Obama Sends Ramadan Greetings To Muslims Around the World

The White House issued a statement (full text) today from President Obama sending his and Michelle Obama's best wishes to Muslim communities in the United States and around the world as Ramadan begins. The statement reads, in part:

For so many Muslims around the world, Ramadan is also a time of deep reflection and sacrifice. As in other faiths, fasting is used to increase spirituality, discipline, and consciousness of God's mercy. It is also a reminder of the importance of reaching out to those less fortunate. The heartbreaking accounts of lost lives and the images of families and children in Somalia and the Horn of Africa struggling to survive remind us of our common humanity and compel us to act. Now is the time for nations and peoples to come together to avert an even worse catastrophe by offering support and assistance to on-going relief efforts.

In the statement, the President also said he is looking forward to again this year hosting an Iftar dinner at the White House.

Ramadan Begins Today

Ramadan begins today. The Wall Street Journal reports on the special difficulties for Muslims when the fasting period comes during long summer days as it does this year. Various government leaders around the world have issued greetings to Muslims for Ramadan, including Australia's Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd (AP of Pakistan), Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Arutz Sheva), and rulers of the United Arab Emirates (Gulf News).

Egyptian Rally Presses For Islamic Law In New Constitution

The Wall Street Journal over the week end reported on Friday's rally in Cairo, Egypt by tens of thousands seeking the establishment of Islamic law in the country. Islamists are concerned over last week's supra-constitutional principles issued by the National Council as guidance for a constitutional congress that will be appointed by Parliament in November, after elections. The principles are designed to assure that Egypt's new constitution will protect individual rights, particularly for women and religious minorities; and that the constitutional congress will include a cross-section political interests, including legal experts, so that Islamists do not dominate it.

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Air Force Uses Christian Just War Theory As Part of Ethics Training

Controversial reporter Jason Leopold in a posting Wednesday on Truthout says that U.S. Air Force training for missile officers includes a mandatory session led by chaplains discussing St. Augustine's Just War Theory. He links to an extensive Power Point presentation that includes slides asking "Can a person of faith fight in a war?" and "Can war be just?" Those questions are answered in part with Biblical references. Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, says he has been contacted by Air Force officers who want to have the Christian themes removed from the nuclear weapons ethics training course.

UPDATE: Truthout reported yesterday the Air Force has announced that the Nuclear Ethics and Nuclear Warfare module has been removed from the training curriculum after the publication of Truthout's earlier report on it.

Chapter 11 Plan For Wilmington Diocese Confirmed By Delaware Bankruptcy Court

On July 28, the federal bankruptcy court for the District of Delaware issued an order confirming the Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization for the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington. The full text of the Plan of Reorganization, Disclosure Statement, the court's finding and confirmation order, and related documents are available online on the Case Administration Website. Delmarva Now reports that:

Claims related to the religious orders are not part of the diocese plan, but the diocese and all of the parishes named as defendants in the suits will be free of any further litigation when the negotiated releases are signed and payments to survivors made....

Among the nonmonetary terms of the plan are requirements that the diocese release church files on abuser priests and agree to adopt policies and procedures to prevent abuse in the future.... Under the terms of the plan, the diocese will draw on funds from insurance policies, the Catholic Foundation and other non-diocesan Catholic entities to cover the claims. It also has agreed to pump millions of dollars into its underfunded pension plan for lay employees, a situation revealed when the diocese was forced to open its books to the court.

Nine priests and former priests will be excluded from pension and benefit provisions they might have received from the diocese.

The diocese's Bishop W. Francis Malooly issued a statement on Thursday welcoming the court's move. He said in part:

It is my hope and prayer that this plan will give survivors of clergy sexual abuse another means toward the healing that they so need and deserve, and enable us to live up to our commitments to our lay employees and creditors.

Contemplative Community Is Not Use For "Religious Assembly" Under Zoning Law

In Jennings v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, (PA Commonwlth. Ct., July 28, 2011), a Pennsylvania appellate court upheld a finding by Pittsburgh's Zoning Board of Adjustment that proposed use of a property for a contemplative community in a communal group living arrangement should be classified as a "multi-suite residential" use and not use for "religious assembly." The only religious component would be communal prayer sessions for the residents held within the house for approximately 15-20 minutes, twice each day, and possibly weekly spiritual training by the program manager. There would be no designated area for prayer and no public worship on the premises.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Boone v. Morgan, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81542 (D MD, July 26, 2011), a Maryland federal district court rejected a Muslim inmate's complaint that his rights were infringed by prison policy that allowed inmates in disciplinary segregation to wear Kufis made of solid material, but not knit kufis, and which barred prayer rugs in disciplinary segregation.

In Epps v. Grannis, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81915 (SD CA, July 26, 2011), a California federal magistrate judge denied a preliminary injunction to a Muslim inmate who sought to be placed on the prison's kosher diet program, and who complained about other infringements on his religious practice.

In Castle v. Hedgpeth, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82289 (ED CA, July 26, 2011), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that a Muslim inmate's challenge to prison rules barring inmates from possessing prayer oils in their cells be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. The temporary ban was imposed after a chaplain was accused of smuggling in contraband in prayer oil.

In Cookson v. Commissioner, Maine Department of Corrections, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82393 (D ME, July 26, 2011), an inmate sued the state Commissioner of Corrections claiming that he discriminatorily applied state policy in refusing to recognize Satanism as a religion in the prison system. While the litigation was pending, a new Commissioner of Corrections took over. A Maine federal magistrate judge recommended that the suit against the former commissioner (which sought only prospective relief) be dismissed, with the possibility of proceeding against the new commissioner left open, depending on his response to plaintiff's request for recognition of Satanism.

In Muhammad's Temple of Islam v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, (Commonwlth. Ct. PA, July 26, 2011), a Pennsylvania appellate court rejected a complaint by a Nation of Islam inmate that prison authorities ended their separate recognition of MTI as a faith group (with separate religious services) and left adherents only the options of attending Sunni religious services or attending no congregate religious services.
[Updated]

NYT Traces Forces Behind Anti-Shariah Movement In U.S.

Today's New York Times runs a front-page article titled Behind an Anti-Shariah Push, tracing the forces behind the move in state legislatures to enact anti-Shariah laws. The Times says:

A confluence of factors has fueled the anti-Shariah movement, most notably the controversy over the proposed Islamic center near ground zero in New York, concerns about homegrown terrorism and the rise of the Tea Party. But the campaign’s air of grass-roots spontaneity, which has been carefully promoted by advocates, shrouds its more deliberate origins.

In fact, it is the product of an orchestrated drive that began five years ago in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, in the office of a little-known lawyer, David Yerushalmi, a 56-year-old Hasidic Jew with a history of controversial statements about race, immigration and Islam. Despite his lack of formal training in Islamic law, Mr. Yerushalmi has come to exercise a striking influence over American public discourse about Shariah.

Working with a cadre of conservative public-policy institutes and former military and intelligence officials, Mr. Yerushalmi has written privately financed reports, filed lawsuits against the government and drafted the model legislation that recently swept through the country — all with the effect of casting Shariah as one of the greatest threats to American freedom since the cold war.

The entire article is worth a read.

9th Circuit Rejects RFRA Defense In Marijuana Farm Owner's Conviction

In United States v. Lepp, (9th Cir., July 27, 2011), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and ten year mandatory minimum sentence imposed on Eddy Lepp who had been charged with running a large marijuana farm known as "Eddie's Medicinal Gardens and Ministry of the Rastafari." (See prior posting.) The court held:

The district court did not err in denying Lepp’s Motion in Limine seeking to present a religious defense under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Applying the criminal laws prohibiting possession and manufacture of marijuana to Lepp is the least restrictive means of furthering the government’s compelling interest in preventing diversion of sacramental marijuana to nonreligious users....

Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Lepp an evidentiary hearing on his RFRA Motion. One of the facts Lepp sought to establish at such a hearing—that his religious beliefs were sincerely held—had already been accepted as true by the court. As for the other fact he sought to prove, ... the court stated that its ruling would be the same “regardless of whether or not” there were 2,500 adherents in Lepp’s congregation....

Hawaii Daily News reports on the decision.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

China Takes New Steps Against House Churches

Compass Direct News reports that Chinese authorities this week sentenced Shi Enhao, deputy leader of the Chinese House Church Alliance, to two years of "re-education through labor" on charges of organizing and holding illegal religious meetings. Authorities have also ordered Shi's church members to stop meeting for worship, and have confiscated musical instruments, choir robes and church donations.

Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported on growing tensions between the Chinese government and illegal underground churches. It said in part:

For the first time, China's illegal underground churches, whose members are estimated in the tens of millions, are mounting a unified and increasingly organized push for legal recognition.

The government, fearing that faith in God will soon subvert faith in the party, is responding with a stepped up campaign against the churches and the networks uniting them.

The struggle is shaping up as the tensest standoff over religious freedom in China since a brutal crackdown on adherents of Falun Gong in 1999 after they made similar calls for official acceptance.

New Interpretation of Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Rejects Blasphemy Laws

The United Nations Human Rights Committee is the body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This week, after two years of debate and consultation, the Committee finalized General Comment No. 34, an authoritative interpretation of the freedoms of opinion and expression guaranteed by Article 19 of the Covenant. (Press release.) This is the first General Comment issued on these provisions since 1983. Even though Article 18 of the Covenant protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion, this General Comment finds various protections of religious expression inherent in Article 19 as well. It provides that freedom of opinion includes opinion of a moral or religious nature (Par. 9), and freedom of expression includes religious discourse. (Par. 11). The General Comment also finds that generally blasphemy laws would violate the Covenant:

48. Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2 [advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement], of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favour of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over nonbelievers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.

Reuters reports on the release of the General Comment.

EEOC Sues Taco Bell Chain For Refusing To Accommodate Nazirite's Long Hair

On Thursday, the EEOC announced that it had filed suit against a company that operates a chain of Taco Bell restaurants in eastern North Carolina for failing to reasonably accommodate a former employee's religious beliefs. In EEOC v. Family Foods, Inc., (ED NC, filed 7/28/2011), the EEOC charged that the company in 2010 informed employee Christopher Abby, who had worked for the company for six years, that he now needed to cut his hair to comply with the company's grooming policy. When he refused, he was fired. Abby is a practicing Nazirite and his religious beliefs preclude him from cutting his hair. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Friday, July 29, 2011

Divided 4th Circuit Says County's Invocation Policy Violates Establishment Clause

In Joyner v. Forsyth County, North Carolina, (4th Cir., July 29, 2011), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that the prayer policy of a county commission violated the Establishment Clause even though the policy was neutral on its face. All congregations in the community were invited to send a religious leader to lead an invocation at one of the commission meetings. As implemented, however, all those who delivered prayers were Christian, nearly 80% of the prayers delivered mentioned Jesus, and none mentioned any other deity. This policy "resulted in sectarian invocations meeting after meeting that advanced Christianity..." The majority added:

This is not to say that the Board must abandon the practice of legislative prayer. Nor do we wish to set forth some sort of template for an ideal legislative prayer policy.... The bar for Forsyth County is hardly a high one. Public institutions throughout this country manage to regularly commence proceedings with invocations that provide all the salutary benefits of legislative prayer without the divisive drawbacks of sectarianism.... And religious leaders throughout this country have offered moving prayers on multitudinous occasions that have managed not to hurt the adherents of different faiths.

Judge Niemeyer, dissented, arguing that the county's policy is completely neutral and proactively inclusive, allowing religious leaders to deliver invocations they compose. He insisted: "The Establishment Clause does not require the County to forbid invocational speakers from making sectarian references in their prayers." Summarizing his concerns, the dissent wrote:

The majority’s decree commands that every legislative prayer reference only "God" or some "nonsectarian ideal," supposedly because other appellations might offend. Thus, in a stated sensitivity to references that might identify the religion practiced by the religious leader, the majority has dared to step in and regulate the language of prayer—the sacred dialogue between humankind and God. Such a decision treats prayer agnostically; reduces it to civil nicety; [and] hardly accommodates the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in Marsh v. Chambers....

(See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Rob Luther for the lead.]

Jeffs Trial Begins With Silence and Sermon From Defendant Representing Himself

The trial of Warren Jeffs, leader of the polygamous FLDS Church, proceeds with unusual twists. As previously reported, Jeffs dismissed his legal team and asked to represent himself. (See prior posting.) As reported by ABC News, Judge Walther urged Jeffs not to dismiss his impressive legal team; however she ultimately permitted Jeffs to represent himself and refused to delay the opening of trial. The judge also ordered Jeffs' counsel to remain on as side counsel in case Jeffs again changes his mind.

As the trial began, Jeffs stared into space as the prosecutor gave his opening statement, and Jeffs declined to give his own opening statement. He remained seated and mute as the prosecution then moved ahead with presenting its case. Finally today, according to AP, Jeffs broke his silence and launched into a 55-minute sermon, saying in part:

We cannot surrender these principles based on the laws of man trying to convince us that our religion is not necessary in practice... [T]his must stop in a land of freedom if all others are to receive a similar guarantee against their freedom of religion being trampled.... We are not a fly-by-night religious society . . . We are a community of faith and principles and those principles are so sacred.... [Polygamy] is not of a sudden happening, it is of a tradition in our lives. And how can we just throw it away and say "God has not spoken?"

Wisconsin Website Links To Christian Pregnancy Centers Are Protested

According to yesterday's Madison (WI) Isthmus, the Freedom from Religion Foundation has written Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker complaining about a link on the state's website to Care Net Pregnancy Centers. (Full text of July 14 letter.) The link appears on the Family Services page of the website along with other links, most of which are to government agencies. In its July 22 press release announcing the letter, FFRF said:

Care Net promotes a rabid evangelical Christian agenda, and is hostile to nonbelievers, non-Christians and nonevangelicals, as well as the feminist principle of a woman’s right to reproductive self-determination. Care Net proclaims that it has adapted a statement of faith from the National Association of Evangelicals. The NAE's professed government-relations goal is “Bringing biblical values to the political sphere.” No state government office should have any affiliation with a group that has a “statement of faith”....

Indonesia's Light Sentences In Attacks on Ahmadis Draw Criticism

The Jakarta Globe reports today that human rights groups and western countries are criticizing the light sentences handed down to 12 defendants found guilty of attacking members of the Ahmadiyah community last February, killing three Ahmadis and injuring five seriously. The defendants were villagers and students from Muslim boarding schools who joined a mob confronting the Ahmadis. A court in Serang acquitted the defendants of inciting hatred and mob violence, but convicted them of participation in a violent attack that resulted in casualties. Sentences of between 3 and 6 months were imposed. The sentences were imposed by different panels of judges. All the panels, however, agreed that the Ahmadis instigated the attack by ignoring police calls to disperse and instead challenging the mob to a fight. The United States Embassy in Jakarta issued a statement critical of the sentences:

We are disappointed by the disproportionately light sentences handed down on July 28 in the trials of twelve individuals implicated in the brutal murder of three Indonesian citizens during the February 6 attack on an Ahmadiyah community in Cikeusik, Pandeglang, Banten Province. The United States encourages Indonesia to defend its tradition of tolerance for all religions, a tradition praised by President Obama in his November 2010 visit to Jakarta.

The Ahmadiyah are seen as a deviant sect by other Muslims in Indonesia. (See prior posting.)

Herman Cain Apologizes For Remarks About Mosque Construction

Herman Cain, candidate for the Republican nomination for president, met on Wednesday with four Muslim leaders at ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia, a mosque serving the Washington, DC area, and apologized for statements he made opposing construction of a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. (See prior posting.) According to today's The Tennessean, Cain issued a written statement after the meeting, saying:

While I stand by my opposition to the interference of Shariah law into the American legal system, I remain humble and contrite for any statements I have made that might have caused offense to Muslim Americans and their friends. I am truly sorry for comments that may have betrayed my commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the freedom of religion guaranteed by it. Muslims, like all Americans, have the right to practice their faith freely and peacefully

Rwanda's Parliament Divided Over Definition of Religion

All Africa.com reported yesterday that the two houses of Rwanda's Parliament are split over the definition of "religion" in a proposed "Bill Governing Religious Communities in Rwanda." The comprehensive bill on freedom of worship, and registration and organization of religious communities was passed by the lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, with "religion" defined as: "a group of people of the same set of beliefs with the same God or god and preachings based on their consciousness." That definition emerged from the work of a team of researchers. However, when the Senate passed the bill, it amended it to define religion as: "A doctrine of a community sharing the same beliefs and cult." Lawmakers have voted to set up a joint committee from both houses to work out an acceptable definition before proceeding further.

Two Groups That Lead Legislative Bible Study Battle Over Trademark

California's Capitol Weekly reported yesterday on a trademark dispute between two separate groups that organize Bible study classes for legislators. Pastor Ralph Drollinger's group, Capitol Ministries, has been leading Bible study for California legislators for over ten years, and three years ago began organizing classes in the Capitol in Washington, DC. However, in May it was sued for trademark infringement by Capitol Commission, a North Carolina-based group that leads Bible studies in 16 state Capitols because Drollinger's group often operates under the label Capitol Commission. According to Capitol Weekly:

Capitol Commission president Jim Young said Drollinger is intentionally creating confusion between the two groups, by “domain squatting” on the Internet and other means, partially in order to siphon off donations meant for Capitol Commission....

Drollinger claims that a trio of former Capitol Ministries employees stole mailing lists and thousands of email addresses, which he said were then given to Capitol Commission. While he has not filed a lawsuit, he claims its Capitol Commission that is intentionally hurting his ministry.

Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Challenge Texas Governor's Prayer Rally Sponsorship

In Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Perry, (SD TX, July 28, 2011), a Texas federal district court held that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge as an Establishment Clause violation Texas Governor Rick Perry's proclamation declaring August 6 as "A Day of Prayer and Fasting for Our Nation" and his involvement with the American Family Association in sponsoring a prayer rally scheduled for that day. (See prior posting.) The court concluded that "Governor Perry’s statements are requests, not commands, and no injury flows from a mere request." It added that "feelings of exclusion or being unwelcome arising from an invitation 'to engage in a religious observance that is contrary to their own principles' are likewise not sufficient to confer standing...." The Houston Chronicle reports on the decision.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Warren Jeffs Trial Begins Today

AP reports that opening arguments begin today in San Angelo, Texas in the trial of FLDS leader Warren Jeffs on charges of sexually assaulting two underage girls. Prosecutors charge that the leader of the polygamous religious sect lured the girls into "spiritual marriages." Defense attorneys appear likely to raise a free exercise defense. Yesterday, Judge Barbara Walther denied a motion to suppress evidence seized in the raid of the FLDS Yearning for Zion ranch in 2008. (See prior posting.) Today, just before opening arguments, she will hear arguments on a motion to suppress evidence from a traffic stop of Jeffs in 2006. Meanwhile the Salt Lake Tribune last week reported on the challenge to Jeffs power as FLDS leader by former high-ranking elder William E. Jessop. Evidence in Jeffs trial could increase support for Jessop.

UPDATE: On Thursday morning, Warren Jeffs told Judge Barbara Walther: "I have released all my counsel. I desire to represent myself." The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Walther recessed proceedings to consider the request. Jeffs says his lawyers could not present his true defense.

Tentative Ruling Removes Circumcision Issue From San Francisco Ballot; [UPDATE: Ruling Confirmed]

The Bay Citizen reports that in a tentative ruling yesterday, a San Francisco (CA) Superior Court judge held that the San Francisco ballot initiative to ban male circumcision should be struck from the November ballot. Judge Loretta M. Giorgi held that the measure violates a state law that bars localities from regulating health care professionals who are also regulated at the state level. (See prior posting.) The Los Angeles Jewish Journal sets out the full text of the decision in Jewish Community Relations Council v. Arntz. The tentative ruling reads in part:

The Court finds that the proposed ballot Initiative is expressly preempted by California Business and Professions §460(b). The evidence presented is overwhelmingly persuasive that circumcision is a widely practiced medical procedure. California Business and Professions Code §460 (b) applies to medical services provided by a wide range of health care professionals. The statute speaks directly to the issue of local regulation of medical procedures and leaves no room for localities to regulate in this area. In fact, the legislative history of §460(b) confirms that the legislature intended to prevent cities and counties from regulating medical services which is a matter statewide concern. Because the proposed ballot initiative attempts to regulate a medical procedure, the proposed ordinance is expressly preempted. Moreover, it serves no legitimate purpose to allow a measure whose invalidity can be determined as a matter of law to remain on the ballot after such a ruling has been made.

A hearing is scheduled in the case today at which the ruling will likely to be finalized. Circumcision opponents say they will pack the courtroom. An appeal of the decision, once it is final, is expected.

UPDATE: AP reports that on Thursday, Judge Giorgi confirmed the tentative decision she handed down a day earlier, striking the measure from the November ballot.

UK Supreme Court: Faith-Based Arbitration Requirement Does Not Violate Employment Discrimination Law

In Jivraj v. Hashwani, (UK Sup. Ct., July 27, 2011), the United Kingdom Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement entered in connection with a joint venture between two members of the Ismaili Muslim community was not void under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003. At issue was a provision in the arbitration agreement that: "All arbitrators shall be respected members of the Ismaili community and holders of high office within the community." As summarized by the court's press release on the decision:

The Supreme Court unanimously allows the appeal on the ground that an arbitrator is not a person employed under a contract personally to do work within the meaning of the Regulations, which do not therefore apply. The majority (Lord Phillips, Lord Walker, Lord Clarke and Lord Dyson) also find that the Requirement would have fallen within the exception for genuine occupational requirements if the Regulations had applied. Lord Mance preferred not to deal with this issue as it did not arise in the light of the finding that the Regulations did not apply.

New York Files Amicus Brief Arguing Federal DOMA Is Unconstitutional

New York's Attorney General announced Tuesday that its office has filed an amicus brief (full text) in Windsor v. United States, a case pending in federal district court in New York challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The case is one in which the surviving spouse of a same-sex couple legally married in Canada is challenging the federal government's refusal to recognize her as a spouse for federal estate tax purposes. (Background and pleadings in case.) It is also one of the two cases in which the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would not defend the constitutionality of DOMA. (See prior posting.) New York's filing of the amicus brief comes only days after same-sex marriages began to be legally performed in the state, though New York had previously recognized the validity of same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries. Here is an excerpt from the amicus brief:

By refusing to recognize for federal purposes marriages that are valid under state law, DOMA intrudes on matters historically within the control of the States, and undermines and denigrates New York’s law designed to ensure equality of same-sex and different-sex married couples. Thus DOMA threatens basic principles of federalism. Moreover, it classifies and determines access to rights, benefits, and protections based on sexual orientation, and also based on sex.

For each of these reasons, considered separately or together, DOMA should be subjected to heightened scrutiny under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and it cannot withstand such scrutiny.

Yesterday's New York Law Journal has more on the background of the case.

District Court Dismisses Challenge To Obama Administration Stem-Cell Research Guidelines

In Sherley v. Sebelius, (D DC, July 27, 2011), the federal district court for the District of Columbia upheld the legality of the Obama administration NIH Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research. The court was constrained by a previous D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that denied a preliminary injunction against implementation of the the Guidelines on the ground that plaintiffs had not shown that they were likely to succeed on the merits. In yesterday's decision, the district court held that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Guidelines. On the merits, however, the court held that the Guidelines do not violate provisions of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment that prohibit the NIH from funding "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero..."

The D.C. Circuit had already determined that the term "research" in the Congressional funding ban was ambiguous. Following the lead of the D.C. Circuit, the district court held that NIH reasonably interpreted the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to allow funding of stem cell research. Finally, the court rejected plaintiffs' claim that the NIH Guidelines were promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Jurist and USA Today report on the decision.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Challenge To State Law Protection of Ritual Slaughter Held Non-Justiciable

In Pasado's Safe Haven v. State of Washington, (WA App., July 25, 2011), a Washington state appeals court dismissed as non-justiciable a challenge brought by an animal rescue organization to the provisions in Washington's Humane Slaughter Law permitting kosher and halal slaughtering of animals. The law defines as humane either the stunning of animals, or slaughter pursuant to religious ritual that calls for instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries. The statute also provides that nothing in the statute shall be construed to abridge religious freedom. Plaintiff sought to have those provisions declared unconstitutional and stricken from the statute. The court held, however, that the challenged provisions are inseverable from the remainder of the law, so that if they were found unconstitutional the court would need to invalidate the entire statute. Thus, in the court's language:

were plaintiffs to prevail on any one of their various constitutional challenges, the relief obtainable—a judgment declaring the challenged statute to be invalid in its entirety—is neither sought nor desired. Thus, regardless of our resolution of the merits of the various challenges made, at the end of this case the status quo would necessarily prevail. Our opinion would be nothing more than an advisory one.

Free Exercise Challenge To Animal Cruelty Law Not Preserved For Appeal

In Myers v. State of Texas, (TX App., July 21, 2011), a Texas state appeals court ruled that defendant in an animal cruelty case had failed to preserve for review on appeal his claim that the state's animal cruelty statute violated the free exercise of his religious beliefs. At trial, defendant urged the jury to consider his religious beliefs, but never argued to the court or requested a ruling on the constitutionality of applying the statute to him.

Chabad Gets Court Order Allowing Enforcement of Default Judgment For Library Collection Against Russia

In Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russian Federation, (D DC, July 26, 2011), the D.C. federal district court, finding that defendants had received adequate notice, issued an order permitting a Jewish religious organization to enforce the default judgement it had previously obtained against Russia, its Ministry of Culture and its State Library. The judgment ordered return of a collection of books and artifacts belonging to Chabad which had been lost to them during the World War I and World War II periods and ended up in the hands of the Soviet Union. (See prior posting.) The Russian Federation had previously withdrawn from participating in the litigation and also announced that it would refuse to loan art and cultural artifacts to art institutions in the United States, fearing that plaintiff would attach them to satisfy its default judgment. The court's enforcement order, with consent of plaintiff, includes a provision that no execution will be made on property on loan to cultural or educational institutions which is exempt under a special provision of federal law. The court, however, refused to impose immediate sanctions for civil contempt and instead directed defendants to show cause as to why they should not be held in contempt. Blog of the Legal Times reports on the decision.

Atheist Group Sues Over Placement of Ground Zero Cross In 9/11 Memorial

On Saturday, according to NBC New York, the so-called World Trade Center cross was moved from its temporary location near St. Peters Roman Catholic Church to the nearby site of the former Twin Towers where it will become part of the National September 11th Memorial and Museum. The 20-foot high, 2 ton, twisted cross-shaped steel beams were found in the rubble of the World Trade Center in the days after their destruction, and the cross has become a religious icon to many. However, on Monday, American Atheists announced that they had filed a lawsuit in state court in New York seeking to enjoin the display of the cross in the September 11 Memorial and Museum until equal space is granted to non-Christian Americans for similar memorials. The complaint (full text) in American Atheists, Inc. v. Port Authority or New York and New Jersey, (NY Co. Sup. Ct., filed 7/25/2011), contends that the installation of the cross violates the Establishment Clause as well as various New York constitutional and statutory provisions. Museum officials say the cross has become part of the Memorial and Museum not because of its religious symbolism, but because it is part of the history of Ground Zero. They say that steel girders made into other crosses, stars of David and possibly some Eastern religious symbols will also become part of the Museum.

City Says Claimed Religious Institutions Are Sex Clubs

According to yesterday's Dallas Morning News, Dallas, Texas officials have filed two separate lawsuits against Wyakie Glenn Hudson, who claims to be an ordained minister, to close down two adult businesses that Hudson claims are religious institutions. An undercover investigation revealed that the Darkside is an all-night dance club for those 17 years old and above, with sex and drugs on the premises, while Hudson claims it is a place of worship. The Playground is a "swingers club" catering to adults that want to engage in random consensual sexual activities, but its certificate of occupancy is for a church, mosque or synagogue. AP reports that yesterday a court granted a temporary restraining order closing The Playground.

Arizona Announces Large Housing Discrimination Settlement

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne yesterday announced the largest settlement of a fair housing suit in the history of the state's Civil Rights Division. The owners of a Tempe, Arizona apartment complex have paid Soha Abdelrahman and her husband, Hany Ibrahim, $197,500 to settle claims that Villatree Apartments discriminated against the couple because they were Arab, Egyptian and Muslim. The settlement also involved payment of $30,000 to the state Civil Rights Division to fund enforcement of state civil rights laws. The suit alleged that defendants complicated the rental application process, refused requested repairs and eventually evicted the couple after they complained about discriminatory treatment.

Court Rejects Vaccination Exemption Claim

In Caviezel v. Great Neck Public Schools, (ED NY, July 23, 2011), a New York federal district court rejected parents' claim for a religious exemption under NY Public Health Law Sec. 2164(9) from the requirements for vaccination of their child against certain diseases in order to attend public school. The court, exercising pendent jurisdiction of plaintiffs' state law claim found that no evidence beyond that provided at the preliminary injunction stage had been offered. Preliminary relief had been denied on the ground that the parents' concerns involved safety and a secular philosophy, not religious belief. (See prior posting.)

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Retired Pastors Can Continue Suit Against Pension Board Over Reduced Annuities

In Johnson v. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, (D MN, July 22, 2011), four retired Lutheran pastors filed a class action complaining of a violation of contractual and fiduciary rights in the reduction of annuities paid to them from the ELCA Retirement Plan. A Minnesota federal district court dismissed claims against the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America because it had no role in deciding to reduce payments to plaintiffs; nor was it liable either as a plan fiduciary or as the alter ego of the plan fiduciary. However the court permitted plaintiffs to proceed with their claims against the Board of Pensions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs were also given 30 days to amend their complaint to adequately allege certain of the claims that were dismissed. BNA's Daily Report for Executives today reports on the decision.

Certiorari Petition Filed In Vaccination Exemption Case

The Rutherford Institute announced yesterday that a petition for certiorari (full text) has been filed seeking Supreme Court review in Workman v. Mingo County Board of Education. In the case, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld West Virginia's statute requiring vaccination for various diseases as a condition of attending school. (See prior posting.) At issue is the request of a mother for a religious exemption from the vaccination requirements for her daughter. West Virginia law only recognizes medical exemptions.

New Survey Of Indonesian and Malaysian Muslim Youth Released

The Merdeka Center for Opinion Research has recently released a survey of Muslim youth in Indonesia and Malaysia. The study, Values, Dreams, Ideals: Muslim Youth In Southeast Asia, reports on surveys conducted in October and November 2010 among young people age 15 to 25. A portion of the report deals with attitudes of those surveyed toward religion and government. Here is a portion of the report's conclusions:

While many of the respondents come from religious households and about half of them pursued an education in religious schools not all of them always observe their religious obligations like praying five times a day, fasting during the holy month of Ramadan and reciting prayers from the al-Qur’an. Muslim youth in Indonesia and Malaysia are not very different in this regard....

When it comes to polygamy, the majority of Muslim youths in Malaysia and Indonesia disagree with the act. In this regard, more women than men disagree with polygamy. More Indonesian youth disagree with polygamy (86.5%) compared with their Malaysian counterparts (72.7%).... Polygamy is a legal practice in Malaysia and Indonesia, but in Indonesia the overall public opinion towards it is highly negative, a notion reflected in the findings of this study....

The use of the headscarf has become a lot more widespread in recent years, especially in Malaysia, where the dressing habits of Muslim women have changed profoundly.... The wearing of the headscarf in Indonesia and Malaysia first became popular in the 1980s, a development some experts believe was an impact from the Iranian Revolution in 1979. However, the wearing of the headscarf over the past two and a half decades has become increasingly widespread. In Indonesia, the wearing of the headscarf particularly increased following the Reformation era.

... The headscarf has become the symbol of a woman’s Islamic identity. Even so, there are still many Muslim women in Indonesia and Malaysia who hold prominent positions but do not wear the headscarf. The same thing is true for many wives of senior officials and powerful businessmen.... Surprisingly, Malaysian respondents with a secondary school education are more liberal over the headscarf issue than university graduates or those with a diploma.

Malaysian Muslim youths are very clear in their preference for Shariah and Hudud law, despite their laxity in carrying out their religious obligations. Over 70% would rather follow Shariah law than the Federal Constitution. However, only 50% of Eastern Malaysian Muslim youth would condone such a choice....

A surprising finding is that the majority of Muslim youths in Malaysia and Indonesia agree to the imposition of Hudud punishments.... 71% of Malaysians and 50% of Indonesians urge the punishment of cutting off the hand of anyone found guilty as a thief; 92% of Malaysians and 68% of Indonesians support the punishment of whipping of alcohol offenders, while 92.5% of Malaysians and 66% of Indonesians agree on the death penalty for murderers....

The rather conservative outlook of Muslim youth in Indonesia and Malaysia on religion and social life does not appear to be conducive to building modern democratic, pluralist and humanistic societies. Religious conservatism can be potentially incompatible with democratic principles, such as the freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, freedom of worship and freedom from discrimination. Indonesia’s history created a specific relationship between religious and state or public values that is different from the one in Malaysia. Although the majority of Indonesians are Muslim, the nation’s founders acknowledged Pancasila ["five principles"] as their ideological basis..... The nation’s founders clearly refused to ground their nation on religion. Religion was only used as an ethical basis, not as an ideological one.

In Malaysia, however, it appears that during the last few decades the idea of an “Islamic state” has gained much ground. This was not always so. Whilst the first and third prime ministers... openly declared that Malaysia was a secular state with Islam as the official religion – the fourth prime minister ... declared that Malaysia was an Islamic state.

On Islam reports on the survey.

Connecticut High Court Adopts 2nd Circuit's Version of Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Dayner v. Archdiocese of Hartford, (CT Sup. Ct., release date 8/2/2011), the Connecticut Supreme Court adopted the Second Circuit's version of the "ministerial exception" doctrine and dismissed claims by the principal of a Catholic school that she she was wrongfully terminated from her position. In reaching this conclusion the court focused on a split among circuits as to whether all employment related claims by a ministerial employee are barred, or only those that directly call into question the religious institution's hiring or termination decision. The court rejected the categorical exclusion of all employment claims and held that the only claims excluded are those which "would require the court to intrude into a religious institution’s exclusive right to decide matters pertaining to doctrine or its internal governance or organization." All the claims here, however, met that standard. AP reports on the state Supreme Court decision that became available yesterday. (See prior related posting.)

Monday, July 25, 2011

Suit Seeks To Invalidate New York Same-Sex Marriage Law For Procedural Irregularities

Liberty Counsel announced today that it has filed a lawsuit in New York asking a state court to declare the state's Marriage Equality Act void and to declare void any same-sex marriages that have taken place under the Act. (See prior posting.) The complaint (full text) in New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms v. New York State Senate, (Livingston Co. Sup. Ct., filed 6/25/2011), alleges that there were a number of procedural defects in the passage of the statute. These include violation of the Open Meetings Law, suspension of normal Senate committee hearings and voting procedures, denying lobbyists access to members of the legislature, and pressures on Republican Senators from Wall Street and the governor.

Suit Claims Philosophy Course Was Unconstitutional Instruction In Christian Apologetics

In an unusual case, a student at Arizona's Paradise Valley Community College last week filed a lawsuit charging that the instructor in a Philosophy course (Introduction to Ethics) "failed to teach the Philosophy Class according to the Course Description and instead taught her own Christian worldview." The complaint (full text) in Smith v. State of Arizona, (D AZ, filed 7/20/2011), claims that the course instructor, Adjunct Professor Kelly Burton, assigned for the course a portion of a book written by another instructor at the community college: Surrendra Gangadean, Philosophical Foundation: A Critical Analysis of Basic Beliefs. It is alleged that the assigned chapters were theological and present the author's view of Moral Law rather than the theories of philosophers promised by the course description. The suit claims that the course is in fact one in Christian Apologetics, and that teaching it violates the Establishment Clause as well as Art. 2, Sec. 12 of the Arizona Constitution banning use of public funds for religious instruction. The complaint also alleges breach of an implied contract. [Thanks to Bob Ritter for the lead.]

Women To Sue In Challenge To Belgium's New Anti-Burqa Law

AFP reports that on Saturday, Belgium's ban on wearing coverings-- such as the burqa or niqab-- that hide the face in public took effect. (See prior posting.) A day earlier, two Muslim women who wear full veils announced (through their lawyer) that they would file suit in Belgium's Constitutional Court to challenge the new law as a discriminatory infringement of freedom of religion and expression. According to Reuters, one of the two plaintiffs is a convert to Islam who has worn the burqa for 13 years, and who successfully fought a ban on it that the Brussels region municipality of Etterbeek had imposed earlier.

Jewish Group Congratulates TSA On New Scan Software That Avoids Body-Specific Images

The Transportation Security Administration announced last week that it will begin installing new software on its body imaging machines at airports that will eliminate body-specific images. The new Automated Target Recognition software will display a generic outline of a person for all passengers, but will still show where suspected weapons or explosives are located on a passenger's body. If no threat is detected, the monitor will display OK, with no body outline. The Orthodox Jewish group Agudah Israel of America, which had been concerned about privacy issues posed by software that displays an actual body image of an individual, commended the TSA on its new initiative. JTA reports that in a statement issued Thursday, Agudah said that this shows they were correct in believing that both religious concerns about privacy and security needs could be accommodated with sufficient perseverance.

Case Challenging School Flyer Policy Is Settled

Alliance Defense Fund announced last week that a settlement was reached last month in Michalek v. Garfield Heights Board of Education, (ND OH, complaint filed 4/15/2011). The complaint (full text) in the lawsuit challenged a school policy that prevented community groups from sending home religious flyers with students, while flyers promoting various non-religious events could be distributed. Plaintiffs wanted to distribute a flyer inviting students to an After School Christmas Story Hour.Under the settlement that led to the case being dismissed, the school agreed to amend its policies. It will end distribution of all outside flyers through teachers and instead will permit any community group, including religious ones, to place up to 25 flyers in the school office where students can pick them up. However it appears that few students voluntarily visit the office.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Man Charged With Norwegian Terror Attacks Left Manifesto With Christian, Anti-Muslim Religious Themes

Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian man charged with terror attacks in Norway Friday on government buildings in Oslo and on a youth camp on the island of Utoya, published in advance online a 1500 page document titled 2083--A Declaration of Independence. Here is the full text of the document which the Wall Street Journal describes as "part terrorist manual and part manifesto for a national conservative organization clothed in the regalia and accouterments of the Knights Templar, in which Mr. Breivik titles himself a 'Justiciar Knight Commander for Knights Templar Europe'." In his introduction, Breivik says:

As we all know, the root of Europe's problems is the lack of cultural self-confidence (nationalism). Most people are still terrified of nationalistic political doctrines thinking that if we ever embrace these principles again, new “Hitler’s” will suddenly pop up and initiate global Armageddon... Needless to say; the growing numbers of nationalists in W.Europe are systematically being ridiculed, silenced and persecuted by the current cultural Marxist/ multiculturalist political establishments. This has been a continuous ongoing process which started in 1945. This irrational fear of nationalistic doctrines is preventing us from stopping our own national/ cultural suicide as the Islamic colonization is increasing annually. This book presents the only solutions to our current problems.

Texas Board of Education Rejects Creationist Supplementary Materials For Biology

The National Center for Science Education reports that the Texas State Board of Education on Friday voted 8-0 to approve scientifically accurate high school biology textbook supplements, and rejected materials that were recommended by creationists. The Board adopted a supplement published by Holt McDougal, but instructed the Commissioner of Education to review alleged errors in it put forward by a creationist member of the review panel, and to develop amended language for Holt to incorporate where needed. Education groups are confident that the Commissioner's recommendations will not reflect creationist views. (See prior related posting.)

New York 2010 Hate Crimes Data Released

The New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services has recently released its 2010 Annual Report on Hate Crime in New York State (full text). Hate crimes during 2010 were up sharply in New York City, and were down in the rest of the state. 39% of the hate crimes reported were motivated by religious bias, the vast majority of those being motivated by anti-Jewish bias. 220 hate crimes (including 90 crimes against persons) were anti-Jewish, while 29 (including 22 crimes against persons) were anti-Muslim. Percentage-wise, however, anti-Jewish hate crimes dropped by 12% from the prior year, while anti-Muslim crimes increased 163% from 2009. Almost 41% of 2010 hate crimes were motivated by race, ethnicity or national origin, while nearly 20% were motivated by sexual orientation.

EEOC Sues Jewish Nursing Home For Refusing Sabbath Off For 7th Day Adventist

The EEOC announced last week that it has filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against Menorah House, a Jewish-affiliated Boca Raton, Florida nursing and rehabilitation facility. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a Seventh Day Adventist employee of the nursing home who for ten years had her religious beliefs accommodated by not having to work from sundown Friday to sundown on Saturday. However this changed when management instituted a new policy requiring all employees to work on Saturdays, regardless of their religious beliefs. The suit seeks reinstatement, back pay, damages and an injunction requiring Menorah House to reasonably accommodate religious needs of employees. Friday's South Florida Sun Sentinel reports on the lawsuit.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Ali v. Quarterman, (5th Cir., July 18, 2011), the 5th Circuit allowed a Muslim prisoner to move ahead with his RLUIPA challenge to prison rules that required him to be clean shaven, and allowed him to wear a kufi only in his cell and at religious services. His 1st Amendment and equal protection challenges were dismissed.

In Gannaway v. Berks County Prison, (3d Cir., July 18, 2011), the 3rd Circuit found no support in the record for a former jail inmate's claim that the jail failed to acknowledge Ramadan and prevented him from practicing his Muslim religion.

In Knight v. Kelly, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76684 (ED VA, July 14, 2011), a Virginia federal district court dismissed the claim by a Sunni Mulim inmate that he was denied the Eid-Al-Adha festival tray in November 2009.

In Glover v. Cate, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77096 (ED CA, July 13, 2011), an inmate claimed that as a "Christian/Odinist/Aryan", it violated his religious beliefs to share a cell with someone who was not of the Aryan race. A California federal magistrate judge held that because plaintiff has only been deemed eligible to be housed with someone of a different race, but has not yet been placed in a cell with a non-Aryan, his religious claims are not ripe for review. The magistrate judge recommended that the religious claims be dismissed without prejudice. A similar claim by another inmate who refused a cell integration order was dismissed by a federal magistrate judge for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in Walker v. Cate, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79067 (EC CA, July 19, 2011).

In Valteau v. Gusman, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78158 (ED LA, July 19, 2011), a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78160, June 30, 2011) and permitted an inmate to move ahead with a claim that jail officials have not supplied him with a Qur'an and other Islamic materials and he has not had a visit from an Imam, even though Christian prisoners receive Bibles and have visits from a minister.

In Lakhani v. Seneca County Sheriff's Office, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78422 (ND OH, July 19, 2011). an Ohio federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78424, June 30, 2011) and dismissed numerous complaints by a Muslim inmate (a Pakistani citizen) regarding conditions at a county jail at which he was held pending transfer to a federal facility. Among the dismissed claims were ones alleging that congregate Muslim services were only permitted on some Fridays and that Muslims were refused three additional religious services per week.

In Morales v. Beard, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78303 (MD PA, July 19, 2011), a Pennsylvania federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78308, June 22, 2011) and allowed a Native American inmate's free exercise and retaliation claims to proceed against some defendants, while dismissing others. Plaintiff, a Taino Indian, claims that he was wrongly placed on an out of state transfer list that resulted in his transfer to a Virginia state prison where he was made to shave and get a hair cut even though he had religious exemption in Pennsylvania.

In Golosow v. Rubenstein, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79225 (ND WV, July 20, 2011), a West Virginia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79201, June 27, 2011) and dismissed an inmate's claim that his 1st and 14th Amendment rights were violated when he was disciplined for fraudulently representing he was a Buddhist in order to obtain a vegetarian diet.

In McDaniels v. Fischer, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79591 (WD WA, July 21, 2011), a Washington federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79588, June 17, 2011) and dismissed a Nation of Islam inmate's claims that his rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments and RLUIPA were infringed by denying him access to the Eid-Ul-Fitr and Eid-Al-Adha feasts in 2009, denying him a Halal diet, not allowing him equal time for religious celebrations or equal access to prayer oils that other religious groups had. Even though issues of material fact remained on the Halal diet claims, the court held that the state had changed its policy and defendants had qualified immunity.

In Thunderbird v. Oregon State Department of Corrections Employees, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78935 (D OR, July 20, 2011), an Oregon federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79336, June 28, 2011) as to a lengthy complaint by an inmate. As part of its decision, the court dismissed without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, plaintiff's claim that a prayer feather attached to his medicine bag was confiscated.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Pakistan Senate Condemns LGBT Pride Event At U.S. Embassy

According to The Nation, Pakistan's Senate yesterday condemned the U.S. embassy's hosting last month of Islamabad's first ever LGBT Pride Celebration. A U.S. Embassy press release said that more than 75 people attended the event, including Mission Officers, U.S. military representatives, foreign diplomats, and leaders of Pakistani LGBT advocacy groups. The Charge d'Affaires told attendees that the U.S. Embassy supported their push for LGBT rights. Pakistani lawmakers said that LGBT activities violate basic principles of Islam as well as Pakistan's constitution. They referred the matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. Some senators however suggested that the U.S. embassy has diplomatic immunity that allows it to hold such functions.

L.A. Synagogue Wins Its RLUIPA Claims

In Congregation Etz Chaim v. City of Los Angeles, (CD CA, July 11, 2011), a California federal district court held that RLUIPA was violated by the denial of a conditional use permit to a Hasidic congregation that wanted to use a house in the Hancock Park area of Los Angeles for religious services. The congregation and nearby homeowners had been at odds over use of the property for decades. The court rejected the city's argument that no substantial burden was placed on the congregation because it could find an alternative location. It also held that the congregation had shown a prima facie case of unequal treatment. The court granted a preliminary injunction to bar denial of a conditional use permit and to prevent enforcement actions that would prevent the congregation from using the property. Religious Freedom In Focus reports on the decision.

Religious Beliefs May Not Be The Basis For An Incompetency Finding

In State of Ohio v. Daley, (OH App., July 21, 2011), an Ohio appeals court reversed a trial court's finding that defendant was incompetent to stand trial on charges of leaving threatening voice mails and sending a threatening letter to a county support enforcement agency employee. Defendant challenged the trial court order that he be hospitalized for restoration of sanity, and treated with anti-psychotics if necessary. The court held that there was no evidence to support the trial court's finding of incompetence:

Dr. Noffsinger’s opinion that Daley was incompetent, formulated after an hour and ten-minute evaluation, was based solely on Daley’s religious beliefs. Specifically, Dr. Noffsinger opined that Daley, a “radical Christian,” “expresses such extreme intensity of religious belief in very unorthodox religious beliefs to the point to constitute psychosis.” Noffsinger further testified that treating Daley would “change his psychotic symptoms of which are a religious theme[,]” so that his “intensity and [ ] preoccupation with his religious beliefs will be greatly decreased.”

The court held that defendant's religious beliefs are constitutionally protected, so they cannot be the basis for a finding of insanity. [Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

China Moves To Ordain New Bishops Without Vatican Approval

The London Telegraph yesterday reported that the Chinese government is once again defying the Vatican by moving to ordain a number of new bishops who do not have Vatican approval, apparently ending the steps toward improved relations between China and the Vatican that emerged in 2007.. (See prior posting.) The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, the government body that controls the Catholic Church in China, announced the election of 7 new bishops a week after the ordination of Fr. Huang Bingzhang as the new bishop of Shantou. Huang was immediately excommunicated by the Vatican. Four bishops loyal to the Vatican were forced by Chinese officials to participate in Huang's ordination. [Thanks to Pew Sitter for the lead.]

Friday, July 22, 2011

Obama Sends DADT Repeal Certifications To Congress; Repeal of Policy Takes Effect Sept. 20

Under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, the provisions of 10 USC 654 (which preclude those who are openly gay or lesbian from serving in the armed forces) are repealed 60 days after the President transmits to congressional defense committees a written certification signed by himself and by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The certification is to attest to the fact that the Department of Defense has prepared needed policies and regulations and that their implementation is consistent with military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion and armed forces recruitment and retention. Today the President announced that he has transmitted the required certification (full text) to Congress. In making the announcement, the President said:

As of September 20th, service members will no longer be forced to hide who they are in order to serve our country. Our military will no longer be deprived of the talents and skills of patriotic Americans just because they happen to be gay or lesbian.

Obama Endorses Current Policy On Faith-Based Hiring By Federal Grantees

At a Town Hall meeting at the University of Maryland this morning, President Obama was asked specifically about his administration's position on religion-based hiring by faith-based groups receiving federal grant moneys. Blog from the Capital reports on (and provides a transcript of) the Q and A. Obama has not rescinded Executive Order 13279 issued in 2002 by President George W. Bush permitting religious organizations which contract with the government to use religious criteria in their hiring. (See prior related posting.) Obama responded to the Town Hall question in part as follows:

I think that the balance we have tried to strike is to say that if you are offering - if you have set up a non-profit that is disassociated from your core religious functions and is out there in the public doing all kinds of work then you have to abide generally with the nondiscrimination hiring practices. If, on the other hand, it is closer to your core functions as a synagogue or a mosque or a church, then there may be more leeway for you to hire somebody who is a believer of that particular religious faith.

State and Federal Legislative Proposals To Stop San Francisco Anti-Circumcision Vote Have Been Introduced

As reported yesterday by the AP, two members of the California state Assembly on July 7 introduced a bill that would bar San Francisco and other cities from regulating male circumcision. The bill, intended to stop San Francisco's November vote on a ballot measure banning male circumcision (see prior posting), was introduced as an amendment to an unrelated measure on global warming. The operative section of AB 768 reads:

No local statute, ordinance, or regulation, or administrative action implementing a local statute, ordinance, or regulation shall prohibit or restrict the practice of male circumcision, or the exercise of parental authority with respect to the same.

Meanwhile, on June 24, ten members of the U.S. House of Representatives also introduced legislation aimed at barring the San Francisco ballot measure. HR 2400 provides:

No State or political subdivision of a State may adopt or continue in force a law, regulation, or order that prohibits or regulates the circumcision of males who have not attained the age of 18 years and whose parent or guardian has consented to the circumcision, unless such law, regulation, or order--
(1) applies to all such circumcisions performed in the State; and
(2) is limited to ensuring that all such circumcisions are performed in a hygienic manner.

Last month, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) had announced his intention to introduce this bill. (See prior posting.)

San Leandro Seeks Supreme Court Review of RLUIPA Decision

The city of San Leandro, California announced yesterday that it has filed a petition for certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the 9th Circuit's decision in International Church of the Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro. In the case, the 9th Circuit held that a city's zoning decision made under a neutral, generally applicable zoning law can impose a "substantial burden" on a church's exercise of religion under RLUIPA. (See prior posting.)

Monks Win Constitutional Challenge To Louisiana Limits On Selling Caskets

In St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille, (ED LA, July 21, 2011), a Louisiana federal district court ruled that Louisiana's Embalming and Funeral Directors Act (RS 37:831 ff.) cannot constitutionally be applied to prevent a Catholic monastery from selling simple wooden caskets that it manufactures. The Louisiana law provides that only licensed funeral directors may engage in the retail sale of caskets, and they may be sold only at licensed funeral establishments. The court held that the restriction violates the due process and equal protection clauses because the licensing requirements are "not rationally related to public health and safety concerns." Instead, "the provisions simply protect a well-organized industry that seeks to maintain a strict hold on this business." The Wall Street Journal yesterday reported on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Irish Prime Minister Delivers Unprecedented Attack On Vatican

AP reports that a hard-hitting speech to the lower house of Ireland's Parliament, Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny delivered an unprecedented attack on the Vatican's handling of priest sexual abuse in Ireland. The move comes after the release earlier this month of a report on failures in the Diocese of Cloyne to report abuse to civil authorities. (See prior posting.) In his speech (full text), Kenny said:

Because for the first time in Ireland, a report into child sexual-abuse exposes an attempt by the Holy See, to frustrate an Inquiry in a sovereign, democratic republic...as little as three years ago, not three decades ago.

And in doing so, the Cloyne Report excavates the dysfunction, disconnection, elitism....the narcissism .......that dominate the culture of the Vatican to this day.

The rape and torture of children were downplayed or 'managed' to uphold instead, the primacy of the institution, its power, standing and 'reputation'.

Far from listening to evidence of humiliation and betrayal with St Benedict's "ear of the heart"......the Vatican's reaction was to parse and analyse it with the gimlet eye of a canon lawyer.

This calculated, withering position being the polar opposite of the radicalism, humility and compassion upon which the Roman Church was founded.

Abercrombie Assessed $20,000 In Damages On Title VII Claim, But No Injunction Issued

Earlier this month,in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., an Oklahoma federal district court held that Abercrombie & Fitch violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by refusing to hire a Muslim teenager because her religious belief requiring her to wear a headscarf violates the company's "Look Policy" for sales models. (See prior posting.) On Wednesday, according to the Tulsa World, a federal jury awarded $20,000 in damages in the case. However the court refused the EEOC's request to issue an injunction against the company that would require it to notify job applicants who wear a headscarf to their interview that they may request a religious accommodation. The EEOC also wanted the court to mandate training on the accommodation issue for store managers. The company has changed its interview procedures so applicants are now told that models may not wear head coverings, and are asked if they have any questions about that policy. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]