Religion Clause

Friday, August 03, 2012

6th Circuit: County's Ban of Creche On Road Median Violated Sponsor's Free Speech Rights

Satawa v. Macomb County Road Commission, (6th Cir., Aug. 1, 2012) involves a dispute over a creche that a family, each Christmas for over 60 years, has placed on a 60 foot wide median of a busy 4-lane road in Warren, Michigan. When the Freedom From Religion Foundation objected to the creche in 2008, the county ordered it removed. The county continued to deny a permit for erection of the creche, and one of the family members sued. The court, reversing the district court in significant part (see prior posting), held that the county's action violated plaintiff's free speech and equal protection rights. The road median here, which also contained benches, a plaque, displays and a gazebo, is (like a park) a traditional public forum. The government may thus ban expression there only if it has a compelling interest. While compliance with the Establishment Clause would be a compelling interest, here the creche did not violate the Establishment Clause since it was a private expression of religious beliefs-- not endorsed by the government-- on property that had been opened to the public for speech. The court however rejected plaintiff's claim that in denying a permit for the creche the county itself was religiously motivated in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Thursday, August 02, 2012

USCIRF Commissioners Harsher On Russia's Religious Liberty Record Than State Department

Two commissioners of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom on Tuesday published an op-ed in the Moscow Times-- Russia's only daily English language newspaper-- highly critical of Russia's policies on religious liberty. USCIRF Chair, Katrina Lantos Swett, and USCIRF Commissioner Robert George said in part:

[I]n at least one key area, religious freedom, Russia has not changed in many respects. This assessment should provoke serious discussion as the United States faces decisions about its relationship with its former Cold War foe....

Over the past decade, the Kremlin has exploited legitimate security concerns about violent religious extremism by restricting the rights of nonviolent religious minority members. Its major tool is an extremism law. Enacted in 2002, the law imposes sanctions on religious extremism, which it defines as promoting the "exclusivity, superiority, or inferiority of citizens" based on religion. The law now applies to peaceful actors and actions.....

Simply stated, security concerns aren't the sole driver of Russia's religious freedom abuses. All too often, security is a pretext for unacceptable religious repression. Authorities view certain groups, particularly those seeking converts, as threats to the country's religious and cultural identity as embodied in the Russian Orthodox Church's Moscow Patriarchate.

Their assessment appears harsher than the one appearing in the U.S. State Department's recently-released 2011 Report on International Religious Freedom (see prior posting). The State Department's section on the situation in Russia said in part:

The constitution provides for freedom of religion; however, other laws and policies restrict religious freedom by denying some groups legal status and misidentifying their literature as extremist. In practice the government generally respected religious freedom, but some minority denominations continued to experience difficulties.

Austrian Justice Minister OKs Circumcisions

EJP reported yesterday that in Austria, the country's Justice Minister Beatrix Karl has written a letter to state officials in the province of Voralberg assuring doctors that they will not face prosecution for performing circumcision of boys, whether for religious or other reasons. Doctors needed the issue clarified after Voralberg's premier, Markus Wallner, in the wake of a German court decision banning circumcision of children for religious reasons (see prior posting), advised doctors against performing the procedure in Austria.

In Texas Supreme Court Primary, Incumbent Defeated By Advocate of Religious Displays On Public Property

In the Republican primary in Texas last Tuesday, incumbent state Supreme Court Justice David Medina lost his bid to run for re-election in a challenge by the Tea Party-backed candidate, John Devine. The Southeast Texas Record reports that the final vote tally showed Devine receiving 53% of the vote. As previoiusly reported, in 1995 Devine was elected to be a state trial court judge after campaigning on a platform of placing Christianity back into government. He gained national attention when he fought to keep a painting of the 10 Commandments hanging in his court room. He also was at the center of an Establishment Clause case when he and his court reporter solicited private donations to refurbish a courthouse grounds religious-themed monument that included display of a Bible. In the 1980's Devine was known as an anti-abortion activist. Medina, who had been appointed in 2004 by Gov. Rick Perry, was backed by the Republican establishment and was strongly favored in a poll of the Texas State Bar. The Fort Worth Star Telegram, reviewing the candidates earlier this year, reported that Medina ha been found by the state ethics commission in 2009 to have improperly used some of his campaign funds for personal commuting expenses. Also he and his wife had initially been indicted in connection with a fire at their home in 2007, but the charges were then dropped.

In Canada, Suit Filed Over Opening Council Meetings With Lord's Prayer

Backed by the advocacy group Secular Ontario, in Canada on Monday a resident of Grey County, Ontario filed a lawsuit seeking to require the Grey County Council to end its practice of opening its sessions with the recitation of the Lord's Prayer. According to the National Post, Secular Ontario has written 18 cities, towns and counties seeking to end use of the Lord's Prayer to open their meetings. Seeking $5000 in damages and an order ending the practice, plaintiff Peter Ferguson says that the use of the opening prayer violates his freedom of conscience and religion protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Over a month ago, a similar challenge was filed by another plaintiff against the Petersborough (ON) City Council.

Indiana High Court Remands Church Property Case For Trial On Implied Trust Issue

In Presbytery of Ohio Valley, Inc. v. OPC, Inc., (IN Sup. Ct., July 31, 2012), the Indiana Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, held that the Presbyterian Church (USA) had failed to show that an express trust attached to property of Olivet Presbyterian Church, a congregation that broke away from the parent body over doctrinal differences. However, the court remanded the case for trial on the issue of whether an implied resulting trust on the congregation's property had been created by Olivet remaining a member of PC(USA) for 25 years after the parent body placed language in its governing documents (the Book of Order) providing that local church property was to be held in trust for PC(USA). In an opinion written by Chief Justice Dickson, the majority adopted the "neutral principles of law" approach for resolving all church property disputes in Indiana. Justices Sullivan and Massa, in a brief dissenting opinion, agreed with the Court of Appeals decision-- which held that the congregation was bound by PC(USA)'s property trust clause. [Thanks to Michael E. DiRienzo for the lead.]

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

Grocery Store's Customer Seeks Religious Accommodation of Racist Views

The Big Sandy & Hawkins (TX) Journal yesterday reported on a religious accommodation lawsuit against a grocery store filed pro se in April by a customer who objected on religious grounds to his purchases being bagged by an African-American employee. When this happened a second time, the store owner called the police who issued plaintiff, DeWitt Thomas, a criminal trespass warning. Thomas says his religion is "Vedism Braminism" which he says prevents him from "striking hands" with an "Untouchable." Store owner Keith Langston says that he will not tolerate racism and that Thomas frightened his employees.

Many Claims Dismissed In Establishment Clause Suit On Philosophy Course Content

In Smith v. Arizona, (D AZ, July 31, 2012), an Arizona federal district court dismissed many, but not all, of the claims in a lawsuit in which a student at Maricopa Community College alleged that the philosophy course she took-- titled Introduction to Ethics-- was taught by the instructor "solely to indoctrinate her students with her Christian worldview" in violation of the Establishment Clause. Claims against the state of Arizona an the State Board of Education were dismissed on 11th Amendment grounds. Plaintiff's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were dismissed as moot, since she has already completed the course and has no reason to repeat it in the future. As to plaintiff's claim for damages, the court found that the individual defendants have qualified immunity on the Establishment Clause claim because "Plaintiff has not pointed to any specific actions by Defendants that obviously violated a clearly established right under the Establishment Clause or to any cases indicating that a college level Ethics course cannot be taught with reference to a specific religion." However the court permitted plaintiff to move ahead with her damage claim for Establishment clause violations against the college and the college district, as well as her claim against the college for breach of contract. (See prior related posting.)

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Plaintiff, Fired For Wearing Christian Lanyard, Can Proceed With Suit

In Hickey v. State University of New York at Stony Brook Hospital, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105182 (ED NY, July 27, 2012), a New York federal district court denied cross-motions for summary judgment in a Title VII religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuit by a painter in the hospital's Physical Plant Department whose employment was terminated for insisting on wearing a lanyard around his neck printed with the phrase "I ♥ Jesus." Attached to the lanyard was a plastic badge holder with hand written religious messages on it. The hospital claimed this conflicted with its uniform policy. It also alleged other job performance issues, including alleged proselytizing.

Indian Court Sentences 22 In Another Prosecution Over 2002 Gujarat Riots

According to AFP and BBC, in India, in another case growing our of the 2002 Hindu-Muslim riots in the state of Gujarat, a court this week sentenced 21 defendants to life in prison for attempted murder, arson and rioting. An additional defendant, a former police officer, was sentenced to one year in prison for dereliction of duty. 61 defendants were acquitted for lack of evidence. This case involved the Dipda Darwaza massacre in which Hindu rioters attacked a Muslim family, locked them in their house and set it ablaze, killing 11, after 60 Hindu pilgrims traveling in a train died in a blaze of disputed origin. In April in another case growing out of the same riots, 23 others were convicted. (See prior posting.) A total of 84 people have been convicted in 4 previous cases involving the riots in which 1,000 to 2,000 people-- mostly Muslims-- died.

State Department Releases 2011 International Religious Freedom Report

As reported by CNN, yesterday the State Department released its International Religious Freedom Report for 2011. Ambassador -at-Large for International Religious Freedom Suzan Johnson Cook provided a press briefing (full text) on the report. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also spoke about the report at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (full text of remarks). The State Department presents the report in an interactive format on its website-- setting out the Executive Summary and providing links to either go to the full report for a specific country or build a report by individual topics across countries chosen by the online user. The Executive Summary says in part:

Governments restricted religious freedom in a variety of ways, including registration laws that favored state-sanctioned groups, blasphemy laws, and treatment of religious groups as security threats. The report focuses special attention on key trends such as the impact of political and demographic transitions on religious minorities, who tended to suffer the most in 2011; the effects of conflict on religious freedom; and the rising tide of anti-Semitism. Impacted groups, to name just a few, included Baha’is and Sufis in Iran; Christians in Egypt; Ahmadis in Indonesia and Pakistan; Muslims in a range of countries, including in Europe; Tibetan Buddhists, Christians, and Uighur Muslims in China; and Jews in many parts of the world.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a release welcoming the State Department's report and urging it to move promptly to designate "countries of particular concern" for this year pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act. It also urged the State Department to follow up its designation with "vigorous U.S. diplomatic activity."

Defendants In Amish Beard Cutting Assaults Reject Plea Bargain

In northern Ohio last year, 16 members of an Amish community were indicted for conspiracy to violate the federal Matthew Shepard-James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act and the federal witness tampering law. (See prior posting.) The defendants, members of a break-away Amish group, are charged with assaulting other Amish and forcibly cutting their hair and beards. AP reported yesterday that the defendants have rejected the government's offer of a plea bargain that would have given many of them sentences of 2 to 3 years. If convicted, they face sentences of 20 years or more in prison. Defendants claim the attacks involved issues of internal church discipline and not anti-Amish bias.

In Russian Court, Punk Rock Defendant Criticizes Church Support For Putin

As previously reported, in Russia earlier this year three members of a women's punk rock band, calling itself Pussy Riot, were arrested after they entered a nearly empty Christ the Savior Cathedral and performed an obscene "punk prayer." Interfax yesterday reported on a court hearing for Maria Alyokhina, one of the defendants. Alyokhina told the court:

The indictment says that I committed hooliganism motivated by religious hatred and animosity and hatred toward Orthodox believers. This assertion is fundamentally unclear to me. The aim of our performance was to draw the attention of the Russian clergy and the prior of Christ the Savior Cathedral [to] Patriarch Kirill ... [and] his repeated public statements that the Orthodox believers must vote for Putin. I am an Orthodox believer but my political views are different.... As a representative of my generation, I have other questions about the relations between the church and the state, to which I sincerely want to get answers from Father Kirill and count on his wisdom. I thought that the church loves its children, but it turns out that there is a division here, and the church only loves those children who believe in Putin.

Monday, July 30, 2012

Pastor and Church Indicted Over Mock Kidnapping Of Youth Group Members

According to the Harrisburg (PA) Patriot-News, on Friday Dauphin County, Pennsylvania prosecutors charged a church and its youth pastor with false imprisonment and assault for a mock kidnapping they staged to teach teenagers about the dangers faced by some missionaries in carrying out their work. The Glad Tidings Assembly of God Church and its youth pastor Andrew Jordan arranged for four men to burst into the youth group meeting, one carrying a real, but unloaded, gun. The youths were forced into a van with pillow cases over their heads and driven across the parking lot to the pastor's house, where they were led to a frightening interrogation room and questioned for 30 seconds each before being released. The mother of a 14-year old girl who was taken in the mock exercise reported the matter to the police. The district attorney said that several of the children were terrorized by the experience. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Indian Court: Child Marriage Ban Overrides Hindu Marriage Law

In Devi v. State, (Delhi H.C., July 27, 2012), a 3-judge panel of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi, India ruled that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act takes precedence over the Hindu Marriage Act. A Hindu marriage contracted with a female under 18 or a male under 21 is voidable at the option of the spouse who was a child at the time of the marriage, even though the marriage is not voidable under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Hindustan Times, reporting on the decision, says that it will also impact Muslim marriages. Under the Muslim Personal Law, the minimum age for marriage of either boys or girls is 15.

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Curtis v. Caldwell, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100969 (ED MI, July 20, 2012), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101501, June 26, 2012) and dismissed on various grounds, including failure to exhaust administrative remedies, an inmate's claim that his request for Native American religious services had been denied.

In Cobb v. Mendoza-Powers, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102899 (ED CA, July 24, 2012), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal of an inmate's challenge to the prison's grooming policy. Plaintiff had made a religious vow not to comb or shave his hair. While the 9th Circuit in another case had found the grooming policy violates RLUIPA, plaintiff brought only a 1st Amendment challenge.

In Bradford v. Lee, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102887 (WD LA, July 24, 2012), a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102886, June 20, 2012) and dismissed an inmate's complaint that his rights under RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment were infringed when he was denied access to church services on one or more occasions by a prison guard.

In Hall v. Love, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101337 (SD IL, July 23, 2012), an Illinois federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103647, June 27, 2012) and permitted a Muslim inmate to proceed with his claim that his free exercise rights were violated when he was excluded from Ramadan and Jumu'ah services.

In Brewer v. Tesinsky, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103984 (CD CA, July 24, 2012), a California federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103893, March 14, 2012) and permitted a Muslim pre-trial detainee to proceed with certain of his 1st Amendment and RLUIPA claims alleging that jail authorities failed to accommodate his religious vegetarian diet.

In Manges v. Harman, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103506 (ND IN, July 24, 2012), an Indiana federal district court permitted an inmate to proceed with his 1st Amendment damages claim and his retaliation claim growing out of the alleged denial to him of the opportunity to attend Eastern Orthodox services and turning away a priest who had come to conduct services.

Church's Suit Over Texas Law On Recall Petitions Dismissed

Hoyt v. City of El Paso, Texas, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104501 (WD TX, July 10, 2012), presents a claim by an El Paso church and its pastor that Texas and El Paso city officials have chilled the church's right to circulate recall petitions aimed at the city's mayor and two city council members because of their role in restoring health benefits to same-sex and unmarried domestic partners of city employees. (See prior posting.) The court dismissed the complaint finding that the challenged election law only bars corporations from circulating petitions when doing so amounts to a political contribution and that plaintiffs allege only a subjective fear of enforcement.

Ministerial Exception Applies Even Though Faculty Are Not Members of Seminary's Religion

In two related cases (but decided by panels that had only one judge in common), the Kentucky Court of Appeal has held that the ministerial exception applies in two lawsuits by a seminary's faculty against the school, even though the plaintiffs are not members of the religious denomination-- Disciples of Christ-- that operates the seminary. Lexington Theological Seminary in 2009 declared a financial emergency, eliminated tenure and reduced the number of faculty and staff. In Kant v. Lexington Theological Seminary, (KY CT App., July 27, 2012), a Kentucky appellate court in a 2-1 decision dismissed a breach of contract suit brought by a Jewish faculty member (a Jewish studies scholar) who was dismissed in the reorganization. The court, in an opinion by Judge Moore, held first that:

an inquiry into the rationale for LTS’s decision making as to who will teach its students—all of whom attend there with a desire to become pastors or ministers—would be an inquiry into an ecclesiastical matter by this Court.

It then held that the suit should also be dismissed under the ministerial exception doctrine, reasoning:

Because Kant’s primary duties involved teaching religious-themed courses at a seminary, his position was one that prepared students for Christian ministry.... Given his position as a faculty member teaching at a seminary, Kant’s personal views are not determinative of the function he served. Rather, we review the function of his position: teaching future Christian ministers primarily on Judeo-Christian subjects and culture. Kant’s personal faith and beliefs do not clash with the actuality that the classes he taught at LTS were for the purpose of preparing future church leaders of the Christian faith.

Chief Judge Acree filed a concurring opinion. Judge Keller dissented, arguing that there was a question of fact as to whether Kant was merely teaching about religion, or instead was teaching the Christian religion as an article of faith. He said: "in the absence of any evidence regarding the actual content of Kant's courses, I cannot conclude that Kant was a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception.

The second case, Kirby v. Lexington Theological Seminary, (KY Ct. App., July 27, 2012) involved a suit by a faculty member who belonged to the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, but taught solely religious courses at the seminary. In a unanimous decision, the court dismissed the suit applying the ministerial exception doctrine. Judge Caperton wrote:

Given the Seminary’s commitment to Christian unity and an ecumenical spirit reflected in denominational diversity and interfaith inclusiveness, we fail to find persuasive Kirby’s argument that his lack of ordination or his lack of membership in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is determinative of his status at the Seminary.

Chief Judge Acree filed a concurring opinion. The Louisville Courier Journal reports on the decision.

Saturday, July 28, 2012

School Parents In NY's Rockland County Seek Ouster of 7 Orthodox Jewish Board Members

According to today's New York Times, in Rockland County (NY)'s East Ramapo Central School District, 14 Black and Hispanic parents of public school students have petitioned the State Education Department seeking removal of 5 Orthodox Jewish members of the school board. Even though very few Orthodox Jews send their children to public schools, 7 of the 9 school board seats are held by Orthodox Jews because of their well-organized turnout in elections. The state education commissioner can remove local school board members for willful misconduct or neglect of duty. Petitioners want a special monitor appointed to oversee the district after long-running disagreements between public school parents and the school board. The parents claim that the school board is favoring the Orthodox Jewish community by using state resources to place students with disabilities in private schools, and in attempts to sell two former school buildings to yeshivas at below-market value. The district has laid off 25% of its teachers in recent years. School board president Daniel Schwartz charged that suggesting Orthodox Jewish board members could not deal with the needs of non-Jewish children is offensive and anti-Semitic. (See prior related posting.)

Friday, July 27, 2012

Court Issues Preliminary Injunction In Corporation's Challenge To ACA Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

Today in Newland v. Sebelius,(D CO, July 27, 2012), a Colorado federal district judge relied on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in issuing a preliminary injunction against enforcing the contraceptive coverage mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act against a small private company. The lawsuit was brought by Hercules Industries, Inc., a small manufacturing company, and its Catholic officers and directors. Plaintiffs allege that the company maintains a self-insured group health plan for its employees "[a]s part of fulfilling their organizational mission and Catholic beliefs and commitments." To further strengthen its position, the company recently added provisions to its articles of incorporation specifying that its primary purposes are to be achieved by "following appropriate religious, ethical or moral standards," and allowing its board to prioritize "religious, ethical or moral standards" over profitability.

The court held that:

Because this case presents "questions going to the merits . . . so serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful as to make the issue ripe for litigation and deserving of more deliberate investigation," I find it appropriate to enjoin the implementation of the preventive care coverage mandate as applied to Plaintiffs.

The court pointed out that among the questions of first impression posed by the case are:

Can a corporation exercise religion? Should a closely-held subchapter-s corporation owned and operated by a small group of individuals professing adherence to uniform religious beliefs be treated differently than a publicly held corporation owned and operated by a group of stakeholders with diverse religious beliefs? Is it possible to “pierce the veil” and disregard the corporate form in this context? What is the significance of the pass-through taxation applicable to subchapter-s corporations as it pertains to this analysis?

Nevertheless, the court concluded that it was unlikely that the government could show, as required by RFRA, that its interest in uniform application of the Affordable Care Act was a compelling interest or that it had used the least restrictive means to achieve that interest in this case. The Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the decision, as did Alliance Defending Freedom.

Romney Moves Jerusalem Fund Raiser Further From End of Tisha b'Av

JTA reports that the Mitt Romney campaign has moved a $50,000 per person fund raiser he plans to hold in Jerusalem during his current trip overseas from Saturday night to Sunday morning. The campaign had been criticized for scheduling the event for just after the end of Tisha b'Av, the Jewish fast day marking the destruction of the first and second Jewish Temples in Jerusalem. The event was originally scheduled for 9:30 p.m., an hour after the end of the holy day.

President Names 2 To Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

The White House announced yesterday President Obama's intention to appoint two new members to the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The new appointees are: Maria T. Nagorski, Executive Director of the nonprofit organization Fair Chance which focuses on issues of child poverty; and Elder Steven E. Snow, Church Historian, Recorder, and Church History Department Executive Director for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Pentagon Hosts Iftar Dinner

On Wednesday the Pentagon hosted its 13th annual Iftar dinner to mark the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. According to the American Armed Forces Press Service, among the 120 guests were Defense Department officials; military officers from Iraq, Bangladesh, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey and Bahrain; ambassadors from South Africa and Bahrain; and the two Muslim members of Congress. In his remarks (full text) to the dinner, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said in part:

We’re grateful to be able to host this Iftar Dinner at the Pentagon and share in one of the great traditions of the Muslim faith.

We’re also able to affirm one of the fundamental principles of our country – our ability to freely practice our chosen faith and to be able to worship our God wherever we are.

[Thanks to God and Country blog for the lead.]

New Poll Shows Most Americans Comfortable With Romney's Religion; Still Confusion Over Obama's Beliefs

Yesterday, the Pew Research Center released a new poll on religion and politics (full report). It finds that among the 60% of Americans that know Mitt Romney is a Mormon, 60% say they are comfortable with that while 19% say they are uncomfortable. Meanwhile, 17% of all those surveyed and 30% of Republicans think Barack Obama's religion is Muslim.

City To Redesign Logo To Remove Cross and Chapel

The Steubenville, Ohio Herald Star reports that Steubenville's City Council agreed Tuesday night to redesign the city's logo after a complaint (full text of letter) from the Freedom From Religion Foundation objecting to the depiction on the logo of Christ the King Chapel on the campus of Steubenville's Franciscan University-- including a Latin cross on top of the chapel. According to yesterday's Herald Star, the logo was just unveiled in December. Apparently the city planned to use the logo on city letterhead, signs, vehicles and on the floor of the courthouse. FFRF had argued:

Any claims of historical or cultural significance to the Latin cross on the Steubenville logo do not relieve the city of its constitutional obligations. The City of Steubenville must not endorse 'faith' and church. While we understand that Franciscan University is a part of the city, the city may not depict the university chapel and cross because to do so places the city's imprimatur behind Christianity.

The city's law director said that they will approach the original designer of the logo and ask him to replace the chapel on the logo with a silhouette of another campus building, such as the library or a dormitory. Designer Mark Nelson said they had already designed a version without the cross, but he does not understand why a silhouette of the chapel itself is objectionable.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

6th Circuit: Undue Hardship Showing In Title VII Case Refers to Hardship On Employer, Not Employees

In Crider v. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, (6th Cir., July 23, 2012), a Seventh Day Adventist was fired from her position as one of the coordinators of the University of Tennessee's Programs Abroad when she refused to perform work-related tasks from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. Particularly at issue was her rotating weekends with two others to monitor the emergency cell phone which students abroad could call in case of emergency. In a 2-1 decision in a Title VII religious discrimination case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgement to the University. The majority held that Title VII requires reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs unless doing so would impose undue hardship on the employer's business. Hardship on fellow employees who are asked to switch shifts is not enough unless this would create an employee morale problem that affects the employer's ability to operate its business. Genuine issues of fact remained for trial on the question of reasonable accommodation. Judge McKeague dissented. [Thanks to Michael Masinter via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Ft. Hood Shooter Held In Contempt By Military Judge For Refusing To Shave Beard

According to YNN Austin, a military judge yesterday held accused Fort Hood mass shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan, in contempt for refusing to shave his beard that he is wearing for religious reasons. The military judge previously ruled that Hasan's beard violates military grooming regulations and disrupts court proceedings. (See prior posting.) Last month, the court excluded Hasan from the court room and relegated him to watching the hearings in his case on closed circuit television in a trailer outside the court house. (See prior posting.) Yesterday Military Judge Col. Gregory Gross fined Hasan $1000. Hasan continued to insist on keeping his beard, saying that shaving it would signify rejection of an important tenet of Islam. The court suggested that it might order Hasan to be forcibly shaved once the important parts of his trial begin so Hasan can be in the court room.

Scottish Government Will Move Ahead With Same-Sex Marriage Law; Will Protect Conscience Rights

After conducting a public consultation last year, the government of Scotland announced yesterday that it intends to move ahead with legislation to permit same-sex marriage and religious ceremonies for civil partnerships. However it will also add protections for freedom of speech and religion. SDGLN reports on these developments and reprints the full text of the Scottish Government's announcement. No religious body will be required to conduct same-sex marriages. The Government will also seek an amendment to the UK Equality Act to assure protection for clergy who disagree with their religious organization's decision to perform same-sex marriages. Currently the Equality Act grants an exemption from equality requirements only where necessary to comply with the doctrine of a religious organization or to avoid conflict with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the followers of the religion or belief. The Scottish government will also include provisions to protect the beliefs of teachers and parents in schools. The curriculum in Catholic schools will continue to be controlled by the Scottish Catholic Education Service.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Scientology Sea Org Members Did Not Show Trafficking Victims Protection Act Violations

In Headley v. Church of Scientology International, (9th Cir., July 24, 2012), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a husband and wife, both former members of the Church of Scientology's Sea Org, failed to show that the Church had forced them to provide labor in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The court said:

The one adverse consequence the Headleys could have faced, had they taken any of their many opportunities before 2005 to leave the Sea Org, was to have been declared "suppressive persons" and thus potentially to have lost contact with family, friends, or each other. But that consequence is not "serious harm"—and warning of such a consequence is not a "threat"—under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

By deciding the case on statutory grounds, the appeals court did not have to pass on the correctness of the trial court's ruling that plaintiffs' claims of psychological coercion were barred by the ministerial exception doctrine. (See prior related posting.) Reuters reports on the decision.

New Report Released On Christian Right's Political Activities In Africa

Political Research Associates, a Massachusetts-based progressive think tank, yesterday released a new report titled Colonizing African Values: How the U.S. Christian Right is Transforming Sexual Politics in Africa. According to the Executive Summary:

This report investigates how key U.S. Christian conservatives of various backgrounds—Roman Catholics and Mormons, as well as right-leaning evangelicals—are expanding the U.S. Christian Right infrastructure on the African continent with new institutions and campaigns that are reshaping national political dynamics and even laws based on an American template. Within the past five years, the Roman Catholic Human Life International (HLI), the Pat Robertson-founded American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ-USA), and Family Watch International (FWI), led by a Mormon, have launched or expanded their work in Africa dedicated to promoting their Christian Right worldview. A loose network of rightwing charismatic Christians called the Transformation movement joins them in fanning the flames of the culture wars over homosexuality and abortion by backing prominent African campaigners and political leaders.

LGBTQ Nation has more on the report.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Monsignor Gets 3 to 6 Year Sentence For Cover-Up of Priest Sexual Abuse

According to Reuters, Monsignor William Lynn, who was convicted in June (see prior posting) on one count of child endangerment for covering up sexual abuse by other priests was sentenced today to 3 to 6 years in prison. Lynn served as the Philadelphia Archdiocese's chief investigator on clergy misconduct. He transferred priests to other parishes without disclosing the sex abuse charges that had been leveled against them. Lynn is the highest ranking U.S. Church official to be convicted of covering up clergy sexual misconduct.

Conservative Congressman Criticizes Bachmann's Muslim Brotherhood Claims

Think Progress reported yesterday on remarks by conservative Wisconsin Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner strongly defending the 1st Amendment's religious freedom protections as well as the constitutional ban on religious tests for federal office. The remarks came in Sensenbrenner's rejection of charges by Rep. Michelle Bachmann, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated government policies and activities. Bachmann last month sent a letters to the inspectors general of 5 federal agencies demanding that they investigate.(Links to full text of each letter.) When challenged by Rep. Kieth Ellison, Bachmann responed with a 16-page letter (full text) particularly singling out Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Last week, Sen. John McCain, in a speech on the floor of the Sentate (full text) strongly defended Abedin, saying: "When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation, and we all grow poorer because of it."

7th Circuit En Banc: High School Graduation In Church Violated Establishment Clause

In a 7-3 en banc decision yesterday in Doe 3 v. Elmbrook School District, (7th Cir., July 23, 2012), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that two Wisconsin high schools violated the Establishment Clause when they regularly held their graduation ceremonies in the sanctuary of a non-denominational evangelical Christian church. Judge Flaum, writing for the majority and attempting to limit the decision to the facts of this case, said that "an unacceptable amount of religious endorsement and coercion occurred when the District held important civil ceremonies in the proselytizing environment of Elmbrook Church." He explained:

high school students and their younger siblings were exposed to graduation ceremonies that put a spiritual capstone on an otherwise-secular education. Literally and figuratively towering over the graduation proceedings in the church’s sanctuary space was a 15- to 20-foot tall Latin cross, the preeminent symbol of Christianity.... [T]he sheer religiosity of the space created a likelihood that high school students and their younger siblings would perceive a link between church and state....

[I]f constitutional doctrine teaches that a school cannot create a pervasively religious environment in the classroom... it appears overly formalistic to allow a school to engage in identical practices when it acts through a short-term lessee.

Judge Hamilton joined the majority opinion but also wrote separately to respond further to the dissents.

Judge Ripple wrote a dissent, joined by Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judge Posner. He said in part:

To the reasonable attendee ... it was obvious that the public high school that educated the graduates does not own the church and did not place in the church the various displays and iconography that disturb the plaintiffs.... [I]it would be totally unreasonable for any student to attribute to the District any endorsement of the message of the iconography; it belongs to—and they know it belongs to—someone else. It symbolizes the landlord’s view, not the District’s view....

At bottom, today’s holding requires that the state assume the affirmative obligation of avoiding any association with a “pervasively religious” organization when that association would require an individual to be exposed—even incidentally and passively—to expressions of that organization’s “religiosity.” Should this principle ... become imbedded in our law, it will undermine significantly the principles that presently form the foundations of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Those religions that toe the line and conform to the profile of a “safe religion” will enjoy full acceptance by the civil polity. Those who remain “pervasively religious” will find themselves in the shadows of the American journey.

Judges Easterbrook and Posner each wrote a separate dissent as well. Judge Posner ended his dissent as follows:

Separation rulings by the Supreme Court seem only to stimulate religious fervor. Religions thrive on persecution, real or imagined. Where would Christianity be without its martyrs? The real winner of this case is likely to be—Elmbrook Church.

Americans United issued a release announcing the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Monday, July 23, 2012

Muslim Olympic Athletes Face Issue of Ramadan Fast

CNN reported yesterday on the dilemma facing Muslim athletes competing in the London Olympics starting this week. It is still Ramadan, and they must decide whether or not they will eat and drink during daylight hours, or instead observe the traditional dawn to dusk fast. In London, this would make it a 17-hour fast each day. Sports nutritionist Hala Barghout says that it is physically impossible for the athletes to eat the amount of food they need in the 7 hours that remain each day. But Ahmed Abdul Aziz Al Haddad, grand mufti of Dubai, says:

Playing sports is not a requirement in Islam. Players become athletes by choice. This optional activity, therefore, does not allow athletes to break their fast.... They must be ambassadors of their faith.....

He says that athletes may eat or drink if fasting threatens their health, "but to immediately break your fast without being hungry or thirsty is the same as submitting to your cravings and lusts, and not putting God's desire before your own."

Muslim authorities hold varying opinions on the issue. British Olympic rower Moe Sbihi, after discussing the issue with his imam, says he will not fast during the games. Instead he will observe a fast later, and will feed 1,800 hungry people in Morocco after the Olympics as compensation for not fasting during Ramadan.

English Court Applies Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine To Dispute Over Sikh Leadership

In Khaira & Ors v Shergill & Ors, (EWCA, July 17, 2012), the England and Wales Court of Appeal held that a dispute over who has the power to name trustees of two Sikh Guwardas is not justiciable because it would require the court to resolve a dispute grounded in religious faith, doctrine and practice. At issue are trust deeds that give the express power to remove and appoint trustees of the Guwardas (one in Birmingham and the other in High Wycomb) to the First Holy Saint and his successors. The parties to the litigation disagree over whether whether the 9th claimant, Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj, is "the Third Holy Saint" and whether he is "successor" (via the Second Holy Saint) to the First Holy Saint. In an opinion by Lord Justice Mummery (with which the two other judges agreed), the court said:

... [C]ourts abstain from adjudicating on the truth, merits or sincerity of differences in religious doctrine or belief and on the correctness or accuracy of religious practice, custom or tradition. The courts also exercise caution in adjudicating on the fitness or otherwise of a particular individual to carry out the spiritual duties of a religious office, although there are some employment rights cases in which jurisdiction has been exercised on the basis of the existence of a contract of employment and of statutory rights not to be unfairly dismissed or discriminated against on a prohibited ground....

... [T]his court should put a halt to this case now. It is being asked to pronounce on a matter on which it cannot speak and should not pretend to speak with authority. The court risks diminishing respect for its own authority, as happened, for example, to the 19th century jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, when, in a more religious age, it gave appellate decisions (often ignored) in its ecclesiastical jurisdiction on points of the interpretation of scripture, doctrine, sacraments, ritual and vestments that arose in religious controversies in the established church. Those unfortunate and rather pointless battles in the courts have been rightly described as a cross-fire of jurisdictions that were a gold mine for barristers.

UK Human Rights Blog discusses the decision.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Hasidic Retailers In Williamsburg Seek To Impose Dress Code On Customers

The New York Post today reports on the growing trend in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn for retail stores owned by Hasidic Jews to try to impose a dress code on all their customers. Stores, including hardware, clothing and electronic retailers, have posted signs in English and Spanish reading "No Shorts, No Barefoot, No Sleeveless, No Low Cut Neckline Allowed in the Store." Williamsburg is the home to many Hasidic Jews, but also is a center for the arts and music that the Post describes as a "hipster haven." (See Free Williamsburg blog.) An Orthodox resident of Williamsburg says: "We’re not concerned about the way women dress in Manhattan — but we are concerned with bringing 42nd Street to this neighborhood." Cardozo Law Professor Marci Hamilton says: "It’s further evidence of this era’s move toward Balkanization in the United States." The signs do not appear to violate any state or federal statutes.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Chavez v. Lewis, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97753 (ND CA, July 13, 2012), a California federal district court denied the habeas corpus petition of a state prisoner who claims that his continued placement in the prison's security housing unit violates his 1st Amendment free exercise rights as well as his rights under RLUIPA. Authorities claimed that petitioner had two pictures containing the Mactlactlomei symbol-- which they say was evidence of gang affiliation and petitioner claims was a religious symbol.

In De'Lonta v. Johnson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98705 (WD VA, July 17, 2012), a Virginia federal district court denied on various grounds free exercise and RLUIPA claims by a female inmate who was a member of the Assemblies of Yahweh affiliation of Judaism who was seeking kosher meals, a head scarf and performance of a candle lighting ceremony.

In Wright v. Godinez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98950 (ND IL, July 16, 2012), an Illinois federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was denied a prayer cap, prayer rug, and religious oil that he needed in order to practice his religion.

In Yisrael v. Beasley, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98899 (ED NC, July 17, 2012), a North Carolina federal district court permitted an inmate who practiced the Hebrew Israelite religion to move ahead with his claim that his right to wear a tallit and kippah was improperly restricted. However the court dismissed his claims regarding access to kosher food and recognition of the Hebrew Israelite religion by prison officials because those demands were now largely met by prison authorities.

New York MTA Ban On Ads That Demean Religious Groups Violates 1st Amendment

In American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, (SD NY, July 20, 2012), a New York federal district court held unconstitutional the provision in the standards for the sale of ad space on New York City buses that prohibits ads which demean a religious group. AFDI wanted to buy ad space on the tails of 318 NYCTA buses to run an ad reading: "In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad." The court held that advertising space on exterior of buses is a designated public forum in which content based restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny. The MTA policy at issue which precludes ads that demean an individual or group on account of "race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation" was seen to be content based: "as presently worded, [it] overtly differentiates among speech based on the target of the speech's abuse and invective." The New York Times reports on the decision. [Thanks to Steven H Sholk for the lead and to Fairness blog for posting the decision.]

Saturday, July 21, 2012

11th Circuit: Limits On Carrying Guns In House of Worship Do Not Violate Free Exercise Rights

In GeorgiaCarry.org, Inc. v. State of Georgia, (11th Cir., July 20, 2012), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected constitutional challenges to a Georgia law restricting the the right to freely carry handguns, knives or long guns in 8 specific locations, including any place of worship. After holding that plaintiffs who hold weapons carry licenses and regularly attend church services have standing to challenge the law, the court held that the law violates neither the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment nor the right to bear arms protected by the 2nd Amendment. It rejected plaintiff's free exercise complaint because plaintiff failed to show how the law burdens a sincerely held religious belief. It is not enough to merely allege that the law prohibits activities in a place of worship that are generally permitted elsewhere throughout the state. The court rejected plaintiffs' 2nd Amendment claim because the law merely vindicates the right of a private property owner-- here a place of worship-- to decide whether to allow firearms on its premises. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports on the decision.

President Issues Ramadan Greetings

President Obama yesterday released a statement (full text) sending Ramadan wishes from himself and Michelle to Muslim Americans and Muslims around the world. He said in part:

This year, Ramadan holds special meaning for those citizens in the Middle East and North Africa who are courageously achieving democracy and self-determination and for those who are still struggling to achieve their universal rights. The United States continues to stand with those who seek the chance to decide their own destiny, to live free from fear and violence, and to practice their faith freely. Here in the United States, Ramadan reminds us that Islam is part of the fabric of our Nation, and that—from public service to business, from healthcare and science to the arts—Muslim Americans help strengthen our country and enrich our lives.

The statement also indicated that again this year the White House will host an iftar dinner.

Friday, July 20, 2012

Appeals Court: Amish Man Failed To Show Sincere Religious Objection To Zoning Permit

In County of Jackson v. Borntreger, (WI App., July 19, 2012), a Wisconsin state appellate court, in a civil forfeiture action, rejected a claim by defendant, a member of the Amish faith, that applying for a county zoning permit before constructing a saw mill on his property would have unconstitutionally violated his religious freedom. The court concluded that neither defendant nor others who spoke on his behalf in court established that he held a sincere religious belief that was burdened by enforcement of the zoning law. The court said:

No oral or written religion tradition is cited, beyond the general reference to “their [Amish] religion.” No specific religious rule or tenet is described. In effect, Douglas [who spoke for defendant] generically applies the word "religion" to the same idea already expressed by Borntreger about his preference for a less complicated application process, without explaining what religious tenet or tradition would be burdened. Beliefs in general concepts of non-conformity or simplicity, without further explanation or specificity, are simply too general and vague to support a finding that any particular aspect of enforcement of the zoning ordinance burdens a sincerely held religious belief.

Yesterday's Winona Daily News reports on the decision.

Another Court Tosses ACA Contraceptive Coverage Mandate Suit On Ripeness Grounds

For the second time in two days (see prior posting), a federal district court has dismissed on justiciability grounds a lawsuit challenging the mandate under the Affordable Care Act requiring most health insurance policies to cover contraceptive services. In Belmont Abbey College v. Sebelius, (D DC, July 18, 2012), the federal district court for the District of Columbia held that a Benedictine College could not proceed at this time with its lawsuit claiming that the mandate violates its strongly held religious beliefs against sponsoring any health insurance plan that pays for contraception, sterilization or abortion. The court held that while Belmont Abbey College sufficiently alleged standing, the case should be dismissed on ripeness grounds. It said in part:

[T]he Court has before it a challenge to final regulations that Defendants have promised to amend.... The Court thus concludes ... that the Departments’ position on the policy at issue remains indeterminate..... The rulemaking process is still in its early stages, and the contents of the final amendment have not yet been decided. It would thus be premature to find that the amendment will not adequately address Plaintiff’s concerns....

Life News reports on the decision.

Russian Mufti Injured, Aide Killed, In Attacks; Motives Unclear

Radio Free Europe reports that in the Russian republic of Tartarstan on Wednesday, the government-backed top Islamic leader, mufti Ildus Faizov, was injured when unknown assailants blew up his car in the capital of Kazan. In a separate incident, the mufti's deputy, Valilulla Yakupov, was shot and killed near his home in Kazan. No one has claimed responsibility for the attacks that took place in the mainly Muslim republic just before the start of Ramadan. Interfax is carrying various theories about the attacks. One article suggests that the attack on Yakupov, an historian who founded Russia's first Islamic publishing house, was in retaliation for his opposition to fundamentalist Wahhabism which he saw as a threat to traditional Islam. Another article suggests that the mufti was attacked because Tartarstan's Muslims were unhappy with the his failure to carry out his promises to lower the cost of hajj tours after he put the sale of all hajj tours under his personal control. The Russian Investigative Committee and Tatar officials say that investigations of the attacks are under way.

German Bundestag Passes Resolution Urging Legalization of Circumcision

The Bundestag, the lower house of Germany's parliament, yesterday passed a resolution urging the government to present a draft law this fall when parliament resumes to guarantee "that the circumcision of boys, carried out with medical expertise and without unnecessary pain, is permitted." The resolution said that: "Jewish and Muslim religious life must continue to be possible in Germany. Circumcision has a central religious significance for Jews and Muslims."

As reported by the Global Post and The Forward, the resolution is designed to overrule a controversial decision last month by a court in Cologne that found circumcision of minors unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) The resolution was filed jointly by Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union, the Social Democratic Party and the Free Democratic Party. It was opposed only by members of the socialist Left Party who urged that only a symbolic circumcision be allowed on minors, to be completed in adulthood on request. The resolution was hurried through in a special session of the Bundestag called to vote on economic aid for Spain.

School Board Settles Suit, Agreeing Not To Hold Graduation In Church

The Enfield, Connecticut School Board voted 6-3 on Wednesday night to settle a lawsuit brought against it by the ACLU and Americans United challenging its holding graduation exercises in a Christian church. (See prior posting.) The Hartford Courant reports that under the settlement, the school board agrees not to hold future graduations at First Cathedral and will pay an undisclosed portion of plaintiffs' $1 million in legal fees. The school board's insurer will cover up to $470,000 of the settlement. Board member Jennifer Rancourt, who voted in favor of the settlement said: "If it is something that offends a few people, then we have to respect that." Board member Kevin Fealy, one of the 3 who voted against the settlement, said: "Deep pockets with nothing to lose have the opportunity to push us into a corner."

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Canadian Tribunal Finds Christian B&B Owners Violated Human Rights Code By Cancelling Reservation For Gay Couple

In Eadie and Thomas v. Riverbend Bed and Breakfast, (BCHRT, July 17, 2012), the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal held that a bed and breakfast in a small Canadian town, and its owners who are members of the Mennonite Brethren Church, violated the sexual orientation discrimination provisions of the B.C. Human Rights Code when they cancelled a room reservation after learning that it had been made by a same-sex couple. The Tribunal held that it lacks jurisdiction to determine whether the Human Rights Code conflicts with the freedom of religion provisions of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That issue must be presented to a court. Instead, the Tribunal is limited to determining whether respondents had a "bona fide and reasonable justification" to discriminate. The Tribunal Member hearing the case wrote:

I accept that the Molnars [the B&B owners] hold a sincere, personal and core religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and that sex outside of such a marriage,including same-sex sexual relations, is a sin. I also accept that the Molnars sincerely believe that to allow a same-sex couple to stay in a single bed in their home would harm their relationship to their Lord, and that they would not rent a room in their home for a purpose that conflicted with, or was contrary to, their personal religious beliefs....

She concluded, however, that to be acceptable, a justification had to be rationally related to the function or purpose of the bed and breakfast. Here the policy of restricting rooms with one bed to heterosexual couples was rationally related to the owners' religious beliefs, but not to the B&B's purpose of offering temporary accommodations to the general public. The Tribunal issued a cease and desist order and awarded damages, including $1500 to each of the complainants for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

The Province, reporting on the decision, says that the Molnars stopped operating their bed and breakfast when the complaint was filed against them, and they do not intend to reopen. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

TRO Obtained By Justice Department Expedites Occupancy Permit For Murfreesboro Mosque In Time For Ramadan

For Muslims, Ramadan begins at sundown this evening. Yesterday, a Tennessee federal district court judge issued a 14-day temporary restraining order (full text) in United States v. Rutherford County, Tennessee, (MD TN, July 18, 2012) requiring county officials to expedite the issuance of an occupancy permit for a controversial mosque in Murfreesboro (TN). The TRO was issued on the same day the lawsuit was filed. The Islamic Center's Memorandum of Law in support of its application for a TRO in parallel litigation outlines the lengthy legal battle that has been waged over the mosque. In 2011, the Tennessee Chancery Court dismissed challenges to the Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission's approval of building plans for the mosque, but allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their claim that the county violated the Open Meetings Act when it publicized the Planning Commission meeting only in the Murfreesboro Post. That conclusion was based on the perceived importance of the matter to be discussed at the meeting. (See prior posting.) Five days later the state court refused to require a halt to ongoing construction of the mosque, but barred the county from issuing an occupancy permit. Yesterday the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit (full text of complaint) in federal district court alleging that Rutherford County, in complying with the Chancery Court's order, violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. (DOJ press release). In issuing the TRO, the court said that the heightened notice requirement imposed by the state court's interpretation of the Open Meetings Act substantially burdens the Islamic Center's free exercise of religion without a compelling governmental interest.

UPDATE: As reported by the Christian Science Monitor, the mosque construction supervisor says the the building will not be ready for occupancy for about two more weeks. Members hope to be in the building before the end of Ramadan.

Another Lawsuit Filed Challenging Affordable Care Act Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

Yesterday yet another lawsuit was filed challenging on religious liberty and other grounds the mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act requiring health insurance policies to cover contraceptive services (as well as education and counseling of women with reproductive capacity). This time the suit was filed by Wheaton College, an evangelical Christian liberal arts college in Illinois. The suit was filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C. where a separate suit brought by Catholic University of America and four other Catholic institutions is already pending. In announcing the filing of yesterday's lawsuit-- the 24th separate suit challenging the mandate (list of lawsuits)-- the Becket Fund said that this "marks the first-ever partnership between Catholic and evangelical institutions to oppose the same regulation in the same court." The complaint (full text) in Wheaton College v. Sebelius, (D DC, filed 7/18/2012) alleges in part:

2... Wheaton’s religious beliefs forbid it from participating in, providing access to, paying for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting abortion..... 3. With full knowledge of these beliefs, the government issued an administrative rule... that runs roughshod over Wheaton’s religious beliefs... by forcing it to provide health insurance coverage for abortifacient drugs and related education and counseling.

4. The government’s Mandate unconstitutionally coerces Wheaton to violate its deeply-held religious beliefs under threat of heavy fines and penalties. The Mandate also forces Wheaton to facilitate government-dictated speech that is incompatible with its own speech and religious teachings. Having to pay a penalty to the taxing authorities for the privilege of practicing one’s religion or controlling one’s own speech is un-American, unprecedented, and flagrantly unconstitutional.

Christianity Today reports on yesterday's lawsuit. [Thanks to Lael Weinberger for the lead.]

3rd Circuit: Religious Accommodation For Bus Driver Would Involve Undue Hardship On Employer

In Fouche v. NJ Transit, (3d Cir., July 16, 2012), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that accommodating a bus driver's need for religious reasons to not work on Sundays would have placed an undue hardship on New Jersey Transit. It would have required the transit authority to shift some Sunday driving to other drivers in breach of the seniority provision of the union's collective bargaining agreement. The court said it was impressed by the agency's willingness to employ the driver on a part-time basis to make it possible for him to avoid Sunday driving. [Thanks to CCH Employment Law Daily via Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Town Reacts To Group's Complaint About Cross On Public Property

The Indianapolis Star reported Tuesday on the reaction of residents of Dugger, Indiana to the complaint filed by Americans United with the Town Council over a cross put up two years ago on a piece of land owned by the town located near the "Welcome to Duggar" sign. The 26-foot tall cross, with "Jesus Saves" written on it, was put up by a 72-year old retired welder with the approval of Town Council. Now however, to the consternation of many residents, Council president Dwight Nielson says the town cannot afford to fight this in court, and would likely lose anyway. He is considering either moving the cross to private property or selling the land on which the cross stands to Faith Community Church that owns the cross. Charles Hay, who originally proposed to the Town Council that it allow the cross on public property said of the cross: "It ain’t hurting nobody. If you’re not for it, don’t look at it."

Population Flees Northern Mali As Strict Islamic Law Is Imposed

A front-page article in today's New York Times reports on the thousands fleeing from the imposition of strict Islamic law in the northern section of the African country of Mali:

The vast desert expanse of northern Mali has become a magnet for Islamic extremists who have tightened their grip on Timbuktu and other far-flung towns, imposing a strict form of justice that is prompting tens of thousands of people to flee what some are likening to an African Afghanistan.

Rattled recent arrivals at a 92,000-person makeshift camp here at Mauritania’s remote eastern edge describe an influx of jihadists — some homegrown and others possibly from afar — intent on imposing an Islam of lash and gun on Malian Muslims who have long coexisted with Western tourists in the fabled town of Timbuktu.

Ministerial Exception Inapplicable To FLSA Suit By Mashgiach Against Catering Firm

Altman v. Sterling Caterers, (SD FL, July 17, 2012), is a suit alleging violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) brought by a masgiach (kosher standards supervisor) against the catering firm for whom he works. Plaintiff Mauricio Altman supervises the food served by the catering company at the Jewish Community Center in Davie, Florida. The court, in a decision by a federal magistrate judge, rejected defendants' claim that the lawsuit should be dismissed under the ministerial exemption (ministerial exception) doctrine. It held that without deciding whether or not the ministerial exception applies to suits under the FLSA, the defendant, a commercial catering firm, would not qualify for the exemption because it is not a religious institution:

As a for-profit catering company providing both kosher and non-kosher food, Sterling is more akin to a restaurant serving special food to customers than a religious institution.

Challenge To ACA Contraceptive Services Mandate Dismissed On Standing and Ripeness Grounds

In State of Nebraska v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, (D NE, July 17, 2012), a Nebraska federal district court dismissed on standing and ripeness grounds a lawsuit by 7 states, 3 Catholic organizations and 2 individuals challenging the mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act that health insurance policies (with limited exceptions) cover contraceptive services. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs claimed that the mandate will coerce religious institutions and organizations to subsidize contraception, abortifacients, sterilization, and related services in violation of their religious beliefs. They also alleged that state budgetary stability will be threatened if religious organization employers stop providing health insurance in order to avoid the mandate.

The court held that the 3 Catholic organizational plaintiffs as well as the 2 individuals lack standing because their health plans are grandfathered and thus not covered by the mandate. Also it was not shown that the employers of the individual plaintiffs do not qualify for the narrow religious organization exemption from the mandate. The court held that the states' theory of standing "is based on layers of conjecture." The complaint:

merely offers guesses about how independent actors will respond to the Rule and speculation that these responses could cause people to qualify for, and obtain, state benefits that they would not otherwise seek, which will then strain the States’s budgets. This is not sufficient to establish standing.

The court also held that the claims are not ripe:

although the Rule that lies at the heart of the plaintiffs’ complaint establishes a definitive, final definition of "religious employer," ... [it] is currently undergoing a process of amendment to accommodate these organizations. The plaintiffs face no direct and immediate harm, and one can only speculate whether the plaintiffs will ever feel any effects from the Rule when the temporary enforcement safe harbor terminates....

AP reporting on the decision quotes Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning's reaction:

Today's decision completely disregards the federal government's continued shell game when it comes to this rule. Essentially, this decision asks millions of Americans to watch and wait for their religious liberties to be violated.

Israel's Coalition Government Fragments Over Law To Draft Ultra-Orthodox Yeshiva Students

In Israel yesterday, the Kadima Party withdrew from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition government after only 73 days when negotiators were unable to reach a compromise on a new law to provide for the drafting of haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jews into the Israeli military. The withdrawal of the 28 Kadima members of the Knesset from the coalition left Netanyahu with a narrow majority in the 120-seat legislative body. As reported by the Jerusalem Post and JTA, Prime Minister Netanyahu had proposed a law that would have required half of the haredi men to enlist in the military at age 18-23, while the other half would have performed civilian service at ages 23-26. Kadima leader Shaul Mofaz said that this did not go far enough toward the concept of equal service by all. The current Tal Law that grants draft deferrals to most haredi yeshiva students was struck down by the Israeli Supreme Court in February. (See prior posting.) If the Knesset does not pass a new law by August 1, the Defense Ministry will have authority to draft all yeshiva students. Defense Minister Ehud Barak said his ministry would increase the number of yeshiva students who are drafted, but would not conscript all haredi.

Faith-Based Recovery Shelter Loses RLUIPA Challenge To Zoning and Fire Code Enforcement

In Affordable Recovery Housing v. City of Blue Island, (ND IL, July 13, 2012), an Illinois federal district court denied a faith-based recovery and housing facility a preliminary injunction it sought to prevent enforcement against it of Blue Island, Illinois' zoning and fire codes. Plaintiff claimed that the city's enforcement activity violated the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and Illinois' Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court held, however, that neither the requirement to obtain a special use permit to operate the extensive residential and training facility in an area zoned for residential usage, nor the requirement to install a sprinkler system, imposed a substantial burden on plaintiff.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Justice Department Files Brief In Support of Native American Inmates' Challenge To No Tobacco Rule

As reported by AP, the U.S. Department of Justice yesterday filed a brief in support of Native American inmates who are challenging South Dakota's ban on their use of tobacco in religious ceremonies. The government's brief (full text), captioned "Statement of Interest of the United States," in Native American Council of Tribes v. Weber, (D SD, filed 7/16/2012), contends that the ban violates inmates' rights protected by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The government argues:

Defendants’ argument that plaintiffs are not substantially burdened by the tobacco ban is, in actuality, a request for a judicial determination of the importance and centrality of tobacco use to the plaintiffs’ religious practice. This determination, however, is explicitly forbidden by RLUIPA and relevant case law, and this court should decline to undertake such a task.

RFRA Challenge By Native Americans To Solar Project Rejected

In La Cuna De Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Committee v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97759 (CD CA, July 13, 2012), a California federal district court rejected a claim by a Native American group that a solar energy generation project on federal land approved by the government will substantially burden their religious exercise in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. According to the court:

Alleging that the Project impedes Plaintiff's access to a religious site [the Salt Song Trails] is simply not enough to suggest that the Plaintiffs are deprived of the kind of benefit protected by RFRA....Neither do Plaintiffs demonstrate how the Project forces them to act contrary to their religious beliefs....

Early Cert. Petition Filed In Another DOMA Case

In an unusual tactical move announced yesterday, a petition for certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Windsor v. United States even though the case has not yet been decided by the Second Circuit where an appeal is pending. In the case, a New York federal district court held that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) At issue is whether the federal government must recognize the unlimited estate tax marital deduction in the case of the death of a same-sex spouse. The lesbian couple involved had been legally married in Canada. The ACLU explained its reasoning in petitioning on behalf of the parties that prevailed at trial before the government's appeal has been decided:

At this point petitions for Supreme Court review have been filed in two other DOMA cases – GLAD’s Gill v. OPM case, which has been decided by the First Circuit, and Lambda Legal’s Golinski v. OPM case, which, like Windsor v. United States, doesn’t have an appeals court decision yet.

The Court will likely decide the constitutionality of DOMA this coming term, using one or more of these cases as vehicles for addressing the issue. We filed because we believe that Edie [Windsor's] story is a strong addition to the striking collection of plaintiffs in the Gill case and to Karen Golinski’s story as well. Now the Court has three cases, offering a variety of harms, to choose from.

[Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

7th Day Adventists Challenge Alabama City's License Requirement For Door-to-Door Solicitaitons

The Birmingham (AL) News reported yesterday that the South Central Conference of the Seventh Day Adventist Church has filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Alabaster, Alabama challenging the constitutionality of its ordinances governing door-to-door pamphleteering and solicitation. The suit was filed after a member of the Church's Summer Student Missionary Program was ticketed for failing to register and pay a license fee under the city's business license permit and solicitation ordinances. The Church contends that the ordinances impose an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. The solicitation permit ordinance requires review by a city-council appointed committee, with the potential for a public hearing. The court has set a hearing for Wednesday on plaintiffs' motion for a temporary injunction barring enforcement of the ordinances.