New High-Budget Noah Movie Banned By Islamic Censors In 3 Countries

WebProNews reports today that censors in Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates have banned the showing in their countries of the new Paramount Pictures high-budget movie "Noah." Also Egypt's Al-Azhar has issued a fatwa against the film.  A spokesman from the UAE’s National Media Center says that the film portrays holy figures in art in contravention of Muslim religious beliefs. Censors also say that the film may offend viewers because some of scenes contradict Islamic teachings.

Boehner, Pelosi Invite Pope To Address Joint Session of Congress

As Pope Francis marks his first anniversary as Pontiff, House Speaker John Boehner announced yesterday that he has extended an open invitation to Pope Francis to address a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress, saying in part:

His tireless call for the protection of the most vulnerable among us—the ailing, the disadvantaged, the unemployed, the impoverished, the unborn—has awakened hearts on every continent....

Many in the United States ... have embraced Pope Francis’ reminder that we cannot meet our responsibility to the poor with a welfare mentality based on business calculations.  We can meet it only with personal charity on the one hand and sound, inclusive policies on the other.

The Holy Father’s pastoral message challenges people of all faiths, ideologies and political parties.  His address as a visiting head of state before a joint meeting of the House and Senate would honor our nation in keeping with the best traditions of our democratic institutions.  It would also offer an excellent opportunity for the American people as well as the nations of the world to hear his message in full.

Time reports that House minority leader Nancy Pelosi issued a statement joining in the invitation.

Suit Seeks Florida Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages

In Florida on Wednesday, eight same-sex couples who were married in other states filed a federal lawsuit seeking to require Florida to recognize their marriages. The complaint (full text) in Grimsley and Albu v. Scott, (ND FL, filed 3/12/2014) contends that the refusal to do so violates the due process and equal protection clauses. ACLU announced the filing of the lawsuit. A state court lawsuit seeking to require Florida to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is already pending. (See prior posting.)

Air Force Academy Controversy Over Cadets Posting Bible Verses

The U.S. Air Force Academy which is no stranger to church-state controversies is now in the midst of one over whether cadets may post Bible verses on the whiteboard each cadet has on his room door.  As reported yesterday by Fox News, the controversy began after a cadet leader posted a verse from Galatians on his dorm room door and another cadet contacted the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.  When MRFF's head complained, the Bible verse was erased.  A dozen other students, though, upset by the removal of the verse began to post other Bible verses-- and some from the Qur'an-- on their own doors. The Academy did not require these to be removed because the students involved are not cadet leaders. meanwhile a coalition of religious advocacy groups has offered assistance to any cadet sanctioned for posting Bible verses on his door.

India's Supreme Court Says Lack of Enforcement of Existing Laws Is At Root of Hate Speech Problem

In Sangathan v. Union of India, (India Sup. Ct., March 12, 2014), a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India refused to issue specific orders for authorities to take action against hate speech by political and religious leaders. Among the requests in the Public Interest Lawsuit was for the court to order suspension of legislators who engage in hate speech and de-recognition of their political parties. However the court concluded that current laws already provide sufficient remedies against hate speech:

The root of the problem is not the absence of laws but rather a lack of their effective execution. Therefore, the executive as well as civil society has to perform its role in enforcing the already exiting legal regime.

The court encouraged the Law Commission to consider defining "hate speech" and make recommendations to Parliament for it to strengthen the Election Commission's powers to curb hate speech. Outlook India reports on the decision.

Georgia Legislature Authorizes Ten Commandments Monument On State Capitol Grounds

According to WSB-TV News, the Georgia State Senate yesterday gave final passage and sent to the governor for his signature HB 702 which authorizes placing within the capitol building or on the statehouse grounds a "historic granite monument" depicting the Preamble to the Georgia Constitution, a line from the Declaration of Independence, and the Ten Commandments. The monument is to be funded only by private contributions.  The bill passed the House last week by a vote of 138-37.  It passed the Senate yesterday by a vote of 40-10.

Montana Supreme Court Rules On Lutheran Church Property Dispute

In New Hope Lutheran Ministry v. Faith Lutheran Church of Great Falls, Inc., (MT Sup. Ct., March  12, 2014), the Montana Supreme Court held that members of a Lutheran congregation-- Faith Lutheran Church-- that voted to break away from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America over ELCA's policy of ordaining gays and lesbians are not entitled to the church's property. The break-away members voted to affiliate instead with Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ. Under Faith Lutheran's constitution, while a 2/3 vote would authorize disaffiliation, a 90% vote was needed before title to the church's property would go to the break-away congregation. Only 71% of members voted to disaffiliate. The court said:

we conclude that a dispute over church documents susceptible to application of neutral principles may ... be resolved by a court using the neutral approach. The challenge raised here by Faith Lutheran to the validity of the 1993 constitution does not require us to delve into doctrinal matters, and only separate, secular language is used. Resolution is possible under application of neutral principles of contract, trust, and corporate law. Thus, no First Amendment concern is raised that would prohibit a court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the dispute.....

Finding that the church's 1993 constitution was valid, the court held that the congregation's property belongs to New Hope Lutheran Ministry-- the group that remains loyal to ELCA. However the court concluded that funds held by a Foundation that was created to support Faith Lutheran Church belong to the break-away congregation. The Montana Supreme Court also published a Synopsis of the Case.  Great Falls Tribune reports on the decision.

Group Seeks Ecclesiastical Proceedings Against Episcopal Bishop For Her Civil Lawsuits Against Break-Away Parishes

Virtue Online reported yesterday that the American Anglican Fellowship (AAF), a group of current and former members of The Episcopal Church (TEC), filed a formal complaint last December with TEC's Intake Officer seeking to invoke formal ecclesiastical proceedings against Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori because of the litigation in civil courts that she has undertaken against break-away parishes. AAF claims:

The litigation authorized by the Presiding Bishop and various bishops asks courts to interpret provisions of the Constitution and Canons. The litigation thus violates Canon IV.19.2, which provides that "No member of the Church, whether lay or ordained, may seek to have the Constitution and Canons interpreted by a secular court, or resort to a secular court to address a dispute arising under the Constitution and Canons, or for any purpose of delay, hindrance, review or otherwise affecting any proceeding under this Title." 

The litigation further violates Canon IV.4.1(e), which requires the Presiding Bishop and various bishops, as members of the Clergy, to "safeguard the property and funds of the Church and Community." The expense for litigation is a violation of the canon since other solutions with substantially less cost have been used in the past and today by TEC as well as the Presbyterian and Lutheran Churches. 

For failure to safeguard the property and funds of the Church, the Presiding Bishop "shall be accountable" (Canon IV.4.2).

The AAF complaint says: "We framed this document in a caring and loving way ... not to discipline, but to achieve an Accord of conciliation as Christ would have us do, to bring an end to this madness of Christians suing Christians," AAF has not yet received a formal response from TEC to its complaint.

New Lawsuit Challenging Contraceptive Mandate Filed By Multi-employer Catholic Organization and Others

Catholic News Service and a press release from Catholic Benefits Association report on the latest lawsuit that has been filed to challenge the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed yesterday in federal court in the Western District of Oklahoma are Catholic Benefits Association and its captive insurance company, the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and its Catholic Charities, All Saints Catholic School in Oklahoma, Archbishop William E. Lori and the Archdiocese of Baltimore, Cathedral Foundation in Baltimore, Villa St. Francis Catholic Care Center in Kansas City, KS, and Good Will Publishers in North Carolina.

Catholic Benefits Association is a recently-formed organization comprised of nearly 200 Catholic employers and 1000 parishes from around the United States.  The organization makes self-insurance plans with back-up stop loss insurance (with coverage consistent with Catholic values) available to members, and "provides a cost-effective strategy for Catholic employers seeking protection from the HHS contraception, abortion-inducing drugs or devices, sterilization, or related counseling ... Mandate and other similar state or federal mandates." (CBA FAQs).

With the U.S. Supreme Court about to hear arguments in the Hobby Lobby case on whether corporations can assert free exercise rights, it is interesting to note Catholic Benefits Association's criteria for becoming an employer member:

For-profit employers can become CBA members if (i) Catholics (or trusts or other entities wholly controlled by Catholic) own 51 percent or more of employer; (ii) 51 percent or more of the members of the employer’s governing body, if any, is comprised of Catholics; and (iii) either the employer’s owners or governing body has adopted a written policy stating that the employer is committed to providing no benefits to the employer’s employees or independent contractors inconsistent with Catholic values.

UPDATE: The complaint (full text) in Catholic Benefits Association v. Sebelius,(WD OK, filed 3/12/2014) is now available.

Cert. Filed In RLUIPA Land Use Case

Earlier this week a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Eagle Cove Camp & Conference Center, Inc. v. Town of Woodsboro, Wisconsin, (cert. filed 3/10/2014).  In the case the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected challenges to county land use regulations which prohibit plaintiff from operating a year-round Bible camp on residentially zoned property. (See prior posting.) The cert. petition asks the Supreme Court to settle conflicts over the interpretation of several provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  [Thanks to Art Jaros for the lead.]

Washington Legislature Passes Bill Giving Public Employees, Students 2 Days Off For Religious Holidays

Yesterday the Washington state legislature passed and sent to the governor for signature SB 5173 that assures state employees and public school students two days per year off for religious holidays. Public employees, including employees of school districts and public colleges, under the bill are entitled to "two unpaid holidays per calendar year for a reason of faith or conscience or an organized activity conducted under the auspices of a religious denomination, church, or religious organization."

The bill also provides that a student is excused from attending school "subject to approval by the student's parent for a reason of faith or conscience, or an organized activity conducted under the auspices of a religious denomination, church, or religious organization, for up to two days per school year
without any penalty." However it goes on to provide that "such absences may not mandate school closures." The bill passed 64-32 in the House, and 49-0 in the Senate. Yesterday's Bellingham Herald reports on the bill's passage.

House Passes Religious Exemption To Required Health Insurance For Those Who Are Opposed To All Medical Treatment

With bipartisan support, the House of Representatives yesterday passed by voice vote and sent to the Senate H.R. 1814-- the Equitable Access to Care and Health (EACH) Act. The Hill reports on the House vote which extends an exemption (26 USC 5000A(d)(2)) currently in the Affordable Care Act that exempts members of a "recognized religious sect" whose tenets oppose accepting benefits of medical insurance. The bill passed by the House provides an exemption to individuals whose "sincerely held religious beliefs would cause the individual to object to medical health care that would be covered under such coverage." The bill is apparently intended to cover only those who hold sincere religious beliefs object to all health care supervised by physicians.  It does not require the objector to be a member of a religious group with such tenets. To obtain the exemption, an individual would be required to file a sworn statement with his or her tax return.  The exemption is lost if the individual during the year receives medical health care.

Israel's Knesset Passes Law To Draft Yeshiva Students

In Israel today, the Knesset passed the controversial Equal Service Bill imposing military service obligations on ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jewish yeshiva students who have historically enjoyed a draft exemption. Times of Israel reports that the bill provides for a 3-year transition period during which a target for ultra-Orthodox enlistees into the military will be set.  The target will rise each year until 2017 when it will go to 5,200 new Haredi enlistees each year. Individual sanctions against yeshiva students who dodge the draft will be triggered if these enlistment targets are not met. The bill passed 67-1, with the opposition boycotting the vote. In 2012, Israel's High Court of Justice struck down the Tal Law -- whose formal title was "Deferral of Service for Yeshiva Students for Whom Torah Is Their Profession Law." (See prior posting.)

IRS Issues Sample Questions That May Be Asked Of Non-Profits In Making Rulings

In EO [Exempt Organizations] Update March 4, 2014, the Internal Revenue Service  released a list of Sample Questions that may be asked of organizations applying for a determination that they are tax exempt. Among the sample questions are ones that might be asked of a Church Affiliate (Integrated Auxiliary); and of a Mission Society. IRS also released questions that might be asked in making a determination on whether Bingo and Other Gaming will jeopardize the tax status of, or lead to added taxes for, a non-profit (Background).

Jewish Employee's Discrimination Claim Against New York City Dismissed

In Brodt v. City of New York, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29229 (SD NY, March 6, 2014), a New York federal district court dismissed claims by a former employee of the New York City Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications that he was denied a permanent position and eventually fired under the pretext of budget limitations when in fact the actions were based on his being an observant Jew. The court held that the facts alleged do not plausibly show discriminatory animus or a hostile work environment. According to the court, the comments by his supervisor that plaintiff should pray for him and his comments about plaintiff's nine children were simple teasing or isolated incidents. His supervisor's constantly rubbing plaintiff's yarmulke was merely annoying conduct.

Appeals Court Rejects Ban on Children Attending Mother's Church

In Stancek v. Stancek, (MN App., March 10, 2014), the Minnesota Court of Appeals resolved a child custody dispute between separated parents as to their three daughters. Before the parties separated, they belonged to Word of Life Church where the wife's parents were pastors, and where one of the children attended kindergarten. When the couple became estranged, the Church's board of trustees sent the father a letter prohibiting him from attending the church. The trial court awarded legal and physical custody of the children to the father. It also prohibited the mother from taking the children to the Word of Life Church because "that would likely lead to the alienation of the children from their father ... or result in an uncomfortable worship scenario for the children...." Without reaching the free exercise and establishment clause arguments, the Court of Appeals held:

The record does not support the finding that it is “impossible” for the children to attend Word of Life Church..... The district court’s conclusion... is modified so that mother’s provision of care for the children (as an alternative to daycare) may be either at her home or at any daycare facility where she works (without regard to whether the facility is located at her church)..... Similarly, the prohibition on the children attending or otherwise being part of the Word of Life congregation is unsupported by the findings as modified, and the prohibition is therefore reversed.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Break-Away Church Property Dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied certiorari in Falls Church v. Protestant Episcopal Church, (Docket No. 13-449, cert. den. 3/10/2014). (Order List.) In the case, the Virginia Supreme Court ordered that a break-away local congregation must convey most of its property to The Episcopal Church by reason of TEC's "Dennis Canon," but remanded as to personal property acquired by the local congregation after its vote to disaffiliate from TEC. (See prior posting.) Religion News Service reports on the Court's denial of review. [Thanks to Bob Tuttle for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Indiana's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

The Indianapolis Star reports that last Friday a lawsuit was filed in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's statutory ban on same-sex marriages and on recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. In a press release, state Attorney General Greg Zoeller said:

As Indiana's Attorney General I will represent our state and defend our statute now and on any appeal to the best of my skill and ability, as I swore an oath to do.  As state government’s lawyer, I must defend the state’s authority to define marriage at the state level within Indiana’s borders.  People of goodwill have sincere differences of opinion on the marriage definition, but I hope Hoosiers can remain civil to each other as this legal question is litigated in the federal court.

Meanwhile the state legislature effectively delayed until at least 2016 any vote on a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in the state. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Required Signs In Pregnancy Counseling Centers Held Unconstitutional

In Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County, (D MD, March 7, 2014), a Maryland federal district court enjoined the enforcement of a Montgomery County Maryland Resolution that requires each "limited service pregnancy center" to post to post a sign in its waiting room that reads:

(1) “the Center does not have a licensed medical professional on staff”; and (2) “the Montgomery County Health Officer encourages women who are or may be pregnant to consult with a licensed health care provider”.

The court held that the Resolution is a content-based regulation that compels non-commercial speech, and thus triggers strict scrutiny review. It concluded:

The record produced by Defendants is simply insufficient to sustain this regulation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. Assuming arguendo that the County has a compelling interest in positive health outcomes for pregnant women, the critical flaw for the County is the lack of any evidence that the practices of LSPRCs are causing pregnant women to be misinformed which is negatively affecting their health. It does not necessarily follow that misinformation will lead to negative health outcomes.

Alliance Defending Freedom issued a press release announcing the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Julia Chamberlin & Amos N. Guiora, Polygamy: Not 'Big Love' But Significant Harm, (Women's Rights Law Reporter, Rutgers University School of Law (2014 Forthcoming)).
• Sean T. Murphy, No More Christian Doctors, (February 24, 2014).
• Michael A. Helfand & Barak D. Richman, The Challenge of Co-Religionist Commerce, (Duke Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Sahar F. Aziz, Veiled Discrimination, (March 3, 2014).
• Kenneth Lasson, Sacred Cows, Holy Wars: Exploring the Limits of Law in the Regulation of Raw Milk and Kosher Meat, (March 6, 2014).
• Rabia Belt, When God Demands Blood: Unusual Minds and the Troubled Juridical Ties of Religion, Madness, and Culpability, (March 1, 2014).
• Teemu Ruskola, What is a Corporation? Liberal, Confucian, and Socialist Theories of Enterprise Organization (and State, Family, and Personhood), (Seattle University Law Review, Vol. 37, p. 637, 2014).

From SSRN (non-US law):

• Richard Moon, Religious Accommodation and Its Limits: The Recent Controversy at York University, (Constitutional Forum, Vol. 23, Forthcoming).
• Nathalie Des Rosiers, Free Religions or Freedom from Religion? Canada, Federalism and Religion, (February 23, 2014).
• Jeroen Temperman, Recognition, Registration, and Autonomy of Religious Groups: European Approaches and Their Human Rights Implications, (in: David Kirkham (ed.), State Responses to Religious Minorities (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2013), pp. 151-165).
• AliReza ShakarBeigia, Peyman Akbari & Ghodrat Heydari, Expansion of Citizenship Rights Based on Religious Teachings Jurisprudence and Law, (Scientific Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences (2014) 3(2) 48-53).
• Michelle Biddulph & Dwight G. Newman, Eweida v United Kingdom, (Australian International Law Journal, Vol 20, 2013: 183-188).
• Hanna Lerner, Permissive Constitutions, Democracy, and Religious Freedom in India, Indonesia, Israel, and Turkey, (World Politics, Volume 65, Issue 4 (October 2013), pp. 609-655).
• Engy Abdelkader, Myanmar's Democracy Struggle: The Impact of Communal Violence Upon Rohingya Women and Youth, (Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, 2014).

From SmartCILP:

• Michael W. McConnell, Why Protect Religious Freedom? (Reviewing Brian Leiter, Why Tolerate Religion?), 123 Yale Law Journal 770-810 (2013).
• Capt. Malcolm H. Wilkerson (U.S. Army), Picking Up where Katcoff Left Off: Developing a Framework for a Constitutional Military Chaplaincy, 66 Oklahoma Law Review 245-286 (2014).
• Tung Yin, Were Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber the Only White Terrorists?: Race, Religion, and the Perception of Terrorism, 4 Alabama Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Law Reveiw 33-87 (2013). 

Malaysia Bans Comic Book That Refers To Super Hero As "Allah"

Time reports that in Malaysia last week, the Home Ministry banned distribution of the Malay language issue of Ultraman the Ultra Power comic book for its use of "Allah" in describing its super hero.  The offending sentence has been translated as: "He is considered, and respected as, ‘Allah’ or the Elder to all Ultra heroes." The Home Ministry says that the comic book contains elements that can undermine public security and societal morals, and warned that the language threatens to confuse Muslim children and damage their faith.  Some in Malaysia have taken to social media to deride the government's response. According to CNA, anyone distributing the banned comic book could face a sentence of three years in prison. This latest order adds to the long-running controversy over the use of "Allah" by non-Muslims-- particularly the use by Malay speaking Catholics to refer to God. (See prior posting.)

Fired Gay Catholic School Vice-Principal Sues

Last Friday, a lawsuit was filed in state court in Seattle, Washington by a former Catholic high school vice-principal Mark Zmuda who was fired after he married his same-sex partner last December.  According to The Guardian, the suit alleges violation of Washington's law against discrimination, breach of implied contract, wrongful termination, violation of the consumer protection act, and tortious interference.  The Guardian reports:

Zmuda does not dispute that he signed an employment contract that required him to uphold Catholic teachings. However, his complaint claims that the school misrepresented its employment environment as being one of inclusion and anti-discrimination both on its website and in its employee handbook.

The school's president, Sister Mary Tracey knew earlier on that Zmuda is gay. He complied with her request not to bring his partner to school events. After the marriage, Sister Mary told Zmuda that if he would divorce his husband, the school would pay the costs of a commitment ceremony in place of a wedding, and would allow him to keep his job. The school is seeking dismissal of the suit on the basis of its 1st Amendment right to make its own decisions on matters of faith and doctrine.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Wiseman v. Cate, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26373 (ED CA, Feb. 27, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's complaint that Muslim inmates in the Halal food plan are provided Halal meat at dinner but are only provided vegetarian meals at breakfast and lunch.

In Rowe v. Indiana Department of Corrections, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27060 (SD IN, March 3, 2014), an Indiana federal district court denied cross motions for summary judgment and permitted an inmate to continue to pursue his free exercise and RLUIPA challenges to prison policies that call for the zero tolerance on security threat groups, prohibit visits from ex-prisoners, limit the number of books that can be possessed, limit certain inmate-to-inmate correspondence, bar item censorship of religious publications, and ban the swastika.

In Esposito v. Quatinez, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28452 (ED NY, March 5, 2014), a New York federal district court permitted plaintiff who was involuntarily committed to the psychiatric unit of Stony Brook University Hospital to continue to pursue her claim that requiring her to remain hospitalized violates her free exercise rights because her religious beliefs require that she not affiliate herself through receipt of treatment with a hospital that performs abortions.

In Baumgarten v. Howard County Department of Corrections, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28590 (D MD, March 6, 2014), a Maryland federal district court permitted a Jewish inmate to proceed with his complaint that he was repeatedly denied kosher meals for which he had been approved. Plaintiff is seeking damages.

In Mitchell v. Cicchi, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28738 (D NJ, March 6, 2014), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed, without prejudice, a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was barred from participating in the jail's Eid festival because of his maximum security status.

Court Holds Middle School In Florida Not Covered By Federal Equal Access Act

In Carver Middle School Gay-Straight Alliance v. School Board of Lake County, Florida, (MD FL, March 6, 2014), a Florida federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to the Gay-Straight Alliance that sought recognition as an official student organization in a Florida middle school.  The court held that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that a middle school constitutes a "secondary school" for purposes of coverage under the federal Equal Access Act. That Act leaves the definition of secondary school to state law, and Florida statutes are unclear about whether this includes middle schools.  The court also held that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their 1st Amendment free speech claim because the refusal to recognize the group was reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns in light of the age of the students involved.

First Guilty Plea In Coerced Jewish Divorce Extortion Operation

The New Jersey U.S. Attorney's Office announced that David Hellman, a 31-year old personal trainer, pleaded guilty yesterday in federal court to traveling in interstate commerce to commit extortion in an attempt to coerce a Jewish man in New York to give his wife a "get"-- a Jewish divorce document. Hellman was part of a group of men-- including two rabbis-- who allegedly charged women tens of thousands of dollars to use violence against their recalcitrant husbands who refused to grant a Jewish divorce after a civil divorce had been obtained. They were arrested in an FBI sting operation. (See prior posting.) Hellman was the first of the group charged to plead guilty.  His bail conditions include a $500,000 bond and GPS monitoring. He faces a possible sentence of as much as 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The Newark Star-Ledger reports on the case.

UPDATE: The March 11 Asbury Park Press reports that two additional defendants involved have pleaded guilty to charges of traveling in interstate commerce to commit extortion.

Purdue Reaches Compromise With Donor Over Reference To God on Plaque

Purdue University's controversy with a donor over the wording on a plaque has been settled with a compromise. As previously reported, suits and counter-suits were threatened when the University balked at placing on a conference room dedication plaque the donor's requested inscription that referred to "the understanding of God’s physical laws." Now, according to yesterday's Purdue Eponent, the University has agreed to revised language which shows the reference as a quotation from the donor. Also the University will add a second plaque nearby which will make clear that the quote is not Purdue's language and that the University is aware of its legal obligations of neutrality.

EEOC Releases Guidance On Religious Garb and Grooming Accommodation

The EEOC announced yesterday the release of two related technical assistance publications on the law regarding religious dress and grooming in the workplace. A Question and Answer document titled Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities is a guide (including examples) to when and how employers must accommodate employees' religiously-based requests on clothing, religious dress, head coverings, hair style and beards. The related Fact Sheet summarizes the basic requirements of Title VII.

The new guidance comes as the Department of Justice announced the filing of a federal lawsuit against the Philadelphia (PA) school district charging it with discrimination against a Muslim school police officer who was reprimanded for wearing a beard in violation of an October 2010 policy change that prevents school police and security officers from wearing beards longer than one-quarter inch. The employee, Siddiq Abu-Bakr, has worn a longer beard for the 27 years he has worked for the school district.

Google Denied Stay of Order To Take Down "Innocence of Muslims", But En Banc Rehearing Is Possible

As previously reported, last month in Garcia v. Google, Inc.,  the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a preliminary injunction should be granted to require the controversial film "Innocence of Muslims" to be removed from YouTube.  The decision came in a copyright suit filed by Cindy Lee Garcia who acted in a portion of the film. The decision was filed on Feb. 27, but apparently several days before the public release of the opinion the court ordered Google to take down the video.  In a Feb. 27 motion, Google sought a stay pending a petition for an en banc rehearing (full text), saying:

The Court last Wednesday issued a sealed order directing that Defendant-Appellee Google Inc. take down “all copies” of the video "‘Innocence of Muslims’ from YouTube.com and from any other platforms under Google’s control" and that Google "take all reasonable steps to prevent further uploads of ‘Innocence of Muslims’ to those platforms." Google has complied with the Court’s order, but in light of the intense public interest in and debate surrounding the video, the video should remain accessible while Google seeks further review.

In an Order (full text) issued Feb. 28, the court denied a stay and ordered Google to comply with the take down mandate within 24 hours, but added that "this order does not preclude the posting or display of any version of “Innocence of Muslims” that does not include Cindy Lee Garcia’s performance."

In the latest development, yesterday the court issued an Order (full text) stating that one judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear en banc the request for a stay. The court gave the parties until March 12 to file briefs on whether an en banc rehearing should be granted. [Thanks to Edward Lee via CyberProf listserv for the lead.]

New Congressional Ahmadiyya Muslim Caucus Formed

The Washington Times and AFP report on the launch last Friday (2/28) of a new Congressional Ahmadiyya Muslim Caucus, co-chaired by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA). Some 15,000 to 20,000 Ahmadis live in the United States. Many orthodox Muslim groups consider the Ahmadis apostates because of their theological beliefs, and they have been persecuted particularly in Pakistan and Indonesia.  An Ahmadiyya spokesman said that the new Congressional caucus will advocate for the rights of all persecuted religious communities.  The Council on American-Islamic Relations expressed mixed feelings about the new caucus, saying: "we question Rep. Wolf’s involvement and genuine concern for issues of importance to our community given his long history of working with anti-Muslim fringe groups and causes." [Thanks to Mahmood Ahmad for the lead.]

Ukraine's Jewish Leaders Dispute Putin's Charges Of Anti-Semitism In Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin held a news conference (full text) on Tuesday at which he attempted to justify recent Russian actions in Ukraine. He said in part:

What is our biggest concern? We see the rampage of reactionary forces, nationalist and anti-Semitic forces going on in certain parts of Ukraine, including Kiev.

JTA reported yesterday that an open letter to Putin from Ukraine's Jewish community took issue with his remarks about anti-Semitism.  Posted on the website of the Association of Jewish Organizations and Communities of Ukraine, the letter written in Russian (full text English translation) and signed by 21 leaders of Ukraine's Jewish community said in part:

Your certainty about the growth of anti-Semitism in Ukraine, which you expressed at your press-conference, also does not correspond to the actual facts. Perhaps you got Ukraine confused with Russia, where Jewish organizations have noticed growth in anti-Semitic tendencies last year.... The Jews of Ukraine, as all ethnic groups, are not absolutely unified in their opinion towards what is happening in the country. But we live in a democratic country and can afford a difference of opinion.

Suit Challenges Wyoming Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

National Center for Lesbian Rights announced yesterday that it has filed a state court lawsuit challenging Wyoming's statutory ban on same-sex marriage and the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Unlike a number of other states, Wyoming's same-sex marriage ban is found only in state statutes, and is not embodied in the state constitution.  Also the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions is merely a practice that is not supported by specific statutory provisions.   The complaint (full text) in Courage v. Wyoming, (WY Dist. Ct., filed 3/5/2014), alleges that the statutory ban on same-sex marriage and the practice of refusing to recognize same-sex marriages from elsewhere violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Wyoming state Constitution.  It also alleges that the practice of refusing to recognize out-of-state same sex marriages violates Wyoming statutory provision (Sec. 20-1-111) that provides: "All marriage contracts which are valid by the laws of the country in which contracted are valid in this state." Unlike suits filed recently in other states, this lawsuit does not contain claims that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the federal constitution. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Senate Rejects Obama's Nominee To Head DOJ Civil Rights Division

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate rejected President Obama's nominee for Assistant Attorney General to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice-- Debo Adegbile.  Politico reports that several Senate Democrats joined Republicans in the 47-52 vote against cloture that had the effect of defeating the nomination.  Adegbile was opposed by law enforcement groups and some senators because of his previous work with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in helping the convicted killer of a Philadelphia police officer try to overturn his death sentence. Following the vote, President Obama issued a statement (full text), saying in part:

The Senate’s failure to confirm Debo Adegbile to lead the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice is a travesty based on wildly unfair character attacks against a good and qualified public servant.  Mr. Adegbile’s qualifications are impeccable.  He represents the best of the legal profession.... The fact that his nomination was defeated solely based on his legal representation of a defendant runs contrary to a fundamental principle of our system of justice....

British Broadcast Agency Approves KFC's Parody Christmas Ad Campaign

In Britain, broadcast industry self-regulation requires all broadcast ads to be pre-approved to make certain that they comply with the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising.  Most of the pre-clearance is done by Clearcast-- an agency created by the country's largest broadcasters.  Huffington Post reported yesterday that Kentucky Fried Chicken has obtained clearance for its tongue-in-cheek Christmas ad campaign that some complained mocked Christian worship:

The two television ads and a video on demand ad featured a group of carol singers outside a house singing the lyrics: "We showed up at your house again singing all our stupid songs", with the male homeowner replying: "Normally I'd hose you down, but now it just seems wrong."

Affidavit Does Not Establish Applicability of Ministerial Exception Doctrine

Hough v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Erie, (WD PA, March 4, 2014), is an Age Discrimination In Employment suit brought by three former Catholic parochial school teachers who were not hired into a consolidated Catholic school system created when their school closed. The Diocese moved for summary judgment claiming that the "ministerial exception" doctrine precludes plaintiffs' lawsuit.  The only evidence that plaintiffs qualify as "ministers" for purposes of the exception were affidavits from the diocese's Vicar for Education stating that all parochial school teachers are considered to be ministers of the faith-- instruction in religious truth and values is infused in all parts of the curriculum. The Pennsylvania federal district court denied defendants' the motion for summary judgment, saying in part:

Although the Supreme Court refused to provide a bright line test for a determination of when someone is accorded ministerial status, Defendants’ argument – that all teachers are considered to be ministers by Defendants – was not enough, in and of itself, for the high court in Hosanna-Tabor.

German Home School Family That Was Denied SCOTUS Review Gets Deferred Status From DHS

Fox News reports that in a surprising development yesterday, one day after the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the home schooling asylum case of Romeike v. Holder (see prior posting), the Department of Homeland Security granted "indefinite deferred status" to the Romeike family.  This means that the German family which home schools its children largely because of the family's Christian religious beliefs will not be deported back to Germany where laws prohibit home schooling.  The Romeike family who moved to Tennessee in 2008 were originally granted asylum in 2010, but government appeals of the immigration judge's ruling led to a reversal.

Cert. Petition Seeks SCOTUS Review of Latest Mt.Soledad Cross Decision Ahead of 9th Circuit

A petition for certiorari before judgment (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Mt. Soledad Memorial Association v. Trunk, asking the Court to review the latest decision in the long-running case prior to the 9th Circuit hearing arguments or deciding the latest appeal.  Petitioners are seeking review of a December federal district court order requiring a 43-foot high cross to be removed from the now federally-owned Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in California. (See prior posting.) Legal challenges to the cross have worked their way up and down the courts for 25 years. Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition.

Kentucky Baptists Use Second Amendment Themes To Reach the Unchurched

The Louisville Courier Journal last week reported on the Kentucky Baptist Convention's (KBC) effort to reach unchurched men through "Second Amendment Celebrations."  Guns are given away as door prizes at the events at which speakers focus on hunting and opposition to gun control. KBC spokesman Roger Alford described the controversial events as "outreach to rednecks." He explained:

The day of hanging a banner in front of your church and saying you’re having a revival and expecting the community to show up is over.... You have to know the hook that will attract people, and hunting is huge in Kentucky. So we get in there and burp and scratch and talk about the right to bear arms and that stuff..... We have found that the number of unchurched men who will show up will be in direct proportion to the number of guns you give away.

Reportedly 1,678 men made "professions of faith" at 50 such events last year.

Kentucky To Hire Outside Counsel To Defend Its Refusal To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages, Over AG's Dissent

As previously reported, last month a federal district court ordered Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The state quickly however filed a motion asking for a stay while it considered its options, and last Friday the court granted a stay until March 20. (Louisville Courier Journal). As reported by AP, yesterday Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway announced that he will not appeal the decision or seek further stays. In a statement (full text) posted on the Attorney General's website, he said that the federal court's decision was correct and that he should not be wasting state resources on a case the state is unlikely to win.  He added that he "came to the inescapable conclusion" that defending Kentucky's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage would be defending discrimination. However moments after the Attorney General's announcement, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear announced (full text) that the state will hire other counsel to seek a further stay and pursue an appeal to the 6th Circuit in order to "bring certainty and finality to this important matter." [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

European Court of Human Rights Upholds British Refusal To Treat Mormon Temple As Place of Public Worship For Tax Purposes

In Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. United Kingdom, (ECHR, March 4, 2014), the European Court of Human Rights, Fourth Section, held that Britain did not violate the non-discrimination provisions of Art. 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, nor the freedom of conscience and religion provisions of Art. 9, when it held that a Mormon Temple was subject to a reduced tax rate as a place used for charitable purposes, but was not entitled to the full exemption from property taxes that is available to places of "public religious worship."  Entry to the Temple is limited to devout Church members who hold a "recommend" from the bishop. The Church's stake center, with its chapel, hall and ancillary rooms, on the same site had been granted the full exemption since entry to them was not limited. In finding no discrimination, the Court said in part:

To establish differential treatment, the applicant Church relied on the argument that, because of the nature of its doctrine, which holds that access to the temple should be restricted to its most devout members who hold a current “recommend”, the law ... provided a lower fiscal advantage to the Mormon Church than to such other faiths as to not restrict access to any of their places of worship.... [I]t is open to doubt whether the refusal to accord an exemption in respect of the applicant Church’s temple in Preston gave rise to any difference of treatment of comparable groups, given that the tax law in question applied in the same way to, and produced the same result in relation to, all religious organisations, including the Church of England in respect of its private chapels. Neither is the Court convinced that the applicant Church was in a significantly different position from other churches ... so as to call for differential treatment ..., since other faiths likewise do not allow access of the public to certain of their places of worship for doctrinal reasons.

Law & Religion UK reports on the decision. [Thanks To Paul DeMello, Jr. for the lead.]

Judicial Conduct Board Convicts Magistrate For Insisting On Child's Name Change

Reuters reports that yesterday a 6-person panel of the Tennessee Judicial Board of Conduct found former child-support magistrate Lu Ann Ballew guilty on charges of violating judicial canons regarding impartiality and bias.  The charges stem from a case in which she insisted that parents change their child's first name from "Messiah" to "Martin" because only Jesus should be called "Messiah." She has already been fired from her position as magistrate because of her conduct. (See prior posting.) The panel will be releasing a written opinion in the case later.

North Korea Releases Australian Christian Missionary After He Signs Apology

According to yesterday's International Business Times, the North Korean government has released 75-year old missionary John Short after he signed a confession asking forgiveness for his "insult to the Korean people on February 16" when he distributed Korean-language Christian Bible tracts at a Buddhist temple. Short, an Australian, lives in Hong Kong. The North Korean Central News Agency said that the government decided to expel him "in full consideration of his age." (See prior related posting.)

Supreme Court Denies Review In Home School Asylum Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Romeike v. Holder, (Docket No. 13-471, cert. den. 3/3/2014)). (Order List.) In the case, which has been widely followed by home school advocates, the 6th Circuit denied asylum to a German evangelical Christian family that sought to remain in the United States based on a fear of persecution in Germany because of Germany's ban on home schooling. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Grants Review In Muslim Prisoner's Challenge To Grooming Rules Barring Beards

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Holt v. Hobbs, (Docket No. 13-6827, cert. granted 3/3/2014). It also granted petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Order List.) In the case, the 8th Circuit affirmed the district court's decision upholding the grooming policy of the Arkansas Department of Corrections that allows inmates to wear trimmed mustaches but otherwise no facial hair, with quarter-inch beards permitted only for a diagnosed dermatological problem. Inmate Gregory Holt is a Muslim whose religious beliefs require him to grow a beard.  He proposed that he be allowed to maintain a half-inch beard as a compromise position, to balance his religious beliefs with the prison's security needs. In its per curiam opinion, the 8th Circuit held that "defendants met their burden under RLUIPA of establishing that ADC's grooming policy was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling penological interest." Last November, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of granting Holt (who also goes by the name Abdul Maalik Muhammad) an injunction barring Arkansas from enforcing its grooming policy against him pending disposition of Holt's cert petition and of the appeal now that review has been granted. According to SCOTUS Blog, arguments in this case will not be heard until next Fall.

UPDATE: Later in the day on March 3, the Supreme Court issued an order (full text) modifying its grant of certiorari, clarifying that the it is limited to the question of whether Arkansas' grooming policy violates RLUIPA "to the extent that it
 prohibits petitioner from growing a one-half-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs."

Recent Articles, Forthcoming Books and Movie, of Interest

From SSRN:

• Nicole Jones, Did Fortune Tellers See this Coming? Spiritual Counseling, Professional Speech, and the First Amendment, (February 13, 2014).
• Allison G. Morrow, Will Your Religion Allow You…to Live? The Mature Minor Doctrine, Religious Exemptions, and a Look into Louisiana Law, (December 1, 2013).
• Mark L. Movsesian, Defining Religion in American Law: Psychic Sophie and the Rise of the Nones, (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. 2014/19 (2014)).
• Ian C. Bartrum, The Curious Case of Legislative Prayer: Town of Greece v. Galloway, (Northwestern University Law Review Online Vol. 108, p. 218, 2014).
• Steven Douglas Smith, Is God Irrelevant?, (Boston University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Caroline King, The Most Reasonable Standard: Why Justice O'Connor's Endorsement Test Applying the Reasonable Observer Should Be the Preferred Test for Evaluating Establishment Clause Violations, (February 7, 2014).
• James M. Oleske, Interracial and Same-Sex Marriages: Similar Religious Objections, Very Different Responses, (Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (CR-CL), Vol. 50, Forthcoming).
• Priscilla J. Smith, Who Decides Conscience? RFRA's Catch 22, (Brooklyn Journal of Law and Policy, Forthcoming).
• Courtney M. Cahill & Geoffrey Christopher Rapp, Does the Public Care How the Supreme Court Reasons? Empirical Evidence from a National Experiment and Normative Concerns in the Case of Same-Sex Marriage, (93 North Carolina Law Review, 2014, Forthcoming).
• Cary Franklin, Discriminatory Animus, (A Nation of Widening Opportunities? The Civil Rights Act at Fifty (Samuel Bagenstos and Ellen Katz, eds., University of Michigan Press 2014)).
• SpearIt, Muslim Radicalization in Prison: Responding with Sound Penal Policy or the Sound of Alarm?, (Gonzaga Law Review, Vol. 49, No. 1, 2014).

From SSRN (non-U.S. law):

• Steven Douglas Smith, West and East: the Continuity of Persons, (San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 14-141 (Feb. 2014)).
• Paula Defensor Knack, Legal Frameworks and Land Issues in Muslim Mindanao, (in Land and Post-conflict Peacebuilding, Jon Unruh & Rhodri Williams (eds.), Earthscan, 2013, pp 451-474).
• Gustavo Ariel Kaufman, Racial Discrimination vs. Religious Freedom in the JFS Decision, (February 19, 2014).
• Ioanna Tourkochoriti, Should Hate Speech Be Protected? Group Defamation, Party Bans, Holocaust Denial and the Divide between (France) Europe and the United States, (45 Columbia Human Rights Law Review (2014), Forthcoming).

SCOTUS Blog Contraceptive Mandate Symposium (Feb. 24-28, 2014):

• Rick Garnett, Symposium: Accommodations, religious freedom, and the Hobby Lobby case
• Elizabeth Wydra, Symposium: Under a straight-forward reading of constitutional text and history and fundamentals of corporate law, Hobby Lobby’s claims fail
• Mailee Smith, Symposium: In a battle of semantics, the family businesses win with scientific facts
• Ilya Shapiro, Symposium: Mandates make martyrs out of corporate owners

From elsewhere:

• Mark E. Chopko, Regulating Religious Charity: Current Issues and Future Challenges, 44 Rutgers Law Journal 55-88 (2013).
• Eugene Volokh, Religious Law (Especially Islamic Law) In American Courts, 66 Oklahoma Law Review 431-458 (2014).

Forthcoming Books:

• Steven P. Miller, The Age of Evangelicalism: America's Born-Again Years,  (Oxford Univ. Press, June 2014).
• Jimmy Carter, A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power, (Simon & Schuster, March 2014).

Forthcoming Movie:

• Daniel Lusco, Persecuted, (May 9, 2014) (reviewed by the Christian Post).

University In The Middle of 1st Amendment Tussle Over Donor's Plaque

The Indianapolis Star reported last Friday on dispute between Purdue University and one of its donors:

When Michael McCracken and his wife made a $12,500 donation to Purdue’s School of Mechanical Engineering in 2012, Purdue asked the engineering graduate to provide an inscription for a conference room dedication plaque, which would be installed in the recently renovated Herrick Laboratories.

But the words McCracken chose, in honor of his parents, turned out to be controversial.

“To those who seek to better the world through the understanding of God’s physical laws and innovation of practical solutions. In honor of Dr. William ‘Ed’ and Glenda McCracken.”

Purdue rejected the proposed inscription, concerned about church-state issues. Its attorney said:

[G]iven the facts here, our status as a public institution, and the hopelessly muddled state of jurisprudence in this particular area, we could fully expect lengthy and expensive litigation that would wipe out the value of this donation many times over, and we just don’t think that’s advisable for either the donor or the university. Still, we remain open to continued discussions, as we’d much prefer to be in the mode of expressing gratitude, not disagreement, to our donors.

The University's hope of avoiding expensive litigation, however, seems unrealistic.  The attorney for the McCrackens wrote the University on Feb. 26 (full text of letter) suggesting alternative language that makes it clearer that the inscription is private speech of the McCrackens. The letter concluded:

Please let us know by March 5, 2014, if you are open to discussing a potential resolution. If not, Dr. McCracken has instructed us to commence litigation to preserve the McCrackens' First Amendment right to reference "God's physical laws" on the plaque. We note that, if thismatter proceedsto litigation and Dr. McCracken prevails, the University will be responsible for his attorneys' fees.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Agency May Bar Employee From Selling His Religious Book During Work Time

In Okemgbo v. Washington State Department of Ecology, (ED WA, Feb. 24, 2014), a Washington federal district court upheld against a First Amendment challenge a state agency's imposing on one of its employees who had authored a book on Christianity and marriage the following work restrictions:

You are not to use your work time for any non-work activity including:

• Promoting and soliciting contributions of money, time or other donations for your non-profit organization or other non-work related activities that you are involved in

• Promoting, selling and/or distributing your book on marriage

• Promoting religious opinions, providing religious information, counseling, offers to pray.

The court concluded that: "the Department’s interest in maintaining a workplace that is free of sexual harassment, does not promote a particular religion, and which maintains some semblance of order and efficiency outweighs the Plaintiff’s interest in selling his book, promoting his religious beliefs, or running his nonprofit organization, while he is supposed to be working."

In Mexican Village, Utility Shut-Off Used To Force Protestant Families To Contribute To Local Catholic Festivals

According to a press release issued last week by Christian Solidarity Worldwide USA, in the Mexican village of Unión Juárez (in Chiapas state) 25 Protestant families who belong to the Mount Tabor Evangelical Church have had their water and electricity cut off for refusing to contribute financially to Traditionalist Catholic religious festivals in the village. The actions against the families began Feb. 11.  Guards, ropes and chains have been placed around the families' homes to prevent them from reconnecting their services or receiving visitors until they pay 500 pesos (approximately $38) each. Village authorities base their demands on the Law of Uses and Customs which gives indigenous populations autonomy to exercise traditional governance forms. The families have filed a complaint with the National Commission for Human Rights.

Muslim County Worker Wins $1.2 Million In Employment Discrimination Suit

The Detroit Free Press reports that after a two-week employment discrimination trial, a federal court jury in Michigan on Thursday awarded nearly $1.2 million to Ypsilanti (MI) resident Ali Aboubaker, a Muslim.  Plaintiff, a U.S. citizen originally from Tunisia who holds four advanced degrees, claims that his firing from his maintenance engineer job with Washtenaw County was based on ethnic, religious and racial discrimination.  Aboubaker, who worked for the county for 17 years, says he was constantly subjected to racial and ethnic taunts-- especially focusing on his long beard-- and management did nothing about it. His suit also challenged a promotion he did not receive.

State Department's Human Rights Report Includes International Religious Discrimination Concerns

Last Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry released the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013. While the report leaves the assessment of religious liberty around the world to the State Department's annual International Religious Freedom Report, Thursday's Human Rights report covers religious discrimination concerns for each country. The report's Introduction summarized these concerns:

Religious and ethnic minorities continued to face extreme restrictions and were targets of repression by governments and subject to societal discrimination across the globe.  In China, the government continued to implement repressive policies against ethnic Uighurs and Tibetans. 

In Pakistan, religious minorities faced a specter of growing violence during the year, including a deadly September church bombing in Peshawar that claimed more than 80 lives and three other incidents that killed at least 244 Shia Muslims. Religious minorities also faced discriminatory laws, societal intolerance, and a lack of accountability for crimes against them. 

In Iran, the government continued its egregious repression of Baha’i whose seven leaders remained in prison as did Christian pastor Saeed Abedini at year’s end. Attacks against Christians and Shia Muslims continued in Egypt as did attacks against Christians, Yezidis, Sabean Mandaeans, and other religious minorities in Iraq, often with a lack of accountability for the perpetrators. Ahmadi Muslims continued to face violence and repression in places such as Indonesia, as well as disenfranchisement in places such as Pakistan. 

Anti-Semitism also remained a significant problem in 2013. According to a survey of eight European member states by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, harassment of Jews continued, with one-quarter of respondents stating they experienced some form of anti-Semitic harassment in the 12 months before the survey. In the Middle East, media occasionally contained anti-Semitic articles and cartoons, some of which glorified or denied the Holocaust and blamed all Jews for actions by the state of Israel. 

Threats to religious practice also emerged during the year. For example, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a non-binding resolution implying that religious male circumcision – as practiced by Jews and Muslims, and other religions – is a human rights violation.

Ukrainian Religious Organizations Impacted By Russian Actions

Not surprisingly, the rapidly developing conflict between Ukraine and Russia is impacting Ukraine's religious institutions.  The Orthodox Church-- the dominant religion in Ukraine-- is split between three factions. These are the pro- Russian Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate); the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kiev Patriarchate) which dominates Kiev and the central region of the country; and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church whose membership is mainly in the western half of Ukraine. According to The Economnist, this past Monday Moscow moved to assure its control over the Ukrainian Church that is part of the Moscow Patriarchate:

On Monday, the ruling synod of the UOC met and named a "locum tenens" to run the institution's headquarters in Kiev because of the incapacity of its elderly leader, Metropolitan Volodymyr.... The synod said it had ascertained that Metropolitan Volodymyr was definitely too ill to carry out his duties. The new acting leader, a certain Metropolitan Onufry from the southwest of Ukraine, certainly looks, from his biography, like a man who will remain in step with Moscow....

However the synod also accepted a proposal from the Kiev Patriarchate for dialogue.  Some think this is an attempt to continue to be a player should the Ukrainian government move toward creating a single national church.

Meanwhile, as reported by RIA Novosti, on Wednesday in the northern Ukrainian city of Sumy, a dozen backers of the Kiev Patriarchate attempted to seize a UOC-MP cathedral and threatened to set it on fire.  Other religious groups are also responding.  Yesterday's Catholic Sun reports that the Catholic bishop whose diocese includes Crimea issued a statement calling for "all believers and nonbelievers to refrain from extremism, and not to allow the fraternal bond between people living in Crimea to break."

New York Jewish Week this week reports on the uncertain situation of the Jewish community in Ukraine. There have been a few anti-Semitic incidents, including the fire bombing of a synagogue.  Several outside agencies are providing aid, including funds for increased security, for the Jewish community.

Islamist Syrian Rebel Group Imposes Strict Controls On Christians In Town of Raqqa

BBC News reported yesterday that in the northern Syrian town of Raqqa, the rebel group Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) that controls the city has announced online that it is imposing new controls on Christians there. Christians must pay a special tax of 14 grams of gold, may not carry arms, may not renovate their churches, display crosses or other religious symbols outside churches, ring church bells, or pray in public. The group said that Christians must either convert to Islam or accept these conditions or else risk being killed. ISIS said 20 Christian leaders have accepted the conditions. Rival rebel groups have been fighting ISIS since last month.

$525M Default Judgment Entered Against Affiliate of Evangelist Tony Alamo

AP reports that an Arkansas trial court yesterday issued a $525 million default judgment against Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church-- an affiliate of Alamo Ministries.  The judgment came in a suit by 7 women who as young girls were physically, sexually and psychologically abused by evangelist Tony Alamo.  Alamo is presently serving a 175-year prison sentence for taking girls across state lines for sex. (See prior posting.) This week's default judgment gave each victim both actual and punitive damages in amounts totaling between $30 and $87 million per victim. Plaintiffs' attorney plans to register the judgment in California and begin levying on property there to satisfy the judgment.

Court Issues Final Order On Recognition of Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriages In Kentucky; Intervenors Pursuing Additional Relief

As previously reported, earlier this month a Kentucky federal district court issued an opinion holding unconstitutional Kentucky provisions that deny recognition to same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. As reported by the Louisville Courier Journal and Insider Louisville, after a hearing on Tuesday, the court issued its final order (full text) implementing the decision (Bourke v. Beshear,  (WD KY, Feb. 27, 2014)). At the hearing, the deputy attorney general told the court that he did not have authority at that time to ask for a stay of the decision, and the court's final order thus did not contain a stay pending appeal. However the state subsequently quickly filed a motion (full text) asking for a 90-day stay to "give Defendants time to determine if they will appeal the order, and the Executive Branch time to determine what actions must be taken to implement this Court’s Order if no appeal is taken."

Meanwhile, the court yesterday also allowed (full text of order) two other couples to intervene in the case to pursue their claims (full text of intervenors' complaint) that Kentucky laws banning the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples are also unconstitutional. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Veterans' Memorial Design Featuring Cross Held Unconstitutional

Following on a preliminary injunction issued last July (see prior posting), this week after a bench trial a California federal district court in American Humanist Association v. City of Lake Elsinore, (CD CA, Feb. 24, 2014), held that a veterans'-memorial design approved by the Lake Elsinore (CA) City Council violates the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause and the California constitution's Establishment and No Preference Clauses. The memorial includes a soldier kneeling with his gun in front of a 1.4 foot cross, and a row of approximately eight additional crosses and two Stars of David behind the central cross. The court, after tracing in detail the history of the design and redesign of the proposed monument concluded that the city had not shown a predominately secular purpose for including the Latin cross in the design, and its principal effect is to advance religion.  The city's contention that the multiple crosses and stars of David added in a redesign of the monument had the secular purpose of depicting a historic European World War II military cemetery was described by the court as "only a litigating position." American Humanist Association issued a press release calling attention to the decision.

Virginia Legislature Passes Student Religious Expression Bill; Veto Expected

As reported by Metro Weekly, yesterday the Virginia General Assembly gave final passage to SB 236 which protects student religious expression in public schools. The vote was 20-18 in the Senate and 64-34 in the House of Delegates.  The bill would protect voluntary student prayer and prayer gatherings before, during and after school; wearing of clothing or jewelry displaying religious messages; and expression of religious viewpoints by neutrally selected student speakers at graduation and similar events. As reported in Tuesday's Roanoke Times, Gov. Terry McAuliffe's office has said that the governor will veto the bill out of concern for its constitutionality and its unintended consequences.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports, as expected, that Gov. McAuliffe vetoed the bill on April 4.  [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

9th Circuit: Court Should Order Removal of "Innocence of Muslims" From YouTube

In Garcia v. Google, Inc., (9th Cir., Feb. 26, 2014), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that a preliminary injunction should be granted to require the controversial film "Innocence of Muslims" to be removed from YouTube. The suit was filed by Cindy Lee Garcia who acted in a portion of the film.  As explained by the court:

The film’s writer and producer ...cast Garcia in a minor role [in a film with the working title "Desert Warrior."] Garcia was ... paid approximately $500 for three and a half days of filming. “Desert Warrior” never materialized. Instead, Garcia’s scene was used in an anti-Islamic film titled “Innocence of Muslims.” Garcia first saw “Innocence of Muslims” after it was uploaded to YouTube.com and she discovered that her brief performance had been partially dubbed over so that she appeared to be asking, “Is your Mohammed a child molester?”

These, of course, are fighting words to many faithful Muslims and, after the film aired on Egyptian television, there were protests that generated worldwide news coverage.  An Egyptian cleric issued a fatwa, calling for the killing of everyone involved with the film, and Garcia soon began receiving death threats. She responded by taking a number of security precautions and asking that Google remove the video from YouTube.

As summarized by the court:

The panel concluded that the plaintiff established a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim of [copyright] infringement of her performance within the film because she proved that she likely had an independent interest in the performance and that the filmmaker did not own an interest as a work for hire and exceeded any implied license to use the plaintiff’s performance.

Volokh Conspiracy has an extensive analysis of the decision. (See prior related posting.)

UPDATE: On Feb. 28, the 9th Circuit issued a revised preliminary injunction (full text) making it clear that the injunction "does not preclude the posting or display of any version of “Innocence of Muslims” that does not include Cindy Lee Garcia’s performance." [Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

Arizona Governor Vetoes Anti-Gay Religious Freedom Bill

As reported by the Arizona Daily Star, yesterday Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed H.B. 1062, the controversial amendments to the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act that would, among other things, have allowed businesses to invoke religious freedom claims to refuse to serve gays and lesbians, particularly in the context of same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) Announcing her decision at a news conference (full text of remarks), Brewer said that the bill is unneeded and "could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want." In her formal Veto Letter (full text), Brewer said in part:

Senate Bill 1062 ... does not seek to address a specific and present concern related to Arizona businesses.  The out-of-state examples cited by proponents of the bill, while concerning, are issues not currently existing in Arizona.  Furthermore, the bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences.  The legislation seeks to protect businesses, yet the business community overwhelmingly opposes the proposed law.  Moreover, some legislators that voted for the bill have reconsidered their votes and now do not want this legislation to become law.

Federal District Court Strikes Down Texas Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday in De Leon v. Perry, (WD TX, Feb. 26, 2014), a Texas federal district court held unconstitutional Texas' statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriages and their prohibition on recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Granting a preliminary injunction, the court said:

[T]oday's Court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution. Furthermore, Supreme Court precedent prohibits states from passing legislation born out of animosity against homosexuals (Romer), has extended constitutional protection to the moral and sexual choices of homosexuals (Lawrence), and prohibits the federal government from treating state-sanctioned opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages differently (Windsor).

Applying the United States Constitution and the legal principles binding on this Court by Supreme Court precedent, the Court finds that Article I, Section 32 of the Texas Constitution and corresponding provisions of the Texas Family Code are unconstitutional. These Texas laws deny Plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex. The Court finds this denial violates Plaintiffs' equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The court however stayed the execution of the preliminary injunction pending final disposition of any appeal to the 5th Circuit. According to the Dallas Morning News , state attorney general Greg Abbott says the state will appeal.  Washington Post places the decision in a broader context. Texas Gov. Rick Perry yesterday issued a statement (full text) reacting to the decision, saying in part:

it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens. The 10th Amendment guarantees Texas voters the freedom to make these decisions, and this is yet another attempt to achieve via the courts what couldn't be achieved at the ballot box.