Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Williams v. Lemmon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129217 (SD IN, Sept. 16, 2014), an Indiana federal district court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies a Muslim inmate's complaint about a 30-day suspension of Jumah services.

In Grohs v. Santiago, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130139 (D NJ, Sept. 17, 2014 ( NJ, Sept. 17, 2014), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, an inmate's complaint that he had to dispose of religious material because of lack of storage space.

In Brown v. Mathena, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130574 (WD VA, Sept. 16, 2014), a Virginia federal district court dismissed various complaints by a Nation of Islam inmate that the Common Fare diet does not give him nutritional food that meets his religious dietary requirements.

In Martz v. Sci-Coal Twp. Therapeutic Community, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130823 (MD PA, Sept. 18, 2014), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that his rights under the Establishment Clause were infringed when he was denied parole because he did not complete a substance abuse program allegedly religious in nature.

In Cowart v. Allen, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130693 (MD AL, Sept. 18, 2014), an Alabama federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommenation (2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131149, Aug. 26, 2014) and dismissed an inmate's complaint that prison policy denies tobacco use during Native American religious ceremonies, that guards interrupt ceremonies, limit access to fires and a sweat lodge, allow gang members on sacred ground and that the chaplain desecrated his religious objects.

In Short v. Martyn, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131352 (WD MI, Sept. 19, 2014), a Michigan federal district court permitted an inmate to proceed on a retaliation claim (but not a free exercise claim) against a corrections officer who fired plaintiff from his prison job after he attended a non-denominational Christian conference.

In Green v. Beck, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131647 (ED NC, Sept. 9, 2014), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed a former inmate's complaints about the handling of his request for recognition  of his religious name. He was ultimately issued a new identifcation card.

In Powers v. Clarke, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131886 (ED VA, Sept. 17, 2014), a Virginia federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that authorities refused to recognize Nation of Gods and Earths (Five Percenters) as a religion and instead have classified it as a gang and restricted distribution of its literature.

State University Reaches Compromise With Football Team Members On Wearing Cross Decal

Inquisitr reports that Arkansas State University officials have reached a compromise with member of the school's football team-- the Red Wolves-- who want to honor their recently murdered teammate and their recently deceased equipment manager by wearing a Christian cross with the men's initials on it on team helmets this season. (See prior posting.) So long as the student athletes purchase the cross decals themselves and personally place them on their helmets, the University will not object. Liberty Institute, which had written the University (full text of letter) complaining about its original decision to disallow the decals, issued a press release praising the University's decision last Wednesday to now allow them.

Oklahoma Trial Court Rejects Challenge To State Capitol Ten Commandments

AP reports that an Oklahoma state trial court has dismissed an Establishment Clause challenge to a Ten Commandments monument on Oklahoma State Capitol grounds. The court in Prescott v. Capitol Preservation Commission, (OK Cnty Dist. Ct., Sept. 19, 2014), held that the monument, which is on statehouse grounds that have 51 other monuments as well, held that "the Ten Commandments monument on the Oklahoma Capitol grounds is constitutional because of its historical value." According to AP:

The 6-foot-tall granite monument was authorized by the Legislature in 2009 and was erected in 2012 after Republican state Rep. Mike Ritze and his family paid nearly $10,000 for it. The monument's placement has led others to seek their own on the Capitol grounds, including a satanic group that earlier this year unveiled designs for a 7-foot-tall statue of Satan.

In a release reacting to the decision, the Oklahoma ACLU said:

We respectfully disagree with the decision of the court.... [I]t is offensive to [plaintiffs] that this sacred document has been hijacked by politicians. We will appeal this decision and ask the Oklahoma Supreme Court to find that the Oklahoma Constitution does not give the government the power to cheapen inherently religious texts.

(See prior related posting.) [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

Congressional Committee Holds Hearing On Protecting International Religious Freedom

The U.S. House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform held a hearing yesterday on "Protecting International Religious Freedom."  A video of the full hearing and trascripts of the six witnesses' prepared statements are available on the Committee's website.

Pakistani State's Supreme Court Invalidates Appointments of State's Shariat Court Judges

The Supreme Court of the Pakistani state of Azad Jammu and Kashmir has handed down a decision invalidating the procedures for appointing the jurisdiction's Shariat Court judges. In Mughal v. Azad Government of the State of  Jammu and Kashmir, (AKJ Sup. Ct., Aug. 25, 2014), the Court concluded that appointments to the Shariat Court since 1993 are void because the law did not provide for consultation with the relevant chief justices before Shariat Court judges are appointed, did not provide for removal of Shariat Court judges for misconduct or incapacity, and did not require appointment of at least one Islamic legal scholar to the court. In order to avoid the order creating a vacuum, the Supreme Court instructed the government to immediately appoint High Court judges as judges of the Shariat Court as well. Pakistan's Daily Times reports on the decision, which it says was released on Sept. 17.

Group Says Justice Ginsburg Made Improper Comment On Possible Review of Same-Sex Marraige Cases

Liberty Counsel issued a press release yesterday contending that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg violated the Judicial Code of Conduct in remarks she made to an audience at the University of Minnesota Law School.  Ginsburg apparently told the audience that there would be "no need for us to rush" in reviewing challenges to same-sex marriage bans if the 6th Circuit in four cases pending before it does not create a split among circuits by upholding the bans.  She continued saying that there would be "some urgency" to review if a split is created.  Liberty Counsel says that this amounted to comment on the merits of an impending case. Technically, the Judicial Conference's Code of Conduct is not binding on Supreme Court Justices.

Cert. Filed In Case of Police Officer Who Refused To Attend Appreciation Event In Mosque

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in Fields v. City of Tulsa.  In the case, the 10th Circuit dismissed a complaint filed by a Tulsa, Oklahoma police captain who was disciplined after he refused on religious grounds to comply with an order to arrange for two officers and a supervisor from his shift to attend a law enforcement appreciation day held at a mosque. American Freedom Law Center which represents plaintiff has more background on the case and links to all of plaintiff's pleadings.

Catholic Non-Profits Object To Newly Revised Contraceptive Mandate Rules

As reported yesterday by the Southwest Florida News-Press, Catholic non-profit instituitons have signaled their dissatisfaction with the Interim Final Rules under the Affordable Care Act issued last month in an attempt to meet objections to the contraceptive coverage mandate. (See prior posting.) In a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (full text) filed last week by the Becket Fund on behalf of Ave Maria University, the non-profit Catholic college takes issue with the government's claim that the new rules are consistent with the Supreme Court's order in the Wheaton College case:

The augmented rule demands far more than what the Supreme Court required in Wheaton, and, in fact, is substantively indistinguishable from the original rule that the Wheaton Court enjoined. Rather than simply requiring notice that Ave Maria is a religious nonprofit with a religious objection, the augmented rule would require Ave Marie to provide its insurance company’s name and contact information for the specific purpose of allowing HHS to issue a notice requiring the insurer to provide the exact same items through Ave Maria’s healthcare plan as if Ave Maria had given the insurer Form 700 directly. 

Simply routing the form through HHS is a distinction without a difference....

Air Force Will Allow Enlistees and Officers To Drop "So Help Me God" From Oath

The U.S. Air Force announced yesterday that effective immediately it would allow enlisted members and officers who wished to do so to omit the words "So help me God" from enlistment and officer appointment oaths.  The change comes after the Department of Defense General Counsel issued an opinion concluding that the omission is permissible despite language in federal statutes setting out the language of the oaths that include the phrase. The Air Force requested the opinion after an enlisted man who is an atheist insisted on omitting the phrase. (See prior posting.) According to ABC News, the other branches of the military already allow the omission, as did the Air Force until a policy change last year.

Poland's Supreme Court Upholds Airport Security Requirement To Remove Sikh Turban

According to Sikh Sangat News, Poland's Supreme Court yesterday ruled against Shaminder Singh Puri, an environmental expert who does a great deal of international travel, who sued the the Chief of Poland's Border Guard for violation of his religious rights.  Puri, a practicing Sikh, was asked on five occasions between 2009 and 2011 to remove his turban at Warsaw Airport. Puri, seeking damages and an apology, argued that security officials acted disproportionately by immediately requiring him to remove  his turban instead of first using other screening methods.  The Supreme Court held however that security guards were respectful of Puri's religion and, when ordering him to remove his turban, allowed him to do so in a separate room away from other passengers.

Court Says Hospital's Retirement Plan Is "Church Plan," Rejecting Magistrate's Recommendation

In Medina v. Catholic Health Initiatives, (D CO, Aug. 26, 2014), a Colorado federal district court disagreed with the interpretation of ERISA in a federal magistrate judge's recommendation (see prior posting) and held that a Catholic health system's retirement plan is an exempt "church plan." This is one of a series of cases filed around the country claiming an IRS 2002 Private Letter Ruling was legally incorrect in allowing plans that were not "created" by a church to claim the exemption. The suits seek to require the religiously-affiliated hospital plans to meet ERISA's funding and other requirements. The court held that it is enough under the relevant statutory provision that the retirement plan is "maintained by an organization controlled by or associated with a church...." BNA Daily Report for Executives (Aug. 28) [subscription required] reports that with this decision, federal district courts are split 2-2 on the issue, with four more cases pending.

Diocese Challenge To Charter School's Leasing of Catholic High School Property Moves Ahead

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Christ the King Regional High School, (NY Queens Co. Sup. Ct., Aug. 21, 2014), a New York state trial court denied a Catholic high school's motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action filed against it by the Brooklyn Diocese challenging its decision to lease a substantial portion of its property to a non-sectarian charter middle school. In 1976 the Diocese conveyed the school property to the educational corporation that operated the Catholic high school on the condition that the property would be reconveyed to the Diocese if it ceased to be used for a Catholic high school. While under New York property law failure to record the condition extinguished it as a possibility of reverter, the court held that the restriction is still enforceable as a matter of contract law.

European Court Says Turkey Should Offer Alevis Exemption From Compulsory Religion and Ethics Courses

In Mansur Yalçın and Others v. Turkey, (ECHR, Sept. 16, 2014) (full text of opinion in French), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Turkish schools have not made sufficient chagnes in required religion and ethics classes to accommodate Alevis.  As summarized in the Court's English language press release:

The fact that the curriculum of the religion and ethics classes gave greater prominence to Islam as practised and interpreted by the majority of the Turkish population than to other minority interpretations of Islam could not in itself be viewed as a departure from the principles of pluralism and objectivity which would amount to indoctrination. However, bearing in mind the particular features of the Alevi faith as compared with the Sunni understanding of Islam, the applicants could legitimately have considered that the approach adopted in the classes was likely to cause their children to face a conflict of allegiance between the school and their own values.

The Court failed to see how such a conflict could be avoided in the absence of an appropriateexemption procedure. The discrepancies complained of by the applicants between the approach adopted in the curriculum and the particular features of their faith as compared with the Sunni understanding of Islam were so great that they would scarcely be alleviated by the mere inclusion in textbooks of information about Alevi beliefs and practice.

A Chamber Judgment may be appealed to the Grand Chamber of the Court.

Professor's Law Review Article Used In Robocall By Opponent in Mayoral Race

In 2010, then-Associate Professor Jorge Elorza at Roger Williams University Law School published an interesting and sophisticated 65-page law review article in Pittsburgh Law Review titled Secularism and the Constitution: Can Government Be Too Secular?  (Given the timing, this may well have been his "tenure piece.") Elorza, now a full professor, is on leave and running as the Democratic candidate for mayor of Providence, Rhode Island.  WPRI News reported yesterday that the law review article has become the subject of a robocall attack by one of Elorza's opponents in the mayoral race, independent candidate Vincent A. “Buddy” Cianci Jr.:

The caller asks the listener to press 1 if they agree with Cianci that teaching about the existence or nonexistence of God “does not belong in schools,” or press 2 if they agree with Elorza that it would be acceptable “to teach in schools that there is no God.”

New Brunswick Law Society Members Call On Council To Revoke Approval of Christian Law School

In Canada, controversy over the new Christian-affiliated Trinity Western University Law School continues. The school, scheduled to open in 2016, requires students, faculty and staff to subscribe to its religious-based "community covenant" which, among other things, prohibits sex outside of heterosexual marriage. In June, the Council of the New Brunswick Law Society voted to accredit the law school, clearing the way for its graduates to practice in the province.  However, according to yesterday's Straight Talk, at a special general meeting held last week, Law Society members in an advisory vote of 137-30 called on the Council not to approve the school.

Pennsylvania Boy Charged With Desecrating Venerated Object After Facebook Photo of Simulated Sex With Jesus Statue

In Everett, Pennsylvania last week police charged a 14-year old boy with violating Pennsylvania's ban on desecration of venerated objects (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5509) after he posted photos on Facebook showing him simulating oral sex with a statue of Jesus. According to a Pennsylvania State Police Report, the incident took place in July, and charges were filed in Juvenile Court on Sept. 9. Queerty reports that the statue belongs to the Christian organization Love In the Name of Christ.  An organization spokesman says it does not believe the boy should be prosecuted, and asked instead "for prayer for the young man."

Supporters of Scottish Independence Promise Protection of Catholic Schools

On Thursday, voters in Scotland will cast ballots on whether Scotland should break away from the United Kingdom and become an independent country. (Background from Wikipedia.) According to yesterday's Herald Scotland, just days ahead of the vote Roseanna Cunningham, the country's Legal Affairs Minister, promised that in the event of independence, parochial schools will be protected.  She said:

A Yes vote means that Scotland will have a written constitution and that means everyone can be assured that the constitution in place on Independence Day will uphold the rights and liberties of all, including freedom of religion and the protection of Catholic education.

In an advertisement yesterday, 100 members of the Catholic community urged a "yes" vote on independence.

Citing Hobby Lobby, Court Excuses Testimony From FLDS Member Who Has Religious Belief In Secrecy

Relying extensively on both the 10th Circuit and Supreme Court opinions in Hobby Lobby, a Utah federal district court has held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows Vernon Steed, a member of the FLDS Church, to refuse to testify in a Department of Labor administrative proceeding about the internal affairs and organization of the Church.  In Perez v. Paragon Contractors, Corp., (D UT, Sept. 11, 2014), the Department of Labor sought testimony from Steed as part of its investigation of possible child labor violations involving work by FLDS children at a Utah pecan ranch harvest. Steed however claimed he believes that the identity of FLDS Church leaders, the Church's organization and its internal affairs are sacred matters, designated by God, and that he has vowed not to discuss them.  The court held:

It is not for the Court to “inquir[e] into the theological merit of the belief in question”. Hobby Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1137. “The determination of what is a ‘religious’ belief or practice is more often than not a difficult and delicate task .... However, the resolution of that question is not to turn upon a judicial perception of the particular belief or practice in question; religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.” Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707, 714 (1981)....

Petitioner has failed to show that forcing Mr. Steed to answer the questions offensive to his sincerely held religious beliefs is the least restrictive means to advance any compelling interest it may have. For example, as a less restrictive alternative, Petitioner can continue with its efforts to obtain needed information from Paragon Contractors Corporation, Brian Jessop, Dale Barlow and others who contracted to manage the pecan ranch. See Hobby Lobby, 134 S.Ct. at *2780....

UPDATE: It should be noted that the body of the opinion refers to the objecting FLDS member as "Vernon Steed", while the caption labeling the motion being ruled upon refers to him as "Vergel Steed."

Air Force Grants Its First Religious Accommodation For Jewish Chaplain To Wear Beard

J Space News reports that last Wednesday the U.S. Air Force for the first time granted a religious accommodation under a January 2014 revised Department of Defense directive (see prior posting) to commission a bearded rabbi as a chaplain.  Rabbi Elie Estrin, director of a Chabad House at the University of Washington, was sworn in at McCord Air Force Base in Seattle.  In 2011 the Army commissioned a rabbi after litigation over whether he should receive an accommodation for wearing a beard. (See prior posting.)

Satanic Temple Will Seek To Hand Out Its Literature In Florida High Schools

As previously reported, once Orange County, Florida high schools allowed World Changers to distribute Bibles it had essentially created a limited public forum and felt compelled to allow Freedom From Religion Foundation to distribute at least some literature.  Now the next shoe is about to drop. Yesterday's Orlando Sentinel reports that a New York-based group, The Satanic Temple, plans to ask Orange County to allow it to hand out it literature to students so at least they will be exposed to a variety of religious opinions.  In particular it wants to hand out "The Satanic Children's Big Book of Activities" which, it says, gives students information on protecting themselves from corporal punishment at school. The Satanic Temple supports social justice causes and sees Satan as the "eternal rebel against the ultimate tyrant."

Settlement Reached In Presbyterian Church Property Dispute

Presbyterian News Service and The Christian Post reported last week that a settlement has been reached in a lawsuit (see prior posting) brought against Presbyterian Church USA by the Dallas, Highland Park Presbyterian Church. Highland Park, a megachurch, has voted to break away from PCUSA and affiliate with the more conservative Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians.  The suit had been filed by Highland Park to determine ownership of church property. Under the settlement, Highland Park will pay $7.8 million (26% of its assets) to PCUSA to obtain a release of claims that the property belongs to PCUSA under it Book of Order trust clause and to obtain ecclesiastical dismissal.  The dollar amount was agreed on in court-facilitated mediation, and was based on the percentage of Highland Park members that have chosen to remain with PCUSA.

Complaint Filed With HHS Over California Requirement That Insurance Policies Cover Elective Abortions

Last week, seven employees of the religiously-affiliated Loyola Marymount University filed a complaint (full text) with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services objecting to a decision by the California Department of Managed Health Care requiring all private health care plans in the state to cover elective abortions. The complaint contends that the state's decision depriving them of a plan that omits elective abortion coverage violates the Hyde-Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment (Sec. 507 of the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act). That provision prohibits states from discriminating against a health care entity because it does not provide abortion coverage. A press release announced the filing of the complaint by Life Legal Defense Foundation and Alliance Defending Freedom.

New EEOC Nominee Announced

Last week the White House announced that President Obama will nominate  Charlotte Burrows to fill a vacant position on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Burrows is currently Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice. Among her previous positions, she was staff counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The EEOC administers federal laws barring employment discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of religion.

Nigeria Bans Religious Gatherings To Stop Ebola Spread; Group Threatens Lawsuit

In Nigeria, Health Minister Onyebuchi Chukwu has banned religious gatherings as a way to prevent the spread of Ebola. However, according to a report from This Day Live yesterday, the Christian Professionals Association of Nigeria is threatening to sue over the ban if it is not lifted in 72 hours. The group says that while the government has banned Christian religious gatherings, the government has not stopped political rallies across the nation. It says that the religious ban violates freedom or worship, movement and assembly protected under Sections 38-41 of the 1999 Constitution Act (As Amended).

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Kathryn E. Kovacs, Hobby Lobby and the Zero-Sum Game, (92 Washington University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Rostam J. Neuwirth, The Governance of Religion and Law: Insights from the Prohibition of Usury, (International Review of Law 2014(2)).
• Caleb Ayuba, Thou Shall Not Kill: An Interfaith Model in Peacebuilding, (August 26, 2014).
• Eric William Palfreyman, The Qu'Ran, Radical Islam, and the Possibility of a Moderate Exegesis, (August 26, 2014).
• Arif A. Jamal, Religious Authority and Constitutional Order: A Case Study of the Conciliation and Arbitration Boards (CABs) of the Shia Imami Ismaili Community, (Journal of Law, Religion & State 2 (2013) 235–249).
• Brian McCall, Entender Los Males Economómicos Modernos a La Luz De La Doctrina Social Cátolica (Understanding Modern Economic Woes in Light of Catholic Social Doctrine), (Verbo Vol. 52 Nos. 525-526 (2014): 487-509).
• Marc O. DeGirolami, Constitutional Contraction: Religion and the Roberts Court, (Stanford Law & Policy Review, Forthcoming).
• Ronen Perry & Tal Zarsky, 'May the Odds Be Ever in Your Favor': Lotteries in Law, (February 13, 2014).
• Engy Abdelkader, Animal Protection Theory in U.S. and Islamic Law: A Comparative Analysis with a Human Rights Twist, (UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, 2015, Forthcoming).
• Jess R. Phelps, 'Scarcely a Vestige of Antiquity Remains': Evaluating the Role of Preservation Easements in Protecting Historic Religious Architecture, (Environmental Law Reporter, Vol. 44, No. 10808, 2014).

New York and Peoria Dioceses In Battle Over Body Of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

A high-profile dispute between the Catholic Archdiocese of Peoria, Illinois and New York's Archbishop Cardinal Timothy Dolan over the body of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen is the focus of a New York Times report today. Sheen was a popular television personality in the 1950's.  Since his death in 1979, his body has been sealed in a crypt in New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral.  The Peoria Diocese has been pushing for sainthood for Sheen, and has elaborate plans for a shrine to house his tomb, but Dolan refuses to allow the body to be exhumed.  This has led to a halt in the movement toward canonization.  According to the Times:

The very public tug-of-war over the body of Archbishop Sheen, has shocked many Catholics, in part because it seems like something that belongs in another era.

 “We should have moved out of the 14th century by now,” said Joan Sheen Cunningham of Yonkers, a niece of the archbishop and, at 87, his oldest living relative. “I would have thought so.” She wants the body to remain where it is.

The dispute is unlikely to ever reach the courts because of the refusal of civil courts to intervene in religious matters.

Jewish Vote In New York City Is Becoming Increasingly Orthodox and Hasidic

Th New York Times reports today that the profile of Jewish voters in New York City area is changing. Within a generation, a majority of New York City's Jews will likely be Orthodox, and a large percentage of those will be Hasidim who often have very large families.  The traditional liberal voting patterns of New York Jews is thus becoming more conservative.  Hasidim often vote in blocks for candidates favored for pragmatic reasons by their sect's grand rabbi. Hasidim often seek more aid for their system of yeshivas (religious schools). Already Hasidic groups have successfully resisted enforcement of the City's new informed consent requirement for circumcisions using the oral suction method, as well as requirements for various secular courses to be offered in their private schools. Top city and state officials are hiring Orthodox or Hasidic political advisers.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Johnson v. Brown, (11th Cir., Sept. 12, 2014), the 11th Circuit reversed an Alabama federal district court's dismissal at the screening stage of a complaint that Sunnah Muslim inmates' access to a classroom used as a Masjid for prayer was being limited, their prayer services were being interrupted or cancelled, Eid al-Adha was mishandled and plaintiff was not allowed to wear a kufi.

In Miller v. Lewright, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124584 (ED CA, Sept. 5, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend a complaint by a Native American civil detainee that authorities refused to release to him a spiritual bead necklace that he had ordered from a private vendor.

In Utt v. Brown, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122602 (ED NC, Sept. 3, 2014), a North Carolina federal district court permitted a Wiccan inmate to proceed with his complaint about a policy that tarot cards are only for personal use, confiscation of his homemade religious items, a prohibition on his practicing sacred Esbats and denial of corporate worship.

In Vigil v. Raemisch, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124986 (D CO, Sept. 8, 2014), a Colorado federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124985, Aug. 15, 2014), and dismissed a Native American inmate's complaint that he was not allowed to wear a Mohawk haircut.

In Henderson v. Hedgpeth, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125315 (ND CA, Sept. 8, 2014), a California federal district court dismissed with partial leave to amend a Muslim inmate's complaint that authorities failed to provide Muslim prayer services or a full-time chaplain, have not purchased various Muslim religious items (Qurans, prayer rugs, oils, books), have not allowed group breaking of the Ramadan fast or allowed ordering of Halal food.

In Desmond v. Phelps, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126428 (D DE, Sept. 10, 2014), a Delaware federal district court allowed a Jewish inmate to join in a suit by Sunni-Salafi and Catholic inmates raising issues regarding the practice of religion at a Delaware prison. The court denied a preliminary injunction relating to retaliation claims by one of the Catholic plaintiffs.

In Elmore v. Saunders, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126978 (MD NC,Sept. 11, 2014), a North Carolina federal district court denied the free exercise claim of an inmate who alleged that he could not pray during four days in a close observation cell because he was handcuffed and denied water to cleanse himself.

In Cejas v. Myers, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127008 (ED CA, Sept. 10, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed, with partial leave to amend, a Buddhist inmate's complaint that Buddhists were denied chapel time while on C-status, and failed to fill a vacant chaplain position.

In Walters v. Livingston, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127630 (WD TX, Sept. 12, 2014), a Texas federal magistrate judge dismissed on various grounds claims by a Native American inmate (who now has been released after completing his sentence) that he was wrongly transferred to a non-Native American unit after he was disciplined and not provided accommodations to practice his faith there. Defendants' counterclaim for attorneys' fees was also dismissed.

"God" In Pledge and in Military Oath Challenged Anew By Humanist Group

Stars and Stripes reported earlier this week that the U.S. Air Force is seeking an opinion from the Defense Department's chief lawyer on whether an enlisted man who is an atheist can refuse to include the phrase "so help me God" in his re-enlistment oath. Among the armed services, only the Air Force has a policy that does not make inclusion of the phrase optional.  The American Humanist Association has threatened to sue on behalf of the airman, who is stationed at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada-- if the issue is not resolved next week.

Meanwhile last week the American Humanist Association launched a national campaign urging everyone to sit out the pledge of allegiance until the phrase "under God" is removed from it. The organization has created a website devoted to the campaign. The campaign yesterday released a letter it sent to New Town, North Dakota school officials complaining about a teacher's refusal to allow a first-grader to sit out the pledge.

3rd Circuit Upholds New Jersey's Ban On Reparative Therapy As Permissible Regulation of Professional Speech

Yesterday, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld against 1st Amendment challenges New Jersey's statute barring professional counselors from engaging in sexual orientation change therapy with minors. In King v. Governor of the State of New Jersey, (3rd Cir., Sept. 11, 2014), the court affirmed the district court's decision, while disagreeing with its 1st Amendment free expression analysis. Rejecting the district court's conclusion that talk therapy is not speech, the court instead concluded that it is "professional speech" which is subject to the same intermediate scrutiny as commercial speech.  Applying that test, the court found that the law directly advances New Jersey’s interest in protecting minors from harmful professional practices and is narrowly enough tailored to survive intermediate scrutiny.  The court rejected plaintiffs' free exercise challenge, finding that the law is neutral and generally applicable, and rejected plaintiffs' overbreadth challenge as well. Finally it agreed with the district court that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit on behalf of their minor clients. Bloomberg News reports on the decision. Liberty Counsel which represented plaintiffs announced that it would seek Supreme Court review.

University Tells Team To Remove Memorial Cross From Helmets

This season, the Arkansas State University football team decided to honor their recently murdered teammate and their former equipment manager who recently died in a car crash by wearing a Christian cross with the men's initials on it on their helmets. However, as reported yesteday by Fox News, University counsel told the team to remove the emblems after receiving a complaint that the team's wearing them violates the Establishment Clause. Counsel said that alternatively the players could change the Christian Cross to a "Plus sign" to eliminate the problem.

EEOC Sues Dunkin' Donuts Over Refusal To Hire Seventh Day Adventist

The EEOC yesterday filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against a Dunkin' Donuts franchise in Ashville, North Carolina. The company withdrew its offer to hire Darrell Littrell as a donut maker when he refused to begin work on Friday evening because of his Seventh Day Adventist feligious beliefs. The EEOC's announcement also indicated that the company was charged with failing to preserve required employment records.

9th Circuit: Ban On Soliciting At LAX Upheld Over Hare Krishna Challenge

In a case that slipped under my radar last month, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Los Angeles ordinance banning continuous or repetitive solicitation for the immediate receipt of funds at Los Angeles International Airport, rejecting a challenge to the ban by the Hare Krishna movement.  In International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, (9th Cir., Aug. 20, 2014), a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit held that major international airports have a legitimate interest in controlling pedestrian congestion and reducing the risk of fraud and duress attendant to repetitive, in-person solicitation.

Legal Loopholes Allow Israeli Farmers To Avoid Sabbatical Year Strictures

JTA this week carries a report on the legal technicalities surrounding observance of the Biblical Sabbatical year for farmers in Israel.  With the coming of Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) in late September, the Sabbatical year begins.  Various legal loopholes-- such as the fictional sale of farms to non-Jewish owners for a nominal amount for the year-- have been developed through the Chief Rabbinate and Religious Courts to allow Jewish farmers to avoid the complete shut-down of their farms that would flow from strict observance of the Biblical mandate.

California Univerisites De-Recognize InterVarsity Christian Fellowship

RNS reported this week that the California State University System is withdrawing official recognition  of the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at its 23 campuses because the organization limits leadership roles to those who affirm belief in its traditional Christian Doctrinal Basis (full text). While membership in the group is open to any student, its limit on who may be leaders conflicts with the University System's non-discrimination policy. De-recognition means the group will lose it discount on use of meeting rooms, and will lose access to other official events such as student fairs. Christian Post reports that the group will  will now use other techniques, including social media, for recruitment.

New "Candy-Cane" Religious Message Case Filed

In what may be a reprise of nearly a decade of litigation out of Texas, a new "candy-cane" case has hit the courts, this time in California. The San Bernadino County Sun reported yesterday that Alex and Myrna Martinez, parents of a first grader (Isaiah), have filed a lawsuit against the West Covina Unified School district alleging that a Merced Elementary School teacher refused to allow their son to distribute Christmas candy canes with a story about Jesus attached. Allegedly the teacher tore the messages off the candy before allowing the student to distribute them, saying that Jesus is not allowed in school. The complaint claims that other students were allowed to distribute Christmas gifts. The school board says that the candy canes were being distributed during instructional time, which is prohibited by school rules. Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which sent a demand letter (full text) to school officials on behalf of the student, has posted more about the case. School board president Steve Cox says he is concerned that the district is being "set up" as a test case.

Philadephpia Schools Settle Religious Accommodation Suit With Justice Department

The Justice Department announced Monday that it has reached a settlement with the School District of Philadelphia in a Title VII religious accommodation lawsuit that it filed in March. (See prior posting.)  At issue is the school district's October 2010 policy change which barred a Muslim school police officer from wearing a beard longer than one-quarter inch. Under the settlement, the school district will adopt a revised appearance and attire policy for police officers that will allow them to apply for a religious accommodations. The school district will also pay damages to two employees, expunge disciplinary items from their files, and will train supervisors on religious accommodation issues.

Amish Will Comply Under Protest With Court's Order, But Will Not Take Next Steps

The Eau Claire Leader-Telegram reported Monday that a Wisconsin trial court judge ordered three Amish defendants to sign applications for building and sanitary permits and pay the required fees, or otherwise to be evicted from their homes.  Defendants' lawyer says that they will sign "under protest" in order to stay in their homes, but that they have no intention of installing the required smoke and carbon monoxide detectors.  He says that the signing is an affirmation that the laws exist, not an agreement to comply with them. Electric or battry operated detectors violate Old Order Amish religious beliefs. Defendants are considering whether to appeal the court's ruling.

Plaintiffs Lose Suit Against Cisco For Developing System Used To Track Falun Gong In China

In Doe I v. Cisco Systems, Inc., (ND CA, Sept. 5, 2014), a California federal district court dismissed a lawsuit by Falun Gong practitioners that claimed Cisco aided and abetted and conspired with the Chinese Communist Party and Public Security officers in committing human rights abuses against Falun Gong. Cisco created the Golden Shield security system that was used to intercept and track communications of Falun Gong, leading to their apprehension, arrest and torture. The court dismissed plaintiffs claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), holding that the actions were not suffciently related to the territory of the United States to overcome the presumptions against extraterritorial application of the ATS. It dismissed aiding and abetting claims, finding that it was not shown that Cisco had knowledge that its product would be used for torture and forced conversions.  Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

7th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Parsonage Allowance Challenge

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Lew. In the case, a Wisconsin federal district court held that the tax code provision that excludes a minister's parsonage allowance from gross income violates the Establishment Clause. Courthouse News Service reports on the oral arguments which focused both on standing and Establishment Clause issues.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In 3 Same-Sex Marriage Cases

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in cases from Idaho, Nevada and Hawaii challenging same-sex marriage bans. Audio recordings of the full arguments in each of the cases is available: Latta v. Otter (Idaho); Sevcik v. Sandoval (Nevada); Jackson  v. Abercrombie  (Hawaii). Subsequent to the district court opinion being appealed, Hawaii legalized same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  MSNBC, reporting on the oral arguments, called it "a rough day for marriage equality opponents."

Civil Penalties, Injunction Issued Against FLDS Towns

Following on a $5.3 million jury verdict against the FLDS-controlled towns of Colorado City, Ariz., and Hildale, Utah for denying utility service to a couple because they are not FLDS members (see prior posting), a federal court has now imposed a civil damage award and an injunction on the request of the state of Arizona as intervenor.  In Cooke v. Town of Colorado City, (D AZ, Sept. 4, 2014), the court impopsed a $50,000 civil penalty under the Arizona Fair Housing Act against each town and their utility companies.  It also permanently enjoined defendants from discriminating on the basis of religion in performing their official duties, and retained jurisdiction for 10 years in case of violations. The court rejected the state's request that it disband the present law-enforcement offices in the two towns and appointment of a monitor because the requested relief "would burden both Defendants and the State with a layer of bureaucracy extending into potential perpetuity." Finally the court awarded attorneys' fees to the state. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Suit Alleges Anti-Hasidic Conspiracy By Two Municipalities

Invoking RLUIPA, the Fair Housing Act, the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as New York statutory and constitutional provisions, in a 66-page federal court complaint a Jewish school, developers and Orthodox Jewish residents sued the Village of Bloomingburg, NY and the adjoining Town of Mamakating alleging an anti-Semitic conspiracy to prevent more Hasidic Jews from moving into the area. The complaint (full text) in The Bloomingburg Jewish Education Center v. Village of Bloomingburg, New York, (SD NY, filed 9/8/2014), alleges in part:

The Village of Bloomingburg ... and the adjoining Town of Mamakating ,,,, acting on behalf of an aggressive and hateful group of residents, are engaged in a conspiracy to prevent Hasidic Jews from buying houses, establishing a private religious school, and operating businesses in their community. After members of the Hasidic community began to move into the area, Bloomingburg and Mamakating instituted a number of roadblocks designed to stop the community from growing. These municipalities are engaged in a series of patently illegal actions to block lawful, approved and long planned developments....

The Village and Town are seeking to use their political power, economic pressure, zoning laws and sheer intimidation to prevent a certain type of people from joining their community. This type of intolerance might sound like a story from the Civil Rights Era in the South. But it is unfolding right now in a municipality just 75 miles from New York City.

As reported by JP Updates:

The lawsuit is directed at Bill Herrmann, the Supervisor of the Town of Mamakating, who has said that “the people elected him to stop the Jewish infiltration,” and Frank Gerardi, the new Mayor of Bloomingburg, who’s claim to fame is that he was elected to prevent more of “those people” – Hasidic Jews – from moving into Bloomingburg.

8th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Individuals' Religious Challenge To Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (recording of full arguments) in Wieland v. Department of Health and Human Services. In the case, a Missouri federal district court denied a temporary restraining order to a Missouri state employee and his wife who claim that the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate forces them to violate their religious opposition to contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients by requiring their group health insurance policy to make these services available to their daughters who are covered by the policy.  The trial court held that plaintiffs lack standing to sue. (See prior posting.) The Kansas City Star reports on yesterday's arguments in which appellants rely on the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision. Appellants argued that the mandate is equivalent to requiring Mormon parents, whose religion forbids alcohol use, to stock unlocked liquor cabinets for their children’s use when parents are not home.

College Applicant Sues Claiming Rejection Because of Religious Beliefs

An applicant to Community College of Baltimore filed suit in a Maryland federal district court yesterday claiming that he was rejected from the radiation therapy program because he discussed his religious belief during his admissions interview.  The complaint (full text) in Buxton v. Kurtinitis, (D MD, filed 9/8/2014) contends that the situation is similar to that which led to a lawsuit lastt year by a different applicant who was similarly rejected. An ACLJ press release discusses yesterday's lawsuit.

Egypt Arrests 7 Who Appeared In Video Of Same-Sex Wedding

AlJazeera yesterday  reported that Egypt has arrested seven men on charges of inciting debauchery and publishing indecent images after a video of them taking part in the country's first same-sex wedding went viral on social media.  The wedding took place last April, but went viral in August. Authorities identified 9 of the 16 people in the video, and arrested 7 of them. Those arrested were remanded in custody for up to four days, and "medical tests" of the men were ordered.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Nimer Sultany, Religion and Constitutionalism: Lessons from American and Islamic Constitutionalism, (Emory International Law Review, Vol. 28, 2014).
• Nasty M. Vladoiu, Fundamental Freedoms Versus Religious Commandments? ,(August 3, 2014).
• Waverly Crenshaw & Brian A. Pierce, Tennessee's Unique Religious Protections in Employment: Do They Mean What They Say?, (1 Belmont Law Review 1 (2014) ).
• Hugues Fulchiron, The Family Court Judge Taking Religious Convictions into Account: A French and European Perspective, (International Journal of the Jurisprudence of the Family, Forthcoming).
• John D. Inazu, Institutions in Context, (Tulsa Law Review, 2015, Forthcoming).
• Elizabeth Papp Kamali, Felonia Felonice Facta: Felony and Intentionality in Medieval England, (Criminal Law and Philosophy (2014 Forthcoming)).
• Elizabeth Papp Kamali, The Devil's Daughter of Hell Fire: The Role of Anger in Medieval English Felony Adjudication, (August 6, 2014).
• David B. Cruz, Baker v. Nelson: Flotsam in the Tidal Wave of Windsor's Wake, (3 Ind. J. L. & Soc. Equality, 2014, Forthcoming).
• Cyra Akila Choudhury, Ideology, Identity, and Law in the Production of Islamophobia, (38 Dialectical Anthropology __ (2014 Forthcoming)).
• C. Christine Fair, Rebecca Littman & Elizabeth Nugent, Pakistani Conceptualization of Shari'a and Support for Militancy and Democratic Values: A New Empirical Approach, (August 12, 2014).
• Atif Jilani, Atif & Valeed Ahmad Ansari, Game Theory and Auctions from Islamic Viewpoint, (August 16, 2014).

From SmartCILP:

• Pamela Foohey, Bankrupting the Faith, 78 Missouri Law Review 719-776 (2013).

11th Circuit Denies Habeas Even Though Murder Victim's Pastor Opened Voir Dire With Prayer

Bates v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, (11 Cir., Sept. 5, 2014), is a habeas corpus action brought by a death row inmate who was convicted of murder, kidnapping, sexual battery and armed robbery.  At issue in this proceeding was a challenge to the trial judge's action at the beginning of the jury selection process in which he asked a Baptist minister-- pastor of the church at which the victim's funeral took place-- to open the proceedings with a prayer. Petitioner claims ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because of his lawyer's failre to object to the prayer. The court unanimously rejected his claim, but with a shaarp split on the reason for the result:

In a 2-1 decision, the majority held that:

Bates’s lawyer could not be ineffective for failing to raise an Establishment Clause claim, because an Establishment Clause claim, by itself, would not help his client anyway....

More generally on the lawyer's failure to object, the majority said:

Good lawyers, knowing that judges and juries have limited time and limited patience, serve their clients best when they are judicious in making objections. In any trial, a lawyer will leave some objections on the table. Some of those objections might even be meritorious, but the competent lawyer nonetheless leaves them unmade because he considers them distractive or incompatible with his trial strategy.

Judge Wilson concurred, only because there was a "dearth of clearly established law" on the issue, so that the previous Florida Supreme Court ruling on the issue was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law (the requiement for habeas relief). However, he argued that if he were deciding the case de novo, he would have found a substanital problem:

Bates’s murder trial began with a prayer in the presence of the jury, and the victim’s husband subsequently gave testimony informing the jury that the prayer was delivered by none other than the victim’s own minister. This testimony had no probative value, but it had great potential to prejudice the jury against Bates. The prayer inserted God into Bates’s trial, and the husband’s testimony made clear whose side God was on. 

Last Weekend Was National Days of Prayer and Remembrance

In a Presidential Proclamation (full text) issued last Thursday, President Obama declared this past weekend (Sept 5-7) as National Days of Prayer and Remembrance for the victims of 9-11. The Proclamation reads in part:

On this solemn anniversary, let us reaffirm the fundamental American values of freedom and tolerance -- values that stand in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us.  Let us give thanks for all the men and women in uniform who defend these values from new threats, and let us remember those who laid down their lives for our country.  May our faith reveal that even the darkest night gives way to a brighter dawn.....

I ask that  the people of the United States honor and remember the victims of September 11, 2001, and their loved ones through prayer, contemplation, memorial services, the visiting of memorials, the ringing of bells, evening candlelight remembrance vigils, and other appropriate ceremonies and activities.  I invite people around the world to participate in this commemoration.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Jenkins v. Meyers, (9th Cir., Sept. 4, 2014), the 9th Circuit upheld a prison's action in returning a package containing religious prayer oil sent by an unapproved religious vendor.

In Woodward v. Perez, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121329 (SD NY, Aug. 29, 2014), a New York federal district court dismissed on qualified immunity and mootness grounds a Muslim inmate's complaint that his religious rights were infringed when he was requied to shower in the presence of a female officer and a "known homosexual" fellow-inmate.

In Lindsey v. Butler, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121364 (SD NY, Aug. 29, 2014), a New York federal district court permitted a Black Sunni Muslim plaintiff to proceed with his claim that his free exercise and 4th Amendment rights were infringed when police forcibly shave his facial hair for purposes of a police lineup.

In Green v. Director/Secretary California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121485 (SD CA, Aug. 29, 2014), a California federal district court permitted a Native American inmate to proceed with his complaint that he was denied access to a sweat lodge, was harassed and intimidated, and had his religious items confiscated.

In Rowe v. Indiana Department of Corrections, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123884 (SD IN, Sept. 5, 2014), an Indiana federal district court rejected claims by a White Supremacist inmate who was a leader of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian (the religious arm of Aryan Nations) that policies of the Indiana Department of Corrections interfered with his abillity to practice his religion. The challenged policies involved security threat groups, offender visitation, property limits, offender correspondence and a policy that prevents him from wearing a swastika necklace.

8th Circuit: Small Employer Lacks Standing To Challenge Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

Annex Medical, Inc. v. Burwell, (8th Cir., Sept. 5, 2014) presents a new twist on the contraceptive coverage mandate issue decided by the Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby.  In the case, the district court had denied a preliminary injunction, but the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals then granted a preliminary injunction pending appeal. Now in a 2-1 decision, the  8th Circuit vacates the district court's order, holding that an employer of under 50 employees lacks standing to challenge the contraceptive coverage mandate on religious grounds.

Important to the majority's decision is its reading of a provision of the Internal Revenue Code which many have seen as imposing a $100 per day excise tax on a small employer that chooses voluntarily to provide its employees health insurance, but insurance that not cover contraceptive services.  The court concludes that 26 USC Sec. 4980D(d) precludes penalizing the company if it offers insurance from a health insurer which is inconsistent with the contraceptive mandate.

The company complains however that no insurance company will write a policy that excludes contraceptive coverage because federal law prohibits the insurance company from doing so. The majority writes:

The standing problem is the pleadings and record contain no indication any Minnesota health insurer is willing, but for the mandate, to sell a plan allowing a small employer such as Annex to prohibit coverage for a handful of healthcare products and services....

Based on the pleadings and sparse record before us, we can only speculate whether Annex’s difficulties obtaining contraceptive-free insurance are (1) caused by the government defendants as opposed to the independent decisions of third-party insurers, and (2) redressable by the remedy available to Annex: a permanent version of the preliminary injunction Annex already received and which failed to redress Annex’s alleged injury.

Judge Colloton, concurring, argues that Annex has standing:

it should be evident that a market to serve Annex Medical is likely to develop if the requested relief is granted. It is unsurprising that insurers were not prepared to write policies for Annex Medical and submit them to state regulators for approval based on a temporary injunction pending appeal of indefinite duration while the law was unsettled. But the complaint seeks permanent injunctive and declaratory relief that the government cannot forbid the issuance of the group plan that Annex Medical wants to purchase.

[Thanks to Stephen Blakeman for the lead.] 

State Antidiscrimination Law Applies To Selection of Members of Catholic High School Basketball Team

In Cardinal Ritter High School, Inc. v. Bullock, (IN App., Sept. 5, 2014), an Indiana Court of Appeals held that the Indiana Civil Rights Law applies to alleged racial discrimination by a Catholic high school in selecting members of its basketball team. The Act, by its terms, applies to discriminatory practices relating to education. The court held that this does not offend the school's free exercise rights. However the court vacated and remanded the case because the administrative law judge who heard the testimony retired, and the findings of fact were written by a different ALJ who never heard the testimony or saw the witnesses in person.

Internet Was Scrubbed of Sotloff's Jewish Connections In Try To Protect Him

JTA reported yesterday on the extensive efforts that were made after ISIS captured American journalist Steven Sotloff to scrub the Internet of any mention that he was Jewish or held dual Israeli citizenship. Sone 150 of his friends searched out any online mention of these facts to eliminate them. They also convinced journalists wrting about Sotloff to remove any mention of these facts as a way to lessen his danger.  The efforts were successful in keeping the information from ISIS, but not successful in preventing Sotloff's beheading earlier this week.

32 States Ask Supreme Court To Grant Cert In Same-Sex Marriage Cases

As reported yesterday by AP, in two separate amicus briefs a total of 32 states have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari to decide on the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. Led by Massachusetts, 15 states that allow same-sex marriage joined a brief in Herbert v. Kitchen, the 10th Circuit case invalidating Utah's ban. (Full text of brief.) (Mass. AG press release.)  17 other states led by Colorado filed a brief in Rainey v. Bostic, the 4th Circuit Virginia case and Smith v. Bishop, the 10th Circuit Oklahoma case.

7th Circuit Invalidates Same-Sex Marriage Bans In Indiana and Wisconsin

Yesterday the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Baskin v. Bogan, (7th Cir., Sept. 4, 2014), affirmed district court decisions striking down same-sex marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin. The unanimous opinion, written by Judge Posner in his unquely cogent style, takes on and counters each argument in favor of same-sex marriage bans put forward by each state. He particularly emphasizes the protection-of-children argument on which Indiana relied exclusively:

The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction—that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage  because same-sex couples can’t produce children, intended or unintended—is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously. To the extent that children are better off in families in which the parents are married, they are better off whether they are raised by their biological parents or by adoptive parents. The discrimination against same-sex couples is irrational, and therefore unconstitutional even if the discrimination is not subjected to heightened scrutiny, which is why we can largely elide the more complex analysis found in more closely balanced equal-protection cases.

He derides Indiana's arguments, summarizing them as follows:

Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.

Moving to Wisconsin's ban, Judge Posner, quoting (among others) Justice Holmes and John Stuart Mill, counters each of four additional justifications the state puts forward for banning same-sex marriage-- tradition, the need to move cautiously, respect for the democratic process and damage to traditional marriage. Posner describes the last of these as an argument that "allowing [homosexuals] to marry degrades the institution of marriage (as might happen if people were allowed to marry their pets or their sports cars)...."  He summarizes:

the grounds advanced by Indiana and Wisconsin for their discriminatory policies are not only conjectural; they are totally implausible.

As reported by the New York Times, yesterday's decision was handed donw only nine days after the court heard oral arguments in the case.

Catholic School Teacher Can Pursue Title VII Claim After Firing For In Vitro Fertilization

In Herx v. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, (ND IN, Sept. 3, 2014), Emily Herx, a former teacher at a Catholic school, sued under Title VII and the Americans With Disabiliteis Act after the diocese refused to renew her teaching contract because she became pregnant through in vitro fertilization. The Catholic Church considers in vitro fertilization immoral.  The court granted the Diocese's motion to dismiss the ADA claim becuase no jury could reasonably find that she lost her job because of her infertility (her claimed disability).  Instead it was because of her treatment for her disability. The court however refused to dismiss Herx's Title VII sex discrimination claim.  First it concluded that the ministerial exception doctrine did not apply because Herx was not a "minister."  It then went on to hold:

while a jury could find that a gender-neutral rule against in vitro fertilization prompted her nonrenewal, a jury also could find that a male teacher’s contract would have been renewed under the same circumstances.

The Fort Wayne Gazette reports on the decision.

Protestant Navy Chaplains Denied Class Action Certification

Yesterday the D.C. federal district court issued yet another opinion in In re Navy Chaplaincy, (D DC, Sept. 4, 2014)-- a long running case that has already generated over twenty district court and Court of Appeals opinions. As summarized by the court:

Plaintiffs, 65 current and former nonliturgical Protestant chaplains in the United States Navy, their endorsing agencies, and a fellowship of non-denominational Christian evangelical churches... , bring this consolidated action against the Department of the Navy and several of its officials.... Plaintiffs allege that Defendants discriminated against non-liturgical Protestant chaplains on the basis of religion, maintained a culture of denominational favoritism in the Navy, and infringed on their free exercise and free speech rights.

In this most recent decision the court first held that it lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs' challenge to an alleged denominational quota system for chaplains because the Navy many years ago eliminated the policy rendering the challenge to it moot. It then went on to deny class certification as to the remainder of the claims, concluding that plaintiffs "have not presented 'significant proof' of any specific unconstitutional policy or practice that applied to them across the board as a class and produced a common legal injury."

Settlement Reached In Synagogue's Suit Challenging Historic Site Designiation

The AP reports that a Florida, federal district court last week approved a settlement agreement in Temple B'nai Zion, Inc. v. City of Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, a case on remand from the 11th Circuit (see prior posting). In the case the synagogue claims that its designation as an historic site-- thereby preventing demolition and construction of a new building on the site-- violated its relgious freedom rights. The Temple was declared a landmark because of a 2004 meeting of Holocaust survivors there. Three of the city commission members involved in the decision were former members of the synagogue before it moved from embracing Conservative Judaism to becoming an Orthodox synagogue. The hearing on the synagogue's objections to the designation was filled with comments from individuals unhappy about actions of the synagogue's rabbi. Under the settlement, the historic landmark designation remains, but the Temple will be permitted to make certain structural changes. The city will also give the Temple a transferable development right elsewhere in the city.

Tax Court Rejects Minister's Attempt To Shield Income From Taxes

In Cortes v. Commissioner, (T.C., Sept. 3, 2014), the United States Tax Court rejected a claim by a minister of the Seventh Day Sabbath Church that an arrangement invovling setting up a ministry, creation of a corporation sole and taking a vow of poverty excused him from paying income tax on amounts paid to his ministry but used for his family's personal expenses. The minister's tax avoidance scheme, promoted by Frederic and Elizabeth Gardner, has been the subject of litigation in prior cases. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

District Court Upholds Louisiana's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

A Louisiana federal district court yesterday became only the second court (see prior posting) after the U.S. Supreme Court's Windsor decision to uphold a state law banning same-sex marriage.  In Robicheaux v. Caldwell,  (ED LA, Sept. 3, 2014), the court rejected the argument that heightened scrutiny should apply, and concluded that Louisiana had a rational basis for addressing the meaning of marriage through the democratic process. It held:

This Court is persuaded that Louisiana has a legitimate interest...whether obsolete in the opinion of some, or not, in the opinion of others...in linking children to an intact family formed by their two biological parents.... 

This Court has arduously studied the volley of nationally orchestrated court rulings against states whose voters chose in free and open elections, whose legislatures, after a robust, even fractious debate and exchange of competing, vigorously differing views, listened to their citizens regarding the harshly divisive and passionate issue on same-sex marriage. The federal court decisions thus far exemplify a pageant of empathy; decisions impelled by a response of innate pathos.  Courts that, in the words of Justice Scalia in a different context ... appear to have assumed the mantle of a legislative body. 

SCOTUSblog reports on the decision.

New Website Launched To Cover Catholic Issues

Boston Globe Media Partners on Tuesday announced the launch of a new website devoted to reporting on issues related to the Catholic Church and Catholic lifestyles.  The site, titled Crux, will provide national and international news and analysis of the Church and Catholic practice. A link to Crux has been added to the Religion Clause sidebar under "Resources."

New EEOC Chair Appointed

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced yesterday that President Obama has appointed EEOC vice-chair Jenny R. Yang as Chair of the EEOC. She will be the first Asian-American chair of the Commission. She replaces Jacqueline A. Berrien. The EEOC enforces federal employment anti-discrimination laws, including laws prohibiting religious discrimination.

In Germany, New Tax Rules Lead To Departures From Churches

Reuters reported last week that a change in Germany's tax law has prompted a large jump in the number of Germans leaving both Catholic and Protestant churches. Under Germany's tax law, church members are assessed another 8% or 9% which goes to pay the salaries of clergy, charitable services and other expenses of the church. While the church tax applies to all income, apparently many Germans have paid it only on their salaries and not on their investment income.  Under tax changes that become effective next year, banks will automatically withhold church taxes from accounts in which individuals earn more than 801 Euros in capital gains. Many are leaving their church rather than pay the increased amounts.  Leaving a church means that an individual is no longer entitled to receive sacraments or marry in the church, or receive a religious burial. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Saudi Appeals Court Upholds Harsh Blasphemy Sentence

AFP reports that an appellate court in Saudi Arabia has upheld a sentence of ten years in jail, 1000 lashes, and a fine equivalent to nearly $267,000 (US) imposed on the founder of a liberal human rights group. The sentence was imposed on Raef Badawi for "creating a website insulting Islam," and criticizing the religious police.

Indian Court Bans Religious Animal Sacrifices

In the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh, a 2-judge bench of the High Court has banned the traditional practice of animal sacrifice in any place of public religious worship.  The decision (full text) handed down on Sept. 1 reads in part:

Sacrifice causes immense pain and suffering to the innocent animals. The innocent animals cannot be permitted to be sacrificed to appease the God/deity in a barbaric manner. Compassion is basic tenets in all the religions. The practice of animal sacrifice is a social evil and is required to be curbed.

The decision also calls into question whether animal sacrifice "can be termed as religious practice."  According to the Business Standard:

Gory goat slaughtering festivals take place in winters across Himachal Pradesh. Often, scores of goats are butchered in single day to appease village deities.

Today's Times of India reports on reactions to the decision.

British Group Rallies Against Rising Anti-Semitism

In Britain on Sunday, some 3500 to 4500 people gathered in front of London's Royal Courts of Justice to protest rising anti-Semitism in Britain. As reported by International Business Times, the rally was organized by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAAS) which said that Jews in Britain are facing levels of anti-Semitism not seen in almost a century. CAAS called on police to demonstrate a zero-tolerance for anti-Semitism.

American Muslims Seek U.S. Protection During Hajj

Last week, a coalition of 28 Muslim groups in the United States wrote Securetary of State John Kerry (full text of letter) asking for U.S. action to protect the safety of American Muslims who will travel to Saudi Arabia in October on Hajj.  According to the letter, in the past protection was lacking:

In 2013, a group of American Muslims from Dearborn, Michigan, was attacked during the Hajj by a group of Australian pilgrims because they are Shias, a minority denomination within Islam. The Americans were physically and verbally assaulted—including men being strangled and women threatened with rape—and alleged that though Saudi authorities were present, these authorities did not intervene or take their complaints seriously. Further, the victims allege that Saudi authorities deleted cell phone video recordings of the attack.  The victims sought assistance from the U.S. Embassy, but disturbingly their phone calls were not returned.

RNS reports on the letter.  On Sunday, without mentioning the letter, the State Department posted a Hajj Fact Sheet on its website. The section on Safety mentions problems of fraud and theft, but does not allude to physical attacks. The State Department's website also has a general page on "Help for U.S. Citizen Victims of Crime Overseas."

More Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Kilgore v. Gerlicher, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119578 (D MN, Aug. 8, 2014), a Mionnesota federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were substantially burdened by the Department of Corrections designating Nation of Gods and Earths as a security threat group.

In Green v. Hawkinberry, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120020 (WD PA, Aug. 28, 2014), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge permitted an inmate to proceed against all but one defendant with his complaint that he was wrongfullydenied a kosher diet.

In Muhammad v. Pearson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120396 (ED VA, Aug. 22, 2014), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a complaint by a Nation of Islam inmate that he was denied study guides, DVD's, and a second NOI meeting. The court did not dismiss, pending a motion to do so, plaintiff's complaint that he was unable to have NOI meetings while on lockdown.

In Guillory v. Ellis, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120709 (ND NY, Aug. 29, 2014), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation and dismissed a suit in which plaintiff claimed defendant caused him to miss one religious service and there was a shortened Purim celebration.

In Shabazz v. Giurbino, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121037 (ED CA, Aug. 28, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that a Muslim inmate be allowed to move forward with some of his claims alleging that he received Halal meals containing meat only once a day (the others were vegetarian) while Jewish prisoners received kosher meat meals three times a day.

Recent Articles and Book of Interest

From SSRN:

• Inna Semenenko & Ruslan Galgash, Role of Religion as a Social Institution in Sustainable Development: View from Ukraine, (Problemy Ekorozwoju-- Problems of Sustainable Development 2014, vol. 9, no 2, 65-72).
• Richard K. Sherwin, Law in the Flesh: Tracing Legitimation's Origin to 'The Act of Killing', (No Foundations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Law and Justice, No. 11, June 2014).
• Eli Wald & Russell G. Pearce, What's Love Got to Do with Lawyers? Thoughts on Relationality, Love, and Lawyers’ Work, (17 Legal Ethics (2014)).
• Christopher McCrudden, Human Rights, Southern Voices, and ‘Traditional Values’ at the United Nations, (May 28, 2014).
• Brian Leiter, Reply to Five Critics of Why Tolerate Religion?, (Criminal Law & Philosophy, 2015, Forthcoming).
• Asad Zaman, Building Genuine Islamic Financial Institutions, (Presented at Conference on: Economics and Ethics” organized by the Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics (CILE) in Doha, Qatar on the 10-12 of June 2014).

From SmartCILP:

• Calum Carmichael, Interpreting Law: Jesus, the Lawyer, and the Parable of the Good Samaritan, 41 Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law 697-710 (2013).
• Julia L. Ernst, Rethinking the Validity of State Religions: Is Antiestablishmentarianism a Fundamental Prerequisite for the Protection of Religious Rights Under International Human Rights Law? 34 Northern Illinois University Law Review 333-390 (2014).
• Christine Haight Farley, Stabilizing Morality In Trademark Law, 63 American University Law Review 1019-1050 (2014).
• Mark Goldfeder, Defining and Defending Borders; Just and Legal Wars in Jewish Thought and Practice, [Abstract], 30 Touro Law Review 631-653 (2014).
• Kenneth Shuster, "When Has the Grim Reaper Finished Reaping?" How Embracing One Religion's View of Death Can Influence Acceptance of the Uniform Determination of Death Act, [Abstract], 30 Touro Law Review 655-674 (2014).

Recent Book:

• Daniel P. Dalton, Litigating Religious Land Use Cases, (ABA Book Publishing, July 2014).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Phillip v. Schriro, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117720 (SD NY, Aug. 22, 2014), a New York federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to proceed with most of his claims that his free exercise rights were violated when he was denied participation in Friday Jumu'ah services while in punitive segregation.

In Vann v. Fischer, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118247 (SD NY, Aug. 25, 2014), a New York federal district court dismissed a complaint by a Santeria practitioner that his religious rights were violated by Directives requiring that he obtain approval to wear his religious beads, conceal them while wearing them, and not wear them while in transit.

In Moon v. Pratte, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118707 (ED MO, Aug. 26, 2014), a Missouri federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to proceed with his claims for religious discrimination. Plaintiff had claimed denial of halal food, a clean place to pray, Islamic religious materials, and services or speakers.

In Ex parte Herrera, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 9511 (TX App., Aug. 26, 2014), a Texas state appeals court denied habeas corpus relief to petitioner, in pre-trial home confinement under charges of sexually assaulting a child, who was barred from attending church services as a condition of his electronic monitoring.

In Kyles v. Chartier, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119270 (D SC, Aug. 26, 2014), a South Carolina federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation and held that the religious exercise of a Hebrew Messianic Yisraelite inmate was not substantially burdened by allowing him to worship with the Jewish congregation but not in separate services.

In Hoeck v. Miklich, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119490 (D CO, Aug. 27, 2014), a Colorado federal district court denied injunctive relief to an inmate who claimed that authroties were preventing him from observing his religion of Biblical Christianity that has its own times for various holidays and its own dietary requirements. The court concluded that the relief requested either related to past events or was too vague to implement.

In Williamson v. Twaddell, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119566 (CD IL, Aug. 25, 2014), an Illinois federal district court permitted a Messianic Black Hebrew Israelite inmate to proceed with his complaint that he was denied kosher meals, access to Messianic service, baptism, a prayer cap and a ATanach@ religious book.

In Farrad v. Evans, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119704 (SD NY, Aug. 15, 2014), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was denied Islamic services and ministerial consultation while he was in the prison's medical ward.

In Lloyd v. City of New York, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119706 (SD NY, Aug. 4, 2014), a New York federal district court allowed Muslim inmates held at Rikers Island to move ahead with their complaint that they were not provided adequate or appropriate worship space, but dismissed their complaint that they were not furnished an adequate supply of religious materials.

5th Circuit: Religious Accommodation Turns On Employee's Personal Sincere Beliefs

In Davis v. Fort Bend County, (5th Cir., Aug. 26, 2014), in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a Title VII religious accommodation case held that employee Lois Davis, a county desktop support supervisor, had arguably acted out of religious belief when she absented herself from working on Sunday on a move into a new courthouse building in order to attend a special church ground breaking and community service event.  The district court had granted summary judgment to defendant holding that "being an avid and active member of church does not elevate every activity associated with that church into a legally protectable religious practice." The majority in the Court of Appeals concluded, however, that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Davis had a sincere religious belief that she needed to attend church on that Sunday:

 A showing of sincerity ... does not require proof that the July 3rd church event was in itself a true religious tenet, but only that Davis sincerely believed it to be religious in her own scheme of things.

The majority also concluded that there is a genuine factual issue as to whether allowing an available substitute to work Davis' shift would have created undue hardship. Judge Smith dissented.

School Officials Do Not Enjoy Immunity In Equal Protection Suit Claiming Anti-Jewish Fellow-Student Harassment

In Shiveley v. Green Local School District Board of Education, (6th Cir., Aug. 27, 2014), parents sued school board members for permitting the anti-Jewish harassment and bullying of their daughter by fellow students.  School board members claimed qualified immunity.  In a 2-1 decision, the court held that defendants were not entitled to immunity as to plaintiffs' equal protection claim.  The majority said:

It is difficult to imagine how any school administrator could think he would not be liable for allowing unregulated religious and gender-based persecution that spanned a four-year period.

The majority also held that defendants were not entitled to immunity on plaintiffs' state law claim that defendants were liable for negligence for making the deliberate decision not to enforce anti-bullying policies even though they knew of the bullying of their daughter, including a report that her name was on a "kill list."

All three judges agreed that plaintiffs were entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs' substantive due process claim. saying that " it was not clearly established that school officials violate due process by failing to address student-on-student harassment."