President Delivers Important Address To National Prayer Breakfast

President Obama delivered an important address (full text) at today's annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C.  First, in a gesture defying China's objections, the President warmly welcomed the Dalai Lama, saying:

I want to offer a special welcome to a good friend, His Holiness the Dalai Lama -- who is a powerful example of what it means to practice compassion, who inspires us to speak up for the freedom and dignity of all human beings.  (Applause.)  I’ve been pleased to welcome him to the White House on many occasions, and we’re grateful that he’s able to join us here today.  (Applause.) 

As reported by the Washington Post:

Obama bowed his head and brought his hands together in a Namaste gesture when the Dalai Lama was introduced at the beginning of the breakfast. The Dalai Lama was seated at a table with top Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett. She was dispatched to Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama lives in exile, after the White House canceled a meeting with the leader ahead of Obama's first visit to Beijing in 2009.

Chinese leaders sharply criticized the presence of the Dalai Lama at the Prayer Breakfast -- as Beijing did the previous three times the two men met in the past. This time, the White House stressed they did not invite the Dalai Lama and that he and Obama had no plans to meet.

Second, the President spelled out at length his views on the complex relationship of religion and world affairs, and emphasized the U.S. view on the relationship of religious liberty and freedom of expression.  These portions of his remarks are sufficiently important to be set out at  length:

 [P]art of what I want to touch on today is the degree to which we've seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil. 

As we speak, around the world, we see faith inspiring people to lift up one another -- to feed the hungry and care for the poor, and comfort the afflicted and make peace where there is strife....

But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge -- or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon.  From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it.  We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism  -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions. 

We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion.

So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends? 

Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history.  And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.  In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.  Michelle and I returned from India -- an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity -- but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs -- acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation. 

So this is not unique to one group or one religion.  There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.  In today’s world, when hate groups have their own Twitter accounts and bigotry can fester in hidden places in cyberspace, it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. But God compels us to try.  And in this mission, I believe there are a few principles that can guide us, particularly those of us who profess to believe. 

And, first, we should start with some basic humility.  I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt -- not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth. 

Our job is not to ask that God respond to our notion of truth -- our job is to be true to Him, His word, and His commandments.  And we should assume humbly that we’re confused and don’t always know what we’re doing and we’re staggering and stumbling towards Him, and have some humility in that process.  And that means we have to speak up against those who would misuse His name to justify oppression, or violence, or hatred with that fierce certainty.  No God condones terror.  No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker or fewer in number.

And so, as people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion -- any religion -- for their own nihilistic ends.  And here at home and around the world, we will constantly reaffirm that fundamental freedom -- freedom of religion -- the right to practice our faith how we choose, to change our faith if we choose, to practice no faith at all if we choose, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination.

There’s wisdom in our founders writing in those documents that help found this nation the notion of freedom of religion, because they understood the need for humility.  They also understood the need to uphold freedom of speech, that there was a connection between freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  For to infringe on one right under the pretext of protecting another is a betrayal of both. 

But part of humility is also recognizing in modern, complicated, diverse societies, the functioning of these rights, the concern for the protection of these rights calls for each of us to exercise civility and restraint and judgment.  And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults -- (applause) -- and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with religious communities, particularly religious minorities who are the targets of such attacks.  Just because you have the right to say something doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t question those who would insult others in the name of free speech.  Because we know that our nations are stronger when people of all faiths feel that they are welcome, that they, too, are full and equal members of our countries.

So humility I think is needed.  And the second thing we need is to uphold the distinction between our faith and our governments.  Between church and between state.  The United States is one of the most religious countries in the world -- far more religious than most Western developed countries.  And one of the reasons is that our founders wisely embraced the separation of church and state.  Our government does not sponsor a religion, nor does it pressure anyone to practice a particular faith, or any faith at all.  And the result is a culture where people of all backgrounds and beliefs can freely and proudly worship, without fear, or coercion....   

That’s not the case in theocracies that restrict people’s choice of faith.  It's not the case in authoritarian governments that elevate an individual leader or a political party above the people, or in some cases, above the concept of God Himself.  So the freedom of religion is a value we will continue to protect here at home and stand up for around the world, and is one that we guard vigilantly here in the United States.

Alabama Asks Supreme Court For Stay of Same-Sex Marriage Injunction

As reported by Jurist, Tuesday the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant a stay beyond the current Feb. 9 effective date of a district court order in Searcy v. Strange invalidating Alabama's bans on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  The state immediately filed an application for a stay of the injunction (full text) with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who has the option of ruling on the application himself or referring it to the full court. SCOTUSblog also reports on developments.

Court Says Religious Non-Profits Need Not Identify Their Insurers To HHS

In Christian and Missionary Alliance Foundation, Inc. v. Burwell, (MD FL, Feb. 3, 2015), a Florida federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of part of the latest rules accommodating religious non-profits' objections to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate:

The Court finds that the portion of the accommodation process which requires plaintiffs to self-certify their eligibility for the accommodation and provide that written self-certification to the HHS does not substantially burden plaintiffs’ exercise of religion.... This notification need not be on a government-issued form.

... [However] the Court reaches the opposite conclusion as to the portion of the government form which requires identification of and the contact information for plaintiffs’ insurance carrier and/or third party administrator.... Compelling plaintiffs to identify their providers or administrators to the HHS clearly facilitates the government’s ability to implement contraceptive coverage for plaintiffs’ female employees. While plaintiffs cannot preclude the government from such implementation, the identification requirement compels plaintiffs to become excessively entangled in the process of providing coverage for services which their sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit....

AP reports on the decision.

California Legislators Urge End To Vaccination Exemptions For Religious and Personal Beliefs

With the number of measles cases in California since December reaching 99, California's two U.S. Senators-- Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein-- yesterday sent a letter (full text) to the state's Health and Human Services Secretary urging that state religious and personal belief exemptions to vaccination requirements be eliminated.  The letter reads in part:

California’s current law allows two options for parents to opt out of vaccine requirements for school and daycare: they must either make this decision with the aid of a health professional, or they can simply check a box claiming that they have religious objections to medical care. We think both options are flawed, and oppose even the notion of a medical professional assisting to waive a vaccine requirement unless there is a medical reason, such as an immune deficiency.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that State Sen. Richard Pan, a pediatrician, plans to introduce legislation to end these exemptions, though he is open to discussion about keeping the religious exemption.

EEOC Releases 2014 Data

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission yesterday released fiscal year 2014 private sector data tables providing detailed breakdowns for the 88,778 charges of workplace discrimination filed with the agency.  During the year, the EEOC received 3549 complaints alleging religious discrimination (4% of all complaints), and it resolved 3575 religious discrimination cases.  In 65.1% of the cases resolved, the agency found no reasonable cause. 19.2% of the complaints were administratively closed.  268 cases were settled.  In cases not settled or withdrawn, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that religious discrimination occurred in 116 cases.  Successful conciliation was reached in 34 of those cases.  Settlements and conciliations of religious discrimination complaints resulted in complainants receiving $8.7 million in benefits. This does not include additional amounts that may have been recovered in litigation. Wall Street Journal reports on other data released.

Biblical Theme Park To Sue Over Denial of Tax Rebates

Answers in Genesis announced this week that it plans to file a federal lawsuit challenging Kentucky's refusal to allow its planned Ark Encounter theme park to participate in the state's tax rebate incentive program. In December, the state reversed an earlier preliminary decision to allow the Noah's Ark theme park some $18 million in sales tax rebates in a program designed to promote Kentucky tourism. The state said that the park had evolved from a tourist attraction into a project to promote a literal reading of the Biblical book of Genesis. It also objects to the park's plan to hire only Christians. (See prior posting.) The lawsuit will contend that the state's action amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

Religious Freedom Laws Limit Reach of Homeowners Association Rules

A state court judge in Collin County, Texas yesterday ruled that the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act trump Home Owners' Association rules. According to the Dallas Morning News, a neighbor, joined later by the property owners association, sued to enforce deed restrictions barring use of a north Dallas home by Congregation Toras Chaim, a group of 30 Orthodox Jewish families, for daily prayer services.  Plaintiffs argued unsuccessfully that the state and federal religious freedom statutes apply only to action by governmental entities. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Suit Against Legion of Christ Over Bequest Settled

According to Monday's Providence Journal, a Rhode Island federal district court lawsuit against the scandal-ridden Catholic order, the Legion of Christ, has been settled out of court. The suit was brought by Paul Chu as executor of his father's estate. (See prior related posting.) His father, James Boa-Teh Chu, a former Brown University mechanical engineering professor who died in 2009, left annuities worth between $1 and $2 million to the Legion. The suit claimed that the Legion used undue influence on the elder Chu in his last years in order to obtain the bequest. The terms of the out-of-court settlement were not disclosed.

Break-Away S.C. Episcopal Churches Win Right To Real, Personal and Intellectual Property

In Protestant Episcopal Church In The Diocese of South Carolina v. Episcopal Church, (SC Cir. Ct., Feb. 3, 2015), a South Carolina state trial court held that 38 break-away Episcopal parishes in South Carolina retain ownership of their real, personal and intellectual property. It rejected claims by The Episcopal Church that an express or a constructive trust existed under which it could claim the property. Finally the court enjoined The Episcopal Church from using the names or seals of the break-away churches and their Diocese. FITS News reports on the decision.

New Islamic Tribunal Is Set Up In Texas

What is perhaps the first Islamic Tribunal in the United States has been set up in Dallas, Texas.  The Tribunal offers to the Muslim community mediation and non-binding arbitration that follows Islamic principles. CBS 11 News reports on the new Tribunal. Breibart last week carried a rather unsympathetic article on the Tribunal

International Court of Justice Clears Both Serbia and Croatia of Genocide Charges

Yesterday the International Court of Justice at The Hague handed down a 145-page opinion rejecting both Croatia's claim of genocide against Serbia (vote of 15-2) and Serbia's claim of genocide against Croatia (unanimous decision) growing out of the 1991-2001 War in the Balkans. Twelve judges filed separate opinions.   The Telegraph has an excellent summary of the decision:

Croatia’s case turned on the fate of the city of Vukovar, which endured three months of bombardment by Serbian irregular forces and the Yugoslav national army in 1991.... Croatia argued that the “attacks on Vukovar were directed not simply against an opposing military force, but also against the civilian population”.... But the ICJ rejected Croatia’s case, concluding that the crucial element of an intention to destroy a specific ethnic group had not been proved....

Serbia, for its part, accused Croatia of committing genocide by launching “Operation Storm” in 1995. During this military offensive, Croatia recaptured a Serb-inhabited region of its territory known as Krajina. In the process, about 200,000 Serbs were driven from their homes.

The crucial evidence was a meeting held on the Croatian island of Brioni between Franjo Tudjman, then president, and the country’s military leaders. Serbia argued that the full transcript of this conversation showed the aim of Operation Storm was the elimination of the Serbs of Krajina.  But the ICJ rejected this interpretation.... The “specific intent to destroy which characterises genocide” was missing from the Krajina offensive, found the ICJ.

All the pleadings and records of proceedings in the case are available from the Court's website. The Court also issued its own press release summarizing the decision.

Administrative Law Judge Finds Bakery's Refusal To Furnish Same-Sex Wedding Cake Violates Anti-Discrimination Law

In In re Melissa Klein, (OR BOLI, Jan. 29, 2015), an Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries Administrative Law Judge, in a 52-page opinion, held that Aaron Klein, a co-owner of the bakery "Sweetcakes by Melissa", discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, in violation of the public accommodation provisions of ORS 695A.403.  The case grew out of the refusal on religious grounds to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  The court held that co-owner Melissa Klein will be jointly and severally liable for any damages awarded. The ALJ rejected free exercise and compelled speech defenses put forward by respondents, concluding that the state's anti-discrimination law is a neutral law of general applicability.

The administrative agency issued a press release announcing the Interim Order, saying:

The Interim Order finds that the undisputed material facts support charges of unlawful discrimination under the Oregon Equality Act. An administrative hearing scheduled for March will focus on damages for the same-sex couple.

The Oregonian reports on the decision. [Thanks to Joel Sogol via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Summum Loses Monument Bid Again-- This Time In Utah Supreme Court

Since 2003, Summum has been attempting to require Pleasant Grove City, Utah to accept a "Seven Aphorisms" monument to be placed in a city park where a Ten Commandments monument already stands.  In litigation, part of which went to the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts held that the city had violated neither the 1st Amendment's free speech or Establishment clause in refusing the monument.  Summum then filed suit in state court contending that the Utah Constitution's religious liberty clause requires the city to erect the Seven Aphorisms monument.  In Summum v. Pleasant Grove City, (UT Sup. Ct., Jan. 30, 2015). the Utah Supreme Court rejected Summum's contention. The Court, emphasizing that Summum had not asked for it to order the removal of the Ten Commandments monument, held that monuments are different than sectarian prayers before city council. The neutrality test the Court had developed in the context of legislative prayer does not apply to public monuments:

[R]equiring Pleasant Grove to erect a second religious monument would not render the allocation of public property and money to the two monuments neutral. The citizens of Pleasant Grove, and Utah in general, undoubtedly espouse a broad variety of religious views.... Displaying monuments that communicate the beliefs of only two of these viewpoints would not amount to an impartial distribution of public property.... And because there is a finite amount of space in Pioneer Park, allowing all interested groups to install their own religious or antireligious monuments in the park would be unworkable.... 

Because the government property at issue in this case is itself the message, it cannot be allocated in an impartial manner.... Summum attempts to use the neutrality test as a tool to facilitate the placement of its own proposed monument in Pioneer Park. It argues that the district court should order the installation of a Seven Aphorisms monument in order to establish an impartial allocation of public property towards religious expression in the park. But because the neutrality test does not apply in the context of public monuments, this tool is unavailable to Summum.

Justice Lee filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

No Title VII Liability For Refusing To Hire Applicant Who Will Not Furnish Social Security Number

In Yeager v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp., (6th Cir., Jan. 28, 2015), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employer is not liable under Title VII or Ohio's anti-discrimination law when the employer refuses to hire an applicant because the applicant has not furnished a social security number.  The Internal Revenue Code requires employers to collect and provide employees' social security numbers.  Plaintiff Donald Yeager disavowed his social security number for religious reasons-- he believes it is the "mark of the beast" referred to in the Book of Revelation. The court said:

Title VII does not require an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs if such accommodation would violate a federal statute.

Cleveland.com has details of the case beyond those set out by the 6th Circuit in its per curiam opinion.

Recent Articles and Book of Interest

From SSRN:

• Michael Heise, Lost Ground: Catholic Schools, the Future of Urban School Reform, and Empirical Legal Scholarship, (Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper, Jan. 2015).
• Shaun Alberto de Freitas, Proselytism and the Right to Freedom from Improper Irreligious Influence: The Example of Public School Education, (Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2014).
• Fatima Osman, Legislative Prohibitions on Wearing a Headscarf: Are They Justified?, (Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2014).
• Vincent Phillip Munoz, Church and State in the Founding-Era State Constitutions, (January 28, 2015).
• Alex Chung, Religion, Pluralism and the Secular State: Commentary on Marriage Equality and Disability Rights, (University of Notre Dame Australia B.A. Honors Thesis, October 31, 2014).
• Leo E. Strine, A Job is Not a Hobby: The Judicial Revival of Corporate Paternalism and its Problematic Implications, (January 26, 2015).
• Tasha Alyssa Hill, Inmates' Need for Federally Funded Lawyers: How the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Casey, and Iqbal Combine with Implicit Bias to Eviscerate Inmate Civil Rights, (62 UCLA Law Review 176 (2015)).
• Michael J. T. McMillen, Islamic Banking: Some Distinguishing Regulatory Considerations, (New York State Bar Association 2015 Annual Meeting Papers).
• Fran Quigley, For Goodness’ Sake: A Two-Part Proposal for Remedying the U.S. Charity/Justice Imbalance, (January 30, 2015). 

Recent Book:

• Karen Armstrong, Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence, (Knopf, Oct. 2014, reviewed by Buffalo News.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Brooks v. Roy, (8th Cir., Jan. 27, 2015), the 8th Circuit upheld dismissal of an inmate's claims that a chemical-dependency program conflicted with his Native American religious faith. From the complaint, the court could not determine the nature of the prisoner's religious beliefs and thus prison officials were not put on notice of his claims.

In Robertson v. Call, 2015 Kan. App. Unpub. LEXIS 33 (KS App., Jan. 15, 2015), a Kansas state appellate court reversed a trial court's summary dismissal of a Messianic Jewish inmate's claim that allowing his meetings with his rabbi only to be by video link violates the free exercise and establishment clauses.

In Henderson v. Hernandez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8773 (ND CA, Jan. 23, 2015), a California federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with 1st Amendment and RLUIPA claims that he has been denied congregate prayer, appropriate Ramadan and festival meals, a qualified Muslim chaplain and resource group, and various religious items. The court dismissed his claim that Muslim inmates should be housed in the same building.

In Grisham v. Pritcher, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9132 (MD TN, Jan. 27, 2015), a Tennessee federal district court permitted an inmate to move ahead with his complaint that authorities refused to provide a room for Hanafi Muslims to meet twice a week for study and prayer.

In Payne v. Gipson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9218 (ED CA, Jan.26, 2015), a California federal district court dismissed with leave to amend a Muslim inmate's claim for damages for denial of a Halal meal. Various other claims for equitable relief involving religious exercise concerns were dismissed as moot.

In Cejas v. Myers, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9258 (ED CA, Jan. 27, 2015), a California federal magistrate judge recommended allowing an inmate to move ahead with his free exercise claim alleging that Buddhist inmates were denied unsupervised access to the chapel, while Jewish and Muslim inmates were allowed such access. UPDATE: The court adopted the magistrate's recommendations at 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46627 (April 9, 2015).

In Mohammed-Bey v. Pool, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9348 (ND CA, Jan. 26, 2015), a California federal district court denied a preliminary injunction and TRO to an inmate seeking for religious reasons to change his ethnicity from "negro," or "black" to "Moorish-American."

In Brown v. City of New York, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10469 (SD NY, Jan. 29, 2015), a New York federal district court dismissed with leave to amend a Muslim inmate's complaint that he did not have access to an Imam.

In Dixie v. Virga, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11429 (ED CA, Jan. 29, 2015), a California federal magistrate judge permitted a Muslim inmate to proceed with his complaint that Enhanced Outpatient Program prisoners were barred from attending Jumu'ah prayer sessions with General Population inmates. The court also ruled on a number of discovery requests.

Luxembourg Revises Support of Religious Communities

Article 106 of the Luxembourg Constitution provides:

The salaries and pensions of ministers of religion shall be borne by the State and regulated by the law

Earlier this week, the government of Luxembourg signed an agreement with the country's faith groups to reallocate and modify the current government funding of religious communities. For the first time funding will be extended to the Muslim community, while funding to the Catholic Church will be severely cut. Over 70% of Luxembourg's population is Catholic. As reported by Law & Religion UK:

The stipends of all those within the faith groups who are currently paid by the state will continue; but those appointed in future will have to be supported by their respective religious communities. There will continue to be some Government subsidy for salaries of those engaged in counselling. The state subsidies currently received by the Roman Catholic Church will be severely reduced; and the agreement also foresees that the Roman Catholic seminary in Weimershof will become an interfaith learning centre, while the Church’s properties will be put into what Luxemburger Wort describes as a “public fund” – presumably something along the lines of a separate charitable trust. In addition, Roman Catholic confessional education in schools is set to be replaced with an ethics and morals course, including units on world religions.

Also the various political parties have agreed that the Constitution should be amended to provide a declaration of separation of church and state.

Chile's Parliament Approves Civil Unions

On Wednesday, the National Congress of Chile (Chile's Parliament) gave final approval to the Civil Union Agreement bill.  PanAm Post reports that if, as expected, Chilean President Michelle Bachele signs the bill, this will make Chile the seventh South American country to recognize civil unions. The bill, which applies to both same-sex and opposite-sex civil unions, provides for inheritance, pension and health plan rights.

Muslim Texans Face Hostile Reception At State Capitol

Yesterday CAIR Texas sponsored its annual Texas Muslim Capitol Day, featuring sessions on political activism and meetings with state representatives.  According to the Texas Tribune, participants visiting freshman representative Molly White's office received an unusual greeting.  White was back in her district, but she left an Israeli flag on the reception desk in her office and instructed her staff to ask representatives from the Muslim community "to renounce Islamic terrorist groups and publicly announce allegiance to America and our laws." In her Facebook posting announcing this, she added: "We will see how long they stay in my office."

CAIR responded by sending a letter (full text) raising ethics questions to House Speaker Joe Straus, in part asking:

Has Rep. White violated any House rules in creating such an internal office policy that is selectively being enforced to discriminate against certain religious minorities trying to meet with her or her staff? Are House members prohibited from making constituents take oaths before meeting with their elected representatives or house staff?

Yesterday afternoon White issued a statement backing off somewhat from her earlier comments.

Protesters also interrupted the Muslim group's press conference at the Capitol yesterday. One grabbed the microphone and screamed: "Islam will never dominate the United States and by the grace of God, it will never dominate Texas."  More than 420,000 Muslims live in Texas. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

D.C.'s Kesher Israel Wants Religous Court To Force Rabbi Out of Synagogue-Owned House

On Wednesday, Washington D.C.'s Kesher Israel Synagogue and its president instituted a suit in a Jewish religious court-- the Beth Din of America-- against the synagogue's former rabbi, Barry Freundel.  The rabbi was suspended without pay when he was arrested for planting a secret camera in the synagogue's mikveh to view women showering there. (See prior posting.) According to the Washington Post, the synagogue gave Freundel until January 1 to move out of the synagogue-owned house where he and his family had lived for many years.  Freundel however has refused to vacate the house.  His contract with the synagogue calls for any disputes to be resolved through a Beth Din.

Mennonite Couple Stops Hosting All Weddings To Settle Sexual Orientation Discrimination Complaint

As previously reported, last year a Mennonite couple filed suit against the Iowa Civil Rights Commission to prevent it from moving ahead on a complaint that the couple refused to host a same-sex wedding ceremony in their art gallery in violation of the ban on discrimination in public accommodations. AP reported yesterday that the couple-- Betty and Richard Odgaard-- have settled the complaint filed with the Civil Rights Commission by the two men whose wedding was refused.  The Odgaards paid $5000 in damages, dropped their suit against the Commission and agreed not to discriminate in the future on the basis of sexual orientation.  In order to comply with that agreement, the Odgaards have totally stopped hosting wedding ceremonies of any kind at their gallery even though that has been a major part of their business.

Obama Promotes Religious Tolerance In Address To Indian People

On Tuesday, President Obama on his trip to India delivered a 34-minute address to the people of India (full text). His remarks included a lengthy plea for religious tolerance:

Our nations are strongest when we see that we are all God’s children -- all equal in His eyes and worthy of His love.  Across our two great countries we have Hindus and Muslims, Christians and Sikhs, and Jews and Buddhists and Jains and so many faiths.  And we remember the wisdom of Gandhiji, who said, “for me, the different religions are beautiful flowers from the same garden, or they are branches of the same majestic tree.”  (Applause.)    Branches of the same majestic tree.

 Our freedom of religion is written into our founding documents.  It’s part of America’s very first amendment.  Your Article 25 says that all people are “equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.”  In both our countries -- in all countries -- upholding this fundamental freedom is the responsibility of government, but it's also the responsibility of every person.

 In our lives, Michelle and I have been strengthened by our Christian faith.  But there have been times where my faith has been questioned -- by people who don’t know me -- or they’ve said that I adhere to a different religion, as if that were somehow a bad thing.  Around the world, we’ve seen intolerance and violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to be standing up for their faith, but, in fact, are betraying it.  No society is immune from the darkest impulses of man.  And too often religion has been used to tap into those darker impulses as opposed to the light of God.  Three years ago in our state of Wisconsin, back in the United States, a man went to a Sikh temple and, in a terrible act of violence, killed six innocent people -- Americans and Indians.  And in that moment of shared grief, our two countries reaffirmed a basic truth, as we must again today -- that every person has the right to practice their faith how they choose, or to practice no faith at all, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination.  (Applause.) 

 The peace we seek in the world begins in human hearts.  And it finds its glorious expression when we look beyond any differences in religion or tribe, and rejoice in the beauty of every soul.  And nowhere is that more important than India.  Nowhere is it going to be more necessary for that foundational value to be upheld.  India will succeed so long as it is not splintered along the lines of religious faith -- so long as it's not splintered along any lines -- and is unified as one nation.

And it’s when all Indians, whatever your faith, go to the movies and applaud actors like Shah Rukh Khan.  And when you celebrate athletes like Milkha Singh or Mary Kom.  And every Indian can take pride in the courage of a humanitarian who liberates boys and girls from forced labor and exploitation -- who is here today -- Kailash Satyarthi.  (Applause.)  Our most recent winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace.  (Applause.)

 So that's what unifies us:  Do we act with compassion and empathy.  Are we measured by our efforts -- by what Dr. King called “the content of our character” rather than the color of our skin or the manner in which we worship our God.  In both our countries, in India and in America, our diversity is our strength.  And we have to guard against any efforts to divide ourselves along sectarian lines or any other lines.  And if we do that well, if America shows itself as an example of its diversity and yet the capacity to live together and work together in common effort, in common purpose; if India, as massive as it is, with so much diversity, so many differences is able to continually affirm its democracy, that is an example for every other country on Earth.  That's what makes us world leaders -- not just the size of our economy or the number of weapons we have, but our ability to show the way in how we work together, and how much respect we show each other.

DNA India reported on the President's address.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Trinity Western Law School

In Trinity Western University v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, (NS SC, Jan. 28, 2015), the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a 138-page opinion, held that the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society exceeded its authority when it refused to recognize law degrees of Trinity Western University Law School so long as the Christian school's policy continues to prohibit students from engaging in sexual relations outside of traditional heterosexual marriage. According to the Court, the Society has the authority to deal with the education and qualifications of those who practice law in the province. Its action here however dealt with a University policy that does not affect the quality of its graduates.

The Court went on to hold that even if the Society had authority to refuse to recognize TWU's law degrees, it did not exercise the authority in a way that reasonably respects religious liberty and freedom of conscience:

People have the right to attend a private religious university that imposes a religiously based code of conduct. That is the case even if the effect of that code is to exclude others or offend others who will not or cannot comply with the code of conduct. Learning in an environment with people who promise to comply with the code is a religious practice and an expression of religious faith. There is nothing illegal or even rogue about that. That is a messy and uncomfortable fact of life in a pluralistic society. Requiring a person to give up that right in order to get his or her professional education recognized is an infringement of religious freedom.

The Halifax Herald News reports on the decision.

GITMO Inmate Invoking RFRA Wants Only Male Guards During Transfers

Miami Herald reports that at a pre-trial hearing at Guantanamo Bay yesterday, the defense lawyer for former al Quaida commander Abd al Hadi al Iraqi asked for an expansion of the existing order barring female guards being used to transfer al Hadi to and from court and meetings with his lawyers.  Al Hadi who says that his religion bars touching of males by females who are not close family members wants the order extended to cover his transfers to medical, Red Cross and recreation yard visits.  His lawyers cite the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision to back their request for a religious accommodation.  According to facts that came out in yesterday's hearing, until last October only men were assigned to the elite guard  unit at Guantanamo's Camp 7 that houses 15 prisoners who have been held by the CIA for years.  But then a female lieutenant colonel took charge of Camp 7 and recruited women to do escort duty as well.  Officials say that military morale has suffered since the military judge's order barring women soldiers from touching male prisoners being transferred to meetings with their lawyers. (See prior related posting.)

Trial of Egyptian Poet Over Facebook Posting Begins

Reuters reports that an initial hearing in the trial of poet Fatima Naoot was held yesterday in Egypt. She is charged with contempt of Islam, spreading sectarian strife and disturbing public peace because of a Facebook post criticizing the Muslim practice of slaughtering animals on the Feast of the Sacrifice-- a day celebrating Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son.  Naoot's post said:

Millions of innocent creatures will be driven to the most horrible massacre committed by humans for ten-and-a-half centuries.A massacre which is repeated every year because of the nightmare of a righteous man about his good son.

If convicted, the poet could receive up to three years in jail.

Orthodox Jewish Group Blasts NYC Universal Pre-K Program

The New York Daily News reported yesterday that the Orthodox Union has taken out ads in a number of publications criticizing New York Mayor Bill de Blasio's free universal pre-K program because its full-day schedule does not leave time for religious studies to be added after the end of school.  The OU wants the city to make more seats available in half-day pre-K programs so a religious component can be added during the other half of the day.  A spokesman for the mayor says they have worked closely with Jewish groups in implementing the program and already have thousands of half-day seats available.

Court Issues Enforcement Orders To Assure Jehovah's Witnesses Access To Puerto Rico Urbanizations

In Watchtower Bible Tract Society of N.Y. Inc. v. Municipality of El Dorado, (D PR, Jan. 26, 2015), a Puerto Rico federal magistrate judge issued broad remedial orders in an attempt to force reluctant gated communities ("urbanizations") in Puerto Rico to comply with prior orders to give Jehovah's Witnesses access so they can engage in door-to-door proselytization. One community in El Dorado allowed Jehovah's Witnesses entry, but barred their knocking on residents' door.  Another community continued to deny entry to Jehovah's Witnesses.  The decision made clear that it is the responsibility of municipalities to ensure compliance by individual neighborhoods.  The court threatened to have the gates of the community forcibly opened if access was not granted.  The magistrate judge also recommended that the municipality be held in contempt and fined $5000.

More Companies Win On Basis of Hobby Lobby Decision

In a brief opinion in Briscoe v. Burwell, (D CO, Jan. 27, 2015), a Colorado federal district court, applying the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, enjoined enforcement of:

those provisions of federal law in existence on June 30, 2014, when the Supreme Court decided Hobby Lobby, that require plaintiffs Continuum Health Partnerships, Inc.; Continuum Health Management, LLC; and Mountain States Health Properties, LLC to provide their employees with health coverage for “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity,” ...to which plaintiffs object on religious grounds.

AP reports on the decision.

Mormon Church Leaders Call For Legislation Protecting LGBT Rights and Religious Liberty

In a News Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah yesterday, leaders of the Mormon Church called for legislation protecting LGBT rights but also protecting religious freedom. (Full text of news conference.) (Summary of key points.) (Press release.)  Speaking at the news conference were Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Jeffrey R. Holland of the Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Sister Neill F. Marriott of the Church’s Young Women general presidency. Introducing the news conference, Elder D. Todd Christofferson said:

To those who follow the Church closely and who are familiar with its teachings and positions on various social issues, it will be apparent that we are announcing no change in doctrine or Church teachings today. But we are suggesting a way forward in which those with different views on these complex issues can together seek for solutions that will be fair to everyone.

Oakes said in part:

Accusations of bigotry toward people simply because they are motivated by their religious faith and conscience have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and public debate. When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser....

Today, state legislatures across the nation are being asked to strengthen laws related to LGBT issues in the interest of ensuring fair access to housing and employment. The leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is on record as favoring such measures. At the same time, we urgently need laws that protect faith communities and individuals against discrimination and retaliation for claiming the core rights of free expression and religious practice that are at the heart of our identity as a nation and our legacy as citizens.

The Salt Lake Tribune has more on the press conference.

Alabama Same-Sex Marriage Developments: A Second Decision and Defiance

As previously reported, on Jan. 23 an Alabama federal district court invalidated Alabama statutory and constitutional provisions that bar recognition of same-sex marriages. The court however imposed a 14-day stay on its order to allow an appeal. (See prior posting),  Three days later, the same judge decided a second case, Strawser v. Strange, (SD AL, Jan. 26, 2015), reaching the same result, this time in a suit by plaintiffs seeking to marry in Alabama, rather than have their out-of-state marriage recognized in the state. The court again granted a 14-day stay to give an opportunity for an appeal.

Meanwhile, on Jan. 27 Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore sent a letter to the state's governor urging defiance of the federal court's decisions. In his letter (full text) to Gov. Robert Bentley, Moore said in part:

I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them.  I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and Constitution of Alabama.  Moreover, I note that "United States district court decisions are not controlling authority in this Court."...  As Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I will continue to recognize the Alabama Constitution and the will of the people overwhelmingly expressed in the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.

... Be advised that I stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority.

According to AL.com, the governor issued a statement after the release of Moore's letter, saying in part:

The people of Alabama voted in a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between man and woman. As governor, I must uphold the Constitution. I am disappointed in Friday's ruling, and I will continue to oppose this ruling. The Federal government must not infringe on the rights of states.

In 2003, Roy Moore ,in his first term as Alabama Chief Justice, gained national attention by his fight against removal of a large Ten Commandments monument that he had place in the Alabama Judicial Building.

Suit Challenges Dismissal For Praying At Work By Speaking In Tongues

The New York Daily News reports on a federal lawsuit filed in Brooklyn yesterday by a former New York Department of Environmental Protection police officer.  Plaintiff Jerome Boswell was taken in handcuffs to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation and dismissed from his position after he began to pray by "speaking in tongues."  Boswell, a Pentecostal Christian, was discussing with a fellow employee their lack of a labor contract.  Boswell said he was leaving the issue to God, and his co-worker responded that they had no contract because God is not powerful.  Boswell took this as blasphemy, told his co-worker to repent and began the prayer in question. Boswell's lawsuit asks for back pay and $2 million in punitive damages for religious and perceived mental illness discrimination.

Facebook Complies With Turkish Court Order To Block Pages Insulting To Prophet

Jurist reports that on Sunday, a court in Turkey ordered a ban on Facebook pages containing material insulting to the Prophet Muhammad. The Golbasi Duty Magistrate Court sent to the Presidency of Telecommunication and Communication and to the Access Provider Association its order calling for Facebook to be totally blocked in the country if the offending pages are not removed. The New York Times reported yesterday that Facebook has complied with the court order and blocked Turkish users' access to the pages authorities specified as offensive.

Female GITMO Guards File Discrimination Complaints After Judges Grant Prisoners' Accommodation Requests

Muslim defendants in two cases before military commissions at Guantanamo Bay have been objecting to the military's assigning female guards to transfer them to meetings with their attorneys and to hearings.  The transfers result in physical contact between guards and the prisoners.  Military judges have issued at least interim orders barring the practice which violates defendants' religious beliefs. (See prior related postings 1, 2). Now AP reports that female guards at Guantanamo have filed complaints with the Defense Department's Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity claiming that the orders amount to gender discrimination.

Today Is International Holocaust Remembrance Day

Today is the International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust as designated by a United Nations Resolution (full text) adopted five years ago. The date-- Jan. 27-- is the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camp by the Soviet army. (Background.) This year is the 70th anniversary of that liberation. The ceremony scheduled at United Nations headquarters for today has been postponed until Wednesday because of the snow storm forecast for New York.

Sundance Film Festival Features Documentaries on Controversial Religious Groups

This year's Sundance Film Festival began on Jan. 22 and runs until Feb. 1 in Park City, Utah.  Among the Documentary Premieres are two films that deal with controversial religious groups:

• Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief (reviewed by AP )
• Prophet's Prey (reviewed by Variety)

Supreme Court Remands Native American Prisoner Free Exercise Case

In the wake of its decision on allowing prisoners to wear beards for religious reasons, the U.S. Supreme Court today sent a prisoner religious free exercise case back to the 11th Circuit for reconsideration.  In Knight v. Thompson, (Docket No. 13-955, vac. and remanded 1/26/2015) (Order List) the Court held:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U. S. ___ (2015).

In the case the 11th Circuit rejected several Native American inmates' RLUIPA challenges to Alabama prison system grooming rules that prohibit them from wearing long hair as required by their religion. (See prior posting.)

British Court Says Male Circumcision Cannot Be Equated With Female Genital Mutilation

A decision by a Family Court judge in Britain earlier this month tackled directly the argument that male circumcision should be equated with female genital mutilation and be banned just as female genital mutilation is.  In Matter of B and G (Children), (Family Ct., Jan. 14, 2015), the court found significant differences between the two procedures, saying:

in 2015 the law generally, and family law in particular, is still prepared to tolerate non-therapeutic male circumcision performed for religious or even for purely cultural or conventional reasons, while no longer being willing to tolerate FGM in any of its form....

FGM has no basis in any religion; male circumcision is often performed for religious reasons. FGM has no medical justification and confers no health benefits; male circumcision is seen by some (although opinions are divided) as providing hygienic or prophylactic benefits. Be that as it may, "reasonable" parenting is treated as permitting male circumcision.

UK Human Rights Blog has more on the decision. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Israeli Court Orders City To Remove Signs Telling Women To Dress Modestly

In Israel yesterday, the Magistrate's Court in the city of Beit Shemesh ordered the  municipality to remove signs that had been put up by haredi (ultra-Orthodox) synagogues and organizations instructing women to dress modestly in the areas of the city where the signs are posted, and not to stand outside certain synagogues. According to the Jerusalem Post, the ruling came in a lawsuit brought by four modern Orthodox women after women suffered repeated harassment and attacks by haredi youths.  Judge David Gidoni wrote:

The signs were designed to restrict women from using public spaces simply because they were women... and constitute a severe injury to the rights of women to equality and respect....  The signs create the expectation that they should be adhered and are likely to create the expectation or understanding that the area where the sign is placed belongs, in effect, to one specific population group in which its norms are applicable.

The court also awarded each plaintiff damages equivalent to $3700 (US). Responding to the court order, the city said that it had repeatedly taken down the signs, only to see them replaced, and that taking them down had led to riots.  The city added that the court did not understand the "complicated reality" of relations between different population groups in the city. [Thanks to Vos iz Neias for the lead.]

Recent Articles and Book of Interest

From SSRN:

• SpearIt, Religion in Prison, (Religion and American Cultures, p. 1154, Gary Laderman & Luis Leon, eds., ABC-CLIO, 2014).
• Andrew Koppelman, 'Religion' as a Bundle of Legal Proxies: Reply to Micah Schwartzman , 51 San Diego L. Rev. 1079 (2014),
• Susan Azyndar, Review of 'Dressing Constitutionally: Hierarchy, Sexuality, and Democracy from Our Hairstyles to Our Shoes' by Ruthann Robson, (Law Library Journal, Vol. 106, No. 3, pp. 464-65 (2014)).
• Michael Heise, Education Rights and Wrongs: Publicly Funded Vouchers, State Constitutions, and Education Death Spirals, (November 1, 2014).
• Richard W. Garnett, The Worms and the Octopus: Religious Freedom, Pluralism, and Conservatism, (in NOMOS: American Conservatism, ed. Sanford V. Levinson, Joel Parker, and Melissa S. Williams (New York: NYU Press, Forthcoming)).
• Jennifer Anglim Kreder, The 'Public Trust', (January 23, 2015).
• Sarah Lambrecht, Bringing Rights More Home: Can a Home-Grown UK Bill of Rights Lessen the Influence of the European Court of Human Rights?, (15 German Law Journal (2014)).
• Richard Moon, Demonstrations on Campus and the Case of Israeli Apartheid Week, (in James L. Turk ed., Academic Freedom in Conflict: The Struggle Over Free Speech Rights in the University (Lorimer, 2014) c. 9).

From SSRN (Christianity and Law):

• Archana Mishra, Adopted and Illegitimate Child Under Indian Christian Law: Revisiting Inheritance Rights, (January 17, 2015).
• Thomas R. Young, Durkheim's Theory of Triangular Force Relations and Its Application to Christian Collegia in the Roman Empire, (January 20, 2015).

From SSRN (Islamic Law and Society):

• Arno Tausch, Further Insight into Global and Arab Muslim Opinion Structures: Statistical Reflections on the 2013 Pew Report 'The World’s Muslims', (Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Spring 2014)).
• Imelda Deinla & Veronica Taylor, Towards Peace: Rethinking Justice and Legal Pluralism in the Bangsamoro, (RegNet Research Paper No. 2015/63)).
• Imelda Deinla & Veronica Taylor, An Annotated Bibliography on Justice and Legal Pluralism in Mindanao-- Briefing Paper No. 1: Ways for Women to Participate in Peacebuilding (Philippines), (RegNet Research Paper No. 2015/64).
• Murat Çokgezen & Timur Kuran, Between Consumer Demand and Islamic Law: The Evolution of Islamic Credit Cards in Turkey, (Economic Research Initiatives at Duke (ERID) Working Paper No. 182, 2015).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Kathryn E. Kovacs, Eagles, Indian Tribes, and the Free Exercise of Religion, 47 Loyola Los Angeles Law Review 53-116 (2013). 
• The Eighth Annual John F. Scarpa Conference on Law, Politics, and Culture. Exploring and Celebrating the Legacy of the Honorable John T. Noonan, Jr., Introductions by Patrick McKinley Brennan and William Card. Levada; articles by Hon. John T. Noonan, Jr., Richard W. Painter, Kenneth Pennington, Rev. Michael Sweeney and Joseph Vining. 59 Villanova Law Review 649-727 (2014).
• James M. Oleske, Jr., The Born-Again Champion of Conscience, (Harvard Law Review Forum, Jan. 22, 2015).

Recent Book:

• Lawrence H. Winer & Nina J. Crimm, God, Schools, and Government Funding: First Amendment Conundrums, (Ashgate, Jan. 2015). 

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Davila v. Marshall, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6167 (SD GA, Jan. 20, 2014), a Georgia federal magistrate judge dismissed on mootness and qualified immunity grounds an inmate's complaint that he was denied a Santeria bead necklace and his bible.

In Greybuffalo v. Wall, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6566 (WD WI, Jan. 21, 2015), a Wisconsin federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, an inmate's complaint that prison authorities refused to recognize the Native American Church as an umbrella religious group.

In Sims v. Biter, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6779 (ED CA, Jan. 21, 2015), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed on qualified immunity grounds a warden's denial of a legal religious name change to an inmate where the change could interfere with sex offender registration requirements.

In Planker v. Christie, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6804 (D NJ, Jan. 20, 2014), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed without prejudice an "Organic Odian" inmate's complaints about scheduling and access to religious services and ritual items, about a required TB test, and about racist and pro-Islamic comments made to him.

In Furnace v. Gipson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6879 (ED CA, Jan. 20, 2015), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend claims by an inmate that authorities restricted his ability to practice Shetaut Neter in the prison's Special Housing Unit by preventing a name change and ordering of spiritual items, and by denying communal worship, observance of Neterian holidays and access to a Neterian chaplain.

In Gee v. Sabol, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6891 (MD PA, Jan. 21, 2015), a Pennsylvania federal district court denied a temporary restraining order to an inmate who was refused kosher meals because. while claiming he is Jewish, at other times had stated that he was Muslim or had no faith.

In Dennison v. Ryan, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7334 (D AZ, Jan. 16, 2015), an Arizona federal magistrate judge passed on a number of discovery requests by an inmate suing to obtain a diet consistent with his Seventh Day Adventist faith.

In Muhammad v. Mathena, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7330 (WD VA, Jan. 22, 2015), a Virginia federal district court held that the prison's Common Fare diet substantially accommodates the religious dietary needs a Nation of Islam inmate.

In Thompson v. Boldt, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7349 (CD CA, Jan. 21, 2015), on remand from the 9th Circuit, a California federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180795, Aug. 22, 2014) and dismissed a complaint by a pre-trial detainee who had become and adherent of Assemblies of Yahweh that he was denied a religious diet, access to a religious leader, service and other religious items, as well as the ability to observe holy days and feasts.

In Hammond v. Department of Corrections, 2015 Mich. App. LEXIS 105 (MI App., Jan, 22, 2015), a Michigan state appellate court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies an inmate's objections to a policy change that called for prisoners seeking a kosher diet to receive vegan meals.

New Report On Antisemitism Presented To Israeli Government

Jerusalem Post reports that the Coordination Forum For Countering Antisemitism today presented to the Israeli government its 2014 Report on antisemitism. (Full text of report.) Here is an excerpt from the Report's Overview:

2014 was marked by an alarming rise in antisemitic incidents, acts of terrorism and attempted attacks against Jewish targets, primarily by parties identifying with extremist Islamic movements or with the radical right. At the same time, there was worsening trend in street harassment toward Jews, and verbal and physical violence, a phenomena which increased mainly in Western Europe, in proximity to synagogues and Jewish schools. An increase of 400% in the number of antisemitic incidents of was recorded in July-August 2014, compared to the previous year, following the Israel–Gaza conflict in Operation Protective Edge.

District Court Invalidates Alabama Same-Sex Marriage Bans

In Searcy v. Strange, (SD AL, Jan. 23, 2015), an Alabama federal district court invalidated Alabama statutory and constitutonal provisions that bar same-sex marriage.  The court found that the provisions are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.  This makes Alabama the 37th state in which same-sex marriage is legal.  According to the Christian Science Monitor, Alabama's Attorney General has filed a motion asking the court to stay its ruling until the U.S. Supreme Court decides cases it has agreed to review on same-sex marraige.

UPDATE: In an opinion (full text) issued on Jan. 25, the district court denied an indefinite stay of its ruling, but granted a 14-day stay so the 11th Circuit can decide if a further stay is warranted. The court also said that before the expiration of its 14-day stay, it will issue an additional order addressing plaintiffs' request for a clarification of its injunction order.

California Judicial Ethics Code Changed To Bar Judges From Membership In Boy Scouts

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, on Wednesday, the California Supreme Court approved a recommendation of an ethics advisory committee to strengthen the prohibition in California Code of Judicial Ethics, Sec. 2.C. that prohibits judges from holding membership in any organization that discriminates on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Previous exceptions for membership in military organizations or nonprofit youth organizations (such as the Boy Scouts) were eliminated in the recently approved change. However an exception for membership in discriminatory religious organizations remains in the Code. Here is the full text of the ethics code as amended.

Police Sued For Requiring Muslim Woman To Remove Hijab While Being Booked

The Detroit News reports on a lawsuit filed Thursday in a Michigan federal district court by a Muslim woman who was required by Dearborn Heights (MI) police to remove her hijab while she was being booked on a traffic misdemeanor charge.  Malak Kazan was charged with driving with an expired license.  Her Muslim religion requires her to have her head covered when she is in public and when she is in the presence of men outside her immediate family.  Police officers also denied Kazan's request for assistance from a female police officer.  The suit seeks an injunction and damages.

Judge Pressures Husband To Give Jewish Divorce Document

A New York trial court judge has again raised the issue of how far a civil court may go in pressuring parties in a divorce action to perform a religious act.  Yesterday's New York Post reports that Brooklyn judge  Esther Morgenstern, in divorce proceedings of a Jewish couple, has told the husband that unless he gives his wife a get (Jewish religious divorce document), she will order him to pay alimony for life.  The wife's attorney says this is justified because without a get it will be almost impossible for the wife to remarry and receive financial support.  Adding complexity to the case is the fact that Judge Morgenstern herself some 25 years ago was involved in a divorce where her husband resisted giving her a get.

USCIRF Criticizes Pending Legislation In Burma

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in a press release yesterday strongly condemned a package of race and religion bills being considered by Burma's Parliament. USCIRF argued that the bills restrict religious freedom and discriminate against non-Buddhists, saying:

The Religious Conversion Bill would force those seeking to convert to give to the newly created Registration Boards an extensive list of personal information, answer intrusive questions, and wait 90 days for approval.

The Interfaith Marriage Bill imposes restrictions on marriages between non-Buddhist men and Buddhist women, including a 14-day waiting period during which time anyone can object to the marriage, and the court reviewing the objections has the power to deny the marriage.  Non-Buddhist men are denied numerous rights in the case of divorce and face criminal penalties if they ask their Buddhist wife to convert.  Under the bill, non-Buddhist men also bear most of the financial and/or criminal penalties, including prison sentences.  

Legal Documents In Eruv Litigation Now Available Online

Beginning in 2011, individuals and groups opposed to Jewish organizations placing eruvs in three Long Island, New York towns have been involved in litigation attempting to prevent their creation.  Now O'Dwyers has created a page with links to all the legal documents and related media coverage of the lawsuits.

Proposed Oklahoma Bill Would Eliminate Marriage Licenses

Oklahoma State Representative Todd Russ has introduced a bill into the Oklahoma legislature that would create a unique response to federal decisions requiring the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  As reported by KSWO News, his bill would do away with marriage licenses.  Instead, under HB 1125 couples may be married in a religious ceremony, after which the member of the clergy performing the ceremony would file a "certificate of marriage" with the clerk of court.  Individuals who do not want to be married in a religious ceremony could file an "affidavit of common law marriage" with the clerk of court. Under the bill, judges would no longer be able to perform marriage ceremonies. The bill retains current language limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, even though the 10th Circuit has invalidated that limitation. (See prior posting.)  Rep. Russ sees the bill as restoring marriage "to what it was supposed to be and was originally a holy matrimony and a very solemn and spiritual vow."  Any progress of the bill through the legislature may be followed here.

Suit Seeks To Require Foreign Terrorist Designation For Hindu Nationalist Group

The Hindu reports that Sikhs for Justice filed a declaratory judgment action in a New York federal district court last week seeking to require Secretary of State John Kerry to designate an Indian Hindu nationalist group as a "foreign terrorist organization."  The lawsuit claims that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has targeted Muslim, Sikh and Christian minorities in an attempt to turn India into a homogeneous Hindu nation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party has ties to RSS. Last week a New York federal district court dismissed on immunity grounds a suit brought directly against Modi for his alleged role in Gujarat anti-Muslim rioting in 2002. (See prior posting.)

Civil Rights Complaint With A Twist-- Baker Refuses To Add Anti-Gay Message To Cake

AP today reports on a complaint filed with the Colorado Civil Rights Division against bakery owner Marjorie Silva by a customer who wanted her to create a cake with an anti-gay marriage message on it.  Silva agreed to bake a Bible-shaped cake for customer Bill Jack, but refused his request to put hateful anti-gay words on the cake along with two men holding hands with an X over them. Silva told Jack that she would give him icing and a pastry bag so he could write the words himself.  This did not satisfy Jack, and he filed a complaint alleging that he was discriminated against based on his creed. The complaint comes as Republicans in the Colorado legislature are looking at legislative changes to protect business owners who refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Company Settles EEOC Suit; Rejected Rastafarian Applicant Gets $50K In Damages

The EEOC announced Tuesday that Mims Distributing Co., a Colorado-based beer distributor, has agreed to settle an EEOC suit filed against it on behalf of a Rastafarian applicant for employment.  Mims refused to hire Christopher Alston as a delivery driver unless he would cut his hair.  Under a consent decree, Mims will pay $50,000 in damages, adopt a formal religious accommodation policy and conduct annual anti-discrimination training.

Custody Provisions Did Not Violate Father's Free Exercise Rights

In Roderick v. Lynn, (WA App., Jan 20, 2015), a Washington state appeals court rejected a father's contention that provisions of a parenting plan ordered in a child custody suit violated his free exercise rights. The mother was given sole decision-making authority as to the child's religious upbringing, and the father was prohibited from moving with the child to Israel.  The appeals court said that no free exercise problem arises so long as the father is not prohibited from sharing his faith with the child. It added that the trial court's order limiting the father's contact with the child was not an attempt to abridge the father's religious freedom, but was based on the trial court's finding that he had an untreated mental health condition that endangered the child.

FLDS Members Continue To Resist DOL Subpoenas On Religious Grounds

Since 2013, the U.S. Department of Labor has been investigating whether federal child labor and wage and hour laws were violated in the 2012 harvest at the  Southern Utah Pecan Ranch. According to a Salt Lake Tribune report last September, Paragon Contractors was paid to furnish labor for the harvest, and the Labor Department suspects that FLDS Church members-- schoolchildren and their parents-- were deployed to take part in the harvest without pay.  Instead they merely got to keep half of the pecans they harvested. Paragon is owned by Brian Jessop, an FLDS Church leader, and apparently he turned over amounts the company was paid for the harvest to the Church.  In an opinion last September (see prior posting), a Utah federal district court ruled that under RFRA, church member Vergel Steed did not have to respond to a Department of Labor subpoena seeking information about the internal affairs and organization of the Church. Steed claimed that he believes the identity of Church leaders, the Church's organization and its internal affairs are sacred matters and he has vowed not to discuss them.

The Labor Department has also subpoenaed other FLDS Church members.  AP and the Salt Lake Tribune report that yesterday the same Utah federal judge handed down a ruling that may be the first step toward excusing two brothers of former FLDS Church leader Warren Jeffs from responding to subpoenas seeking information about working conditions on the farm as well as FLDS Church structure and leadership.  Judge David Sam ruled that Lyle and Nephi Jeffs have sincere religious beliefs that prevent them from answering questions by outsiders about the FLDS Church's labor practices, but they must answer questions about phone calls allegedly telling children to take off from school to work and telling parents to work without pay. The judge however heard arguments later yesterday on whether the government has a compelling interest in obtaining the Jeffs' testimony beyond this.  All of this came only a day after the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Holt v. Hobbs giving a broad reading to religious liberty protections in federal law. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Fair Housing Act Disparate-Impact Case

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.  At issue in the case is whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, or whether there must be a showing of intentional discrimination.  While this case involves claims of racially discriminatory impact, the Court's decision will apply to cases involving religious discrimination as well.  The transcript of full oral arguments is available from the Supreme Court's website. SCOTUSblog's case page contains links to all the briefs in the case as well as to the 5th Circuit's decision below.  SCOTUSblog also reports on today's arguments.

Cert. Denied In Dispute Over Characterization of Communications With Priest

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied certiorari in Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Baton Rouge v. Mayeux, (Docket No. 14-220, cert. denied 1/20/2015) (Order List). In the case, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a trial court could decide whether a communication between a teenager and a priest over the 14-year old's romantic relationship with a parishioner amounted to a confession regardless of the Church's characterization of the communication. (See prior posting.) The Baton Rouge Advocate reports on the denial of review.

Some Thoughts On Today's Supreme Court Decision In Holt v. Hobbs

Today's Supreme Court decision in Holt v. Hobbs (see prior posting) is likely to lead to a dramatic increase in resources that federal district courts must devote to the dozens-- if not hundreds-- of prisoner RLUIPA cases that are filed each year.  Federal courts, under 28 USC Sec. 1915A, are required to conduct an early preliminary screening of prisoner lawsuits in order to dismiss those that have no chance of success.  It has been common for district courts to dismiss cases at this preliminary stage on the ground that the inmate has failed to show a "substantial burden" on his or her religious exercise.  Often courts have reached that conclusion on the basis that, while an inmate was denied the ability to carry out some particular religious ritual or requirement, the inmate had a number of other ways to practice his or her faith.  Today the Supreme Court rejected that approach, saying:

[T]he District Court erred by concluding that the grooming policy did not substantially burden petitioner’s religious exercise because “he had been provided a prayer rug and a list of distributors of Islamic material, he was allowed to correspond with a religious advisor, and was allowed to maintain the required diet and observe religious holidays.”... In taking this approach, the District Court improperly imported a strand of reasoning from cases involving prisoners’ First Amendment rights. See, e.g., O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U. S. 342, 351–352 (1987); see also Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 90 (1987). Under those cases, the availability of alternative means of practicing religion is a relevant consideration, but RLUIPA provides greater protection. RLUIPA’s “substantial burden” inquiry asks whether the government has substantially burdened religious exercise (here, the growing of a 1⁄2-inch beard), not whether the RLUIPA claimant is able to engage in other forms of religious exercise.

So courts will now need to concentrate on the "compelling interest" and "least restrictive means" prongs of RLUIPA in initial screening of complaints.  More cases are likely to survive initial screening when those elements are the focus.  In prison contexts, generally one of two sorts of compelling interests are asserted-- (1) prison security or (2) budgetary concerns in accommodating prisoner religious practices.  In Holt, security and safety were asserted, and the Court conceded that those are compelling interests. However it suggested that budgetary concerns (such as those asserted when inmates seek religious diets) pose a more difficult question, saying:

Congress stated that RLUIPA “may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations to avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise.” §2000cc–3(c). See Hobby Lobby.... 

When it comes to evaluating whether the government has shown that its restriction on religious exercise is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest, the Court emphasized that the inquiry must be narrowly focused:

The Department argues that its grooming policy represents the least restrictive means of furthering a “‘broadly formulated interes[t],’” ... namely, the Department’s compelling interest in prison safety and security. But RLUIPA, like RFRA, contemplates a “‘more focused’” inquiry and “‘requires the Government to demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law “to the person”––the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.’”... RLUIPA requires us to “‘scrutiniz[e] the asserted harm of granting specific exemptions to particular religious claimants’” and “to look to the marginal interest in enforcing” the challenged government action in that particular context....

How far must this individualization go?  Must authorities consider how likely it is that the particular claimant will create a security risk?  Should the evaluation of alternatives depend, for example, on whether the particular inmate seeking to grow a beard has a history of attempting to smuggle contraband? The more individualized the determination must be, the fewer cases that will be able to be disposed of at the preliminary screening stage.

Finally one additional portion of the Court's opinion adds complexity to the question of when a religious exemption from a prison rule must be granted. The Court said:

[T]he District Court went astray when it relied on petitioner’s testimony that not all Muslims believe that men must grow beards. Petitioner’s belief is by no means idiosyncratic....  But even if it were, the protection of RLUIPA, no less than the guarantee of the Free Exercise Clause, is “not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect.”

Those who follow Religion Clause's weekly summary of prisoner free exercise cases know that inmates professing a wide variety of religious beliefs seek religious accommodations relating to grooming, clothing, possession of religious items, worship space, congregate religious services, religious dietary restrictions, and more.  The Supreme Court has now reaffirmed the conclusion of most courts that an inmate may invoke RLUIPA to require accommodation of a totally idiosyncratic belief-- so long as it is sincerely held. Religious visions shared by no one else apparently still qualify.

Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Muslim Inmate's Right To Grow Half-Inch Beard

Today in Holt v. Hobbs, (Sup. Ct., Jan 20, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the Arkansas Department of Corrections policy that prevents a Muslim inmate from growing a one-half inch beard for religious reasons violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  In an opinion by Justice Alito the court held that it is irrelevant for purposes of RLUIPA that an inmate has other means of practicing his religion. While cases invovling prisoners' First Amendment rights invoke that reasoning, RLUIPA provides greater protection.  The court went on to reject the state's contention that its no-beard policy is the least restictive means of furthering a compelling state interest. It found unpersuasive the state's arguments regarding contraband and identification of inmates. The Court added that prison officials still have ample ways to maintain security, saying that "in applying RLUIPA’s statutory standard, courts should not blind themselves to the fact that the analysis is conducted in the prison setting."

Justice Ginsburg filed a short concurring opinion, joined by Justice Sotomayor, emphasizing that here, unlike in the Hobby Lobby case, accommodating petitioner's religious beliefs would not detrimentally affect third parties who do not share his beliefs. Justice Sotomayor filed a separate concurring opinion saying: "I do not understand the Court’s opinion to preclude deferring to prison officials’ reasoning when that deference is due—that is, when prison officials offer a plausible explanation for their chosen policy that is supported by whatever evidence is reasonably available to them."

Indiana County Fights Creche Suit By Enacting Open Forum Law

The Batesville (IN) Herald-Tribune reports that last week the Franklin County, Indiana Commissioners passed Ordinance 2015-02 to create a public forum on the county courthouse grounds permitting displays, demonstrations, exhibits, rallies and other expressive activities without regard to viewpoint under a neutral permit process.  The action was taken in response to a lawsuit filed against the county last month challenging the constitutionality of a life size Nativity Scene displayed on the courthouse lawn. (See prior posting.)

UPDATE: According to WLWT, on Feb. 10 plaintiffs dropped the lawsuit.

St. Paul-Minneapolis Archdiocese Files For Bankruptcy Reorganization

On Friday, the Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Reorganization. In a letter (full text) announcing the decision, Archbishop John Nienstedt said it "will allow the finite resources of the Archdiocese to be distributed equitably among all victims/ survivors [of clergy sexual abuse].  It will also permit the Archdiocese to provide essential services required to continue its mission within this 12-county district." The Archdiocese has posted the full text of the Voluntary Petition and other legal and financial documents in the case. Reporting on the filing, MPR News points out that it will stop civil trials that were set to begin on Jan. 26.

More Preliminary Details of Pope's September U.S. Visit Emerge

Preliminary details of Pope Francis' itinerary during his September visit to the United States are becoming known.  From a report by CBS/AP on the Pope's news conference yesterday and a report by the Washington Times on details disclosed by Archbishop Bernardito Auza, the Pontiff's likely schedule so far looks like this:

Washington D.C. Sept. 22-24:

• Arrival- evening of  Sept. 22
• Welcoming ceremony at White House- morning of Sept. 23
• Mass at Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception (for bishops, consecrated and religious men and women, seminarians and representatives from humanitarian and Catholic charitable organizations).  At the Mass, the Pope will canonize 17th-century founder of the first Missions in California, Junipero Serra- later on Sept. 23
• Address to Joint Session of Congress- Sept. 23 or 24
• Leave for New York-afternoon of Sept. 24

New York- Sept. 24-26

• Address to United Nations General Assembly (including opening of Post-2015 Sustainable Development Summit, with many heads of state attending)- morning of Sept. 25
• Mass in Madison Square Garden
• Visit to Ground Zero Memorial
• Visit to St. Patrick's Cathedral
• Inter-ethnic meeting
• Leave for Philadelphia- early morning of Sept. 26

Philadelphia (World Meeting of Families)- Sept. 26-27

• Prayer Vigil- Sept. 26
• Visit to a children's hospital or juvenile prison
• Mass- Sept. 27
• Depart for Rome- evening of Sept. 27

Even with this ambitious schedule, there were things that had to be omitted.  The Pope said he would have liked to enter the U.S. through the Mexican border "as a sign of brotehrhood and help to the immigrants." But, he joked: ..."going to Mexico without going to visit the Madonna (of Guadalupe) would be a drama. A war could break out!"

Employee Who Objected To Biometric Scanning As Mark of the Beast Wins $150,000 Verdict

The Clarksburg Exponent Telegram reports that a jury in a West Virginia federal district court last Thursday awarded $150,000 in compensatory damages to a former employee of Consol Energy (the mining operation of Consolidation Coal Co.) in a Title VII suit charging failure to accommodate his Evangelical Christian religious beliefs. Beverly R. Butcher Jr., a laborer at the mine, objected to biometric hand scanning to track time and attendance, believing that it involves the Mark of the Beast forbidden in the Book of Revelation. The company however relied on a letter from the manufacturer of the hand scanner assuring that it does not assign the Mark of the Beast, and suggesting that objecting employees scan their left, instead of their right, hand.  The company refused other accommodations suggested by Butcher, and the EEOC sued on his behalf. (See prior posting.) In addition to the jury's damage award, the judge will still determine back and forward pay. Defendants plan an appeal.

UPDATE: The 4th Circuit affirmed the district court's award of damages in U.S. Equal employment Opportunity Commission v. Consol Energy, Inc., (4th Cir., June 12, 2017).