Religion Clause

Friday, March 27, 2015

Groups Challenge Residency Limits In Courthouse Open Forum Law

As previously reported, last December the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sued Franklin County, Indiana, challenging a Nativity Scene placed on the Courthouse lawn. The suit was dropped after the county enacted a law making the county courthouse a public forum for all types of expressive activities. (See prior posting.) However this week, FFRF and the Satanic Temple have filed a new lawsuit against the county charging that the open forum law still violates their free expression rights. The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Franklin County, Indiana, (SD IN, filed 3/24/2015), contends that the provision in the open forum law limiting it to Franklin County residents is not narrowly tailored to further a substantial governmental interest. Both plaintiffs were denied permits for displays. FFRF had applied to place a display of several cut-out figures on the Courthouse lawn from Nov. 29, 2015 to Jan. 6, 2016 to celebrate the December 15th "nativity" of the Bill of Rights. Satanic Temple wanted to erect a three-dimensional sculpture during the same time period. FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Mississippi Supreme Court: Courts May Not Rule On Dispute Over Removal of Pastor

In Greater Fairview Missionary Baptist Church v. Hollins, (MS Sup. Ct., March 26, 2015), the Mississippi Supreme Court, relying largely on the U.S. Supreme Court's Hosanna-Tabor decision, held that a trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose procedures for a congregation to use in a vote to remove its pastor. The pastor had initially been placed on administrative leave after being accused of inappropriate sexual conduct with a minor. When church members decided to vote on whether to completely remove him, the pastor sued. In reversing the trial court, the Supreme Court said in part:

In sum, we find that the chancery judge erred when he treated this ecclesiastical controversy as a secular one—a pastor who is unhappy about being terminated by a church simply does not present a secular controversy.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Afghan President To US Congress: Moderate Muslims Must Speak Out

Afghanistan's new President, Ashraf Ghani, in a visit to the United States this week (New York Times), addressed a joint session of Congress yesterday. In his speech (full text and video), Ghani called for changes within Islam, saying in part:

We are willing to speak truth about terror. Military fighting may stem the advance of extremism, but it will not put an end to the anger and hatred being promulgated across majority countries from these groups. That hate must be challenged and overcome from within the religion of Islam. Who is entitled to speak for Islam? Leaders, intellectuals and those many millions of Muslims who believe that Islam is a religion of tolerance and virtue must find their voice. Silence is not acceptable. But silence is not what the world will hear from us. Afghanistan is joining a new consensus that's emerging in the Muslim world. A consensus that rejects intolerance, extremism and war...

The Islamic world must understand its own gloriously tolerant and inquisitive past. It must re-engage with the world openly and without paranoia. We, the unity government of Afghanistan, know that Islam is a religion of peace.... The Declaration of Human Rights is firmly embedded in our Constitution....

NJ Governor Signs Law Keeping Religious Cemeteries Out of Headstone and Funeral Business

Earlier this week, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed A-3840 (full text), a law that bars religious groups that operate cemeteries from also selling headstones or offering various other kinds of funeral services. Religion News Service reports that the immediate effect of the law will be to require the Catholic Archdiocese of Newark to give up its profitable business of selling headstones and private crypts. According to RNS:

The archdiocese became the first religious group in the state to enter the headstone business two years ago, alarming dozens of small, independent companies that produce monuments and crypts.

The dealers’ trade association, the Monument Builders of New Jersey, waged an 18-month legal fight and lobbying campaign against the move, contending the practice would spread to other dioceses and then to the owners of other religious cemeteries.

The archdiocese returned fire with a lobbying effort of its own, along with a personal appeal from Archbishop John J. Myers, who exhorted Catholics to fight the law.

Satanic Temple Urges "Discrimination Transparency" Amendment To Michigan's Proposed RFRA

Fox News reported earlier this month that in a creative response to Michigan's proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Detroit Chapter of the Satanic Temple is urging that a "Discrimination Transparency" amendment be added to the bill. The proposed amendment would legally require businesses that serve the public to post any discrimination policy in effect in a conspicuous location visible to patrons and employees. The Satanic Temple even furnishes on its website a downloadable sign that could be used by businesses. It reads: "Due To Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs, Service Is Denied To _______".

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Court Says Muslim Surveillance Documents May Not Be Withheld Under FOIA "Law Enforcement" Exemption

In ACLU of North California v. FBI, (ND CA, March 23, 2015), in a Freedom of Information Act suit, a California federal district court held that the FBI cannot use the exemption for records compiled for law enforcement purposes to withhold documents relating to the investigation and surveillance of Muslim communities, and collection of ethnic and racial data, in Northern California. The court said:

In short, the FBI employs many various techniques to combat unlawful activity, some of which, if publicly disclosed, would undermine their effectiveness.

That this may well be true does not, without more, permit the FBI to apply Exemption 7 [the "law enforcement" exemption] to withhold or redact information about such tactics, however. Neither the Hardy declarations nor the FBI’s pleadings tether the activities the withheld documents concern to the enforcement of any particular law.... Exemption 7 is not the appropriate umbrella under which to shield these documents from public view.

The ACLU's blog has more information on the decision.

Puerto Rico Concedes On Same-Sex Marriage Laws

Last October, a Puerto Rico federal district court gave a rare victory to opponents of same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. Last week, Puerto Rican officials filed a brief with the 1st Circuit (full text) stating that Puerto Rico would no longer defend the constitutionality of its marriage laws. Appellanats' brief states in part:

To the extent that Commonwealth law does not afford homosexual couples the same rights and entitlements that heterosexual couples enjoy, the Commonwealth recognizes that equal protection and substantive due process guarantees mandate application of heightened scrutiny in this case. Under said heightened standard, the Commonwealth cannot responsibly advance before this Court any interest sufficiently important or compelling to justify the differentiated treatment afforded so far to Plaintiffs.

Freedom to Marry website has more on the decision.

Bible Quotes In University VP's Presentation To Employees Not Protected By First Amendment

Faulkner v. University of Cincinnati, (SD OH, March 23, 2015), involves a challenge by an Associate Vice President in the University's Department of Internet Technology to disciplinary action taken against him for his use of Biblical quotations in a departmental presentation designed to improve leadership skills of participants. An Ohio federal district court dismissed the major part of plaintiff's claim, but permitted him to move ahead on one portion of his complaint. The court explained:

The Court concludes that Faulkner was not speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern when he gave his presentation to the IT Leadership Academy. Therefore, that speech was not protected by the First Amendment, and he cannot challenge the "discipline" that resulted - his attendance at a "sensitivity" seminar. But this conclusion does not require the dismissal of the entirety of his First Amendment claims. Faulkner is also challenging the University's prohibition on making any biblical quotations in "future lectures or in work related interactions." This broadly worded ban could apply to consensual conversations with colleagues, to religious symbolic speech, and to "interactions" of all sorts that might occur outside of the classroom or officially sanctioned University-sponsored groups.

Indiana Passes RFRA Law

The Indiana General Assembly yesterday gave final approval to Senate Bill 101, the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (full text). The bill is broader than its Federal counterpart in several ways. It explicitly protects the exercise of religion by entities as well as individuals. Its enumeration of entities includes "a corporation", without limiting this to closely-held companies. The bill's protections may be invoked when a person's exercise of religion is "likely" to be substantially burdened by government action, not just when it has been burdened. The bill also permits the assertion of free exercise rights as a claim or defense in judicial or administrative proceedings even if the government is not a party to the proceedings. The relevant governmental entity has a right to intervene in such cases to respond to the RFRA claim. A remedy under the bill is only available against the government; suits by employees or applicants invoking the law against private employers are precluded.

In a statement (full text) after the bill passed yesterday, Governor Mike Pence said he strongly supports the bill and will sign it. Meanwhile, Gen Con, a major gaming convention held each year in Indianapolis, wrote the governor (full text) asking him to reconsider, saying that legislation that could lead to discrimination against its attendees will factor into its decision on whether to hold the convention in Indiana in future years.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Ted Cruz Announces Candidacy With Focus On Agenda of Religious Conservatives

Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz yesterday became the first to officially announce his candidacy for President of the United States in 2016. In a speech at Liberty University (full text) directed particularly at Christian Conservatives, Cruz enumerated the Conservative agenda and said in part:

Today, roughly half of born again Christians aren’t voting. They’re staying home. Imagine instead millions of people of faith all across America coming out to the polls and voting our values.

CBS News described his speech as "an impassioned appeal to the religious right."

In another move that focuses on concerns of the religious right, Cruz announced last week that he has introduced two joint resolutions in Congress to overturn recently enacted legislation by the D.C. City Council. (S.J. Res. 10; S.J. Res. 11). As described by Cruz's press release:

In January, the District enacted the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014, which could require employers to provide health plans that cover abortion services, and the Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014, which could force religious schools to support activities that violate the tenets of their faith.

Congress has until April 17 to act to prevent the D.C. laws from taking effect. (See prior related posting.)

In Italy, Lawsuit Raises Challenge To Prayer In Schools

New York Times reported yesterday that the continuing controversy over church-state relations in Italy is reflected in a recent lawsuit challenging the decision of a school board in Bologna to allow priests to offer an Easter blessing at three elementary schools. Previously, a local court had held that an Easter prayer in a classroom during school hours was unconstitutional. But the current plan is for voluntary prayer on school grounds shortly after the closing bell. An Italian constitutional law expert commented:

In Italy, it is different. We do not have religion in the state, but we have tradition and relationships that link the Italian Republic with the Catholic Church.

A hearing on the challenge is not scheduled until later this week, and the blessing has already been recited at two of the schools. Prayer scheduled at one school for next Saturday has been canceled.

Trial Judge's Opening With Pledge of Allegiance Does Not Violate Establishment Clause or Due Process

In State of Ohio v. Daniels, (OH App., March 16, 2015), an Ohio appeals court affirmed the drug possession and drug trafficking conviction of Michael Daniels, Jr., who, among other things, argued that the trial court erred when it required the parties and the jury at his trial to recite the Pledge of Allegiance that invokes a Supreme Being in violation of the Establishment Clause. He also urged that the Pledge amounts to a required loyalty oath that violates the due process clause. The court held that, first, Daniels waived any challenge by failing to object to the Pledge when the court announced that it would be recited. It continued:

[E]ven if the waiver doctrine did not apply herein, appellant provides no definitive case law holding that the use of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, particularly when made part of a customary courtroom recitation, constitutes an impermissible State endorsement of monotheistic religion ..., and he further fails to articulate how an appellate reversal of his conviction would be the proper remedy for such an alleged constitutional violation.

Responding to Daniels' due process argument, the court quoted from a 2004 federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion:

"We recognize that trial judges, among their many other responsibilities, should take care not to create the impression that it is appropriate for the judge or the jury to favor the prosecution simply because the court and the prosecution are both institutions of the United States. However, we do not think it reasonable to suppose that the jurors inferred from the Pledge of Allegiance a patriotic obligation to serve as a rubber stamp for the prosecution...."

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments On Specialty Plates and Free Speech

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. (Full transcript of oral arguments). In the case, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 decision that messages on state specialty license plates are private speech, not government speech. The 5th Circuit majority also concluded that Texas engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination when it rejected, as offensive, a specialty plate design that included the Confederate battle flag. (See prior related posting.) SCOTUSblog reports on the oral arguments, saying in part:

From the moment that a state lawyer stood up in the Supreme Court to argue that messages on license plates are government speech, it seemed that the Justices went forward for the rest of the hour assuming that it was not — at least not always. A strange hearing thus unfolded on when the First Amendment puts curbs on government regulation of expression, and how tight those curbs can be.

New York Times also reports on the arguments.

Monday, March 23, 2015

Muslim School's Zoning Challenge Dismissed Without Reaching Merits

In Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor v. Pittsfield Charter Township, (ED MI, March 20, 2015), the Michigan Islamic Academy claimed that Pittsfield Township violated the substantial burden, anti-discrimination and equal terms provisions of RLUIPA, as well as the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, in denying it zoning authorization so it could build a Muslim school. The court dismissed the RLUIPA claims on the basis that plaintiff had no legally cognizable interest in the property. It merely had a promise from the owner to donate 5 acres for the school if zoning approval was obtained. The court went on to hold that plaintiff's RLUIPA and constitutional claims are not ripe because plaintiff never went beyond the Planning Commission and Township Board to the Zoning Administrator and Zoning Board of Appeals. The court held that plaintiff could continue or refile the suit if these defects are cured. (See prior related posting.).

College Admission Denial Because of Religious References In Interview Supports Establishment Clause Claim

In Jenkins v. Kurtinitis, (D MD, March 20, 2015), a Maryland federal district court permitted an unsuccessful applicant to a community college radiation therapy program to move ahead with his Establishment Clause claim, while dismissing his free speech and state free exercise claims. Plaintiff Brandon Jenkins claimed that the program director Adrienne Dougherty denied him admission to the program in part because during his interview in answering a question about the thing most important to him, Jenkins replied "My God." In an e-mail to Jenkins, Dougherty told him that "this field is not the place for religion." The court held that:

Jenkins has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for relief [under the Establishment Clause] because, given the posture of the case, I cannot determine whether defendants acted with an impermissible [religious] purpose.

However, rejecting Jenkins' free expression claim, the court said in part:

the Free Speech Clause does not protect speech expressed in an admissions interview from admissions consequences in a competitive process....

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Bolds v. Cavazos, (9th Cir., March 20, 2015), the 9th Circuit held that the district court properly dismissed an inmate's free exercise claim because he failed to allege facts showing that the confiscation of his television substantially burdened the practice of his religion.

In Rojas v. Heimgartner, (10th Cir., March 20, 2015), the 10th Circuit upheld a prison policy barring Native American inmates from wearing colored bandannas outside of group religious worship services.

In Prim v. Jackson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32004 (SD OH, March 16, 2015), an inmate alleged he was prevented from celebrating the Passover seder, that inadequate security in the Chapel for female staff caused it to be closed from Friday night to Saturday night, and he was denied kosher meals. A federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing some of the claims against certain of the defendants.

In Marshall v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32773 (MD PA, March 17, 2015), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge upheld a prison's refusal to provide separate congregate religious services for Nation of Islam adherents, limiting them to worshiping with Sunni Muslims.

In Brock-Butler v. Parker, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33402 (WD KY, March 18, 2015), a Kentucky federal district court, in a case primarily about the use of excessive force against an inmate, permitted plaintiff to also proceed with a free exercise claim that he was forced to shave his head to treat a gash that resulted from his being Tasered.

In Williams v. Wilkinson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34172 (ED OK, March 19, 2015), an Oklahoma federal district court dismissed, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, an inmate's complaint that Muslim communal religious services were suspended. It dismissed on the merits plaintiff's complaint that he had been denied a kosher diet.

In Shepherd v. Fischer, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33110 (ND NY, March 18, 2015), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34238, Feb. 23, 2015) and permitted a Rastafarian inmate to proceed against certain defendants on his complaint regarding several interferences with his religious practices.(diet, dreadlocks, religious services).

In Rogers v. Dart, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34464 (ND IL, March 19, 2015), an Illinois federal district court permitted an inmate to proceed with his complaints regarding religious diet and auditing of his commissary purchases as retaliation for filing a grievance.

Court Rejects RFRA and Religious Belief Defenses In Forced "Get" Case

In United States v. Epstein, (D NJ, March 19, 2015), a New Jersey federal district court, in a 53-page opinion, explained various rulings the court had made on religious-based defenses raised by defendants who were being tried on charges of kidnapping and conspiracy for using coercive tactics to Force Orthodox Jewish husbands to give their wives divorce documents ("get"). The court rejected defendants' contention that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act required dismissal of the indictment against them. The court held:

I conclude that the Government’s decision to prosecute Defendants does not constitute a substantial burden on Defendants’ religious exercise. Further, even if a substantial burden does exist, I find that the Government has a compelling interest in preventing crimes of violence, and moreover, the arrest and prosecution of individuals who violate such criminal laws is the least restrictive means of enforcing that interest.

Defendants had argued that freeing an agunah (woman who was refused a get) is a mitzvah in Jewish law. The court responded:

[I]f Defendants had acceptable religious alternatives -- instead of resorting to violating the criminal laws -- I find that the Government’s application of the kidnapping laws to Defendants here does not substantially Defendants’ religious exercise. Nevertheless, even if Defendants had exhausted all other available non-violent means of coercing a husband to give his wife a get, and the only remaining method of coercion, as argued by Defendants, is through violence or force, i.e., kidnapping, I remain convinced that would not amount to a substantial burden. This Court has not found any authority condoning the use of violence under the guise of religion, and more importantly, no case has found the Government’s application of violent crime laws to certain religious practices is a substantial burden.

The court also ruled that defendants' religious beliefs do not negate the element of specific intent required for a conviction. The court said in part:

According to Defendants, by signing the ketubah, an Orthodox Jewish husband promises to be bound by the laws of Moses and Israel, both to the authority of the beth din and to the halakhic, or the Jewish religious law, process of the “forced” get as the term is described by Maimonides. Therefore, taken together, Defendants insist that because of their religious beliefs and because of their beliefs that the victims have consented to the coercive acts, i.e., kidnapping, Defendants lack the intent to commit the crimes as charged. The Court rejects this theory of defense.

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Establishment Clause Challenge To Church Directional Sign Moves Ahead

In Tearpock-Martini v. Shickshinny Borough, (MD PA, March 20, 2015), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to dismiss an Establishment Clause claim against a municipality whose borough council (of which plaintiff was a member) voted to allow a church to install a sign on rights of way bordering plaintiff's property over her objections. Borough street workers and one of the council members installed the sign which read "Bible Baptist Church Welcomes Your" and had a directional arrow with "1 block" written on it. In allowing plaintiff to move ahead, the court said:

The complaint makes sufficient allegations that the government placed the sign on the public right of way. The sign points in the direction of the church and contains a Bible and a cross. The circumstances surrounding the sign are very fact sensitive. For example, according to the plaintiff’s brief, the township does not permit other directional signs and denied the request of the local post office to place a sign. Depending on the facts that are revealed by discovery, a reasonable observer who is familiar with the history and context of the display may perceive a governmental endorsement of religion.

(See prior related posting.) Citizens Voice reports on the decision.

Friday, March 20, 2015

6th Circuit Rejects Good News Club's Fee Waiver Claim

In Child Evangelism Fellowship, Inc. v. Cleveland Metropolitan School District, (6th Cir., March 20, 2015), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction in a suit by Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF) which had claimed that it was entitled to a waiver of fees for use of school facilities for its Good News Club meetings. CEF claimed that the school system engaged in viewpoint discrimination by waiving fees for the Boy Scouts but not for CEF. The majority said:

As the district court concluded, CEF’s evidence in support of its request for injunctive relief did not adequately show that the District had a fee-waiver policy. To the contrary, at this early juncture, the record supports the District’s position that it merely accepted in-kind payment in lieu of monetary fees.

Judge White dissented, saying that the in-kind contributions by the Boy Scouts to participating students did not amount to compensation to the school district, and thus amounted to a fee waiver. She said:

I agree that CEF failed to “show[] that a fee-waiver policy even exists.” ... CEF has shown, however, that a fee-waiver practice existed between the District and the Boy Scouts and that despite repeated requests, the District did not provide CEF with a similar arrangement....

(See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Justice Ginsburg Co-Authors A Passover Essay

Religion News Service reported yesterday on the essay written recently by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg along with Washington, D.C. Rabbi Lauren Holtzblatt as part of American Jewish World Service’s Chag v’Chesed (“Celebration and Compassion”) series in anticipation of Passover. Titled The Heroic and Visionary Women of Passover, the essay focuses on several women in the Passover story who defied Pharaoh to save Moses' life as an infant. Rabbi Holtzblatt's husband is one of Justice Ginsburg's law clerks.

Canada's Supreme Court Says Quebec Catholic School Should Be Allowed Modified Religious Culture Program

In Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), (Sup Ct Canada, March 19, 2015), Canada's Supreme Court held that the Quebec Minister of Education's refusal to grant an exemption to allow Loyola, an English-speaking Jesuit high school, to adopt an alternative to the mandated Program on Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) infringes the school's religious freedom more than is necessary to carry out the objectives of the ERC requirement. The mandated ERC program has 3 components: religious culture, ethics and dialogue. The government insisted that all these parts be taught from a neutral perspective. Loyola wanted to offer an alternative course taught from the perspective of Catholic beliefs and ethics. As summarized by the Court, the majority of 4 justices held that the case should be remanded to the Minister of Education in light of the following principles:

In the Quebec context, where private denominational schools are legal, preventing a school like Loyola from teaching and discussing Catholicism from its own perspective does little to further the ERC Program’s objectives while at the same time seriously interfering with religious freedom. The Minister’s decision suggests that engagement with an individual’s own religion on his or her own terms can be presumed to impair respect for others. This assumption led the Minister to a decision that does not, overall, strike a proportionate balance between the Charter protections and statutory objectives at stake in this case.

That said, the Minister is not required to permit Loyola to teach about the ethics of other religions from a Catholic perspective. The risk of such an approach would be that other religions would necessarily be seen not as differently legitimate belief systems, but as worthy of respect only to the extent that they aligned with the tenets of Catholicism. This contradicts the ERC Program’s goals of ensuring respect for different religious beliefs. In a multicultural society, it is not a breach of anyone’s freedom of religion to be required to learn (or teach) about the doctrines and ethics of other world religions in a neutral and respectful way. In a religious high school, where students are learning about the precepts of one particular faith throughout their education, it is arguably even more important that they learn, in as objective a way as possible, about other belief systems and the reasons underlying those beliefs.

Three justices in a separate opinion argued that the Court should grant the exemption and fashion a remedy, saying:

Loyola’s teachers must be permitted to describe and explain Catholic doctrine and ethical beliefs from the Catholic perspective. Loyola’s teachers must describe and explain the ethical beliefs and doctrines of other religions in an objective and respectful way. Loyola’s teachers must maintain a respectful tone of debate, but where the context of the classroom discussion requires it, they may identify what Catholic beliefs are, why Catholics follow those beliefs, and the ways in which other ethical or doctrinal propositions do not accord with those beliefs.

Orangeville Banner reports on the decision.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

New Resource On Legality of Same-Sex Unions Around The World

American Lawyer reported this week the the Jones Day law firm has launched a new website that provides information on the legal treatment of same-sex relationships in some 300 jurisdictions around the world. The website describes its coverage:

This guide is intended to provide a resource to help answer questions regarding whether particular jurisdictions throughout the world afford legal recognition to same-sex couples. For all U.N. recognized countries, including their constituent parts such as each U.S. State, and Taiwan, the guide answers whether legal recognition of same-sex couples is granted and, if so, provides answers to various follow-up questions, such as whether marriage or some other status is afforded same-sex couples, whether foreign same-sex marriages are recognized in the jurisdiction, and the manner in which same-sex couples may dissolve their relationships.

The website is also now listed under "Resources" in the Religion Clause sidebar.

FBI Approves Revised Hate Crime Data Collection Manual

On Feb. 27, the FBI approved a revised version of its Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines And Training Manual. The new version adds definitions and scenarios for categories of hate crimes on which data is to be collected for the first time beginning this year-- anti-Sikh, anti-Hindu and anti-Arab hate crimes. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]

Utah Enacts LGBT Anti-Discrimination Law With Extensive Religious Exemptions

As reported by JDSupra, on March 12, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed S.B. 296, Antidiscrimination and Religious Freedom Amendments to Utah's laws banning disrimination in employment and housing. The bill reflected a compromise backed by the Mormon Church, as well as by supporters of LGBT rights, to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity while giving broad religious exemptions from the anti-discrimination requirements. (See prior posting.) Here is the full text of the religious exemptions:

34A-5-102. Definitions -- Unincorporated entities
(i)(ii) "Employer" does not include:
(A) a religious organization, a religious corporation sole, a religious association, a religious society, a religious educational institution, or a religious leader, when that individual is acting in the capacity of a religious leader;
(B) any corporation or association constituting an affiliate, a wholly owned
subsidiary, or an agency of any religious organization, religious corporation sole, religious association, or religious society; or
(C) the Boy Scouts of America or its councils, chapters, or subsidiaries...

34A-5-111. Application to the freedom of expressive association and the free exercise of religion.
This chapter may not be interpreted to infringe upon the freedom of expressive association or the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1, 4, and 15 of the Utah Constitution....

34A-5-112. Religious liberty protections -- Expressing beliefs and commitments in workplace -- Prohibition on employment actions against certain employee speech.

(1) An employee may express the employee's religious or moral beliefs and commitments in the workplace in a reasonable, non-disruptive, and non-harassing way on equal terms with similar types of expression of beliefs or commitments allowed by the employer in the workplace, unless the expression is in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer.

(2) An employer may not discharge, demote, terminate, or refuse to hire any person, or retaliate against, harass, or discriminate in matters of compensation or in terms, privileges, and conditions of employment against any person otherwise qualified, for lawful expression or expressive activity outside of the workplace regarding the person's religious, political, or personal convictions, including convictions about marriage, family, or sexuality, unless the expression or expressive activity is in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer....

57-21-3. Exemptions -- Sale by private individuals -- Nonprofit organizations --Noncommercial transactions....

(2) This chapter does not apply to a dwelling or a temporary or permanent residence facility if:
(a) the discrimination is by sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or familial status for reasons of personal modesty or privacy, or in the furtherance of a religious institution's free exercise of religious rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or the Utah Constitution; and
(b) the dwelling or the temporary or permanent residence facility is:
(i) operated by a nonprofit or charitable organization;
(ii) owned by, operated by, or under contract with a religious organization, a religious association, a religious educational institution, or a religious society;
(iii) owned by, operated by, or under contract with an affiliate of an entity described in Subsection (2)(b)(ii); or
(iv) owned by or operated by a person under contract with an entity described in
Subsection (2)(b)(ii).

... (4) (a) (i) Unless membership in a religion is restricted by race, color, sex, or national origin, this chapter does not prohibit an entity described in Subsection (4)(a)(ii) from:
(A) limiting the sale, rental, or occupancy of a dwelling or temporary or permanent residence facility the entity owns or operates for primarily noncommercial purposes to persons of the same religion; or
(B) giving preference to persons of the same religion when selling, renting, or selecting occupants for a dwelling, or a temporary or permanent residence facility, the entity owns or operates for primarily noncommercial purposes.

(ii) The following entities are entitled to the exemptions described in Subsection (4)(a)(i):
(A) a religious organization, association, or society; or
(B) a nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society.

... (7) This chapter does not prohibit a nonprofit educational institution from:
(a) requiring its single students to live in a dwelling, or a temporary or permanent residence facility, that is owned by, operated by, or under contract with the nonprofit educational institution;
(b) segregating a dwelling, or a temporary or permanent residence facility, that is owned by, operated by, or under contract with the nonprofit educational institution on the basis of sex or familial status or both:
(i) for reasons of personal modesty or privacy; or
(ii) in the furtherance of a religious institution's free exercise of religious rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or the Utah Constitution....

Seventh Day Adventist Entitled To Unemployment Benefits After Being Fired For Saturday Absences

In Lester v. Butler, (GA App., March 17, 2015), a Georgia state appeals court held that a Seventh Day Adventist who refused to work on Saturdays for religious reasons cannot be denied unemployment benefits when she was fired for excessive absences. The fact that she became a Seventh Day Adventist some three months after she took her job does not change the result.

Defamation Suit Between Ukrainian Orthodox Church Factions Dismissed

In Nykoriak v. Bilinski, (MI App., March 17, 2015), a Michigan appeals court dismissed a suit that apparently grew out of the rivalry in a Michigan parish between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church controlled by Moscow, and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyiv Patriarchate that was created to be independent of Moscow. [See prior posting for background]. The suit was brought by Bishop Paisiy and a deacon who apparently decided to embrace the Moscow Patriarchate. They sued the Kyiv Patriarchate in the United States and Canada and its leaders. Bishop Paisiy asserted that the defendants

released a press release on March 23, 2013, which falsely alleged that plaintiff Bishop Paisiy resigned as bishop; he transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate; he could no longer serve as bishop; ... and that ... St. Andrew Church [in Hamtramck, Michigan] was placed under the direction of the [Kyiv] Vicariate. Plaintiffs also alleged that on March 24, 2013, ... defendants arrived at St. Andrew and behaved in an unruly manner, used profanity, interrupted services, took pictures of plaintiffs, called them, "The Devil, Criminal Thief, and other inappropriate, immoral and unlawful terms," and then distributed the [Kyiv] Vicariate's press release to the congregation.

The court held first that defendants' alleged conduct did not rise to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress. As to the defamation claim, the heckling in which plaintiffs were called devil and criminal could not reasonably be understood a stating actual facts. The remaining defamation claims, the court held, are barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine:

In order to adjudicate plaintiffs’ claims, a court would have to engage in an impermissible excursion into their religious doctrine pertaining to ordination, the religious authority needed for succession of their church leaders, and the organization and form of their church government.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases-- Installment #2 For the Week

In Hall v. Martin, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29585 (WD MI, March 11, 2015), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30572, Feb. 18, 2015) and denied summary judgment to a Messianic Jewish inmate who was suing because he was denied a strict vegetarian diet.

In Haynes v. Hedgpeth, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30673 (ND CA, March 12, 2015), a California federal district court refused to dismiss some of the claims by a Muslim inmate complaining that he was denied access to group Jumu'ah prayer. The court referred the case for settlement proceedings.

In Chaparro v. Ducart, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30912 (ND CA, March 9, 2015), a California federal district court permitted a Jehovah's Witness inmate to proceed with his complaint that under prison policy he was not permitted to attend religious services for 30 days because he failed to attend a service that he had been authorized to attend.

In Fluker v. Davis, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31140 (SD MS, March 13, 2015), a Mississippi federal magistrate judge dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that while in restrictive custody he could not attend Jumu'ah services outside of his unit.

In Williams v. Miller, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31296 (WD OK, March 12, 2015), and Oklahoma federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30419, Jan. 27, 2015) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he lacked access to a Qur'an during Ramadan and that prison officials failed to remove from Ramadan participation inmates that failed to honor the Ramadan fast.

Suit Over Mismanagement of Maryland Church Dismissed

A Maryland federal district court has dismissed a lawsuit growing out of a longstanding dispute over control and operation of the Landover County, Maryland-based Jericho Baptist Church Ministries. Most of plaintiff's claims were brought as a derivative suit alleging mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty that caused congregational membership to drop from 15,000 to 30. The suit also alleges that defendants hired themselves at high salaries to operate the church. In Franklin v. Jackson, (D MD, March 13, 2015), the court held that the derivative claims should be dismissed because plaintiffs failed to make demand on the board to take corrective action before filing the suit in the name of the corporate entity. The sole non-derivative claim-- an asserted vested right to vote for trustees-- was dismissed on the merits.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Tribe's Attempt To Protect Medicine Lake Highlands

On March 12, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management, (Case No.13-16961). Appellants' brief in the case asserts:

This case may well decide the fate of the Medicine Lake Highlands, a place of deep religious significance and spiritual renewal for countless generations of Native Americans. This remote forested landscape is tucked into the far northeastern corner of California just south of Lava Beds National Monument....

Among the issues raised on appeal is whether tribal members' spiritual, environmental, recreational, and economic interests in protecting the Medicine Lake Highlands give plaintiffs standing to assert claims under the Geothermal Steam Act. Counter Punch has more on the arguments and the background of the case.

5th Circuit Affirms School's Rejection of Jesus Tattooed Jumbotron Ad

In a brief opinion in Little Pencil, L.L.C. v. Lubbock Independent School District, (5th Cir., March 13, 2015), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Texas federal district court's dismissal (see prior posting) of free speech and free exercise claims by an organization that unsuccessfully sought to display a religious ad on a high school football field jumbotron. The ad depicted a tattooed Jesus and a website URL, and was part of a marketing concept using a new way to share the Bible's teachings. KAMC News reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges School System's Refusal To Give Teachers Good Friday Off

In Cranston, Rhode Island, this year for the first time the school committee eliminated Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah and Good Friday as school holidays. Instead, it negotiated a collective bargaining agreement that allows teachers to take up to two days off each school year if they are required to attend religious services during the school day. AP reports that on Monday the union filed suit because the school system has denied requests from some 200 teachers to take Good Friday off, even though they allowed teachers who requested it to take Rosh Hashanah off last fall. School Superintendent Judith Lundsten says that the Good Friday requests are not covered by the collective bargaining agreement because Good Friday does not require attendance at religious services during school hours. According to the Cranston Patch, the suit claims that the discriminatory denial of religious leave here is a breach of the collective bargaining agreement and a violation of the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Burmese Court Gives 30 Month Sentences To Bar Owner and Manager For Buddha Facebook Ad

BBC News reported yesterday that a court in Myanmar has found the manager of the upscale VGastro Bar in Yangon (a New Zealander), along with the bar's owner and a colleague (both Burmese), guilty of intentionally plotting to insult religious belief by uploading to Facebook an ad that depicted a psychedelic mock-up of the Buddha wearing DJ headphones. The ad promoted a cheap drinks night. The bar owner claimed the posting was the responsibility of the bar manager. The three men have been in jail since they were denied bail last December. (See prior posting.) Each was now sentenced to two-and-one-half years in prison, apparently 6 months longer than the prescribed maximum sentence under Myanmar Penal Code Sec. 295A. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

In Latest Installment, Alabama Federal District Court Refuses To Stay Same-Sex Marriage Order

In the latest episode of dueling orders, the Alabama federal district court in Strawser v. Strange. (SD AL, March 16, 2015), has denied a motion by Probate Judge Don Davis to stay its preliminary injunction finding Alabama's laws banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Davis argued that he has been placed in a potential conflict between the district court's injunction and orders of the Alabama Supreme Court. (See prior posting.) The district court said:

Judge Davis states that he complied with this court’s preliminary injunction order and that all of the current plaintiffs in this case have received marriage licenses. Judge Davis points to rulings by the Alabama Supreme Court ordering Alabama Probate Judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, Davis has not shown how this court’s preliminary injunction results in irreparable harm to him.

Reuters reports on the decision.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Brazilian Court Affirms Right of Adventist To Close His Service Station For Sabbath

Adventist Review reported yesterday that a court in Brazil has issued an injunction upholding the right of a Seventh Day Adventist to keep his service station closed from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday, despite a rule promulgated by the Brazilian oil industry regulator ANP that gas stations must be open Monday through Saturday for 14 hours per day. João Francisco do Nascimento began his gas station business in the city of Lagarto some six months before ANP adopted the rule he is contesting.

Ex-Scientologists Must Submit Fraud Claims To Internal Arbitration

A Florida federal district court last Friday ruled that two former members of the Church of Scientology who are suing for return of over $400,000 in donations and deposits for services they made to the Church are bound by the arbitration clause in some 40 Enrollment Applications they signed. In Garcia v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc., (MD FL, March 13, 2015), plaintiffs claimed they were fraudulently induced into contributing substantial sums and that they paid some $69,000 in deposits toward services that were never provided. (See prior posting.) The court held that neutral principles of Florida law can be applied to determine the enforceability of the arbitration clause without impermissibly deciding religious doctrine.

The court rejected plaintiffs' claim that the arbitration clauses that relegated plaintiffs' to the Church's internal arbitration procedures are procedurally unconscionable. It held that even though the Church did not have detailed arbitration rules, the procedures in the Enrollment Applications are minimally adequate. It also concluded that the clauses are broad enough to cover all disputes, not just those related to the Enrollment Applications.

Finally the court held that the First Amendment precludes it from considering plaintiffs' claim that they cannot receive a fair hearing because they have been declared "suppressive" by the Church, and Scientologists in good standing are prohibited by Church doctrine from communicating with suppressive individuals. The court said:

As compelling as Plaintiffs' argument might otherwise be, the First Amendment prohibits consideration of this contention, since it necessarily would require an analysis and interpretation of Scientology doctrine. That would constitute a prohibited intrusion into religious doctrine, discipline, faith, and ecclesiastical rule, custom or law by the court....

Tampa Bay Times and The Underground Bunker report on the decision.

Arizona Says Judges Cannot Refuse To Perform Same-Sex Marriages If They Perform Others

The Arizona Supreme Court Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee has issued Revised Advisory Opinion 15-01 (March 9, 2015), Judicial Obligation To Perform Same-Sex Marriages. It provides in part that:

a judge who chooses to perform marriages may not discriminate between marriages based on the judge’s opposition to the concept of same-sex marriage.

Rule 2.3(B) of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge shall not, "in the performance of judicial duties," manifest bias or prejudice based upon sexual orientation....

Refusing to perform same-sex marriages, while agreeing to perform opposite sex marriages, also violates Rule 2.2 of the Code which provides that "[a] judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially."

... The JEAC concludes that a judge may choose for various reasons not to conduct any marriages at all because performing marriages is a discretionary, not mandatory, function. A judge may also choose to conduct marriages only for friends and relatives to the exclusion of all others. Such a choice would not run afoul of Rule 2.3(B) because it is not based on sexual orientation. Of course, a judge who performs marriages only for friends and relatives would violate Rule 2.3(B) if the judge refuses to perform marriages for same sex friends and relatives.

AP reports on reactions to the ruling.

Monday, March 16, 2015

Israeli Court Tells Ultra-Orthodox Paper To Publish Ad By Party Running Women Candidates- UPDATE- Order Reversed

In Israel on Friday, a district court in the city of Lod ordered Yated Ne'eman, the largest haredi (ultra-Orthodox) newspaper to publish at least one election ad by U’bezchutan, a political party seeking votes of haredi women. Jerusalem Post reports that a number of haredi media outlets have rejected ads from U’bezchutan, the only haredi party that has women candidates on its list. Publication of print ads in the haredi community is particularly important because many ultra-Orthodox women do not have access to the Internet. The court rejected the argument of the newspaper that the ad would offend the feelings of the paper's readers. The newspaper however has appealed the ruling, so the issue may not be finally decided before tomorrow's election.

UPDATE: On Sunday night, Israel's Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment. (Report from Yeshiva World).

NYC's de Blasio Proposes Compromise On Religious Instruction In Pre-K Programs

AP reported yesterday that in New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio plans to expand the participation of Jewish, Christian and Muslim schools in his free pre-kindergarten program for 4-year olds by permitting schools to offer religious instruction and prayer during mid-day breaks. This proposal is particularly aimed at increasing the participation of Orthodox Jewish schools in the program. The New York Civil Liberties Union says this is an "end-run" around church-state restrictions. Meanwhile, this arrangement may still be a problem for many Jewish schools who see the required secular 6 hour and 20 minute day as too long to leave time for additional religious instruction. The city is proposing to allow schools to remain open 6 days per week, and also on federal holidays such as Christmas, so students can get 31 hours and 40 minutes of secular instruction per week. But a spokesman for Jewish schools says this compromise is still unworkable.

Sunday, March 15, 2015

New Supreme Court Decisions Change Free Exercise Conclusions In Indian Case

In Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Ashe, (D WY, March 12, 2015) a Wyoming federal district court held that the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decisions in Hobby Lobby and Holt v. Hobbs require the district court to depart from an earlier decision in a dispute between two Indian tribes on the taking of bald eagles for religious ceremonial purposes. In a November 2012 decision (see prior posting) the district court rejected a challenge under RFRA by the Northern Arapaho Tribe to a limitation in a Fish and Wildlife Service permit that allowed them to take two bald eagles for religious purposes in Wyoming, but not on the Wind River Reservation that they share with the Eastern Shoshone tribe. The Eastern Shoshones oppose the taking of bald eagles on the reservation because they consider the eagles sacred.

Now, in a decision on a First Amendment challenge to this limitation, the court, finding that the permit decision is not a neutral law of general applicability, applied the compelling interesst- least restrictive alternative test to invalidate the limitation on the Northern Arapaho's rights. The court said in part:

The real dispute in this case is the question of whether Defendants' decision to restrict the Northern Arapaho Tribe from taking up to two bald eagles per year within the Wind River Reservation is justified by a compelling governmental interest in fostering and protecting the Eastern Shoshone Tribe's culture and religion....

Following the Supreme Court's recent guidance in Hobby Lobby and Holt, when determining whether Defendants' decision is justified by a compelling interest, the Court must look beyond the broadly formulated interest and ... ask whether Defendants' decision to restrict the Northern Arapaho Tribe from taking up to two bald eagles per year within the Wind River Reservation is justified by a compelling governmental interest in fostering and protecting the Eastern Shoshone Tribe's culture and religion.

The Court concludes that it is not. The asserted harm to the culture and religion of the Eastern Shoshone Tribe if the Northern Arapaho Tribe were to take up to two bald eagles per year within the Wind River Reservation is miniscule. There is no doubt that the federal government has "general interests in preserving Native American culture and religion in-and-of themselves and in fulfilling trust obligations to Native Americans."... But the argument that taking up to two bald eagles per year within the Wind River Reservation would seriously compromise the federal government's general interest in protecting and fostering the Eastern Shoshone Tribe's culture and religion is unavailing. See Holt, 135 S.Ct. at 863.....

AP reports on the decision.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Abernathy v. Strada, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28041 (ED NY, March 6, 2015), a New York federal district court dismissed, primarily for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, a complaint by a former Native American inmate that he was refused a transfer to a correctional facility in which he could have access to a sweat lodge, tobacco for pipe ceremonies, musical instruments and religious literature.

In Rountree v. Clarke, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28511 (WD VA, March 9, 2015), a Virginia federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that religious books sent to her were improperly confiscated, but allowed her to move ahead with her claim for injunctive relief growing out of her complaint that she has been prohibited from standing on her prayer rug during count procedures as required by her Buddhist faith.

In Smith v. Cruzen, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28604 (ND C, Feb. 24, 2015), a California federal district court permitted a Muslim inmate to proceed with his complaint that a correctional officer stopped Muslims from engaging in previously-approved group prayer. A second pro se plaintiff who had filed jointly was dismissed without prejudice, allowing him if he wishes to file a separate action.

In Harris v. Gipson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28609 (ED CA, March 6, 2015), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that the prison's Religious Meat Alternative Program offers halal meat for diner, but only a vegetarian diet for breakfast and lunch.

In Williams v. DeJesus, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29164 (ED VA, March 9, 2015), a Virginia federal district court upheld a prison's decision to ban an inmate from possessing The Satanic Bible.

In Hailes v. Free, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29409 (SD OH, March 10, 2015), an Ohio federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76127, June 3, 2014) and dismissed a Seventh Day Adventist inmate's complaint that he was ordered to report for snow duty even though he had religious accommodation papers excusing him. When he refused, he was placed in segregation.

In Hayles v. Taylor, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29558 (MD GA, March 11, 2015) a Georgia federal magistrate judge dismissed without prejudice an inmate's conclusory allegation that while in disciplinary segregation he was denied access to religious services.

In Carmichael v. Aguilar, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29990 (ED CA, March 11, 2015), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint over delays in implementing a prison halal diet.

Saturday, March 14, 2015

Amicus Brief Targets Scalia and Thomas In Linking Same-Sex Marriage and Campaign Finance Equality

Dozens of amicus briefs have been filed in Obergefell v. Hodges and its companion cases-- the same-sex marriage cases that are set for oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 28. (Links to all briefs from SCOTUS blog). One of the most interesting (full text) is the brief of the Liberty Education Forum (a non-profit organization with ties to the Log Cabin Republicans), filed March 6, which focuses on the special treatment that contributions by married couples receive under state campaign finance laws. For example, each spouse can make campaign contributions up to the individual limit, even though only one of them brings income into the household. The brief argues:

Respondents’ same-sex marriage prohibitions, when viewed together with their campaign finance laws, result in similarly situated couples having unequal rights to engage in the political process through political contributions. A state’s differential treatment with regard to core First Amendment rights violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a press release, Liberty Education Forum says that the brief is

targeted specifically at Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.... No two Justices on the Supreme Court have been more vocal about their opposition to curtailments of the First Amendment that exist because of restrictions on campaign contributions than Justices Scalia and Thomas.

BNA Daily Report for Executives (subscription required) reports on the brief.

Friday, March 13, 2015

Role of Rabbis In Israel Army Ceremonies Is In Dispute

Times of Israel reported yesterday on a controversy within the Israeli army over the role of rabbis at the swearing-in ceremony for new recruits. Currently the ceremony, held at the Western Wall, features the unit commanders, the military rabbi and the rabbi of the unit. However, the IDF's chief education officer Avner Paz-Tzuk has written the Manpower Directorate saying that a number of soldiers-- presumably secular ones-- have expressed “resentment” over “the centrality of military rabbis” in the ceremony. Paz-Tzuk recommended that a commander, rather than a rabbi, read portions of the Bible at the swearing-in ceremony. Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon disagrees with the recommendation that reflects long-standing tensions between the Education Corps and the IDF rabbinate over educational roles in the military.

Germany's Constitutional Court Invalidates Blanket Ban On Teachers' Wearing Hijabs

Germany's Federal Constitutional Court today invalidated a blanket ban on Muslim teachers wearing the hijab (head scarf) while teaching. Here is Deutsche Welle's summary of the decision in a suit brought by two teachers:

State authorities had decided that the teachers were violating the law, which in North Rhine-Westphalia forbids any religious symbols or actions that are considered a threat to harmonious co-existence at schools. One of the teachers had been dismissed from her job, while the other received a written warning.

The high court ... has now decided that any such symbol or action must pose a "concrete danger" to be forbidden under the law, saying that the ban was an intrusion on the teachers' self-identity. The ruling means, however, that headscarves could theoretically still be banned in certain individual cases where such a "concrete" danger is considered to exist. This could occur, for example, if a Muslim teacher wearing a headscarf were to cause frequent altercations among pupils...

The ruling on Friday also overturned another clause in North Rhine-Westphalian law that excepted manifestations "of Christian and Western educational and cultural values or traditions" at schools from the otherwise complete ban on blatant demonstrations of religious affiliation.

The court decided that this exception constituted a privileging of Christian symbols over those of other religions, which would go against the ban on discrimination on religious grounds that is enshrined in the German constitution.

[Thanks to Tom Rutledge and Claudia Haupt for the lead.]

Navy May Remove Christian Chaplain For Inapproriate Counseling On Sexuality

Military Times reported Wednesday on the Navy's threat to remove Pentecostal chaplain Lt. Cmdr. Wesley Modder from the service because of inappropriate counseling he offered to sailors on issues of sexuality. After a number of sailors filed equal opportunity complaints against Modder, on Feb. 17 he was issued a "detachment for cause" letter. His commanders charge that Modder is intolerant and unable to function in a diverse and pluralistic environment. Assigned to the Nuclear Power Training Command in South Carolina, Modder had criticized female sailors for pre-marital sex and told students that homosexuality is wrong. When told of complaints against him, Modder responded that he will not follow Navy policy that conflicts with his religious beliefs. Modder has been temporarily reassigned, while it is determined whether a board of inquiry to officially separate him from the Navy will be convened. He has less than a year to serve in order to qualify for 20-year retirement benefits.

Philadelphia Transit System Must Accept Anti-Muslim Ad

In American Freedom Defense Initiative ("AFDI") v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, (ED PA, March 11, 2015), a Pennsylvania federal district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring Philadelphia's transit system to accept a controversial anti-Muslim ad on its buses. AFDI sought to purchase space for an ad that reads in part: "Islamic Jew-Hatred: It’s in the Quran." The ad pictures Adolph Hitler meeting with an Arab leader. SEPTA had rejected the ad under its policy to prohibit: "Advertising that tends to disparage or ridicule any person or group of persons on the basis of race, religious belief, age, sex, alienage, national origin, sickness or disability." The court held, however, that this is an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech in a designated public forum. It added:

[I]t is clear that the anti-disparagement standard promulgated by SEPTA was a principled attempt to limit hurtful, disparaging advertisements. While certainly laudable, such aspirations do not, unfortunately, cure First Amendment violations.

AP reports on the decision.

9th Circuit: Anti-Injunction Act Bars Suit Seeking New IRS Procedures For Religious Objectors

In Boardman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, (9th Cir., March 12, 2015), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Anti-Injunction Act requires dismissal of a suit seeking to prevent the Intenal Revenue Service from using expedited procedures to resolve frivolous assertions of religious objections to paying income taxes. Plaintiff had asked for an injunction ordering the IRS to adopt "procedures for processing disputes, claims, collections and litigation adverse to taxpayers who refuse to pay taxes because of conscience or religion that are respectful, efficient, transparent and minimally burdensome and that lead to Tax Court determinations upon taxpayer request."

Britain's Equality Commission Reports On Religion In the Workplace and Service Delivery

Yesterday Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission released a report on its Consultation launched last year seeking evidence on religious discrimination and accommodation in Britain. The 218-page report, titled Religion or Belief in the Workplace and Service Delivery, reports on information received from nearly 2500 individuals and organizations. Here is an excerpt from the Commission's summary of key findings:

Some employees or service users stated that they had experienced no or few negative issues in their workplace or in receiving a service which they attributed to the view of employers or service providers that religion or belief was a private matter and should not be discussed in the workplace or the service.

Some employees and students stated that they had encountered hostile and unwelcoming environments.... The issues raised concerned the recruitment process, working conditions, including the wearing of religious clothing or symbols, promotion and progression, and time off work for religious holidays and holy days. Some reported that particular beliefs were mocked or dismissed in the workplace or classroom, or criticised unwelcome 'preaching' or proselytising, or the expression of hurtful or derogatory remarks aimed at particular groups....

Many participants were concerned about the right balance between the freedom to express religious views and the right of others to be free from discrimination or harassment. Specific issues raised included conscientious objection in relation to marriage of same sex couples and how to protect employees from harassment and discrimination by staff, customers or service users with a religion. There was a marked divergence of opinion about when it was desirable and appropriate to discuss religious beliefs with service users during the delivery of a service.

The Commission's press release on the report emphasized some of the concerns expressed by respondents. The report is discussed further at Law & Religion UK blog.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

NLRB Asserts Jurisdiction Over Faculty Election At Jesuit College

In Seattle University v. Service Employees International Union, (NLRB Reg. Dir., March 3, 2015), an NLRB Regional Director Supplemental Decision, the Regional Director applied the NLRB's new standard for religious colleges to hold that the NLRB has jurisdiction over a faculty union election at Seattle University. The Director held that while the University holds itself out as a Jesuit Catholic institution, it does not hold faculty members out as performing a religious function.

First Lady Hosts Nowruz Reception

Yesterday, First Lady Michelle Obama hosted a reception in the East Room of the White House to mark Nowruz. The holiday, with roots in Zoroastrianism, celebrates the start of the new year in the Persian calendar. In her remarks (full text), Mrs. Obama said in part:

I think it’s so fitting that we’re holding this celebration here today because one of my favorite things about the White House is how it is truly the People’s House –- a house that reflects the diversity of culture and traditions that make us who we are as a country. And Nowruz is one of those traditions.

For more than 3,000 years, families and communities in the Middle East, Asia, and all around the world, including here in the United States, have celebrated this holiday to mark the renewal of the earth in springtime....

The GW Hatchet reports in more detail on the reception.

Alabama Supreme Court Subjects Remaining Probate Judge To Its Order Banning Issuance of Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

On Tuesday the Alabama Supreme Court followed up its March 3 decision that ordered all Probate Court judges around the state to discontinue the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (See prior posting.) In that earlier decision, Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis asked to be excluded as a respondent on the ground that he was subject to a conflicting federal court order in Strawser v. Strange. (See prior posting.) In Ex parte State of Alabama ex. rel. Alabama Policy Institute, (AL Sup. Ct., March 10, 2015), in a 6-1 decision, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that Davis is not subject to a conflicting order because the federal court had only granted injunctive relief requiring him to issue marriage licenses to the four couples who were plaintiffs in the Strawser case. Those license have now already been issued. The Supreme Court thus added Davis as a respondent who is bound by its March 3 order. AL.com reports on the decision.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Fired Employee Claims HIs Religious Objections To Direct Pay Deposit Should Have Been Accommodated

According to Northwest Ohio Media Group, an employment discrimination lawsuit was filed last week in an Ohio federal district court by a man who has a history of filing religious discrimination lawsuits against large companies. Plaintiff Lee Yeager says that his Christian fundamentalist beliefs prohibit him from having a bank account because he believes banks engage in Biblically prohibited usury. Yeager was terminated from the internship program at FirstEnergy Generation Corp. after he refused to agree to have his pay directly deposited into a bank account. The complaint (full text) in Yeager v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp., (ND OH, filed 3/3/2015) contends that the company could have reasonably accommodated plaintiff's religious beliefs without undue hardship. In January the Ohio Civil Rights Commission ruled in Yeager's favor on the direct deposit claim, but the company is appealing the ruling.

Suit Charges Religious Discirmination In Cancellation of Hasidic Jews' Voter Registration

A class action lawsuit was filed yesterday in a New York federal district court by a group of Hasidic Jews against the Sullivan County Board of Elections that oversees voting in the small Village of Bloomingburg, New York. According to Newsweek, in January the Board of Elections sent notices to 184 of the Village's 285 registered voters to show cause why the Board should not cancel their voter registrations. More than 160 of the voters receiving the notices are Hasidim. Last month the Board announced that it would move ahead to cancel registrations of 156 of these voters-- comprising virtually every Hasidic Jewish resident of the Village. The suit alleges that the voters were singled out only because of their religion. A lawsuit filed last year charges the Village more generally with acting together with a neighboring town to keep more Hasidic Jews from moving into the area. (See prior posting.)

Failed Messiah blog says that the Village has good cause to cancel the voter registrations:

The suit is backed by Shalom Lamm, the Modern Orthodox developer [of a Bloomingburg housing project] who ... deceived (and, some say, bribed) his way past naive locals to get the original go-aheads for the project, which was always meant to be a 396-unit high density Satmar hasidic village but camouflaged as a low density 125-home golf course vacation and retirement community....

The hasidim who were disqualified from voting almost all claimed one of Lamm's private homes in the village as their residence, with more than a dozen adults showing the same single family home as their "official" residence. The property, however, showed no sign of regular habitation....

Challenge To Oklahoma 10 Commandments Monument Dismissed On Standing Grounds

An Oklahoma federal district court yesterday dismissed an Establishment Clause challenge to the Ten Commandments Monument located on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol. In American Atheists, Inc. v. Thompson, (WD OK, March 10, 2015), the court held that the individual plaintiff in the case lacks standing because she saw the Monument only once before filing suit, and then only because she went looking for it -- apparently in order to create standing to sue. The standing of American Atheists, Inc. depends on the standing of the individual plaintiff who was a member. Reacting to the decision, Oklahoma state Attorney General Scott Pruitt said: "The historical relevance of the Ten Commandments and the role it played in the founding of our nation cannot be disputed. I commend Judge Cauthron’s decision to rule in the state’s favor." AP reports on the decision.

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Sheriff Tells Registered Sex Offenders To Attend Church At County Jail

In Graham County, North Carolina, the sheriff last month sent a letter (full text) to the 20 registered sex offenders in his county telling them that a North Carolina law barring offenders from being within 300 feet of premises where minors are supervised means that they may not attend church. The letter continues:

This is an effort to protect the citizens and children of the community.... That is why I am letting you know that if you want to go to a church service you are welcome to come to the Graham Co. Jail on Sunday's to attend church services.

Reporting yesterday, WCNC News says that Sheriff Danny Millsaps now concedes that his wording may not have been totally correct, but he stands by his interpretation of the law.

7th Circuit: Milwaukee Archdiocese Cannot Protect Cemetery Trust Funds In Bankruptcy

In Listecki v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, (7th Cir., March 9, 2015), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that $55 million held by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in a perpetual care trust fund for maintaining Catholic cemeteries is potentially available in bankruptcy to satisfy claims of clergy sex abuse victims. The district court had held that the Archdiocese's free exercise rights under RFRA and the 1st Amendment would be infringed if the trust funds were made available to claimants. (See prior posting.) The 7th Circuit held, however, that RFRA does not apply unless the government is a party to the suit, and that a creditors' committee in bankruptcy does not act "under color of law" as a governmental instrumentality. It rejected the Archdiocese's 1st Amendment free exercise assertion, finding that the Bankruptcy Code's fraudulent transfer provisions are neutral and generally applicable. It further held that the Bankruptcy Code reflects a compelling governmental interest in the protection of creditors. AP reports on reactions to the decision.

Orthodox Jewish School Loses RLUIPA Zoning Challenge

In Joan Dachs Bais Yaakov Elementary School v. City of Evanston, (IL App., March 6, 2015), an Illinois appellate court rejected a RLUIPA challenge brought by an Orthodox Jewish elementary school after Evanston City Council refused zoning modifications that would allow the construction of a school on property in an industrial zone that plaintiff had purchased. Rejecting the school's reliance on RLUIPA's equal terms provision, the court said:

Unlike its nonreligious comparators, the removal of the ... property from the property tax rolls would deprive Evanston of hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in property tax revenue at a time when approximately 40% of its land is already off the tax rolls. The generation of tax revenues is a legitimate concern of land-use regulation.... and, thus, renders JDBY, which is not subject to property taxes, dissimilar to its nonreligious comparators who are subject to such taxes.

The court also upheld a trial court finding that RLUIPA's nondiscrimination provisions had not been violated. RLUIPA Defense blog has more on the decision.