Final Accommodation Rules Adopted For Religious Objectors To ACA Contraceptive Coverage

The Obama Administration on Friday released final rules on accommodating religious objections to the Affordable Care Act requirement for health insurance coverage of contraceptive services. (Full text of Rules and accompanying release). The final rules, which provide for the insurer or policy administrator to provide contraceptive coverage directly when the employer objects to providing coverage, apply to any non-profit that holds itself out as a religious organization and has religious objections to covering some or all contraceptive items or services.

The accommodation also applies to any closely-held for-profit business entity where "the organization’s highest governing body (such as its board of directors...) has adopted a resolution or similar action, under the organization’s applicable rules of governance and consistent with state law, establishing that it objects to covering some or all of the contraceptive services on account of the owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs." The final rules define a closely-held entity as one whose shares or ownership interests are not publicly traded and where more than 50% in value of its ownership interests is owned directly or indirectly (e.g. through a corporation or trust) by 5 or fewer individuals or families.

On the important question of the type of notice an objecting non-profit or closely-held business must furnish, the final rules carry forward the procedures currently in place. As summarized by the adopting Release:

These final regulations continue to allow eligible organizations to choose between using EBSA Form 700 [and furnishing it directly to the insurer or third party administrator] or the alternative process consistent with the Wheaton interim order. The alternative process provides that an eligible organization may notify HHS in writing of its religious objection to covering all or a subset of contraceptive services. The notice must include the name of the eligible organization and the basis on which it qualifies for an accommodation; its objection based on sincerely held religious beliefs....; the plan name and type...; and the name and contact information for any of the plan’s third party administrators and health insurance issuers.

Health Affairs Blog has more on the new rules. A Friday press release from the Becket Fund continues to express strong opposition to the Final Rules. [Thanks to Mark Scarberry via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Pope In Bolivia Calls For Dramatic Economic and Social Reform

Yesterday, in a speech that CBS News called "one of the most significant ... of his papacy," Pope Francis called for dramatic economic and social change.  Addressing the 2nd World Meeting of Popular Movements (full text of remarks) in Bolivia, he said in part:

Do we realize that something is wrong in a world where there are so many farmworkers without land, so many families without a home, so many laborers without rights, so many persons whose dignity is not respected?

Do we realize that something is wrong where so many senseless wars are being fought and acts of fratricidal violence are taking place on our very doorstep? Do we realize something is wrong when the soil, water, air and living creatures of our world are under constant threat? 

So let’s not be afraid to say it: we need change; we want change. In your letters and in our meetings, you have mentioned the many forms of exclusion and injustice which you experience in the workplace, in neighborhoods and throughout the land..... Yet there is an invisible thread joining every one of those forms of exclusion: can we recognize it? These are not isolated issues. I wonder whether we can see that these destructive realities are part of a system which has become global. Do we realize that that system has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature?....

Time, my brothers and sisters, seems to be running out.... Today, the scientific community realizes what the poor have long told us: harm, perhaps irreversible harm, is being done to the ecosystem. The earth, entire peoples and individual persons are being brutally punished. And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what [one of the first theologians of the Church,] Basil of Caesarea, called “the dung of the devil”. An unfettered pursuit of money rules.... The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home. [Sister and mother earth.]

AG Says U.S. Government Benefit Programs Will Recognize Same-Sex Spouses In All States

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced yesterday that the Supreme Court's marriage equality decision will be applied across the federal government.  She said in part:

[C]ritical programs for veterans and elderly and disabled Americans, which previously could not give effect to the marriages of couples living in states that did not recognize those marriages, will now provide federal recognition for all marriages nationwide....  Just over a year ago, Attorney General Holder announced that agencies across the federal government had implemented the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision by treating married same-sex couples the same as married opposite-sex couples to the greatest extent possible under the law as it then stood.  With the Supreme Court’s new ruling that the Constitution requires marriage equality, we have now taken the further step of ensuring that all federal benefits will be available equally to married couples in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the US Territorie

Ontario Court Upholds Law Society's Refusal To Accredit Christian Law School

In Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, (ON Super. Ct., July 2, 2015), a 3-judge panel of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the decision of the Law Society of Upper Canada to deny accreditation to the law school which Trinity Western University (TWU)-- an evangelical Christian school-- plans to open.  The Law Society's denial was based on TWU's Community Covenant that all students are required to sign, and in particular the Covenant's ban on "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman."

According to the court, the Law Society "was essentially asked to approve and accept students from an institution that engaged in discrimination against persons
who did not share the religious beliefs that were held by TWU, and the student body that it prefers to have at its institution." The court went on:

In exercising its mandate to advance the cause of justice, to maintain the rule of law, and to act in the public interest, the [Law Society] was entitled to balance the applicants’ rights to freedom of religion with the equality rights of its future members, who include members from two historically disadvantaged minorities (LGBTQ persons and women). It was entitled to consider the impact on those equality rights of accrediting TWU’s law school, and thereby appear to give recognition and approval to institutional discrimination against those same minorities. Condoning discrimination can be ever much as harmful as the act of discrimination itself.

Mondaq summarizes the decision.

Employee Who Refused Work In Unit Performing Abortions Loses Title VII Suit

In Montgomery v. Cook County, (ND IL, July 1, 2015), an Illinois federal district court dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by a medical center employee who was fired after she refused an assignment change that would require her to spend half her time in the reproductive health unit of the Planned Parenthood facility at which she was employed.  She objected on religious grounds to work in the unit that performed abortions, and said she understood from the time she was hired that this concern would be respected. The court held that plaintiff had not alleged facts showing that she was fired "because of" her religious beliefs.  The court conceded that "even if an employer does not intentionally discriminate against an employee, an employer may still be liable under Title VII for failure to accommodate the religious needs of its employees." However here, according to the court:

[Plaintiff] failed to allege any facts regarding whether a request to accommodate [her] beliefs was made... and whether Defendants tried to accommodate [them].... Based on these allegations, I cannot reasonably infer that Defendants failed to try to accommodate Plaintiff's religious beliefs to keep her employed.

It thus dismissed the discrimination claim without prejudice.

The court also rejected Plaintiff's retaliation claim, holding: "Plaintiff has neither plead that she engaged in protected activity nor alleged a substantial link between any protected expression and her termination."

Decision Is Step Toward Success For Group Seeking To Erect Eruv In The Hamptons

In Suffolk County, New York, a Jewish group seeking to construct an eruv in parts of three towns in the Hamptons moved a step closer to succeeding when a state trial court judge ruled last week that the Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals improperly invoked the local sign ordinance to prevent the construction.  New York Jewish Week reports:

Acting Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Joseph Farneti ruled June 30 that the board was wrong when it affirmed a town inspector’s opinion that lechis are signs that fall within the town’s sign ordinance. Lechis are wooden or plastic strips affixed to telephone and utility poles to form the boundaries of an eruv, within which observant Jews may carry items on the Sabbath. The association had sought to put 28 of them on 15 poles.

Such a finding is “irrational and unreasonable in that it does not comport with the sign ordinance’s intent,” the judge wrote. “The Court finds that the boundaries are invisible as the lechis are not discernable. … Neither drivers nor casual observers would be able to differentiate the poles which have lechis attached from the other poles.”

Farneti added: “It is well-settled that, while religious institutions are not exempt from local zoning laws, greater flexibility is required in evaluating an application for a religious use and every effort to accommodate the religious use must be made.”

The East End Eruv Association has been litigating in state and federal courts since 2011 in an attempt to get approval. (See prior posting.)

Negligent Supervision Claim Against Diocese By Sex-Abuse Victim Can Proceed

In John Doe 200 v. Diocese of Raleigh, (NC App., July 7, 2015), a North Carolina appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not require dismissal of a sex-abuse victim's negligent supervision claims against the Catholic Diocese of Raleigh. The court held:

Were we to adopt the Diocese Defendants’ argument ..., then the First Amendment would, as a practical matter, serve as a complete shield to tort liability for religious organizations in the sexual abuse context except in those cases in which the plaintiff specifically alleged prior sexual assaults by the cleric at issue. We do not believe the First Amendment requires such a result.... Neutral principles of law allow a civil court to adjudicate Plaintiff’s claim that the Diocese Defendants knew or should have known of the danger posed by Sepulveda [a priest] to Plaintiff because of his sexual attraction to minors.

The court however reached a different conclusion on plaintiff's claim that the Diocese should have required the offending priest to undergo STD testing and should have provided the results to plaintiff:

This claim seeks to impose liability based on the Diocese Defendants’ alleged failure to exercise their authority over a priest stemming from an oath of obedience taken by him pursuant to the church’s canon law. As such, this claim directly “challenges church actions involving religious doctrine and practice” and cannot be adjudicated without entangling a secular court in ecclesiastical matters. 

St. Paul-Minneapolis Archdiocese Victims Want Bankruptcy Court To Order Distribution of Video Urging Claimants To File

In the bankruptcy reorganization proceedings of the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, August 3 is the deadline for sex abuse victims to file claims.  Yesterday's Wall Street Journal reports that in a motion filed June 29 (full text), the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (representing victim claimants) presented the bankruptcy court with a seven-minute video urging victims to come forward before the deadline. The motion asks the court to order the Archdiocese to deliver written notice to each parish asking it to play the video after each Mass on the July 11-12 weekend, requesting each parish to post the video (or a link to it) on its website, and ordering the Archdiocese to post the video on its own website. The Archdiocese in its response to the motion (full text) says there has already been adequate notice and the video has already received extensive distribution by the media. The response (full text) of the committee representing individual parishes adds that "Parishes could view the
order and request as implicating First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, " The bankruptcy court will hold a hearing on the motion today.

Cert. Filed In Religious Non-Profit Contraceptive Coverage Compromise

A petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (full text) was filed yesterday in Houston Baptist University v. Burwell.  In the case, brought by three religiously affiliated colleges, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Obama administration's rules that allow religious non-profits to opt out of the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate by certifying their religious opposition and either notifying their insurer or plan administrator of their opposition, or furnishing the government with the name and contact information for their insurer or administrator. (See prior posting.) A Becket Fund press release announcing the filing of the petition says that three other petitions challenging the non-profit accommodation have already been filed with the Court.

Cannabis Church Sues Under Indiana's New RFRA

In a move foreshadowed two months ago (see prior posting), in Indiana the First Church of Cannabis has filed suit invoking the state's recently-enacted RFRA in an attempt to shield the Church, its founder and two of its members from prosecution for possession of marijuana.  The complaint (full text) in First Church of Cannabis, Inc. v. State of Indiana, (IN Cir. Ct., filed 7/8/2015), alleges that cannabis is the sacrament of the Church, and laws punishing possession of marijuana and visiting a place where marijuana is used substantially burden plaintiffs' exercise of religion. The Indianapolis Star reports that more than 100 people attended the Church's second service yesterday evening, but because of prosecution threats it is not using cannabis at its services until it is successful in its lawsuit. According to WTHR News, Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry complained:

Our office and police agencies have serious public safety issues we have to address every single day. I am beyond frustrated that we are having to devote valuable time and resources to this matter solely because of an ill-advised and unnecessary law enacted by our legislature, The act serves no purpose, no purpose whatsoever, other than political posturing.

Oklahoma Governor Opposes 10 Commandments Holding

As previously reported, last week the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a controversial Ten Commandments monument on the statehouse grounds violates the state constitution.  Yesterday, in response, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin issued a statement (full text) resisting the holding. She said:

The Ten Commandments monument was built to recognize and honor the historical significance of the Commandments in our state’s and nation’s systems of laws. The monument was built and maintained with private dollars. It is virtually identical to a monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol which the United States Supreme Court ruled to be permissible.  It is a privately funded tribute to historical events, not a taxpayer funded endorsement of any religion, as some have alleged.

Nevertheless, last week the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Oklahoma’s Ten Commandments monument was impermissible. Their decision was deeply disturbing to many in our Legislature, many in the general public, and to me.

Oklahoma is a state where we respect the rule of law, and we will not ignore the state courts or their decisions. However, we are also a state with three co-equal branches of government. At this time, Attorney General Scott Pruitt, with my support, has filed a petition requesting a rehearing of the Ten Commandments case. Additionally, our Legislature has signaled its support for pursuing changes to our state Constitution that will make it clear the Ten Commandments monument is legally permissible. If legislative efforts are successful, the people of Oklahoma will get to vote on the issue. 

During this process, which will involve both legal appeals and potential legislative and constitutional changes, the Ten Commandments monument will remain on the Capitol grounds.

Kansas Governor Shields Clergy and Religious Social Service Groups That Object To Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday Kansas Governor Sam Brownback issued Executive Order 15-05 (full text) protecting clergy, religious leaders and religious organizations that have moral objections to same-sex marriage from adverse action by the state. It prohibits the state government from taking any discriminatory action against any individual clergy or religious leader who declines on religious or moral grounds to perform, solemnize, or facilitate a same-sex marriage.  It similarly bars discriminatory action against any religious organization that refuses to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, celebration or recognition of any same-sex marriage.

Finally the Executive Order provides that the state may not take discriminatory action against a religious organization that provides social services or charitable services because the organization acts upon sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is between one man and one woman. Discriminatory action includes denial of tax exemptions or benefits, denial of state grants or contracts, and denial of licensing or accreditation.

The governor issued a press release announcing the Executive Order. Washington Post reports on the governor's action. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

NY Lawsuit Seeks To End Pre-Yom Kippur Practice of Kaparot

Monday's New York Daily News reported on a state court lawsuit filed by a group of Brooklyn residents against four rabbis, a number of Hasidic congregations and the city of New York seeking to stop the annual pre-Yom Kippur practice of Kaparot.  The ritual practice that involves the slaughter of chickens has become common in recent years in Hasidic neighborhoods in Crown Heights and Boro Park. A group called Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos says the practice involves both animal cruelty and substantial public health risks.  Plaintiffs charge that New York authorities are not only not enforcing health and animal cruelty laws, but are abetting violations by blocking off streets and sidewalks so the ritual can take place. An affidavit filed by lawyers in the case says in part:

Ten years ago, Kaporos only occurred in several small alleys and a handful of synagogue parking lots. However, every year it has increased in size and scope. Today, Kaporos has become an overwhelming event that has spiraled out of control. .. (into) a carnival like atmosphere of bloody violence. Clearly this event is now motivated by money and profits, and not by religious redemption.

According to Courthouse News Service:

The complaint alleges that kaporos violates six sections of New York City health codes, four sections of New York state agricultural statutes, and various other laws and regulations. The 19-count complaint names New York City, the NYPD, and nearly 20 other religious leaders and congregations as defendants.

 Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind says that plaintiffs' depictions of the ritual are inaccurate.

Conscience Rights of Clerks and Judges Become An Issue After Supreme Court's Marriage Equality Ruling

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage, issues continue to arise regarding the right of state and county officials to refuse on personal religious grounds to issue licenses or perform weddings.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that in Hood County, Texas, County Clerk Katie Lang last week initially refused to issue a marriage license to Joe Stapleton and Jim Cato. On Monday the couple filed a federal lawsuit and less than two hours later Lang's office agreed to issue the couple a marriage license.  However the couple's lawyer says the lawsuit will proceed unless Lang agrees to issue licenses in the future to all couples, gay and straight.

According to the Toledo Blade, in Toledo, Ohio on Monday a same-sex couple who were issued a marriage license ran into delays when they went to the office of the judge on duty to perform marriages for that day.  Municipal Court Judge C. Allen McConnell's bailiff told them that McConnell does not do "these types of marriages." However, after a 45-minute wait, another judge, William M. Connelly, Jr., performed the ceremony for them.

In Kentucky, court clerk Casey Davis who objects on religious grounds to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples has come up with a creative suggestion. Davis wants state law amended so couples can obtain marriage licenses online.  AP reports that Davis has asked Gov. Steve Beshear to call a special session of the legislature to amend the law to allow the online procedure.  According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, Beshear for cost reasons has rejected the idea of a special legislative session on marriage issues, even though House Speaker Greg Stumbo favors it.

Milwaukee Archdiocese Seeks Supreme Court Review In Bankruptcy Decision

According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, yesterday a petition for certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Listecki v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  In the case, 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 the Archdiocese's bankruptcy to satisfy claims of clergy sex abuse victims. (See prior posting.)

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Challenge To Big Mountain Jesus Statue

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Weber. In the case, a Montana federal district court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the U.S. Forest Service's renewal of  of a Special Use Permit issued to the Knights of Columbus to allow the organization to continue to maintain a statue of Jesus near a ski slope on Montana's Big Mountain. The trial court found that the statue has lost its religious connotation. (See prior posting.) AP reports on yesterday's arguments.

Suit Challenges County's Refusal To Allow Invocations By Theists or Humanists

The ACLU, Americans United and the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed suit in federal district court yesterday challenging Brevard County, Florida's policy of rejecting or ignoring requests by atheists and Humanists to deliver invocations at meetings of the Brevard County Board of Commissioners during the regular pre-meeting invocation period. Nontheists were allowed to make presentations only during the public comment period of the meeting. The complaint (full text) in Williamson v. Brevard County, (MD FL, filed 7/7/2015), contends that this policy violates the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as provisions of the Florida Constitution. It emphasizes that the County's policy is not the nondiscriminatory access envisioned by the Supreme Court in its Town of Greece decision permitting sectarian invocations. An ACLU press release announced the filing of the lawsuit, and  Florida Today reports on it.

James Dunn, Religious Liberty Advocate, Dies At 83

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty announced that religious liberty advocate James M. Dunn, who led the organization for nearly 20 years, died on July 4 at age 83.  Religion News Service describes Dunn as "a religious liberty advocate who worked the corridors of Washington power for two decades to defend the separation of church and state."

In India, Rapper, Singer and YouTube Sued For Insulting Zoroastrianism

According to yesterday's Los Angeles Times, in India a Parsi civic organization has filed a public interest lawsuit against rapper Snoop Dogg, Iranian pop singer Amitis Moghaddam, YouTube and other defendants for insulting their Zoroastrian religion.  The suit, filed in a court in the city of Kolkata, seeks to have a musical video featuring the celebrities banned because of its use of a giant gold Faravahar, the winged disc that is a respected symbol of Zoroastrianism.  The three-and-a-half minute video for the song King shows Snoop Dog on a throne under the Farvahar smoking weed, and shows Moghaddam dressed as a Persian queen lying under the Farvahar being fanned by  two scantily clothed men.

Israel's Cabinet Strengthens Ultra-Orthodox Control of Religious Status Matters

Times of Israel reports that Israel's Cabinet on Sunday took two steps that place personal status matters of Israeli Jews more firmly under control of the ultra-Orthodox rabbinate.  First the Cabinet withdrew a measure that made its way through the Knesset's Law Committee last year that would have expanded from four to thirty the number of religious courts that could conduct conversions to Judaism.  The new courts made up of municipal rabbis would have loosened somewhat the tight restrictions on conversion presently in effect.  The second Cabinet vote placed rabbinical courts under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Religious Services instead of the Justice Ministry which oversees Christian and Muslim religious courts.  The change places rabbinical courts-- with their authority over marriage and divorce-- under the authority of Religious Affairs Minister David Azoulay who belongs to the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party. These steps resulted from the coalition agreements negotiated between political parties after the most recent Knesset election. (See prior posting.)

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Randall Lesaffer, The Nature and Sources of Europe's Classical Law of Nations,(June 25, 2015).
• Asim Jusic, Actionable Pluralism and Toleration in Religiously Diverse Societies: For Whom and for What?, (CEDAR Occasional Paper No.7, 2014).
• Matthew S. Erie, Muslim Mandarins in Chinese Courts: Dispute Resolution, Islamic Law, and the Secular State in Northwest China, (Law and Social Inquiry, Forthcoming).
• Dr. Harunrashid Kadri, Rights of Muslim Woman with Special Reference to Matrimonial Causes - A Human Rights Perspective, (Fiat Justicia, Volume No.: 3, April, 2015).
• Jennifer Carr, Complicity and Collection: Religious Freedom and Tax, (University of St. Thomas Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 183, Spring 2014).
• Robert D. Goldstein, The Structural Wall of Separation and the Erroneous Claim of Anti-Catholic Discrimination, (13 Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal 173 (2014)).
• Ronnie Lippens, Escape from Evil? Notes on Capacity, Tragedy, Coding and Non-Destructive Immortality Projects, (Oñati Socio-Legal Series, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2015).

From SSRN (Same-sex marriage):

• Michael J. Perry, Obergefell v. Hodges: An Imagined Opinion, Concurring in the Judgment, (Emory Legal Studies Research Paper No. 15-356 (June 27, 2015)).
• Adam Lamparello, Justice Kennedy's Decision in Obergefell: A Sad Day for the Judiciary, (July 2, 2015).
• Susannah William Pollvogt,  Obergefell v. Hodges: Framing Fundamental Rights, (June 29, 2015).

New Books:

• Kevin Vallier, Liberal Politics and Public Faith--Beyond Separation,  (Routledge, June 2014), (podcast with author).
• Anthony M. Petro, After the Wrath of God-- AIDS, Sexuality, and American Religion, (Oxford Univ. Press, July 2015).
• Jean L. Cohen and Cécile Laborde (eds.), Religion, Secularism, and Constitutional Democracy, (Columbia University Press, Jam. 2016).

Court Dismisses Native American Challenge To San Antonio Revitalization Efforts

In Rocha v. City of San Antonio, (WD TX, July 2, 2015), a Texas federal district court rejected a vast variety of statutory and constitutional challenges to San Antonio's redevelopment efforts at several historical sites including the Hemisfair Historical Park, Alamo Plaza, the Alamo and La Villita.  Plaintiff, who claims to be a direct lineal descendant of the Yanaguana tribes, claims that the city is desecrating historical archaeological sites and Native American burial grounds.  Plaintiff's original complaint, dismissed by the court in this decision, alleged that the city was violating the U.S. Constitution, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,  the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, and San Antonio’s Unified Development Code.  The court also refused to permit plaintiff to amend his complaint to add free exercise claims, claims under eleven sections of the Texas Constitution, and under Title II of the federal Civil Rights Act.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Incumaa v. Stirling, (4th Cir., July 1, 2015), the 4th Circuit rejected a claim by an inmate who is a member of Nation of Gods and Earths that his 20 years in solitary confinement following his participation in a 1995 prison riot with other Five Percenters violates his rights under RLUIPA. However the court held that plaintiff may move to trial on his procedural due process challenge to his continuing solitary confinement.

In Beamon v. Dittmann, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83982 (ED WI, June 29, 2015), a Wisconsin federal district court refused to allow a Block Muslim inmate to add a RLUIPA claim to his complaint because plaintiff only seeks damages that are unavailable under RLUIPA.

In Gray v. Lewis, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84133 (ND CA, June 29, 2015), a California federal district court allowed an inmate to proceed with most of his claims that he was restricted from obtaining a kosher diet and in other ways not provided with the resources to practice his Yahweh religion. The case was referred to the pro-se prisoner mediation program.

In Sessing v. Beard, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84194 (ED CA, June 28, 2015), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that an Odinist inmate be allowed to proceed with his equal protection challenge to authorities' denial to him of access to outdoor space and a fire pit for worship since they were permitting Native American inmates access. However plaintiff's RLUIPA and free exercise claims were dismissed.

In Clark v. Anderson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84349 (ND TX, June 29, 2015), a Texas federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that one defendant failed to return a spiritual book, requiring him to order another copy from the publisher.

In Sousa v. Wegman, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85208 (ED CA, June 29, 2015), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that an inmate be permitted to move ahead with his attempt to obtain recognition of those with Mexican Indian Beliefs as a religious group, and their access to religious services, holiday celebrations and use of a sweat lodge.

In Adler v. Gonzalez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85210 (ED CA, June 30, 2015), in a suit by a Catholic inmate, a California federal magistrate judge recommended a finding that there are still disputed facts that need to go to trial on whether or not Catholic services were available and whether plaintiff made any attempt to participate in them.

In Shabazz v. Johnson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86787 (ED VA, July 2, 2015), a Virginia federal district court rejected a Nation of Islam inmate's claim that requiring him to eat the Common Fare diet rather than a strict Nation of Islam diet violated his rights under RLUIPA.

Final Order Issued In Oregon Same-Sex Wedding Cake Refusal

This week, the Commissioner of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries went beyond the recommendations of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) (see prior posting) in finding violations of law by a bakery whose owner refused on religious grounds to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex couple.  In Matter of Melissa Elaine Klein dba Sweetcakes By Melissa, (Bur. Labor & Indus., July 2, 2015), the Commissioner agreed with the ALJ that co-owner Aaron Klein violated ORS 659A.403 that bars discrimination in public accommodations on the basis, among others, of sexual orientation, and that both owners are therefore liable for damages totaling $135,000.  However the Commissioner, rejecting the ALJ's contrary conclusion, held that in addition both co-owners violated ORS 659A.409 that prohibits anyone acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation from issuing any communication that indicates facilities or services will be denied to anyone on account, among others, of sexual orientation.  This finding was based largely on statements in an interview broadcast on radio and television that the bakery would continue to refuse to provide cakes for same-sex weddings, an on a note taped to the bakery door.

Finding the state law provisions constitutional, the Commissioner issued a cease and desist order barring the owners from

publishing, issuing, circulating or displaying ... any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation.

4th of July-- A Biblical Focus From Israeli Prime Minister

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has an interesting U.S. 4th of July narrative, more religious than the Independence Day speeches usually heard in American venues. Speaking (full text) on Tuesday at U.S. Independence Day celebrations at US Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro's residence, Netanyahu said in part:

The Founding Fathers of America were inspired by the Bible, and specifically by the Book of the Exodus, by the dream of building freedom in a new Promised Land. And as you stand in the Chamber of the American Congress, you see right across you the image of one man - Moses, with a quote from the Bible.

And since the establishment of the United States, that's two and a half centuries, the vision of justice and the vision of peace espoused by the Prophets of Israel served as a guiding light for Americans from Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King to many others seeking to form a more perfect union.

Afghan Appeals Court Overturns Death Sentences In Mob Killing of Falsely-Accused Quran Burner

According to CNN, an Afghanistan appellate court in a secret session has overturned the death sentences of four men who were convicted in May in the brutal  mob killing of Farkhunda, a 27-year old woman who was falsely accused of burning the Qur'an.  (See prior posting.) The report which CNN received yesterday from a judge with knowledge of the decision, says that 3 of the men were re-sentenced to 20-year terms and one to 10 years.

ACLU Sues Kentucky Clerk Who Is Refusing To Issue Marriage Licenses

Yesterday the Kentucky ACLU filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis who is refusing to issue marriage licences to anyone because of her religious objections to issuing them to same-sex couples. (ACLU press release). The complaint (full text) in Miller v. Davis, (ED KY, filed 7/2/2015) alleges that Davis' refusal "constitutes a substantial, direct and continuous infringement upon Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry," as well as amounting to a violation of the Establishment Clause. AP reports on the lawsuit.

ACLU Uses Indiana RFRA In Suit Challenging New Restrictions On Sex Offenders

The ACLU of Indiana filed a lawsuit yesterday challenging the prohibition in a newly enacted state law that keeps certain registered sex offenders from attending religious services. (ACLU press release).  At issue is Indiana Code § 35-42-4-14 (eff. July 1, 2015) that bars certain registered sex offenders from entering school property.  The complaint (full text) in John Doe I v. Allen and Elkhart County Prosecutors, (IN Super. Ct., filed 7/1/2015), alleges in part:

This statute ... [bans serious sex offenders] from going to worship in churches, synagogues, mosques, or other religious buildings that are located on the same as property parochial schools or certain preschool programming. Banning sex offenders from ... church on Sunday, because there are students in a school on the same grounds on Monday, is irrational and violates the due process of law protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.... It also violates Indiana’s newly enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Indiana Code § 34-13-9-0.7, et seq. (eff. July 1, 2015), which prohibits government from imposing a substantial burden on a person’s exercise of religion absent a compelling governmental interest and a showing that the action is the least restrictive means to further that interest.

AP reports on the lawsuit and reactions to it.

Suit Against Navy By Humanist Chaplain Applicant Can Proceed on Two Grounds

Heap v. Carter, (ED VA, July 1, 2015), is a suit brought by Dr. Jason Heap, a certified Humanist Celebrant, and The Humanist Society, his endorsing agency, challenging the U.S. Navy's denial of Heap's application to become a Navy Chaplain. Plaintiffs alleged that the Navy and Department of Defense have an unconstitutional policy of discrimination against Humanism.  In a 75-page opinion, a Virginia federal district court ultimately allowed Dr. Heap to move ahead with his Establishment Clause and Equal Protection/ Substantive Due Process challenges to the Navy and Department of Defense's actions.  However the court dismissed challenges brought under other parts of the 1st Amendment, the No Religious Test clause, and RFRA, dismissed The Humanist Society as a plaintiff for lack of standing and on ripeness grounds, and dismissed claims against the individual defendants.

Inspired By Supreme Court Decision, Montanans Apply For License For Polygamous Marriage

AP reported yesterday that in Billings,. Montana, a man and his two wives, citing the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision, have applied for marriage licenses to legitimize their polygamous marriage. The man, Nathan Collier, a former Mormon who was excommunicated for polygamy, said: "It's about marriage equality, You can't have this without polygamy." Officials in the Yellowstone County clerk's office are consulting with the county attorney's office before giving a final answer.  The county's chief civil litigator says that his research so far shows that  "the law simply doesn't provide for that yet." [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

7th Circuit Affirms Denial of Preliminary Injunction In Wheaton College Challenge To Contraceptive Mandate Accommodation

In Wheaton College v. Burwell, (7th Cir., July 1, 2015), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, upholding the Obama administration's accommodation of religious non-profits' objections to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate. Wheaton College argued that the government is using its health plan to get around its objections to furnishing contraceptive coverage. Under the regulations, when the government informs the non-profit's insurer of the organization's religious objections, the insurer must offer coverage directly to plan participants.  The court said in part:

We can’t order the U.S. government not to ask particular insurers to insure Wheaton’s students and employees— especially the insurers that are experienced in dealing with the members of the Wheaton community. As for Wheaton’s apparent preference that the government discover through its own research the names of Wheaton’s insurers, we cannot imagine that insistence on this roundabout path to imparting essential information to the government could justify a preliminary injunction, at least in the absence of any explanation by Wheaton of why it thinks the difference between direct and roundabout identification of its insurers pertinent to its religious commitments. 

[Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

Courts Move To Finalize Compliance With Obergefell, With Scattered Resistance

In the wake of the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday issued opinions in three same-sex marriage cases pending on appeal, ordering federal district courts in Mississippi (Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant), Louisiana (Robichearx v. Caldwell) and Texas (DeLeon v. Abbott) to enter final judgments for plaintiffs challenging same-sex marriage bans by July 17. In the Louisiana case, the court noted that speedy action was particularly necessary because of the declining health of one of the plaintiffs.

In Alabama, a federal district court judge issued an opinion yesterday in Strawser v. Strange, clarifying that the court's preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Alabama laws barring same-sex marriage is now in effect.  Meanwhile, AP reports scattered resistance to the Supreme Court's decision, with a a few judges and clerks in Alabama, Kentucky and Texas deciding to stop issuing any marriage licenses to anyone.

Suit Challenges Library Meeting Room Rules

In a lawsuit filed last Tuesday, a Christian advocacy group has challenged rules regarding the use of meeting rooms at the Lawrence, Massachusetts public library.  The complaint (full text) in Liberty Counsel, Inc. v. City of Lawrence, Massachusetts, (D MA, filed 6/30/2015), challenges the Meeting Room Policy which provides: "Political and religious groups may use the Library’s meeting rooms for administrative purposes but shall not be allowed use for the sake of proselytizing, campaigning, or otherwise influencing people to a particular belief or point of view." The policy also prohibits use of meeting rooms for religious services.  The complaint alleges that the policy violates the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as provisions of the state constitution. A Liberty Counsel press release announced the filing of the lawsuit.

Priest Sues Claiming Discrimination After Molestation Charges Are Dropped

As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Catholic priest Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang, who had been charged with abusing a boy, but then had charges dropped, filed a federal lawsuit last week charging the boy's parents and others with religious and ethnic discrimination.  Jiang separately had been charged with having improper contact with a teenage girl and paying hush money to her family. Those charges have also been dropped.  The complaint (full text) in Jiang v. Porter, (ED MO, filed 6/25/2015), alleges in part:

This is a case of false accusations that have destroyed the life of a promising young man and priest. Father Xiu Hui “Joseph” Jiang (“Fr. Joseph”) fled religious persecution in his native land of China, only to face religious persecution in America in the form of unconstitutional discrimination by state officials. Defendants A.M. and N.M. falsely and maliciously accused Fr. Joseph of sexually abusing their minor son for the crass motive of monetary gain. Acting in conjunction with A.M. and N.M., officers Tonya Porter and Jaimie Pitterle engaged in invidious religious discrimination against Fr. Joseph under color of law, targeting him for differential treatment and selective prosecution because he is a Catholic priest. Defendants SNAP, David Clohessy, and Barbara Dorris have led a shameless smear campaign in the St. Louis community against Fr. Joseph, relentlessly accusing him of molesting the same minor child, with malice and reckless disregard for the actual facts of the case. All defendants fomented and participated in a tragic rush to judgment against Fr. Joseph, and all conspired to deprive Fr. Joseph of his constitutional rights,

Another Suit Against Local Michigan Police For Forcing Removal of Hijab During Booking

MLive reports that a federal lawsuit was filed yesterday against the Dearborn, Michigan police department for requiring a Muslim woman arrested on traffic charges to remove her headscarf (hijab) during the booking process.  The complaint (full text) in Aldhalimi v. City of Dearborn, (ED MI, filed 6/30/2015), contends that when police booked plaintiff for an unpaid parking violation, they required her to remove her hijab to be photographed despite her religious objections.  This is the third similar suit against local Michigan law enforcement officials this year.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Says 10 Commandments Monument Is Unconstitutional

In Prescott v. Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission, (OK Sup. Ct., June 30, 2015), the Oklahoma Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision held that a Ten Commandments Monument placed on the statehouse grounds must be removed. The Court held that even though no state funds were used to acquire the monument, it still operates for the use, benefit or support of a sect or system of religion in violation of Oklahoma Constitution Art. 2, Sec. 5. Rejecting the legislature's claim that the monument serves a non-religious historical purpose, the Court said: "the Ten Commandments are obviously religious in nature and are an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths." (See prior related posting.)

ACLU Sues Louisiana Governor Over Order On Protection of Anti-Gay Marriage Beliefs

The ACLU of Louisiana announced yesterday that it has filed suit in Louisiana state court challenging Governor Bobby Jindal's May 19 Marriage and Conscience Order. The challenged executive order prohibits government departments, commissions, boards, agencies and local governments from denying various benefits because a person acts in accordance with his religious belief that marriage should be only between one man and one woman. (See prior posting.)  The complaint (full text) in ACLU Foundation of Louisiana v. Jindal, (LA Dist. Ct., filed 6/30/2015), contends that Jindal's Order "is an unauthorized usurpation of the powers vested in the legislature." As reported by the Bayou Buzz, Gov. Jindal issued a statement in response to the lawsuit, saying in part: "The ACLU used to defend civil liberties, now it appears they attack them."  Meanwhile on Monday the Governor's Office posted on its website a legal memorandum (full text) on religious liberty in light of the Supreme Court's marriage equality ruling.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Prevents Suit Over Catholic Health Care Directive

In Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, (WD MI, June 30, 2015), plaintiff sued for negligence claiming that policies promulgated by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and adopted by Catholic Health Ministries, the sponsor of a health care system, resulted in her receiving improper information and treatment for a condition that led to a miscarriage.  She was not informed of the serious risk to her health if she continued her pregnancy after a membrane rupture and was not informed of the option of terminating her pregnancy.  A Michigan federal district court held that it lacked jurisdiction under Michigan's long-arm statute over USCCB. It held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes it from adjudicating the claims against the other defendants:

Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated that Michigan law recognizes a duty to a patient by a sponsor of a hospital network....  Even if Plaintiff could articulate a cognizable legal duty, the Court could not adjudicate the elements of breach and proximate cause because it necessarily implicates the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine... which prevents the Court from interpreting religious doctrinal texts. Plaintiff has not presented a way for this Court or a jury to analyze CHM’s duty, breach, or causation without reference to the text of the [Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services], which are an expression of Catholic doctrine.

California's Governor Signs New Law Ending Religious and Personal Belief Exemptions To Immunization Requirements

California Governor Jerry Brown yesterday signed SB 277 (full text), a law requiring school students (other than those being home-schooled) to be immunized against ten specific diseases, and removing California's prior personal belief and religious belief exemptions.  Under the new law, only medical exemptions, certified by a licensed physician, are permitted. The personal belief exemption, however, is preserved for any additional diseases that the Department of Health by regulation adds to the ten listed in the statute. In his signing statement (full text), Gov. Brown said in part:

The science is clear that vaccines dramatically protect children against a number of infectious and dangerous diseases.

 Los Angeles Times reports on the governor's action.

Supreme Court Orders Stay of Sorts In Non-Profit Contraceptive Mandate Case

In Zubik v. Buwell, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Obama Administration's rules accommodating the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate to religious non-profits. (See prior posting.)  Plaintiffs sought a stay from the Supreme Court, and in April Justice Alito issued an order temporarily staying the mandate as to the Catholic Diocese of Erie and the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh along with affiliated charities and schools in the two dioceses (See prior posting.) He then referred the plaintiffs' motion to the full Court, and yesterday the Court issued the following Order :

The application for an order recalling and staying the issuance of the mandate of the Court of Appeals pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, having been submitted to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court, the application as presented is denied. The Court furthermore orders: If the applicants ensure that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is in possession of all information necessary to verify applicants’ eligibility under 26 CFR §54.9815-2713A(a) or 29 CFR §2590.715-2713A(a) or 45 CFR §147.131(b) (as applicable), the respondents are enjoined from enforcing against the applicants the challenged provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and related regulations pending final disposition of their petition for certiorari.

Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of the applicants’ or their organizations’ employees to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives. Nor does this order preclude the Government from relying on the information provided by the applicants, to the extent it considers it necessary, to facilitate the provision of full contraceptive coverage under the Act. See Wheaton College v. Burwell, 573 U. S. ___ (2014).

This order should not be construed as an expression of the Court’s views on the merits. Ibid.

Justice Sotomayor would deny the application. 

School District Settles Anti-Semitic Harassment Claims For $4.48M

The New York Times reported yesterday that upstate New York's Pine Bush School District has agreed to a $4.48 million settlement in a suit against it by five current and former Jewish students who claimed pervasive anti-Semitism. The suit claimed that school officials showed deliberate indifference to anti-Semitic harassment from fellow-students in 3 of the district's schools.  The settlement also calls for teacher and staff training on recognizing and reporting anti-Semitism, revision of policies on bullying and discrimination, and curricular reform. (See prior related posting.)

Colorado Supreme Court Invalidates Choice Scholarship Pilot Program

In a fragmented decision in Taxpayers for Public Education v. Douglas County School District, (CO Sup. Ct., June 29, 2015), the Colorado Supreme Court struck down Douglas County's elaborate Choice Scholarship Pilot Program. The Program creates a public Choice Scholarship Charter School to which  public funds are paid.  Then through scholarship awards 75% of those funds are shared with the Charter School student's Private School Partner (often a religiously sponsored institution) which is the student's actual school.

Chief Justice Rice wrote the Court's plurality opinion for 3 justices, concluding that the scholarship program is unconstitutional under Art. IX, Sec. 7 of the Colorado Constitution that prohibits the state from using public money to fund sectarian schools. The plurality dismissed the other challenge to the Program-- that it violates the state's Public School Finance Act of 1994-- concluding that the legislature did not intend to imply a private right of action under that law and so petitioners lack standing.

Justice Marquez concurred in the result, filing an opinion concluding that the Scholarship Program violates the School Finance Act and that petitioners have taxpayer standing to challenge the program.

Justice Eid, in an opinion joined by two other Justices, argued that the scholarship program was permissible under Art. IX, Sec. 7. In addition she argued that the court should have examined whether Art. IX, Sec. 7 of the state Constitution is unconstitutional under the federal Constitution because of the provision's anti-Catholic bias.

Fox31 reports on the decision.

Texas AG, Critical of Obergefell, Issues Opinion On Religious Accommodation For Clerks and Judges

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a strong statement (full text) on Friday criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on same sex marriage, saying in part:

Today’s ruling by five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court marks a radical departure from countless generations of societal law and tradition. The impact of this opinion on our society and the familial fabric of our nation will be profound. Far from a victory for anyone, this is instead a dilution of marriage as a societal institution.

What is most disturbing is the extent to which this opinion is yet another assault on the actual text of the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law itself....  The truth is that the debate over the issue of marriage has increasingly devolved into personal and economic aggression against people of faith who have sought to live their lives consistent with their sincerely-held religious beliefs about marriage.

Then on Sunday, Paxton issued an Attorney General's Opiinion (full text) on the right of public officials to assert religious objections to issuing marriage licenses or performing same-sex marriages. His statement (full text) accompanying the issuance of the opinion is a good deal more strident than the full opinion itself.  Paxton's statement says in part:

A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is considered the law of the land, but a judge-made edict that is not based in the law or the Constitution diminishes faith in our system of government and the rule of law.

Now hundreds of Texas public officials are seeking guidance on how to implement what amounts to a lawless decision by an activist Court while adhering both to their respective faiths and their responsibility to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Here is where things currently stand:

Pursuant to the Court’s flawed ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued an injunction against the enforcement of Texas marriage laws that define marriage as one man and one woman and therefore those laws currently are enjoined from being enforced by county clerks and justices of the peace. There is not, however, a court order in place in Texas to issue any particular license whatsoever – only the flawed direction by the U.S. Supreme Court on Constitutionality and applicable state laws.

Importantly, the reach of the Court’s opinion stops at the door of the First Amendment and our laws protecting religious liberty

Paxton's opinion itself carefully provides that religious accommodation "may" be permitted:

A county clerk has a statutory right to delegate a duty to a deputy clerk, including theissuance of same-sex marriage licenses that would violate the county clerk's sincerely held religious beliefs. Regarding deputy clerks and other employees, state and federal employment laws allow them to seek reasonable accommodation for a religious objection to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. And under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, deputy clerks and other employees may have a claim that forcing the employee to issue same-sex marriage licenses over their religious objections is not the government's least restrictive means of ensuring a marriage license is issued, particularly when available alternatives would not impose an undue burden on the individuals seeking a license.... Importantly, the strength of any claim under employment laws or the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts depends on the particular facts of each case....

Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution.

If instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications.

Moving then to the question of whether judges and justices of the peace may refuse on religious grounds to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies, Paxton says in part:

Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, justices of the peace and judges may claim that the government forcing them to conduct a same-sex wedding ceremony over their religious objection, when other authorized individuals have no objection, is not the least restrictive means of the government ensuring that the ceremonies occur, assuming that is compelling governmental interest. Again, the strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts.

The Houston Chronicle reports on developments.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Rosalie Jukier & Jose Woehrling, Religion and the Secular State in Canada, (Javier Martinez-Torron, W. Cole Durham, Jr., (General Reporters), Donlu D. Thayer, ed, (June 18, 2015)).
• Matome M. Ratiba, 'Just Piles of Rocks to Developers But Places of Worship to Native Americans' - Exploring the Significance of Earth Jurisprudence for South African Cultural Communities, (Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2015).
• Milan Markovic, Of Monsters and Lawyers, (Criminal Justice Ethics (Forthcoming)),
• Michael A. Helfand, Introduction to Negotiating State and Non-State Law: The Challenge of Global and Local Legal Pluralism, (Cambridge University Press, 2015).

From SmartCILP:

• Julia L. Ernst, Making the Case for Antiestablishmentarianism: The Church and State in Norway, 38 Fordham International Law Journal 543-594 (2015).
• David M. Mednicoff, A Tale of Three Constitutions: Common Drives and Diverse Outcomes in Post-2010 Arab Legal Politics, [Absstract], 28 Temple International & Comparative Law Journal 215-251 (2014)

Commentary: Justice Kennedy's Equal Protection Analysis In Obergefell

One of the most interesting and least-commented upon aspects of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion (see prior posting) in Obergefell v. Hodges , last Friday's marriage equality decision, is his treatment of appellants' equal protection arguments.  The traditional approach-- and that used by most lower courts in their same-sex marriage decisions--is to determine the level of scrutiny that should be given to laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  Do such classifications deserve "strict" scrutiny, "heightened" scrutiny or does there merely need to be a "rational basis" for use of the classification?  Past Supreme Court decisions on LGBT rights have been particularly opaque on this question.

Early in his opinion, Justice Kennedy laid groundwork that might have been used to flesh out a decision on the appropriate level of scrutiny.  He reviewed the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians-- one of the factors that traditionally figures into a determination of whether heightened scrutiny is called for.  However when he gets to the discussion of equal protection, Justice Kennedy largely ignores that groundwork, mentiioning the history of discrimination only in passing. Instead he treats the equal protection clause as a provision that primarily serves to emphasize the correctness of the fundamental-right-to-marriage conclusion that he has already reached.  That is, unlke most past cases in which substantive due process arguments were made largely to emphasize the severity of the denial of equal protection, here the roles of the two clauses are reversed. Justice Kennedy says in part:

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.  The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way, though they set forth independent principles. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet in some instances each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. In any particular case one Clause may be thought to capture the essence of the right in a more accurate and comprehensive way, even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right....

The Court’s cases touching upon the right to marry reflect this dynamic. In Loving the Court invalidated a prohibition on interracial marriage under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause....

Indeed, in interpreting the Equal Protection Clause, the Court has recognized that new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within our most fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged....

It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality. Here the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them.  And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry.

Justice Kennedy thus muddies the water even more as to the test for when discrimination against gays and lesbians, outside the context of marriage, violates the equal protection clause.    He also implicitly suggests that future governmental action burdening in some fashion the right to same-sex marriage should be tested primarily under the due process clause.  Thus if states enact laws permitting business owners with religious objections to refuse to provide goods or services for a same-sex marriage, it would seem that the provision's constitutionality should now be tested not by whether the government has a compelling interest to treat same-sex marriages differently than other marriages, but rather by whether the governmental action places a substantial obstacle or undue burden on the liberty interest of the marriage partners.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Jones v. Williams, (9th Cir., June 25, 2015), the 9th Circuit held that prison authorities are not entitled to qualified immunity on a Muslim inmate's cliam that he was ordered to cook pork loins as part of his job duties.  The court however dismissed claims that cooks added pork to a tamale pie, and that the grill cleaning method left residual pork grease on the grill.

In Speed v. Neal, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81606 (ED MO, June 24, 2015), a Missouri federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that on one occasion he did not receive a non-pork tray. It also dismissed his claim for damages of $30 million because of failure to receive pre-dawn meals, a copy of the Qur'an, a place to congregate for prayer and a clock to tell the correct time for prayer.

In Koenig v. Maryland, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81696 (D MD, June 23, 2015), a Maryland federal district court dismissed a Jewish inmate's claims that the kosher diet menu was made unattractive to discourage inmates from signing up for it, and that study sessions occur infrequently and religious texts are not available.

In Linares v. Department of Homeland Security, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83379 (ND AL, May 28, 2015), an Alabama federal magistrate judge recommended that a Jewish Immigrations and Customs civil detainee be permitted to proceed with his claim that his free exercise rights were infringed by denial of kosher meals, Sabbath services and access to a rabbi, but recommended dismissal of his class action claims and claims for injunctive relief.  The federal district court (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82492, June 25, 2015) held that while the magistrate's recommendation was well taken, the suit should be dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff culd no longer be located.

Suit Proceeds Claiming Admissions Denial Because of Religious Statements In Interview

In Buxton v. Kurtinitis, (D MD, June 25, 2015), plaintiff sued five employees of the Community College of Baltimore County (MD) alleging that he was unconstitutionally denied admission to the school's radiation therapy program.  Dustin Buxton claimed that he was denied admission because of his expression of religious belief during his admissions interview. A Maryland federal district court dismissed Buxton's free speech claim, concluding that the First Amendment does not protect speech expressed in an admissions interview from admissions consequences in a competitive process. However the court permitted Buxton to proceed with an Establishment Clause and and equal protection claim.

The Dissents In Today's Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Decision

Following up my earlier posting on Justice Kennedy's majority opinion today in Obergefell v. Hodges (the Supreme Court's decision deciding that states must permit and recognize same-sex marriage), here is a summary of the four dissents:

Chief Justice Roberts dissent (joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas) argued that the majority opinion was a return to the long-rejected judicial policy-making symbolized by the Lochner case:

[T]his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. ...

The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition....

The majority purports to identify four “principles and traditions” in this Court’s due process precedents that support a fundamental right for same-sex couples to marry.... In reality, however, the majority’s approach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policy making that characterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York.... Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society....

Emphasizing his central theme, the Chief Justice ended his dissent with the following paragraph:

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

Justice Scalia's dissent (joined by Justice Thomas) makes a similar point in somewhat more strident language:

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves. ...

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.

In making his point, Justice Scalia pointed out the unrepresentative character of the Supreme Court:

nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination.

Justice Thomas' dissent (joined by Justice Scalia) included a lengthy historical critique of the majority's understanding of the term "liberty" in the due process clause, saying in part:

Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it. 

Justice Alito's dissent (which Justices Scalia and Thomas joined) included a more direct discussion than did the other opinions of the position of those who continue to oppose same-sex marriage:

Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected.... We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

.... If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.

Supreme Court Says States Must License and Recognize Same-Sex Marriage-- A Review of Justice Kennedy's Majority Opinion

Today in Obergefell v. Hodges, (Sup. Ct., June 26, 2015), in a 5-4 decision the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses require states to license same-sex marriages and to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully licensed and performed in other states. Justice Kennedy wrote a rather tightly reasoned majority opinion which was joined by Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.  He began by tracing changes in the concept of marriage that have occurred over time, saying in part:

There are untold references to the beauty of marriage in religious and philosophical texts spanning time, cultures, and faiths, as well as in art and literature in all their forms. It is fair and necessary to say these references were based on the understanding that marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex. That history is the beginning of these cases. The respondents say it should be the end as well. To them, it would demean a timeless institution if the concept and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex.... 

The petitioners acknowledge this history but contend that these cases cannot end there.... Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment....

The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change.... For example, marriage was once viewed as an arrangement by the couple’s parents based on political, religious, and financial concerns; but by the time of the Nation’s founding it was understood to be a voluntary contract between a man and a woman.... As the role and status of women changed, the institution further evolved. Under the centuries-old doctrine of coverture, a married man and woman were treated by the State as a single, male-dominated legal entity....  As women gained legal, political, and property rights, and as society began to understand that women have their own equal dignity, the law of coverture was abandoned.... 

[T]he Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution... It cannot be denied that this Court’s cases describing the right to marry presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners. The Court, like many institutions, has made assumptions defined by the world and time of which it is a part.... In defining the right to marry these cases have identified essential attributes of that right based in history, tradition, and other constitutional liberties inherent in this intimate bond.... The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.

A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.... A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. ... A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.... Fourth and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order ...

Justice Kennedy expanded on the third of these premises:

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. ...

Justice Kennedy went on:

[B]y virtue of their exclusion from that institution, same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage. This harm results in more than just material burdens. Same-sex couples are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives. As the State itself makes marriage all the more precious by the significance it attaches to it, exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects. It demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society.... 

Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied....

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way, though they set forth independent principles. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet in some instances each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other.... Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry....

Justice Kennedy then addressed the concerns of those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

Each of the 4 dissenting justices filed a separate dissent.  A later posting will review those.  UPDATE: Here is a posting summarizing the dissents.

Film Producer Says Its Ads For Comedy About U.S. Muslims Is Permitted Under New York MTA Revised Guidelines

As previously reported, in late April the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority changed its policy on display advertising to exclude all ads of a political nature. Yesterday a lawsuit was filed on behalf of a movie production company that claims ads for its movie "The Muslims Are Coming!" was wrongfully rejected under that policy.  The complaint (full text) in Vaguely Qualified Productions LLC v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, (SD NY, filed 6/25/2015), alleges that acceptance of ads for the film-- created by two American Muslim comedians-- was unconstitutionally delayed before the policy change, and then wrongfully rejected under the new policy because the ads are not political.  The complaint alleges in part:

55. With its Revised Policy, Defendants seeks to convert the MTA’s property from a designated public forum into a limited public forum....

57. In a limited public forum, strict scrutiny is accorded to restrictions on speech that fall within the designated category for which the forum has been opened. Restrictions on speech that fall outside that designated category must only be viewpoint neutral and reasonable.

58. VQP’s Advertisements fall within a designated category for which Defendants have opened the forum. Specifically, VQP’s Advertisements are “commercial advertising,”... because, in a manner consistent with VQP’s brand, the Advertisements “promote” and “solicit the sale” of VQP’s product, “The Muslims Are Coming!,” by promoting the underlying message of the film—that American Muslims are ordinary people.

A Muslim Advocates press release announced the filing of the lawsuit. Newsweek reports on the lawsuit.

Jury Awards Consumer Fraud Damages In Conversion Therapy Lawsuit

The Southern Poverty Law Center reported that a New Jersey state trial court jury yesterday awarded treble damages of $72,400 to a total of five plaintiffs who sued a provider of "conversion therapy" under the state's consumer fraud law. The award against JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing), its founder and a counselor, compensated plaintiffs for fees paid and for mental health counseling needed by one of the plaintiffs. The jury found that claims JONAH could change clients from gay to straight were fraudulent and unconscionable. In coming weeks the judge will also decide whether to cancel JONAH's business license. (See prior related posting.) SPLC's case docket furnishes links to all the pleadings and orders in the case as it proceeded through the court since it was filed in 2012.

Tribe Sues Over California Solar Project In Ancestral Lands

According to the Parker (AZ) Pioneer, on June 12 the Colorado River Indian Tribes filed suit in a California state court challenging the state's approval of a solar project near Blythe, Calif.  Invoking California's environmental quality act, the tribes say the the impact of the project was not adequately analyzed. This is one of ten solar projects that will cover 35,000 acres of tribal ancestral homeland.  The Parker Pioneer adds:

Historical and ancestral trails run through the land proposed for development (which lies about eight miles outside of the tribe’s reservation boundary) that were once used for physical and spiritual migration. The project site also house “burial grounds, grindstones, hammerstones, and petroglyphs” created by the tribes’ ancestors.