Texas Gov. Abbott Accuses State Bar's CLE Committee of Religious Discrimination

Texas Lawyer reported yesterday that Texas Governor Greg Abbott has now weighed in on a refusal by the State Bar's Minimum Continuing Legal Education Committee to certify a law professor's continuing legal education program for "Legal Ethics/ Professional Responsibility" credit.  Under Texas MCLE rules, all lawyers must take 15 hours per year of continuing legal education, 3 hours of which must be in legal ethics/ professional responsibility.  The State Bar's Accreditation Standards provide:

"Legal Ethics and Legal Professional Responsibility" shall include, but not be limited to the accreditation of those topics involving disciplinary rules of professional conduct, rules of disciplinary procedure, and the use and availability of alternative dispute resolution and pro-bono services....

"Legal Ethics and Legal Professional Responsibility" shall not include programs or topics that deal with government or business ethics, individual religious or moral responsibilities, training in personal organizational skills, general office skills, time management, leadership skills or stress management.

Applying these standards, the State Bar's MCLE Committee refused to approve St. Mary's law school professor Bill Piatt's CLE program on "Christian Ethical Perspectives: Faith and Law Today" for ethics credit. Sponsors of the program are appealing to the State Bar of Texas board of directors.  Gov. Abbott's general counsel has written to the State Bar president urging a change in the definition of "legal ethics" in the MCLE rules, contending that the current definition is "based on a shallow and impoverished understanding of legal ethics and an unduly narrow view of legal education."  He suggested that the refusal to accredit could be seen as religious discrimination against the program sponsors.  A week later, Gov. Abbott posted a blunter statement on his Facebook page:

I'm accusing Texas State Bar of religious discrimination for denying continuing education credit for Christian legal ethics programs. The Texas State Bar leaders should be compelled to read my winning arguments upholding the Ten Commandments and "One Nation Under God."

The parties are meeting next week to try to work out a solution before the Jan. 21 appeal hearing.

President Sends Greetings On Orthodox Christmas

Yesterday the White House released a statement (full text) from the President and Mrs. Obama wishing "a blessed Christmas to Orthodox Christians in the United States and around the world."  The statement also "reaffirm[ed] our commitment to protect religious minorities, including Christian minorities, who too often face violence and persecution throughout the world."

Israeli Civil Court Orders Chief Rabbinate To Release List of Foreign Rabbis Whose Testimony It Will Accept

In Israel on Wednesday, Jerusalem district court Judge Nava Ben-Or ordered Israel's Chief Rabbinate to release its internal list of rabbis in other countries whose affidavits will be recognized for purposes of proving Jewish identity.  Residents who have moved to Israel from abroad can only have access to a Jewish marriage ceremony or Jewish burial in Israel if they are formally recognized as Jewish by the Rabbinate.  According to the Times of Israel:

In her decision, Judge Nava Ben-Or declared herself “shocked” by the apparent lack of transparency in this matter most central to everyday existence.

“This is a person’s life, we’re talking about very serious matters,” she said, describing a situation in which people wait indeterminately for the rabbinate to decide their fates, saying they hear nothing and are not being answered.

“It is a right to start a family,” Ben-Or said. “I am ashamed that in a functioning state this information cannot be provided. It is an unprecedented scandal. It is not Jewish, and inhumane.”

Settlement Reached In Suit Over NYPD Surveillance of Muslims

In 2013, a suit captioned Raza v. City of New York was filed in a New York federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the New York Police Department's surveillance program directed at Muslim religious and community leaders, organizations, businesses and at mosques. (See prior posting.) The NYPD was already operating under the Handschu Guidelines that grew out of a consent decree in an earlier case on NYPD surveillance activities.  In 2013, a motion was also filed in that case claiming that the consent decree had been violated. A press release from the ACLU yesterday reports that after several months of negotiations the parties have agreed on a settlement in both cases.  The settlement involves court adoption of modifications to the Handschu Guidelines to offer greater protections.  As summarized by ABC News:

Under the deal, the Handschu guidelines will specifically ban investigations based on race, religion or ethnicity. Other provisions require the department to use the least intrusive investigative techniques possible and to consider "the potential effect on the political or religious activity of individuals, groups or organizations and the potential effect on persons who, although not a target of the investigation are affected by or subject to the technique."

The settlement also sets time limits for ending investigations that ultimately fail to turn up threats — 18 months for preliminary investigations, three years for full investigations and five years for terror conspiracy cases. The civilian representative, appointed by the mayor, will attend monthly meetings of police officials and NYPD lawyers who review the investigations and will have authority to report any suspected violations of the agreement to City Hall or a federal judge.

The full text of the guideline modifications are set out as Exhibit B to the January 7 Notice of Motion for Approval of Settlement in the Handschu case. A Memorandum of Law in support of the motion was filed by plaintiffs.  A Joint Motion Seeking Entry of Settlement was also filed in the Raza case, as was a Stipulation of Settlement.  Under the settlement, the NYPD will also remove a controversial report titled Radicalization in the West from the NYPD website, and the city will pay $1.671 million for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

Court Rejects Federal Challenges To School Ban On Graduate Wearing Eagle Feather

Having previously denied a preliminary injunction in the case (see prior posting), this week an Oklahoma federal district court dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Native American high school senior challenging a school policy that barred her from wearing an eagle feather on her mortar board tassel at her high school graduation. The feather had been given to her by a tribal elder, and it would be a sign of disrespect not to wear the feather which is sacred according to her religious beliefs. In Griffith v. Caney Valley Public Schools, (ND OK, Jan. 5, 2015), the court rejected plaintiff's free speech claim, concluding that graduation attire is school-sponsored speech, and that the school had a legitimate pedagogical reason for restricting decorations on graduation caps.   It rejected her First Amendment free exercise claim, finding that the regulation is a neutral rule of general applicability.  Finally the court refused to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to decide plaintiff's claim that the school's restriction violates Oklahoma's Religious Freedom Act.  Plaintiff remains free to refile that claim in state court.

Amish Contempt Citation Upheld; Free Exercise Issue Avoided

A Wisconsin state appeals court this week, avoiding the free exercise issue that appellants attempted to raise, upheld the contempt judgment against members of an Old Order Amish family who failed to obtain building and sanitary permits for their residence.  In In re the Contempt in: Eau Claire County v. Borntreger, (WI App., Jan. 5, 2016), the court held that the state constitutional issue that the Borntregers want to raise was not the subject of the contempt decision under appeal, but of the earlier grant of summary judgment to the county which the Borntregers failed to appeal. The court explained appellants' contentions:

The Borntregers argued their decision not to pursue building and sanitary permits was protected by article I, section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The Borntregers subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on this ground, asserting the “county ordinance and the state statutes [the County] relies upon violate the defendants’ freedom of worship and liberty of conscience.” The Borntregers argued they would not sign any application, including those for building or sanitary permits, “that states they will adhere to building codes or adhere to all applicable codes, laws, statutes and ordinances.” The Borntregers reasoned that signing such a form would constitute a false statement because they had no intent to comply, and the making of false statements is prohibited by their religion.

However the trial court rejected their claim, concluding that the Borntregars' beliefs were not burdened by the application process.  The applications merely contained an acknowledgement that the proposed construction is "subject to" applicable codes. The court said that signing this merely confirms the applicant's awareness of the rules, and is not a promise to comply.

Meanwhile the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram yesterday reported that the Borntregars, as well as 20 other Old Order Amish families, have now obtained building permits after the Wisconsin legislature changed the applicable law. The state now allows Amish not to install smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, and to have simple plumbing.  However they still need permits for items like foundations, structure and entrances, and the Amish are willing to obtain these.

Two RLUIPA Zoning Decisions From Last Month

Two RLUIPA zoning cases of interest were decided last month.  In Mesquite Grove Chapel v. DeBonis, (9th Cir., Dec. 18, 2015), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a zoning official's denial of a permit to develop land zoned for church use.  The court, rejecting plaintiff's RLUIPA challenge, said in part:

The primary burdens presented here—relocating or submitting a modified application—were not substantial, especially because Mesquite presented no evidence that other sites are unsuitable.

RLUIPA Defense blog reports on the decision.

In Matter of Septimus v Board of Zoning Appeals for the Incorporated Village of Lawrence, (NY Nassau Co. Sup. Ct., Dec. 16, 2015), a New York trial court upheld a creative judgment by a Zoning Board of Appeals in a case in which a synagogue sought to have a restriction on weekday use of its building-- part of it original zoning arrangements-- lifted so that it could hold regular weekday services.  Neighbors objected because of concern about traffic. The BZA lifted the restrictive covenant precluding weekday services for a one year trial period, with the issue to be re-evaluated after the year had passed.  The court found that under RLUIPA the original ban on weekday use constitutes a substantial burden, and the BZA's trial approach is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest in maintaining the integrity of an established residential neighborhood.  New York Law Journal reports on the decision.

First Same-Sex Marriage Case In China Moves Forward

In China's Hunan Province, a court has accepted jurisdiction for the first time in a case seeking to legalize same-sex marriage in the country.  According to a Reuters report yesterday, plaintiff Sun Wenlin says that last June an official in the Furong district civil affairs bureau rejected his application to marry his same-sex partner. Wenlin argues that China's marriage law protects the freedom to marry and provides for gender equality.

Dentist Sued For Harassing Staff With Constant Playing of Christian Music

According to yesterday's Clarkston News, four former employees of a Lake Orion, Michigan dentist have filed a religious discrimination and religious harassment lawsuit in state court against dentist Tina Marshall and her pastor.  After Marshall and her daughter joined the Christian ministry of Dr. Craig Stasio, Marshall increasingly insisted on playing Christian music in the dental office. Even though her employees objected, eventually she insisted on playing the music all the time, even when the building was empty, "to keep the demons out." The suit alleges that Marshall also conducted daily morning prayers with staff members, which eventually became mandatory.  She also prayed over patients receiving dental treatment.  Employees resisted the music, and some of them either resigned or were fired.  Eventually Marshall called on Stasio to restructure the office, and all but one of the current employees were fired and replaced by members of Stasio's ministry.  The lawsuit alleges discrimination in violation of Michigan's Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act.

Alabama Chief Justice Tells Probate Judges To Continue Refusing To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is once again seeking to defy federal courts on the issue of same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  In March 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court in the Alabama Policy Institute ("API")  case ordered probate judges in the state to discontinue issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite federal district court orders already holding Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. (See prior posting.)  Of course, in June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Obergefell decision, finding bans on same-sex marriage in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky unconstitutional.  Three days later, the Alabama Supreme Court invited parties in the API case to file briefs addressing the effect of the Obergefell decision on the Alabama order in API.  Subsequently two probate court judges petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for orders protecting their refusals to issue same-sex marriage licenses.  All of these matters remain pending before the Alabama Supreme Court.

Today, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore issued an Administrative Order (full text) addressing what he described as the "confusion and uncertainty" that exists among Alabama probate judges.  He says that "an elementary principle of federal jurisdiction [is that] a judgment only binds the parties to the case before the court," suggesting that technically Obergefell  is not binding on Alabama judges.  He went on:

As Administrative Head of the Unified Judicial System of Alabama, authorized and empowered pursuant to Section 12-2-30(b)(7), Ala. Code 1975, to "take affirmative and appropriate action to correct or alleviate any condition or situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the state," and under Section 12-2-30(b)(8), Ala. Code 1975, to "take any such other, further or additional action as may be necessary for the orderly administration of justice within the state, whether or not enumerated in this section or elsewhere"...

IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT: Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect.

AL.com reports on today's order.

California Judges Will Still Be Able To Lead Church Boy Scout Troops

January 21, 2016 is the effective date of an amendment adopted last year to the California Code of Judicial Ethics that eliminated previous exceptions to the ban on California judges holding membership in any organization-- other than a religious organization-- that discriminates on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. A previous exception for non-profit youth organizations had allowed judges to continue their activities with the Boy Scouts.  (See prior posting.)

In a little-noticed Oral Advice Summary (full text) posted Nov. 12, 2015, the California Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions opened the door to judges continuing to participate in church-sponsored scout troops that bar gay leaders. The Committee said in part:

The Advisory Committee commentary to canon 2C advises that determining whether an organization practices invidious discrimination depends on such "relevant factors as whether the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious . . . or other values of legitimate common interest to its members. . . ."

Historically, BSA has prohibited youth and adult membership based on sexual orientation. In January, 2014, BSA adopted a policy that no youth will be denied membership on the basis of sexual orientation. In July, 2015, BSA adopted a policy that BSA employees and non-unit-serving volunteers will not be denied membership on the basis of sexual orientation. The policy also states that chartering organizations, such as those sponsoring local troops, have the right to select adult scout leaders based on the chartering organization’s religious and moral values concerning sexuality.

Given these policies, the requesting judge must determine for himself whether or not his church-sponsored BSA troop excludes adult gay members based on his troop’s commonly-held religious values concerning sexuality....

Yesterday News Now reported on the November Oral Advice.

Northern Ireland Court Acquits Pastor Charged With Internet Broadcast of Anti-Muslim Sermon

In Belfast, Northern Ireland yesterday, a Magistrate's Court acquitted 78-year old Pastor James McConnell who had been indicted on two charges under Britain's Communications Act 2003 for anti-Muslim comments he made in a May 2014 sermon that was streamed online. The Belfast Telegraph reports that McConnell was charged with improper use of a public electronic communications network and causing a grossly offensive message to be sent by means of a public electronic communications network.  At issue were the pastor's statements that Islam is a "doctrine spawned in hell," that it is heathen and satanic, and that he does not trust Muslims. The court ruled that while the statements are offensive, they did not reach the level of being "grossly offensive."  The court also concluded that the pastor had not intentionally caused offense. According to the court:

He is a man with strong, passionate and sincerely held beliefs. In my view Pastor McConnell's mindset was that he was preaching to the converted in the form of his own congregation and like-minded people who were listening to his service rather than preaching to the worldwide internet.

His passion and enthusiasm for his subject caused him to, so to speak, 'lose the run of himself'."

He added that "the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things or express opinions that offend, shock or disturb..."

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the opinion in DPP v. McConnell.  Law & Religion UK has additional discussion of the decision.

Suit Challenges County's Historic Preservation Grants To Churches

Yesterday's Parsippany Daily Record reports that the Freedom From Religion Foundation and a local resident have filed suit in a New Jersey state court challenging the inclusion of churches and houses of worship as recipients of county historic preservation grants from Morris County (NJ).  Some 32% of the $22.6 million in grants since 2003 have gone to churches.  The suit contends that these grants violate Art. I, Sec. 3 of the New Jersey Constitution that provides:

nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right or has deliberately and voluntarily engaged to perform.

The county argues that churches should be eligible because of their historic value.  The suit initially seeks a temporary injunction to bar payment of any grants awarded in the past two years that have not yet been disbursed.  In 2014, the county awarded $1.2 million to 12 churches or houses of worship for items such as restoration of roofs or facades, and for document preservation.

Unusual Amicus Brief In SCOTUS Challenge To Texas Abortion Regulation

The U.S. Supreme Court has set March 2 for oral argument in Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, a challenge to Texas regulations that could result in 75% of the state's abortion clinics being forced to close. (Case page from SCOTUblog). National Law Journal reports on an unusual amicus brief (full text) filed in the case this week.  The brief was submitted by 107 women lawyers, as well as 6 current law students, with the aim of demonstrating the importance of abortion rights to members of the legal profession.  According to the brief:

Amici are lawyers who have obtained abortions and who have participated in a wide variety of different aspects of the legal profession, including at private law firms, corporations, multinational governmental organizations, nonprofit organizations, and law schools....

Amici obtained their abortions at different ages and life stages, under a variety of circumstances, and for a range of reasons both medical and personal, but they are united in their strongly-held belief that they would not have been able to achieve the personal or professional successes they have achieved were it not for their ability to obtain safe and legal abortions.

Air Force Academy Says Football Players Can Continue Pre-Game On Field Prayers

Yesterday's Christian Post reports on last month's controversy over U.S. Air Force Academy football players praying together in the end zone before the start of games. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation complained after several players kneeled in prayer on the field before the start of the December 5 Falcons contest against the San Diego State Aztecs.  MRFF argued that pre-game prayer pressures non-Christian athletes to join in.  Before the Falcons final game on Dec. 29, the Air Force Academy countered with a statement, saying in part:

The United States Air Force Academy will continue to reaffirm to cadets that all Airmen are free to practice the religion of their choice or subscribe to no religious belief at all.  The players may confidently practice their own beliefs without pressure to participate in the practices of others.

Mass. High Court Says Foster Parenting Can Be Denied Over Religious Belief In Corporal Punishment

In Magazu v. Department of Children and Families, (MA Sup. Jud. Ct., Jan. 4, 2016), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a decision by a state agency denying an application by a Christian couple to become foster and pre-adoptive parents because the couple uses corporal punishment as a form of discipline in their home.  State rules, particularly concerned with the emotional needs of abused and neglected children who often are placed in foster care, bar the use of corporal punishment by foster parents.  The couple agreed that they would not use corporal punishment on a foster child, but refused to agree to refrain from spanking their own daughters in private when appropriate. According to the Court:

The Magazus assert that, in accordance with their sincerely held Christian beliefs, they use appropriate corporal punishment on their own two daughters as a matter of loving parenting and biblical understanding. They contend that the department's denial of their application to become foster parents substantially burdens their right to the free exercise of religion under art. 46, § 1, of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.... 

The Court disagreed, saying in part:

although the department's decision imposes a substantial burden on the Magazus' sincerely held religious beliefs, this burden is outweighed by the department's compelling interest in protecting the physical and emotional well-being of foster children.

(See prior related posting.)

Cert Filed In Challenge By Pharmacies To Required Filling of Emergency Contraception RX

Yesterday a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Stormans Inc. v. Wiesman, (cert. filed, 1/4/2016).  In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld rules of the Washington Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission that provide only limited accommodation to pharmacists and pharmacies that object on religious grounds to filling prescriptions for emergency contraception. The rules require pharmacies to deliver all prescription medications, even if the owner has a religious objection. An individual pharmacist with religious objections may refuse to fill a prescription only if another pharmacist working for the pharmacy does so. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition.

Religious Health Care Ministries Show Growth

The Wall Street Journal this morning reports that a growing number of people have been moving to "health care ministries" since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act.  The number of participants in these religious health-sharing arrangements has grown from 200,000 to 500,000 since 2010.  According to the report:

The ministries, which operate outside the insurance system and aren’t regulated by states, provide a health-care cost-sharing arrangement among people with similarly held beliefs. Their membership growth has been spurred by an Affordable Care Act provision allowing participants in eligible ministries to avoid fines for not buying insurance....

The membership growth was largely unanticipated by ministry officials when the groups obtained an exception to the law. Only ministries in continuous operation since at least Dec. 31, 1999 are exempt from the ACA. The carve-out was intended to satisfy what at the time were relatively small religious groups that argued that their nonparticipation was a matter of religious freedom.

Officials are concerned both about the risk to participants from the unregulated operation of the arrangements, and about their impact on the Affordable Care Act insurance pool. (See prior related posting.)

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Lincoln L. Davies, Energy, Consumption, and the Amorality of Energy Law, (109 AJIL Unbound 147 (2015)).
• Michal Tamir, The Freedom to Exclude: The Case of the Israeli Society, (Israel Law Review 49(1), 2016, Forthcoming).
• Leonid Sykiainen, Sharia Courts: Modern Practice and Prospectives in Russia, (Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP 60/LAW/2015).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• James A. Sonne, Religious Liberty, Clinical Education, and the Art of Building Bridges, 22 Clinical Law Review 251-300 (2015).
• Jennifer Fredette, Becoming a Threat: The Burqa and the Contestation Over Public Morality Law in France, [Abstract], 40 Law & Social Inquiry 585-610 (2015).
• Mark A. Lemley, Melville B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture. Faith-Based Intellectual Property. 62 UCLA Law Review Rev. 1328-1346 (2015).
• McNulty, Patrick J. and Adam D. Zenor, Corporate Free Exercise of Religion and the Interpretation of Congressional Intent: Where Will It End?, 39 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 475-513 (2015).
• Twentieth Annual International Law and Religion Symposium: Varieties of Secularism, Religion, and the Law. Speeches by Francoise Tulkens, Malcolm D. Evans and Mark Hill; articles by Louis-Leon Christians, David Little and Andrea Pin. 2014 BYU Law Review 509-633.
• Kevin C. Walsh, Addressing Three Problems in Commentary on Catholics at the Supreme Court by Reference to Three Decades of Catholic Bishops' Amicus Briefs, 26 Stanford Law & Policy Review 411-35 (2015).
• Aliza Plener Cover, Archetypes of Faith: How Americans See, and Believe in, Their Constitution, 26 Stanford Law & Policy Review 555-96 (2015).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Harvey v. Gonzalez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172056 (D CO, Dec. 28, 2015), a Colorado federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172057, Nov. 24, 2015) and permitted a Muslim inmate to move ahead with this complaint that his copy of the Qur'an was confiscated and he was refused a replacement copy.

In Hill v. Gramiak, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172150 (SD GA, Dec. 28, 2015), a Georgia federal magistrate judge recommended permitting a Buddhist inmate to move ahead with complaints that the mail room refused to deliver religious literature sent to him, while prisoners of other faiths could receive a Bible or a Qur'an.

In Wagner v. Worsham, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172704 (ED MO, Dec. 29, 2015), a Missouri federal district court dismissed a Mormon inmate's complaint that prison authorities classify the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a General Christian group, instead of giving it a separate category.

In Hoskins v. Red Onion State Prison, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173107 (WD VA, Dec. 30, 2015), a Virginia federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaints that there was a delay in delivering religious materials mailed to him, that the prison does not provide Jewish or Messianic Jewish services, and the chaplain did not provide him with a number of religious items he requested.

In Perez v. Watts, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173384 (SD GA, Dec. 31, 2015), a Georgia federal magistrate judge recommended allowing an inmate to move ahead (except on certain damage claims) on his complaint that prison authorities truncated the "Spiritual Mass" ceremony for Santeria practitioners by not allowing each individual a half cut cigar, and authorities refused to order Santeria supplies including bead necklaces with Ache.

Fired Police Officer's Free Exercise Rights Not Infringed By Order Not To Associate With Gang Member

In Cuevas v. City of Campbell, (CA App., Dec. 23, 2015), a California appellate court held that the free exercise and expressive association rights of police officer  Sammy Cuevas were not infringed when he was terminated, in part for contact with known gang member Joseph Aguilera-- who had been married to Cuevas' cousin.  Cuevas argued unsuccessfully that because he is the godfather of Aguilera's child and they are both Catholic, the order to not associate violated their right to practice their faith together.

Muslim Employees Walk Out of Meat Packing Plant In Dispute Over Prayer Breaks

Media are reporting this week on the firing of between 150 and 180 Somali Muslim workers at a Cargill meat packing plant in Fort Morgan, Colorado.  Denver 7 News and Minneapolis Star Tribune report that the action grew out of a dispute that developed when a new shift manager told 11 employees that they could not all take a prayer break at the same time. Ten of these workers resigned, and 177 other workers either did not show up, or clocked in and left, the next day in support.  When the protesters did not return or call in for three days they were terminated.  Apparently the parties are still in touch over the possibility of the employees getting their jobs back. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Requirement of Marriage License For Religious Ceremony

While it might seem that the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision last June mooted the many pending cases seeking to make inroads into now invalid bans on same-sex marriage, the Detroit News reported yesterday on a lawsuit that shows this is not universally so.  A year ago, Detroit minister Neil Patrick Carrick filed a lawsuit in Michigan federal district court challenging two Michigan statutes which at that time effectively fined clergy for performing same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) MCL Sec. 551.14  imposes a $500 penalty on any member of the clergy or other person who "knowingly joins any persons in marriage" in violation of Michigan law. MCL Sec. 551.106 provides that : "Any clergyman or magistrate who shall join together in marriage parties who have not delivered to him a properly issued license ... shall be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor" and fined $100 or sentenced to 90 days in jail.

The complaint (full text) in Carrick v. Snyder, (ED MI, filed 1/12/2015). alleged that these provisions violate the 1st Amendment free exercise and expressive association rights of clergy whose faith and religious beliefs allow them to perform marriages that are not authorized by civil law.  In May 2015, the district court entered an order holding the case in abeyance as the Supreme Court considered the issue of same-sex marriage.  In September, after the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision, the district court reactivated the case (Order lifting stay).  While the challenged statutory provisions no longer totally bar same-sex marriages, they still threaten clergy with fines if they "join in marriage" a couple that has not obtained a marriage license.  On December 8, the district court, seeking to avoid the constitutional question, issued an Order (full text) calling for additional briefing on whether these penalties under state law apply to "purely private ceremonies that are not intended to give legal effect to a marriage."

Plaintiff's attorney pointed out the importance of the issue to "elderly or widowed couples who want to marry, but are afraid they will lose their Social Security benefits if they are legally wed."

Wisconsin Lawmaker Stirs Controversy With Proselytizing Christmas Message To Constituents

The Forward reports today on the continuing controversy over the religious video Christmas greeting sent out last month by Wisconsin Assembly member Rep. Scott Allen to his constituents.  The almost 2-minute video was shot by Allen in a state-owned studio in the Capitol building and was sent to constituents through the state e-mail system.  In the video, Allen says in part:

To me and my fellow Christians, celebrating the birth of our Savior, our Emmanuel, well, it is one of the most important celebrations of the year. For those who may watch this who are not Christians, I invite you to consider the hope offered by the Prince of Peace.

American Jewish Committee general counsel Marc Stern says the video clearly crosses the line into proselytizing. Allen says his message was not directed at constituents who held other religious beliefs, but was targeted at those with no belief.

9th Circuit Upholds California AG's Collection of Donors' Names Against "As Applied" Challenge

As previously reported, in June the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld against a facial challenge California's administrative rule requiring non-profit organizations that wish to solicit tax deductible contributions in the state to file an annual report that includes an unredacted IRS Form 990 Schedule B, the names and contributions of significant donors. The filings are not made public by the state. Now in Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Harris, (9th Cir., Dec. 29, 2015), the 9th Circuit also rejected an "as-applied" challenge to the California law. This challenge was brought by Americans for Prosperity (a libertarian advocacy group funded in large part by the Koch brothers) and by the Thomas More Law Center  (which describes itself as an advocacy group which "defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values"). According to the court:

First, the plaintiffs have not shown the demand for nonpublic disclosure of their Schedule B forms to the Attorney General has actually chilled protected conduct or would be likely to do so.... Second, the plaintiffs have not shown a “reasonable probability” of harassment at the hands of the state if the Attorney General is permitted to collect their Schedule B forms for nonpublic use.

The 9th Circuit, however, upheld the district court's preliminary injunction barring the California Attorney General from making the Schedule B's public, saying in part:

Because the Attorney General agrees with the plaintiffs that Schedule B information should not be publicly disclosed, and because she is in the process of promulgating a regulation prohibiting such public disclosure, a preliminary injunction prohibiting public disclosure of donor information promotes, rather than undermines, the state’s policy. 

Happy New Year 2016 !

Dear Religion Clause Readers:

Happy New Year 2016!  It is difficult to believe that I have been blogging on Religion Clause for over ten years, and have posted over 18,000 stories.  As I have been reminded, this means that for those who rely on Religion Clause as a resource, there are many who do not remember the time when there was not a central source for keeping current on church-state and religious liberty developments.

Last year was important.  Issues surrounding same-sex marriage and responses to it riveted the attention of much of the U.S. population.  The challenge by religious non-profits to the Obamacare regulations on contraceptive coverage brought to the fore the question of whether courts must give complete deference to assertions by individuals and groups that their religious exercise has been substantially burdened.  The Supreme Court gave unusual attention to civil rights claims by prisoners, including their religious freedom claims.  Increasing concern about ISIS-inspired terrorism tempted some-- including some seeking the highest office in the land-- to question whether America's traditional welcome to all religious believers (and non-believers) is as firmly established as we had once believed.

Religion Clause has attempted to provide the raw materials-- as objectively as possible-- so that readers can make informed judgments on the difficult policy decisions facing us.  And I have continued to cover parallel issues arising outside the United States in order to give additional perspective.

2016 promises to be an equally challenging year.  Many of the high profile issues of last year will remain with us.  In addition there will likely be some new ones.  How will religion factor into the Presidential race?  What are the implications of establishment clause and free exercise clashes being increasingly handled by well-funded advocacy groups that are repeat players before the courts, legislatures and local government officials?  Will transgender rights be the next battle in the culture wars that will become a religious as well as a civil rights issue?

And then there is often a "sleeper"-- an issue that becomes unexpectedly dominant.  My nomination for that in 2016 is the question of whether the retirement plans of many religiously-affiliated healthcare organizations will, as the 3rd Circuit recently held, be found not to qualify for the "church plan" exemption from ERISA on which they have relied.  Many of these plans will be underfunded by tens or hundreds of millions of dollars if they are required to comply with ERISA.  What kind of financial risk will that pose to them?  Many of these healthcare organizations have complicated relationships with a diocese or other church body of their denomination.  Will liability for underfunding, or for non-compliance with other ERISA requirements, jeopardize assets of the affiliated church bodies?

As we enter 2016, I want to again thank all of you who read Religion Clause-- both long-time followers and those who have discovered the blog more recently. Religion Clause's established format of neutrality, broad coverage and links to extensive primary source material has produced a loyal readership.  Often Religion Clause carries a story well before mainstream media feature it. The world of social media continues to evolve.  Increasing numbers of readers follow Religion Clause on Twitter or Facebook, and perhaps in other ways as well.  Meanwhile, the ability to comment on postings, while available, apparently has little attraction to readers-- other than the occasional spammer who evades my anti-spam efforts.  I am always eager to receive suggestions of other formats that would be useful.

And thanks to all of you who send me leads or corrections. Your input is important in maintaining completeness and accuracy. I read all of your e-mails and comments and appreciate receiving them, even though time constraints often prevent me from replying individually. Normally when I blog on a story sent to me by a reader, I mention the sender. If you do not want to be mentioned, I will be happy to honor that request if you let me know when sending me information.

I continue to be pleased that my regular readers span the political and religious spectrum and include a large number of law school faculty, journalists, clergy, governmental agency personnel, and others working professionally dealing with church-state relations and religious liberty concerns.  I encourage you to recommend Religion Clause to colleagues and friends who might find it of interest.

Finally, I remind you that the Religion Clause sidebar contains links to a wealth of resources.  If you find broken links on the sidebar, please let me know.

Best wishes for 2016!  Feel free to contact me by e-mail (religionclause@gmail.com) or through comments to this or other posts throughout the year.

Howard M. Friedman

New Mexico Supreme Court Files Amended Opinion Again Striking Down Textbook Loan Program

Last week, the New Mexico Supreme Court denied a motion for a rehearing in its recent Blaine Amendment decision (see prior posting) invalidating the state statute that provides for the loan of secular textbooks to private and parochial school students, but substituted a new opinion for the one handed down last month. The primary change in its new opinion in Moses v. Skandera, (NM Sup. Ct., Dec. 23, 2015), is the addition of paragraphs 28 and 29 rejecting the argument that since funding for the textbook program comes from payments to the state under the federal Mineral Lands Leasing Act, this preempts state constitutional limits.  The court said in part:

The MLLA has neither expressly nor impliedly preempted the application of Article XII, Section 3 because restricting funds appropriated for educational purposes to public schools is not incompatible with the purposes announced in the MLLA. Thus, Intervenors’ argument that funds from the MLLA that are used for the Instructional Material Fund are federal funds which are “not subject to state constitutional limitations” is without merit.

Poll On Attitudes Toward Religious Liberty

AP reported yesterday on the release of a new AP-NORC poll that shows Americans do not value religious liberty equally for all religious groups:

Solid majorities said it was extremely or very important for the U.S. to uphold religious freedom in general. However, the percentages varied dramatically when respondents were asked about specific faith traditions, according to a poll by The Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Eighty-two percent said religious liberty protections were important for Christians, compared with 61 percent who said the same for Muslims. About seven in 10 said preserving Jews' religious freedom was important, while 67 percent said so of Mormons. People who identified with no religion were ranked about even with Muslims in needing support to live out their beliefs.

Malaysia Court of Appeal Says Civil Courts Have No Jurisdiction Over Religious Conversions

Malaysia Insider reports that yesterday in a 2-1 decision, Malaysia's Court of Appeal held that civil courts have no jurisdiction to void a contested conversion of three children to Islam. Only Shariah courts have jurisdiction. The Ipoh High Court (a civil court) had held that the conversion certificate entered by the Registrar of Conversion did not comply with Perak Shariah law because the conversion application was made unilaterally by the children's father, instead of by the children with the father's consent.  The children's mother, now divorced from the father, has also been battling with the father over custody of the children.

3rd Circuit Holds Catholic Healthcare Retirement Plan Is Not Exempt From ERISA

In a decision that could have major financial implications for religiously affiliated hospitals and healthcare systems, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday gave the first appellate level victory to employees who, in a series of cases, are claiming that various healthcare system retirement plans do not qualify for the "church plan" exemption from ERISA.  In Kaplan v. St. Peters Healthcare System, (3d Cir., Dec. 29, 2015), the court read the definitional provisions in the statute literally and held that to qualify as a "church plan," the retirement plan, while it may be "maintained" by the religiously-affiliated healthcare system whose employees are covered, must have been "established" by a church or convention or association of churches.  Since St. Peters' plan was created by the healthcare system, and not by the Catholic diocese, it does not qualify.  In so holding, the court refused to give deference to IRS determination that St. Peters' and plans like it are "church plans."  Without the exemption, the plan is subject to the fiduciary and funding requirements of ERISA.  As of 2014, St. Peters Healthcare retirement plan was underfunded by $30 million. Pensions & Investments reports on the decision.

Israeli Court Avoids Decision on Definition of Prayer on Temple Mount

In Israel on Monday, a Jerusalem district court reversed the order of a Magistrate's Court that had barred right-wing Jewish activist Yehuda Etzion from visiting the Temple Mount compound for 15 days. Haaretz and a press release from Honenu report on developments.  Etzion is founder of Hai VeKayam, a group that advocates allowing Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount where Muslim holy sites are located. Agreements between Israel, the Palestinians and Jordan call for maintaining the "status quo" at the Temple Mount site-- which means no Jewish prayer there.  On Dec. 22, authorities detained Etzion for walking on the Temple Mount with his arms raised, concluding that this violated the status quo.  On appeal, District Court judge Ram Vinograd said he did not need to definitively rule on the definition of an act of prayer since there was not fair warning to Etzion that police had changed their past interpretations to now ban raised arms.  During an earlier visit, police had not stopped Etzion from similar action. The judge commented on the problem of line drawing-- would merely lifting one's eyes upwards, or covering one's head, be enough to violate the prayer ban.

Etzion, obviously pushing the envelope, after the appeals court ruling described his action on the Temple Mount as follows:

With this act I sought to express a connection with the Temple Mount and the One who resides there, and I kept in my memory also the prayer of King Solomon, who spread his palms upwards. 

Bakery Owners Pay Judgment To Pursue Appeal In Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case

The Willamette Week reported Monday that the Oregon bakery that had been ordered by the state Bureau of Labor and Industries to pay $135,000 in damages for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex commitment ceremony, in order to appeal the ruling, paid the judgment (plus interest) on Monday. The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa decided to pay the $136,927 now due, instead of securing an appeal bond for the amount of the judgment. (See prior related posting.)  Supporters of the bakery owners have contributed at least $517,000 to them through crowdsourcing websites.

Suit Challenges Virginia School's Addition of Gender Identity To Non-Discrimination Rules

As reported by the Washington Post, last week a suit was filed in state court in Virginia challenging the Fairfax County School Board's addition of "gender identity" to its non-discrimination policy.  The change was made to comply with federal interpretation of Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  The complaint (full text) (Liberty Counsel press release) in Lafferty v. School Board of Fairfax County, (VA Cir. Ct., filed 12/21/2015), contends that the change violates a Virginia statute that prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting broader anti-discrimination protections than are accorded by state law. A state Attorney General's Opinion, however, had concluded that school boards do have the power to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The suit was brought by the head of the Traditional Values Coalition and by an anonymous high school student identified in the complaint as Jack Doe.  The suit contends:

Because the new policy and code of conduct are not sufficiently defined, Jack Doe has no way of knowing whether he can, for example, question someone who appears to be a girl using the boys’ restroom or locker room, refer to someone by a certain pronoun or even compliment someone on his/her attire without being subject to discipline for “discrimination.”...

Jack Doe is terrified of the thought of having to share intimate spaces with students who have the physical features of a girl, seeing such conduct as an invasion of his privacy, invasion of fellow students’ privacy and a violation of the though[t] patterns and understanding about male and female relationships which are part of his cultural values. 

Second Lawsuit Challenges Exclusion of Parochial Schools From Montana Tax Credit Plan

As previously reported, earlier this month a state court lawsuit was filed in Montana challenging an administrative rule that excludes religiously affiliated schools from participating in the state's new law that provides state income tax credits for contributions to student scholarship organizations.  This week a second challenge was filed, this time a lawsuit in federal court brought by parents and by the Association of Christian Schools International. (Pacific Legal Foundation press release.) The complaint (full text) in Armstrong v. Kadas, (D MT, filed 12/28/2015), alleges that enforcement of the administrative rule violates the U.S. Constitution's establishment, free exercise and equal protection clauses, as well as Montana law. Great Falls Tribune reports on the lawsuit.

Priest Charging Injury From False Accusations May Proceed With Most of His Claims

This week, a Missouri federal district court handed down two decisions in a suit by a Catholic priest who claims he has been falsely accused of child sexual abuse.  According to the court:

Plaintiff Reverend Xiu Hui “Joseph” Jiang is a Chinese-born ordained Catholic priest in the Archdiocese of St. Louis. Jiang asserts that ... A.M. and N.M. falsely accused him of sexually abusing their minor son for the purpose of monetary gain. Jiang also asserts that [two] officers of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, conducted an inadequate investigation of the abuse allegations and targeted plaintiff for prosecution because of his religion and ethnicity. He alleges that [the City] ... failed to properly train the officers.... Jiang further asserts that ... Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests ... led a public smear campaign against him which included making false accusations of child molestation in the media. The criminal case against Jiang ... was voluntarily dismissed shortly before trial....

According to the complaint ... had they conducted a more thorough investigation, they would have learned that the minor child had made unfounded claims of sexual abuse in the past and that he was mentally and emotionally troubled; that defendants A.M. and N.M. had a history of making unfounded allegations against the Catholic Church for financial gain; and that there were circumstances that made it impossible for plaintiff to have committed the abuse as alleged.

In Jiang v. Porter I, (ED MO, Dec. 28, 2015), the court denied SNAP's motion to dismiss the conspiracy, defamation and infliction of emotional distress claims against it, and concluded that the lawsuit is not covered by Missouri's anti-SLAPP statute.

In Jiang v. Porter II, (ED MO, Dec. 28, 2015), the court dismissed the vicarious liability,  unconstitutional policy and practice, failure to train and supervise, and infliction of emotional distress claims against the City of St. Louis.  However the court refused to dismiss equal protection, due process, abuse of process, infliction of emotional distress and civil rights conspiracy claims against two police officers.

Story of Justice McReynolds' Anti-Semitic Photo Refusal Is Debunked

National Law Journal reported yesterday that research by a staffer in the U.S. Supreme Court curator's office has proven false an often-repeated story that no 1924 photograph of Supreme Court justices was taken because the anti-Semitic Justice James McReynolds' would not sit next to Justice Louis Brandeis for the photo.  It turns out that group photos are taken only when a new justice comes onto the court, which was not the case in 1924.  It was the case however that one photo studio that was passed over for the 1923 photo lobbied Chief Justice Taft for an extra photo in 1924, and McReynolds (known for his disagreeable temperament) balked at the idea.  McReynolds does appear in nine other group photos between 1914 and 1941 with Jewish justices, though never next to them because the tradition of seating-by-seniority did not place him there.

UK's Department of Education Clarifies Religious Education Requirements

Britain's Department of Education yesterday issued a Guidance Note (full text) assuring schools that their Religious Education curriculum does not need to change in response to a court decision (see prior posting) last month holding that schools cannot completely exclude the study of non-religious beliefs. According to the Department, the decision does not mean that equal time must be given to teachings of humanism. Schools can continue to give precedence to the teachings of major faith groups, and the curriculum of non-religiously affiliated schools must "reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are, in the main, Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain."

ISIS Fatwas Cover Topics Including Slavery of Infidels and Harvesting of Organs From Apostates

Reuters reported yesterday that among the documents seized from ISIS by U.S. Special Forces in a raid in Syria in May are a number of fatwas (religious rulings) on issues such as the rape of female prisoners, treatment of slaves with minor children, and when a son may steal from his father to for travel funds to fight jihad.  A booklet dated October 2014 and titled From Creator’s Rulings on Capturing Prisoners and Enslavement discusses rules on enslaving women captured from defeated infidels. These are in addition to the ISIS fatwa (full text) reported on last week by Reuters that approves the harvesting of human organs from apostates for transplantation into Muslims.

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the fatwa on sexual intercourse with captured infidel women who are taken as slaves.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• John Witte, 'To Serve Right and to Fight Wrong': Why Religion, Human Rights, and Human Dignity Need Each Other, (Marta Cartabia and Andrea Simoncini, eds., Pope Benedict XVI’s Legal Speeches in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge University Press, 2015), 106-122).
• Alessandro Spina, Reflections on Science, Technology and Risk Regulation in Pope Francis’ Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’, (European Journal of Risk Regulation 4/2015).
• Piro Rexhepi, Mainstreaming Islamophobia: The Politics of European Enlargement and the Balkan Crime-Terror Nexus, (East European Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 2-3, 2015, pp. 189-214).
• Elizabeth Shakman Hurd, Expert Religion: The Politics of Religious Difference in an Age of Freedom and Terror, (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2015/97).
• Rachel Nadelman, 'Let Us Care for Everyone's Home': The Catholic Church's Role in Keeping Gold Mining out of El Salvador, (CLALS Working Paper Series No. 9, Dec. 2015).
• Nelson Tebbe & Paul Horwitz, Religious Institutionalism — Why Now?, (Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 429, Dec. 2015).
• D.E. Frydrychowski, A Critique of Blackstone's Praemunire, (December 21, 2015).
• Bernard Jackson, Law and Narrative in the Book of Ruth: A Syntagmatic Reading, (December 20, 2015).
• David M. Shapiro, To Seek a Newer World: Prisoners’ Rights at the Frontier, (Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 15-48 (Dec. 2015)).
• Robert W. Emerson & Jason R. Parnell, Franchise Hostages: Fast Food, God, and Politics, (Journal of Law and Politics, Vol. 29, No. 353, p. 353-396, 2014).
• Martha Bailey, The Marriage Law of Jane Austen's World, (Persuasions On-line, V.36, No.1 (Winter 2015)).

Suit Challenges Religious Impact on Public School's Curriculum

A lawsuit brought in a Florida state court last month on behalf of a 5th grader by the student's father attacks the way in which a Florida school district teaches about religion and the way in which it allows religion to impact its secular curriculum, including teaching about evolution. The complaint (full text) in Silver v. School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 11/24/2015), contends that textbooks "provide false, misleading, and dangerous information about certain religions, and purposely omit factual information if it appears unfavorable to them and/or politically incorrect.... "  It goes on to allege that "the danger of fundamentalist religion is often obscured and downplayed due to the failure of Defendant School Board to properly monitor its textbooks, and the efforts of fundamentalist religious believers to impose their un-scientific, irrational beliefs such as creationism, which masquerades as science upon the children of this state and county." The lawsuit also contends that the curriculum inaccurately portrays Islam as a peaceful religion, and that schools teach "terrible lies about Jews as if they were historical fact." WPFB reported on the lawsuit in a Dec. 16 posting.

The complaint contends that the school district's practices violate various statutory and state constitutional provisions on education, as well as the 1st Amendment's free exercise and establishment clauses. [Thanks to Scott Mange and Ed Brayton for information on the case.]

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Smith v. Artus, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170473 (ND NY, Dec. 22, 2015), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss a Muslim inmate's claim for injunctive and declaratory relief against the prison's ban on engaging in demonstrative prayer in the prison yard during recreation period.

In Chesser v. Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170661 (D CO, Dec. 22, 2015), a Colorado federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his claims that the prison policy of housing Muslims with ties to terrorism in long term solitary confinement solely because of these ties violates RFRA and that his conditions of confinement violate RFRA.

In Williams v. Valazair, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171559 (WD OK, Dec. 22, 2015), an Oklahoma federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171325, Nov. 9, 2015) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was denied a common fare meal tray during a 4-day time span, apparently because the list had not been updated to include him.

Top Ten Religious Liberty and Church-State Developments of 2015

Each year in December I attempt to pick the most important church-state and religious liberty developments of the past year.  This year was rich with possibilities, and some of my picks actually arose in a broader context but have will have an important impact on religious liberty claims or church-state challenges.  So here are my Top Ten picks.  I welcome readers' comments since I am sure that not everyone will agree with all the choices.

1. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the Constitution requires marriage equality, striking down state laws that bar same-sex marriages.
   
   
2. The battle continues over the adequacy of the Obama administration's accommodation for religious non-profits that object to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the issue this term after granting certiorari in seven cases.
   
   
3. Some states expand RFRA laws to protect objectors to same-sex marriage. Indiana's law provokes particular controversy forcing the legislature to backtrack. Meanwhile around the country some Christian-owned businesses continue to refuse to provide services they see as furthering same sex marriage or LGBT rights, while Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis garners national attention for her refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses.
   
   
4. The U.S. Supreme Court becomes active on prisoners' rights issues, including claims for religious accommodation by inmates.  The Supreme Court gives RLUIPA a broad interpretation in Holt v. Hobbs.  It also interprets the "three strikes" provision that limits indigent prisoner litigation; hears oral arguments in a case on maximum fee payments by indigent prisoners litigating multiple cases; and grants certiorari on a question of exhausting administrative remedies before suing.
   
   
5. The rise of ISIL creates questions about the proper label to apply to the struggle against jihadists.  The dispute centers over the use of terminology such as "the war against radical Islam" that could be misinterpreted to suggest the U.S. is broadly at war with all Muslims.
   
   
6. The Supreme Court interprets the elements of Title VII employment discrimination claims (including claims for accommodation of religious practices) in Abercrombie & Fitch (employer motives) and Mach Mining (EEOC conciliation requirement).
   
   
7. The expression of virulent anti-Muslim sentiment raises free speech and anti-discrimination issues in cases involving anti-Muslim bus ads and a business seeking to create a "Muslim free zone."
   
   
8. The EEOC rules that discrimination on basis of sexual orientation is barred by the "sex discrimination" ban in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
   
   
9. The Supreme Court holds that specialty license plates  are government speech, thus impacting the many cases on license plates with religious themes or symbols.
   
   
10. The successful referendum to overturn Houston's Equal Rights Ordinance positions the battle over transgender rights as next struggle between conservative religious groups and civil rights advocates.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Does Not Require Dismissal of Suit Over Control of Unification Church's Assets

In Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International v. Moon, (DC App., Dec. 24, 2015), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the D.C. Superior Court's dismissal of a complicated dispute over control of a D.C. non-profit corporation, UCI, which over the years has managed hundreds of millions of dollars of assets donated to Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. The trial court had invoked the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, concluding that the dispute could not be resolved without the court deciding questions of religious doctrines.  The appellate court disagreed.

UCI was created in 1977.  In 2006, Preston Moon, one of Rev. Moon's sons became president of UCI and one of its five directors. In 2008, Rev. Moon appointed another son, Sean Moon, (Preston's younger brother) as the next leader of the Church's worldwide religious organization.  This "disappointed" Preston who, apparently assumed that he would be appointed to the religious as well as financial leadership of the Church.  In response to Sean's appointment, Preston took a number of steps to divest the Church of its control over UCI and its assets.

Those actions are challenged in this case by three entities connected with the original Unification Church and by two individuals who Preston removed as directors of UCI. The suit claims that Preston improperly took control of UCI's board, ignoring the long-standing practice of electing individuals nominated by Rev. Moon. The suit also alleges diversion of assets and self-dealing.  In reversing the trial court's dismissal of the case, the court said in part:

From plaintiffs’ allegations, it appears that a profound alteration in the corporation ... occurred under Preston Moon. An organization plainly established to promote the preservation of African wildlife and acquiring vast funds on that basis might well be barred from switching its purpose to expenditures on domestic cats and dogs regardless of how technically such a switch might be read into the text of its articles of incorporation. On the present record, we cannot say with confidence that a somewhat analogous transformation cannot be shown to have occurred here. And, in any event, the allegation that corporate funds were used here to benefit one of the directors personally would appear readily subject to court review....

[W]e agree with plaintiffs that the record at this early stage of a difficult and complicated dispute with many ramifications does not support a conclusion that the trial court must engage in inquiry banned by the First Amendment in order to resolve any of plaintiffs’ claims.... Were we to hold that, based on the current record, the First Amendment precludes our civil courts from adjudicating plaintiffs’ claims, then it would approach granting immunity to “every nonprofit corporation with a religious purpose from breach of fiduciary suits . . . and prevent any scrutiny of questionable transactions.”

The court also resolved jurisdictional and standing issues.

Donald Trump's Christmas Card Covers All Bases

The New York Daily News reports that the Christmas card which Donald Trump mailed to his supporters this week covered all the bases after his campaign emphasis on the need to say Merry Christmas instead of "Happy Holidays."

From the White House For Christmas: Playlists and Concern For Persecuted Christians

On Wednesday, in anticipation of Christmas, the White House posted The Obamas' and Bidens' Holiday Playlists on the White House Spotify channel.  The Obamas' number one pick is "O Tannenbaum, Vince Guaraldi Trio (A Charlie Brown Christmas)," while "Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town, Bruce Springsteen" tops the Bidens' playlist.

The President also posted a more serious statement on Persecuted Christians at Christmas, saying in part:

At this time, those of us fortunate enough to live in countries that honor the birthright of all people to practice their faith freely give thanks for that blessing.  Michelle and I are also ever-mindful that many of our fellow Christians do not enjoy that right, and hold especially close to our hearts and minds those who have been driven from their ancient homelands by unspeakable violence and persecution.

In some areas of the Middle East where church bells have rung for centuries on Christmas Day, this year they will be silent; this silence bears tragic witness to the brutal atrocities committed against these communities by ISIL.

NYC Taxi Appeals Unit Says Religious Belief of Driver Does Not Justify Gender Discrimiination

Triggered by a New York Post article, a number of media outlets last week reported on a Sept. 3, 2015 decision of the New York City OATH Taxi and Limousine Tribunal Appeals Unit.  In Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Tamsir Drammeh , the Appeals Unit upheld a hearing officer's decision that a Muslim cab driver violated a Commission rule prohibiting any action that is "against the best interest of the public" when he refused to transport a female passenger in the front seat of his cab for religious reasons. When a family of four hailed the cab, the driver told them that all four could sit in back, or the husband could sit in front, but the wife could not. The Hearing Examiner concluded: "That his religion did not allow him to sit next to a woman is not an acceptable defense in an occupation that is operated to serve the public." Affirming that decision, the Appeals Unit stated:

There is strong public policy which prohibits a TLC licensee from engaging in “invidious discrimination while serving the public” .... In addition, it is well established that a taxicab driver is required to possess sufficient self-restraint to deal in a mature fashion with the everyday conflicts inherent in his job.... This includes a situation where the driver’s religious beliefs may conflict with his obligations and duties as a taxi driver to transport members of the public.

Here, the respondent’s determination that it would be proper for the passenger’s husband to sit in the front seat, but not proper for the passenger to do so solely because of her gender, evidenced a discriminatory attitude and constituted an action against the best interests of the public.

The cabbie was fined $350 and suspended for one day.

Illinois Nuns Sue To Challenge Zoning Denial

A federal lawsuit was filed last week by an order of Catholic nuns to challenge the denial of a conditional use permit by McHenry County, Illinois. Fraternité Notre Dame already has a monastery, church, seminary, convent, retreat center, bakery, printing press and cemetery on its 95 acres of property. It now wants to add a barn in order to build a commercial kitchen, process grapes and brew beer.  It also wants to add a school with attached dormitory; nursing home with hospice services; and gift shop and tasting area to sell pastries, religious and inspirational articles, and its own wine and beer. The complaint (full text) in Fraternité Notre Dame, Inc. v. County of McHenry, (ND IL, filed 12/16/2015), contends that the denial of zoning approval violates RLUIPA as well as the equal protection clauses of the Illinois and federal constitutions.  Northwest Herald reports on the lawsuit.

Proposed Bill In New Mexico Would Amend RFRA To Protect Religiously- Based LGBT Discrimination

While New Mexico already has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, last week two legislators pre-filed a bill for the new session that would expand the state's RFRA to permit businesses to refuse to conduct business with gay, lesbian and transgender individuals where the business has religious objections to doing so. Think Progress reports that the new House Bill 55, while prohibiting businesses from using religion to justify racial or gender discrimination, does not prohibit using religion to justify LGBT discrimination.  The Bill provides:

Nothing contained in the Human Rights Act shall ... burden a person's free exercise of religion by requiring the person to provide a service or to conduct business in a manner inconsistent with adherence to that person's sincerely held religious belief unless that adherence is based on race, age, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition. 

Pennsylvania Appeals Court Orders New Trial For Msgr. Lynn On Priest Abuse Cover-Up

In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Lynn, (PA Super. Ct., Dec. 22, 2015), in a 2-1 decision, a Pennsylvania state appeals court vacated the 2012 conviction of Msgr. William J. Lynn who was the first U.S. priest criminally convicted of covering up sexual molestation of minors by another priest. (See prior posting.) The case was remanded for a new trial.  In the case, which was already on remand from the state Supreme Court (see prior posting), the majority concluded that while prior bad acts can be introduced into evidence to show elements such as knowledge, motive and intent relating to the crimes charged, here the introduction of evidence relating to Lynn's handling of complaints against 21 priests in addition to the two priests whose actions Lynn was charged with covering up went too far.  The majority said in part:

The potential for this evidence to unfairly prejudice Appellant was high, both because it involved the sexually abusive acts of numerous priests committed against children over several decades, and because of the high volume of the evidence admitted. Therefore, we conclude that the probative value of that evidence, in toto, did not outweigh its potential for unfair prejudice, and that this potential prejudice was not overcome by the trial court’s cautionary instructions.

Judge Donohue filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The record supports a finding that both Lynn and his predecessors handled prior allegations of sexual abuse against other priests with the motive and intent of shielding the Church from scandal. Thus, there is support for the conclusion that the way Lynn handled the allegations of abuse made against Avery and Brennan “grew out of” and was “caused by” the way Lynn’s predecessors and Lynn himself handled past allegations of sexual abuse committed by other priests.

Philadelphia Inquirer reports on the decision. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Maine's Restriction On Loud Preaching Outside of Abortion Clinic

In Portland, Maine this week, a Christian pastor filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of a Maine statute designed to protect abortion facilities.  The law essentially prohibits demonstrating outside an abortion clinic with noise loud enough to be heard inside.  The complaint (full text) in March v. Mills, (D ME, filed 12/21/2015), contends that the statute violates plaintiff's 1st and 14th Amendment rights by targeting his religious, Christian, Pro-Life messages. He alleges in part:

Plaintiff considers it his vocation to encourage women to avoid the sin of abortion and to help them repent from their previous sins.... Plaintiff preaches outside of the abortion facility in order to better reach these women and to give women a last-chance alternative to their life-ending decision.

The suit claims that the restriction on his speech is a content-based prior restraint.  Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the suit.

FFRF's Secular Nativity Display Removed From Texas Capitol After It Provokes Ire of Governor

The Texas State Preservation Board has a policy that allows displays in public areas of the Capitol upon filing of an appropriate application and a letter of sponsorship from the governor, lieutenant governor or a member of the state legislature.  Receiving approval of its application, on December 18 the Freedom From Religion Foundation put up a Bill of Rights Nativity display which it describes as:

featur[ing] Founding Fathers Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington gathered in reverence before the Bill of Rights, overseen by the Statue of Liberty. In addition to the "nativity," the display also features a sign celebrating the Winter Solstice.

However, three days later the exhibit was removed after Governor Greg Abbott expressed strong opposition to it.  In a letter (full text) to the Executive Director of the State Preservation Board, the governor (who is Chairman of the Board) contended that the display did not meet the requirement that approved displays promote a "public purpose."  He wrote in part:

[T]he exhibit deliberately mocks Christians and Christianity. The Biblical scene of the newly born Jesus Christ lying in a manger in Bethlehem lies at the very heart of the Christian faith. Subjecting an image held sacred by millions of Texans to the Foundation’s tasteless sarcasm does nothing to promote morals and the general welfare. To the contrary, the Foundation’s spiteful message is intentionally designed to belittle and offend....

This is not an exhibit that spreads a secular message in an effort to educate the public about nonreligious viewpoints; it instead denigrates religious views held by others.... [T]he exhibit promotes ignorance and falsehood insofar as it suggests that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson worshipped (or would worship) the bill of rights in the place of Jesus.

Kentucky's New Governor Eliminates County Clerks' Names From Marriage License Forms

Kentucky's new Republican governor, Matt Bevin, fulfilled a campaign promise yesterday (press release) by issuing Executive Order 2015-048 instructing the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives to distribute to all County Clerks a marriage license form that no longer includes the name of the County Clerk on it. Instead the form merely calls for the name and title of the issuing official-- who might be a deputy clerk.  The change was in response to the widely-followed resistance of Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis who refused on religious grounds to allow her office to authorize same-sex marriage licenses. (See prior posting.) In a press release, Liberty Counsel call the new form "a clear, simple accommodation on behalf of Kim Davis and all Kentucky clerks."

Court Invokes Ecclesiastical Abstention To Dismiss Church Members' Claims of Financial Mismanagement

In Harrison v. Bishop, (OH App., Dec. 18, 2015), an Ohio appellate court applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss a suit brought by three members of the Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church against directors and the senior pastor of the church.  The plaintiffs claimed that defendants breached their duties under the church's constitution by mismanaging the church's finances, wrongfully withholding financial statements and refusing to permit members to examine the church's books and records. The court said in part:

Appellants cite select provisions in the Constitution that they allege give rise to appellees’ duties....  While it is true that the Constitution contains apparently secular provisions, we cannot view those provisions in isolation, thereby ignoring the ecclesiastical content that is found throughout the document. In view of the patently religious nature of the church’s Constitution, we find that reliance upon provisions within the Constitution for determination of the rights and responsibilities of the parties in this case, under auspices of “neutral principles of law,” would necessarily entangle the trial court in ecclesiastical issues over which the court has no subject matter jurisdiction under the First and Fourteenth Amendments....

Further, we find that appellants, in filing this action, are essentially seeking to utilize the power of the civil courts to institute the termination and replacement of the church’s leadership.

New Zealand Approves Pastafarians To Perform Marriage Ceremonies

A Notice published in the Dec. 10 New Zealand Government Gazette approved the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an organization that qualifies under Sec. 9 of the Marriage Act 1955 to nominate persons to solemnize marriages.  To qualify under the statute, "one of the principal objects of the organisation" must be "to uphold or promote religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions." The Freethinker reports on the decision to allow the group, whose followers are known as "Pastafarians" to perform wedding ceremonies. [Thanks to Paul de Mello for the lead.]

Two District Courts Refuse To Enjoin California's Reproductive FACT Act

In recent days, two separate California federal district courts have refused to enjoin the Jan. 1 effectiveness of California's new Reproductive FACT Act which requires reproductive health clinics to disseminate a notice to all clients stating that California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women. In Livingwell Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Harris, (ND CA, Dec. 18, 2015), the court denied a preliminary injunction, finding that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the required disclosures violate their free expression rights by interfering with their ability to control their own religious and pro-life messages. In A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic v. Harris, (ED CA, Dec. 21, 2015), the court similarly rejected free expression and free exercise claims in denying a preliminary injunction. In rejecting the free exercise claim, the court found that the Act is a neutral law of general applicability even though it mostly impacts Christian-belief based crisis pregnancy centers. Courthouse News Service reports on the decisions.

European Court Says Switzerland Need Not Recognize Underage Religious Marriage of Afghan Nationals

In Z.H. and R.H. v. Switzerland, (ECHR, Dec. 8, 2015), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Switzerland was not required for asylum purposes to recognize the religious marriage between first cousins, entered when the bride was only 14 years old.  The religious marriage between the two, who are Afghan nationals, would have been illegal in Afghanistan because a woman must be at least 15 years old to marry there.  The religious marriage was contracted in Iran where the couple was living illegally, but it was not registered with Iranian authorities. The couple subsequently applied for asylum in Switzerland which they had entered illegally from Italy. Refusing to recognize them as husband and wife, authorities removed the husband to Italy.  However he soon returned illegally to Switzerland where apparently then Switzerland decided to recognize the marriage once the woman turned 17. The European Court did not treat this as mooting the appeal to it of Switzerland's initial decision.