Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Bus Ad Case; Thomas Dissents

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. King County, Washington, (Docket No. 15-584, cert. denied 3/7/2016). However Justice Thomas wrote an 8-page dissent to the denial of cert.  Justice Alito joined the dissent. (Order List at pg. 59).  They urged the Court to use the case to resolve the split among Circuits on whether advertising space on public buses should be categorized for First Amendment purposes as designated public forums or limited public forums.  Transit authorities have greater control over content in limited public forums.  AFDI, the appellant in this case, has been involved in a number of the other cases raising the same issue, and some of its ads in other cases have been attacked as anti-Muslim. (See prior posting.)

Meanwhile Reuters reported yesterday:

Humorous ads for a documentary film that aims to promote understanding and tolerance of Muslims went up in New York subways on Monday after the movie's production company won a legal battle with the city's transit authority....

The advertisements debuted after a federal court in Manhattan ruled in October that being Muslim was a religious, not a political, identity. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has a policy prohibiting political speech in ads on public transportation.

Federal Jury Says FLDS Twin Towns Discriminated

Yesterday an Arizona federal district court jury agreed that the towns of Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah, and their joint water company systematically discriminated, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, against individuals who are not members of the FLDS Church in providing housing, utilities and police services. As reported by Deseret News, even though the jury awarded damages of $2.2 million to six residents, prior to the jury verdict the parties had negotiated a $1.6 million settlement under the Fair Housing Act.  According to a Justice Department press release, the suit was also filed by the government under 42 USC 14141.  The Sec. 14141 civil action does not include the right to a jury trial, so the jury's findings on that portion of the government's suit are advisory:

In its advisory verdict, the jury found that the Colorado City Marshal’s Office, the cities’ joint police department, operated as an arm of the FLDS church in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment; engaged in discriminatory policing in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the establishment clause; and subjected individuals to unlawful stops, seizures and arrests in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

(See prior related posting.)

Supreme Court: Alabama Must Recognize Georgia's Order Granting Same-Sex Spouse Adoption Rights [CORRECTED]

The U.S. Supreme Court today in a summary per curiam opinion reversed the Alabama Supreme Court's refusal to recognize a Georgia court's approval of the adoption of one woman's children by her lesbian partner.  In V.L. v. E.L., (Sup. Ct., March 7 2016), the Supreme Court held that the Constitution's full faith and credit clause requires Alabama courts to recognize the Georgia adoption order.  The Alabama Supreme Court had wrongly concluded that Georgia courts lacked jurisdiction to enter the order.  The issue arose in the context of the adoptive mother seeking visitation rights after the couple separated. New York Times reports on the decision. [Note correction-- an earlier version of this posting incorrectly referred to Louisiana instead of Alabama.]

In Israel, Western Wall Compromise May Be Unraveling

In Israel, the much-heralded compromise approved by Prime Minister Netanyahu's cabinet at the end of January to construct a separate prayer space at the Western Wall for egalitarian prayer now seems to possibly be unraveling.  Jerusalem Post reported yesterday that opposition from the Chief Rabbinate and much of the Orthodox religious establishment is growing.  A meeting between the Prime Minister and Israel's two chief rabbis scheduled for yesterday was canceled as the Prime minister asked the chief rabbis along with the current Orthodox administrator of the Western Wall to submit proposals for changes in the agreement. The Orthodox establishment appears to be particularly opposed to the arrangement that would create a committee to regulate the proposed new prayer space, with the Reform and Conservative (Masorti) movements in Judaism given seats on the committee. Several Israeli Orthodox rabbis have made scathing attacks against the Reform movement in recent weeks. On Saturday, the Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, Shlomo Amar, referring to the Reform and Conservative movements, said:

It is not permitted in any way to give it [the Western Wall] over to disgrace and shame in the hands of those who purport to pray and act with immodesty and clownishness, which is a desecration of that which is holy, and the trampling of the inheritance of Israel throughout the generations in a brazen and cruel manner.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Elisabeth Fontugne, Respecting Religion: How Court and Congress Impermissibly Treaded on Sacred Ground to the People's Detriment, (December 15, 2015).
• Jared A. Goldstein, How the Constitution Became Christian, Roger Williams Univ. Legal Studies Paper No. 167 (Feb. 2016).
• Daniel L. Chen & Jo Thori Lind, The Political Economy of Beliefs: Why Fiscal and Social Conservatives/Liberals Come Hand-in-Hand, (March 1, 2016).
• Aileen M. Marty, Elana Marty-Nelson & Eloisa C. Rodriguez-Dod, The Intersection of Law, Religion, and Infectious Disease on the Handling and Disposition of Human Remains, (Law, Religion, and Health in the United States (Holly Fernandez Lynch, I. Glenn Cohen & Elizabeth Sepper eds., Cambridge University Press, Spring 2017 Forthcoming).
• Sherif Girgis, Nervous Victors, Illiberal Measures: A Response to Douglas Nejaime and Reva Siegel, (Yale Law Journal Forum, 2016).
• Brian McCall, Why it is Good to Stop at a Red Light: The Basis of Authority and Obligation, (Journal of Catholic Legal Studies, Forthcoming).
• Scott W. Gaylord, RFRA Rights Revisited: Substantial Burdens, Judicial Competence, and the Religious Nonprofit Cases, (Elon University Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2016-07 (2016)).
• Travis S. Andrews, Delegating Religious Liberty: The Executive's Role in Accommodating Religion, (February 1, 2016).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Neil Weinstock Netanel, Introduction to: From Maimonides to Microsoft: The Jewish Law of Copyright Since the Birth of Print, (Oxford University Press 2016).
• Asim Jusic, SAS v. France and the French Burkha Ban: Public Moral Order of Laïcité and the Struggle Against Disloyal Groups, (February 24, 2016).
• Gautam Bhatia, A Right to Faith: Individual, Community, State and Religious Freedom Under the Indian Constitution, (February 28, 2016).
• Mary Anne Case, The Role of the Popes in the Invention of Complementarity and the Vatican's Anathematization of Gender, (Forthcoming Religion and Gender Habemus Gender Special Issue 2016).
• Naveed Ahmad, Hurmat Sumaiya Binti Bashir & Yousfi Karima, Status of Women in Islam: A Perspective, (“Status of Women in Islam: A Perspective” Global Islamic Economics Magazine, Volume 43, 2015).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Andre P. Audette & Christopher L. Weaver, Faith in the Court: Religious Out-Groups and the Perceived Legitimacy of Judicial Decisions, [Abstract], 49 Law & Society Review 999-1022 (2015).
• Callum Brown, Thomas Green & Jane Mair, Religion in Scots Law: Report of an Audit at the University of Glasgow, (Feb. 2016).

Religious Accommodations for Saturday Presidential Caucuses Surveyed

The Campaign Legal Center last week published an interesting survey of the extent to which states that hold Saturday caucuses in Presidential elections provide accommodations for Jews, Seventh Day Adventists and other Saturday Sabbath observers. It concluded in part:

Some state parties make accommodations for those who are unable to caucus in person due to religious observance. However, absentee procedures in these states are limited, not well publicized or conducted through ad hoc mechanisms without clear standards—or even no standards at all.

However the survey pointed to practices of the Democratic Party in Washington state and Wyoming as excellent examples of accommodation that should be used as models.  They allow voters to submit surrogate affidavits if they are unable to caucus in person because of religious observance, military service, disability, illness or work schedule. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Young v. Muhammad, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24711 (CD CA, Feb. 24, 2016), a California federal district court accepted most of a magistrate's recommendations (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176470, Dec. 22, 2015) and dismissed claims by an inmate who was removed from the Ramadan list and Muslim services for a period of time after he argued over religious theology with other inmates.

In Dawson v. Beard, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24806 (ED CA, Feb. 26, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was denied access to religious services on numerous occasions, and denied the right to fast.

In Brandon v. Schroyer, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25003 (ND NY, Feb. 26, 2016), a New York federal magistrate judge rejected claims by a Muslim inmate that his free exercise rights were infringed when he was served meals containing pork ten times during a year, and found he had failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to denial of participation in Ramadan and access to congregate religious services.

In Hamilton v. Countant, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25329 (SD NY, March 1, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed a Rastafarian inmate's complaint that authorities seized religious items from the prison chapel, made alterations to the calendar on which the prison listed recognized religious holidays, and refused to provide the cornbread and grape juice required for him to take communion during the Rastafarian Fasika holiday.

In Jarrett v. Snyder, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25277 (WD MI, Feb. 29, 2016), a Michigan federal district court permitted a Buddhist inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was wrongfully removed from the vegetarian meal plan. The magistrate's opinion in the case is at 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25844, Jan. 11, 2016.

In Hoeck v. Miklich, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25940 (D CO, March 1, 2016), a Colorado federal district court accepted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176572, Oct. 26, 2015) and dismissed an inmate's claims that requiring him to change linens and move cells on the Sabbath, denying him an appropriate place to worship, and failing to classify Biblical Christianity as an independent religion violated RLUIPA. Plaintiff was however allowed to proceed on his First Amendment and state law challenges to these practices and his RLUIPA challenge to the grooming policy.

In Shaw v. Upton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26575 (SD GA, March 2, 2016), a Georgia federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies an inmate's claim that he was deliberately transferred to another facility to deny him access to a religious vegan diet.

In Tyler v. Lassiter, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27161 (ED NC, March 3, 2016), a North Carolina federal district court held that a Jewish inmate's religious exercise was not substantially burdened when for disciplinary reasons he was placed on a vegetarian nutraloaf diet for one week instead of receiving his kosher meals.

In Johnson v. Lewis, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27169 (WD NC, March 3, 2016), a North Carolina federal district court rejected a Hebrew Israelite inmate's complaints about the kosher diet he was receiving.

In Stiles v. Cook, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27281 (WD NC, March 3, 2016), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies a suit by a Native American inmate complaining that his "Indian prayer" materials were confiscated.

Court Enjoins Army From Requiring Special Testing of Sikh Officer

In Singh v. Carter, (D DC, March 3, 2016), the D.C. federal district court, invoking RFRA, granted a preliminary injunction protecting religious rights of an Army officer.  The Army had ordered a decorated Sikh Army captain to undergo costly specialized testing with his helmet and protective mask to assure that his religiously required head covering, beard and uncut hair will not interfere with the functions of the helmet and mask. The court said:

At first blush, the challenged order appears to reflect a reasonably thorough and even benevolent decision by the Army to fulfill its duty of protecting the health and safety of this particular Sikh officer.

Yet, that is far from the complete picture. Thousands of other soldiers are permitted to wear long hair and beards for medical or other reasons, without being subjected to such specialized and costly expert testing of their helmets and gas masks. Moreover, other Sikh soldiers have been permitted to maintain their articles of faith without such specialized testing.

See prior related posting.

Alabama Supreme Court Narrowly Avoids Confrontation With SCOTUS On Same-Sex Marriage

The Alabama Supreme Court yesterday in Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, (AL Sup. Ct., March 4, 2016), issued a per curiam order dismissing all pending motions and petitions in a suit that sought to require Alabama probate judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  However the Order also generated six separate opinions from the 9 justices spanning 170 pages. Three of the opinions were particularly defiant of the U.S. Supreme Court's authority to hand down its Obergefell decision.

Chief Justice Roy Moore who has been in the lead in resisting same-sex marriage in Alabama (see prior posting) wrote the longest and most defiant opinion.  He actually submitted two opinions totaling 106 pages-- one an opinion on why he now decided not to recuse himself, even though he had done so at earlier stages of the case, and the second longer opinion attacking the U.S. Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision. Explaining why he was willing to concur in the dismissal of the suit, Moore said:

Today this Court by order dismisses all pending motions and petitions and issues the certificate of judgment in this case. That action does not disturb the existing March orders in this case or the Court's holding therein that the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, art. I, § 36.03, Ala. Const. 1901, and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act, § 30-1-9, Ala. Code 1975, are constitutional.

In perhaps his most radical attack, Moore said (at pp. 87-88):

The general principle of blind adherence to United States Supreme Court opinions as "the law of the land" is a dangerous fallacy that is inconsistent with the United States Constitution. Labeling such opinions as "the rule of law" confuses the law itself -- the Constitution -- with an opinion that purports to interpret that document.

Article VI, by its plain terms, binds "the judges in every state" to obedience to the Constitution itself, not to unconstitutional and illegitimate opinions of the United States Supreme Court. Just as the little boy in Hans Christian Andersen's tale pointed out that the Emperor, contrary to the assertions of his courtiers, was actually stark naked, so also the "judges in every state" are entitled to examine Supreme Court opinions to see if they are clothed in the majesty of the law of the Constitution itself rather than in naked propositions of men with no cognizable covering from that document.

Moore also emphasized religious liberty in his attack on the Obergefell majority, saying in part (at pg. 58):

The Obergefell majority, conspicuously overlooking the "essential and historic significance" of the connection between religious liberty and "supreme allegiance to the will of God," failed to appreciate the seriousness of imposing a new sexual-revolution mandate that requires Alabama public officials to disobey the will of God.

Justices Parker and Murdock also wrote defiant concurring opinions, while Justice Shaw's concurring opinion was highly critical of Chief Justice Moore's approach.

Justice Bolin's somewhat temperate concurrence is of particular interest. He said in part:

Although I have many times not agreed with a decision of the United States Supreme Court, or a decision of the Alabama Supreme Court for that matter, I have never criticized an opinion from any court in the manner in which I regrettably do so today. I am, however, able to count to five--and I know that five votes trump four; and, although that does not make it right, it does make it a majority opinion....

The foregoing being said, I am further compelled to concur specially to express my concern, which remains to be determined in future cases, that the Obergefell decision may have emasculated this State's entire statutory licensing scheme governing "marriage" to the point of rendering it incapable of being enforced prospectively.

Al.com reports at length on the decision.

Church of Cannabis Leader Sues Former Police Chief For Defamation

According to a report yesterday from WKYC News, in Indianapolis, Indiana, the founder of the First Church of Cannabis has filed a defamation against the city's former police chief Rick Hite.  At a police news conference shortly before the church's inaugural service, the police chief warned that anyone smoking marijuana at the church would be prosecuted.  Referring to the Church's leader Bill Levin, the police chief said: "As Jim Jones once did within our state, he led a group of people into a place of no return. We don't want that to happen again in this state."

8th Circuit: Westboro Church Challenge To Picketing Law Should Be Dismissed As Moot

In 2014, a Missouri federal district court rejected a vagueness challenge mounted by the Westboro Baptist Church to Missouri statutes that banned protest activities within three hundred feet of a funeral. (See prior posting.)  However, while a motion to amend the judgment was still pending, the Missouri legislature repealed the statutes at issue.  In Phelps-Roper v. Koster, (8th Cir., March 4, 2016), the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that when the statutes were repealed, the district court should have vacated its judgment and dismissed the case as moot. It also held that the district court had improperly computed the amount of attorneys' fees that should be awarded to plaintiff.

Supreme Court Preserves Abortion Status Quo In Louisiana While It Considers Similar Case

Th U.S. Supreme Court today issued an order preserving the status quo in Louisiana while the Court considers Whole Woman's Health, the abortion case from Texas that was argued this week. (See prior posting.) The 5th Circuit had stayed a district court's preliminary injunction against enforcement of a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The 5th Circuit's stay had the effect of allowing Louisiana's contested law to go into effect. Today in June Medical Services LLC v. Gee the U.S. Supreme Court issued the following order:

Consistent with the Court’s action granting a stay in Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, No. 14A1288 (June 29, 2015), the application to vacate the stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on February 24, 2016, presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court, is granted and the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the district court’s injunction is vacated.

Justice Thomas would deny the application.

This order was in response to June Medical's Emergency Application to Vacate Stay of Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal (full text).

Georgia's Republican Governor Opposes "Religious Freedom" Bill on Biblical Grounds

As a number of state legislatures consider enacting religious freedom bills to protect opponents of same-sex marriage, one of the most contentious of the bills has been Georgia's HB 757 which among other things would bar government from taking any adverse action against any person or faith-based organization based wholly or in part on the person or organization believing, speaking or acting in accordance with their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman and sexual relations should be reserved to such a union.  The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported yesterday that Georgia's Republican Governor Nathan Deal took a surprisingly strong stand against the legislation:

Amid a growing outcry from powerful corporations over Georgia’s “religious liberty” proposal, Gov. Nathan Deal issued his strongest warning yet to lawmakers who are debating controversial legislation seen as a conservative answer to the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling.

In stark terms, the Republican said he would reject any measure that “allows discrimination in our state in order to protect people of faith,” and urged religious conservatives not to feel threatened by the ruling....

Standing in the lobby of a government building after a ribbon-cutting ceremony, he laid out a lengthy condemnation of the measure from a biblical perspective, first noting that he is a Southern Baptist who took religion courses at Mercer University.

“What the New Testament teaches us is that Jesus reached out to those who were considered the outcasts, the ones that did not conform to the religious societies’ view of the world … We do not have a belief in my way of looking at religion that says we have to discriminate against anybody. If you were to apply those standards to the teaching of Jesus, I don’t think they fit.”

India Effectively Denies Visas To USCIRF Delegation

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom said in a press release yesterday that the government of India has effectively denied visas to a USCIRF delegation that was to visit India to assess religious freedom conditions in that country. India failed to issue requested visas in time for the delegation's scheduled departure today.

Australian Report On Laws That Encroach On Traditional Freedoms

On Wednesday, the Australian Law Reform Commission released  its report titled Traditional Rights and Freedoms—Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws. Chapter 5 of the report deals with Australian laws that may be seen as interfering with freedom of religion, including anti-discrimination laws. Law and Religion Australia blog has more on the report.

2nd Circuit: MTA Rule Change Makes Challenge To Rejection of Anti-Muslim Ad Moot

In American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, (2d Cir., March 3, 2016), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal on mootness grounds of a suit against the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority challenging the MTA's refusal to accept an anti-Islamic ad that a pro-Israel group wished to run on the back of MTA buses.  The ad which portrayed a menacing‐looking man with his face mostly covered by a head scarf included the quote:  "Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah." Then beneath the quote, the ad stated:  "That’s His Jihad.  What’s yours?"  While the case was pending, the MTA changed its property from a designated public forum
to a limited public forum and barred any ad that is "political in nature." (See prior related posting.) New York Post reports on the decision.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Dunn v. Catoe, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22252 (ED TX, Feb. 23, 2016), a Texas federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23148, Jan. 15, 2016) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaints about policies requiring an outside volunteer at religious services, gang members infiltrating Muslim religious meetings, insufficient food when lock downs occur during Ramadan, and denial of the right to wear a beard.

In Vincent v. Stewart, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23304 (WD WA, Feb. 25, 2016), a Washington federal magistrate judge held that unless a proper amendment is filed, she would dismiss a complaint by a Hare Krshna inmate that he has been unable to obtain fresh milk as part of his diet as required by his religious beliefs.

In Todd v. California Department of Corrections, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23338 (ED CA, Feb. 24, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that an inmate be permitted to proceed with free exercise, Establishment Clause and equal protection claims stemming from refusal to recognize Creativity as a religion, denial of a religious diet and banning of the Holy Books of Creativity.

In Fernandez-Torres v. Watts, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23964 (SD GA, Feb. 26. 2016), a Georgia federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate's complaint that he was not allowed to have Santeria Bead Necklaces sent to him by his "spiritual family," and could only obtain them from an approved vendor.

In Thody v. Ives, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24092 (CD CA, Feb. 25, 2016), a California federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24095, Jan. 5, 2016) and dismissed as not congnizable in a habeas corpus action an inmate's complaint that members of their non-Judaist, Messianic, Sabbitarian, Zionist belief group have been denied the right to assemble, teach and practice their religion.

In Schlemm v. Wall, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24332 (WD WI, Feb. 29, 2016), a Wisconsin federal district court held that because of disputed issues of material fact, the case should proceed to trial on claims that an inmate's RLUIPA rights were infringed when he not permitted to serve venison during the annual Native American Ghost Feast; and was prevented from wearing a multicolored bandana while praying or meditating in his cell and during group religious ceremonies.

In Monroe v. Walker, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24475 (D NV, Feb. 26, 2016), a Nevada federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24474, Jan. 11, 2016) and allowed a Muslim inmate to proceed against one of the defendants on his complaint that he was admonished for wearing his religiously approved Kufi and was treated differently than similarly situated Jewish inmates.

Minnesota Federal Judge Creating Innovative Deradicalization Program Aimed At ISIL Recruits

The Minneapolis Star Tribune and MPR News reported yesterday that Minnesota federal district judge Michael J. Davis is setting up an innovative Terrorism Disengagement and Deradicalization Program aimed at deradicalizing defendants convicted of plotting to join ISIS.  Davis has presided over most of the terrorism trials of young Somali-Americans in Minnesota. In court papers filed in the case of four men who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide material support and resources to ISIL, the court says it plans to have the U.S. Probation Office work with a consultant from the German Institute on Radicalization and Deradicalization Studies to recommend an individualized intervention program tailored to each defendant's circumstances and underlying radicalization factors.  The U.S. Attorney's Office is fully supportive of the new initiative.  Defense attorneys have not yet decided whether to accept the plan.

Suit Challenges Cross Decals On Sheriff's Office Patrol Cars

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed suit yesterday against a Texas sheriff who placed 8-inch tall Latin cross decals on six county law enforcement vehicles.  The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Brewster County, Texas, (WD TX, filed 3/2/2016), says that Sheriff Ronny Dodson placed the decals on patrol vehicles because he "wanted God’s protection over his deputies."  The suit contends that this violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as well as Art. I, Sec. 6 of the Texas Constitution.  FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

IRS Releases Financial Data On Charities From 2012 Returns

The Internal Revenue Service in its recently-released Statistics of Income (Winter 2016) discloses extensive financial data regarding Nonprofit Charitable Organizations and Donor-Advised Funds. The data was compiled from Forms 990 and 990-EZ filed for tax year 2012. Non-profit charitable organizations had assets of $3.3 trillion. They received over $1.7 trillion in total revenue (nearly 75% of which came from program services). Charities holding $10 million or more in assets filed only 8% of the tax returns, but accounted for 92% of overall charitable assets.

Church Wins In RLUIPA "Equal Terms" Challenge To Redevelopment Zone Limits

In Summit Church v. Randolph County Development Authority, (ND WV, March 2, 2016), a West Virginia federal district court held that the Randolph County (WV) Development Authority violated the "equal terms" provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act when it refused to sell property in a redevelopment project to a church.  The property was part of a former rail yard being redeveloped for mixed commercial use, reflecting the "the history and culture of the site." The court said in part:

The defendants wholly fail to attempt to define what they believe the “history and culture of the site” even is. It was a railyard.... Therefore, an operating train, a railroad museum or railroad-themed restaurant – which do exist in the current Elkins Railyard – theoretically make sense under the RCDA’s vision. The other existing establishments are nothing more than “medical tenants.... The northern portion of the Railyard... is morphing into something more akin to a medical park. The defendants have not shown, however, how a church would harm the Covenants’ objectives any more than the other permitted uses.

SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments In Texas Abortion Regulation Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in one of the most important abortion cases to reach it in some time, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt.  The full transcript of  today's oral arguments is now available. The case page from SCOTUSblog provides links to the cert. petition, all the briefs, the lower court decision and commentary on the case. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog also has an analysis of this morning's argument. At issue in the case are provisions in a 2013 Texas law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and requiring abortion clinics to meet standards for ambulatory surgical centers.

Pennsylvania Grand Jury Exposes Extensive Sex Abuse By Catholic Diocese Clergy

Yesterday Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane released a 147-page Grand Jury report (full text) on sexual abuse of children by Pennsylvania Catholic clergy.  As summarized in the Attorney General's press release:

A statewide investigating grand jury has determined that hundreds of children were sexually abused over a period of at least 40 years by priests or religious leaders assigned to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, Pennsylvania....

The widespread abuse involved at least 50 priests or religious leaders. Evidence and testimony reviewed by the grand jury also revealed a troubling history of superiors within the Diocese taking action to conceal the child abuse as part of an effort to protect the institution's image.

The Grand Jury concluded its report with 3 recommendations: (1) abolish the statute of limitations for sexual offenses against minors; (2) open a window to allow child sexual abuse victims to have their civil actions heard; and (3) possible criminal conduct should be directly reported to law enforcement authorities. Washington Post has more on the grand jury report.

EEOC Files 2 Suits Alleging Title VII Already Covers Sexual Orientation Discrimination

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed its first two suits in federal court testing its theory that existing laws barring discrimination on the basis of sex cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In an administrative decision under Title VII handed down in July, the EEOC held that "Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is premised on sex-based preferences, assumptions, expectations, stereotypes, or norms." (See prior posting.) Yesterday's suits build on that.  In EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center, P.C., (WD PA, filed 3/1/2016), the complaint (full text) alleges that a gay male employee's manager repeatedly directed anti-gay epithets at him, as well as other highly offensive comments about his sexuality and sex life. In the other suit, EEOC v. Pallet Companies, (D MD, filed 3/1/2016), the complaint (full text) alleges that a lesbian employee was harassed by her supervisor with comments about her sexual orientation and appearance, and was fired in retaliation for complaining. BuzzFeed reports on the lawsuits.

South Dakota Governor Vetoes Bill Restricting Transgender Students' Choice of Bathrooms

South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard yesterday vetoed a bill that would have prohibited public schools from allowing transgender students to use rest rooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. Instead it would have required students to use facilities consistent with their anatomy and chromosomes at birth. (See prior posting.)  In his veto message (full text) Daugaard said in part:

If and when these rare situations arise, I believe local school officials are best positioned to address them.  Instead of encouraging local solutions, this bill broadly regulates in a manner that invites conflict and litigation, diverting energy and resources from the education of the children of this state.

Washington Post reports on the governor's veto.

RICO Lawsuit Filed Against Pastor and Elder of Defunct Megachurch

A civil RICO lawsuit was filed last week against Mark Driscoll, pastor of the now-closed Seattle, Washington, Mars Hill Church.  At its height, the Mars Hill had expanded to 5 states and drew 13,000 attendees on an average Sunday. Also named in the suit filed by 4 former church members was the church's chief elder, John Sutton Turner.  The complaint (full text) in Jacobsen v. Driscoll, (WD WA, filed 2/29/2016), alleges that defendants solicited contributions from thousands of members for specific charitable purposes and then diverted the funds to other purposes, including fraudulent promotion of Driscoll's book, Real Marriage, and for church expansion. Daily Beast reports on the lawsuit and its background:

Mars Hill closed its doors in 2014, following a number of scandals involving allegations of Driscoll’s bullying and spiritual abuse of members and church leaders, misogyny, and homophobia espoused on a church message board, plagiarism, and misuse of church funds—which this lawsuit seeks to redress. Since its closure, the details of the organization’s dissolution have been opaque, with little public accounting, and a group of remaining leaders who have refused to comment on who gets what from the failed enterprise 

Church of Cyprus and Government Reach Salary Subsidy- Land Swap Deal

After 45 years of negotiations, the Church of Cyprus and the Cyprus government have finally reached an agreement on governmental payments of priest salaries in exchange for transfer of land from the Church to the government.  In-Cyprus reported yesterday that the Church will transfer 15,000 acres of land to the government. In exchange the government will fund half the salaries of 700 priests for the next ten years. For each of the 700 priests, the government will pay the church the equivalent of $733 per month.  The land being transferred is valued at the equivalent of $304 million.

Court May Decide Church Affiliation Dispute

In Ohio District Council, Inc. of the Assemblies of God v. Speelman, (OH App., Feb. 29, 2016), an Ohio state appeals court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not prevent civil courts from adjudicating the validity of action by a local church, known as Christian Assembly, disaffiliating itself from Assemblies of God and instead merging with (and transferring its property to) Fellowship of Praise Church of God.  After Christian Assembly took this action, Assemblies of God adopted a resolution declaring that it still had jurisdiction over the church and purporting to remove its pastor Dennis Speelman.  In holding that the trial court can decide the dispute, the appeals court said in part:

A judicial determination with respect to the significance of Christian Assembly’s affiliation involves no ecclesiastical issues. Here, the parties have presented evidence of constitutions, by-laws, applications for affiliation, as well as ample testimony regarding the structure of the presbytery. The resolution of that matter does not involve the weighing of any controversies concerning religious doctrines, tenets, or practices....

The trial court was not called upon to determine whether Speelman should be pastor or to determine matters of religious concern. Rather, the trial court was called upon to determine which body was authorized to make those determinations and to defer to the determination of the authorized body. 

Sikh Army Captain Sues Seeking Religious Accommodation

U.S. Army Captain Simratpal Singh, a Sikh, filed suit yesterday in federal district court in the District of Columbia seeking an injunction to require the Army to allow him to continue to serve without requiring him to shave, cut his hair or remove his turban.  According to the complaint (full text) and memorandum in support of application for a TRO and preliminary injunction (full text), Singh was granted a temporary accommodation last December (see prior posting), but as its March 31 expiration approached Singh was ordered to report for special helmet testing and several days of safety-mask testing. No one else in the army has been subjected to this kind of testing.  According to the complaint, "the Army’s discriminatory testing and regulations expose Captain Singh to serious consequences of military discipline and the loss of his career for his religious exercise." The complaint alleges violations of RFRA as well as of the 1st and 5th Amendments.  Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

China Charges Human Rights Lawyer Criminally

Radio Free Asia reported yesterday that Chinese authorities have now arrested a Chinese human rights lawyer on criminal charges after he assisted Protestant churches in resisting an urban "improvement" campaign that required removal of their roof-top crosses:

Zhang Kai's initial period of detention in an unknown location under "residential surveillance" reached the end of its six-month limit last week, and the lawyer was immediately held instead under criminal detention on suspicion of "disturbing public order" and "endangering state secrets," a fellow lawyer told RFA....

Chinese media aired footage of Zhang last Friday "confessing" to the charges, and accused U.S.-based Christian rights group ChinaAid of supporting him.

The confession appears to have been coerced.

Cert. Denied In Challenge To N.J. Conversion Therapy Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied certiorari in Doe v. Christie, (Docket No. 15-195, cert. denied 2/20/2016) (Order List.)  In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a New Jersey statute that prohibits mental health professionals from engaging in "sexual orientation change efforts" with minors. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release on the Court's action.

Cert Denied In Prisoner Free Exercise Case Over Alito's Dissenting Opinion

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Ben-Levi v. Brown, (Docket No. 14-1086, cert. denied 2/29/2016) over a lengthy dissent to denial of review by Justice Alito (at pg. 39 of Order List). In the case, the lower courts (district court, 4th Cir.) upheld a rule of the North Carolina prison system which requires either a minyan (ten participants) or the presence of a qualified leader (such as a rabbi) in order for a Jewish Bible study group to meet.  Other religious groups were allowed to meet without a specified number of participants or an outside volunteer.  The prison system's rule for Jewish inmates was based on the prison system's understanding of Jewish religious doctrine. Dissenting from the denial of review, Justice Alito wrote:

In essence, respondent’s argument—which was accepted by the courts below—is that Ben-Levi’s religious exercise was not burdened because he misunderstands his own religion..... The argument that a plaintiff’s own interpretation of his or her religion must yield to the government’s interpretation is foreclosed by our precedents.... Even assuming that respondent accurately identified the requirements for a group Torah study under Jewish doctrine—and that is not at all clear—federal courts have no warrant to evaluate “‘the validity of [Ben-Levi’s] interpretations.’”

[Thanks to Marty Lederman via Religionlaw for the lead.] 

Justice Department Investigating Mosque Zoning Dispute In Nebraska

According to yesterday's Omaha World-Herald, the U.S. Justice Department is investigating complaints by leaders of a mosque in Lexington, Nebraska, that the town is burdening their religious freedom in raising zoning objections to the use of a former downtown laundry building for Muslim prayer.  Somali workers from a local meat packing plant use the building for prayer 5 times a day. The paper reports:

City officials maintain that mosque leaders are ignoring local zoning laws and thumbing their noses at requirements for building permits and fire-code inspections.

They insist that the flap is about a lack of parking, not a denial of religious freedom, and that it wasn’t spurred by “Islamophobia.”

.... We’re just trying to plan and redevelop that part of our town,” said Lexington City Manager Joe Pepplitsch.... Let’s find an alternative.”

But local Muslim leaders question why a community that has hosted waves of immigrants seems to be taking such a hard line against them. They had gathered for prayers in two smaller buildings for eight years before expanding into and later buying the larger laundry next door. They see plenty of empty parking stalls nearby at two city-owned lots.

State Exception To Priest-Penitent Privilege Violates Louisiana Religious Freedom Act

The Baton Rouge Advocate reports on a Louisiana state trial court decision handed down on Friday that upholds, on religious freedom grounds, a priest's right to refuse to disclose confidential information regarding sexual abuse of minors received during confession. The court invalidated a provision in LA Children's Code Sec. 609(A)(1) which requires clergy to report abuse or neglect that threatens a child's physical or mental health or welfare, notwithstanding any privilege.  Apparently relying on Louisiana's Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, the court held that while the state has a compelling interest in protecting children from abuse, this is not the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The decision by Judge Mike Caldwell comes in a suit by Rebecca Mayeaux, now 22, who says that in 2008 she told Rev. Jeff Bayhi during confession that she was being abused by a 64-year old parishioner. Under the ruling, Mayeaux will be able to testify about what she told Bayhi, but her attorneys will not be permitted to argue to the jury that Bayhi was required to report her allegations to authorities.  The ruling is subject to immediate appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court.  The lawsuit, originally filed in 2009, has already been up to the state Supreme Court once. (See prior posting.)

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Kif Augustine-Adams, Religious Exemptions to Title IX, (February 19, 2016).
• Matthew W. Bourda, Turning the Water to Blood: How Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Drove the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act Out of Touch with Society, (41 T. Marshall L. Rev. Online 160 (2016)).
• Levi Cooper, Legislation for Education: The Munkács Regulations Enacted by Rabbi Tsevi Elimelekh of Dynów, (Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry 30 (2017), Forthcoming).
• Shaun Alberto de Freitas, Religious Associational Rights and Sexual Conduct in South Africa: Towards the Furtherance of the Accommodation of a Diversity of Beliefs, (February 20, 2016).
• Asim Jusic, From Formal Equality to Positive Neutrality to Positive Inferiority (for Some): The European Court of Human Rights’ Limited Influence on Constitutional Changes and Religion in Hungary, (Vienna Journal of International Constitutional Law, Vol. 10, 2016).
• Mohamed A. Arafa, Insights on Divine (Islamic) Law: Islamophobia versus Terrorism, Death Penalty, and Transitional Justice, (CALUMET: Intercultural Law & Humanities Review (Online) 2016).
• Kristine S, Knaplund, Becoming Charitable: Predicting and Encouraging Charitable Bequests in Wills, (77 U. Pitt. L. Rev. (Fall 2015).

From SSRN (Marriage):

• Robin Bradley Kar, Against Marriage Essentialism: A Legal Grounding for Obergefell and Same-Sex Marriage, (University of Illinois Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Gregg Strauss, The Positive Right to Marry, (February 24, 2016).
• Kaiponanea T. Matsumura, A Right Not to Marry, (Fordham Law Review, Vol. 84, 2016).

El Al Sued In Israel Over Gender-Based Reseating To Accommodate Religious Objections

A widely anticipated test case has been filed in court in Israel against El Al Airlines over its practice of accommodating Orthodox Jewish men who, for religious reasons, refuse to sit beside unrelated female passengers. New York Times reported Friday on the discrimination suit filed by the Israel Religious Action Center on behalf of 81-year old Renee Rabinowitz who was pressured by a flight attendant to change seats on a flight from Newark to Tel Aviv.  Rabinowitz is described by the Times as "a sharp-witted retired lawyer with a Ph.D. in educational psychology, who escaped the Nazis in Europe as a child." Rabinowitz moved to Israel from the United States some ten years ago.  Both her second and first husbands were rabbis. The Religious Action Center had been looking for at test case where it was clear that flight attendants, as opposed to passengers alone, were involved in the seating change.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Shehee v. Ahlin, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22708 (ED CA, Feb. 24, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a suit by a Hindu civil detainee that he was denied his religious vegan diet.

In Perez v. Watts, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20497 (SD GA, Feb. 19, 2016), a Georgia federal district court adopted (as supplemented by the court) a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173384, Dec. 31, 2015) and dismissed monetary damage claims brought by a Santeria inmate claiming interference with his ability to practice his religion. (See prior related posting.)

In Powell v. Morris, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20971 (D MS, Feb. 22, 2016), a Mississippi federal magistrate judge dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was not provided halal meals or Taleem study classes.

In Blalock v. Jacobsen, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21168 (SD NY, Feb. 22, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint about limits on his ability to have has prison-issued pants shortened to comply with religious principles.

In Avery v. Elia, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21367 (ED CA, Feb. 19, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint of a Wiccan inmate that he was not permitted to ceremonially burn wood in a fire pit.

In Cary v. Robinson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20876 (WD MI, Feb. 22, 2016), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21810, Feb. 2, 2016)  and permitted a Native American inmate to move ahead with his free exercise and equal protection challenges to confiscation and desecration of his medicine bag.

In Johnson v. Brown, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20929 (ND AL, Feb. 22, 2016), an Alabama federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21916, Feb. 1, 2016) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint regarding limitation of Sunnah inmates' access to the "Masjid" classroom and occasional interruption of religious services.

In Ramos v. Department of Corrections, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22311 (D CT, Feb. 24, 2016), a Connecticut federal district court allowed an inmate who is a member of the Santeria religion to move ahead with his complaint that his free exercise and equal protection rights were infringed when he was not allowed to possess tarot cards to practice his religion.

In Cruz v. Collins, 2016 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 194 (MA App., Feb. 25, 2016), a Massachusetts state appeals court reversed a trial court's dismissal of a RLUIPA claim by a Nation of Islam inmate challenging limits on his access to  use classroom space to pray and study throughout the week.

In Hays v. Helder, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23093 (WD AR, Feb. 25, 2016), an Arkansas federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation and dismissed (partly on res judicata grounds) a complaint by a member of the Cherokee Indian faith that he was denied access to his medicine bag.

Title IX Religious Organization Exemption Does Not Bar Retaliation Claim Against Catholic High School

In Goodman v. Archbishop Curley High School, Inc., (D MD, Feb. 26, 2016), a Maryland federal district court refused to dismiss a former high school librarian's Title IX retaliation claim against the Catholic high school from which she was fired.  Librarian Annette Goodman reported to the school's administration evidence that another faculty member was having a sexual affair with one of the school's students. The school fired Goodman claiming that she delayed too long reporting her concerns to the school. Goodman says the firing was an attempt to deflect attention from the school's indifference to sexual abuse.  The court rejected the school's claim that Title IX's religious organizations exemption requires dismissal of Goodman's lawsuit, saying in part:

The position of the Defendants ... is that Title IX’s religious organizations exemption bars any employment discrimination or retaliation claim against them if they define their actions as tenets of their religion. There is a noticeable lack of case authority supporting such a broad application of the religious exemption.

The court also rejected defendants' claims that their rights under the First Amendment and RFRA would be violated by allowing the suit to move forward.

Church Fails In RLUIPA Challenge To Village's Zoning Ordinance

In Truth Foundation Ministries, NFP v. Village of Romeoville, (ND IL, Feb. 26, 2016), an Illinois federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to a small congregation serving mainly African immigrants that found itself in violation of the village's zoning code after it had spent over $50,000 expanding a building it was leasing for use as a church.  The court concluded that the church had failed to show a substantial likelihood of success in its claim that the town's zoning requirements violate RLUIPA's complete exclusion, unreasonable exclusion and equal terms provisions.

Trump Pledges To Work To Eliminate Ban on Religious Non-Profits Endorsing Candidates

In a news conference in Ft. Worth, Texas today, Republican candidate Donald Trump-- saying that Christians are afraid to have a lobby because it threatens their tax exempt status-- pledged to work to eliminate the Johnson amendment that prevents non-profits, including religious non-profits, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. (Video of news conference, this portion at 1:44).  This came after evangelical Pastor Robert Jeffress endorsed Trump at the news conference (video at 1:42).

Trump Speculates Audit of His Tax Returns Stems From Religious Discrimination

As reported by Politico, during last night's contentious CNN Republican presidential debate Donald Trump said that he has not released his tax returns because they are the subject of a routine IRS audit. Then in an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo immediately following the debate, Trump said:

But the one problem I have is that I’m always audited by the IRS, which I think is very unfair. I don’t know, maybe because of religion, maybe because I’m doing something else, maybe because I’m doing this, although this is just recently.

Cuomo followed up asking Trump what he meant by religion, and Trump responded:

Well maybe because of the fact that I’m a strong Christian, and I feel strongly about it. And maybe there’s a bias.  You see what’s happened. I mean, you have many religious groups have been complaining about that. They’ve been complaining about it for a long time.

Data On Religious Affiliation of Super Tuesday Voters

The Pew Research Center yesterday compiled data in post titled A Closer Look At Religion in the Super Tuesday States.  It reports in part:

Overall, nearly half of all people in the 12 Super Tuesday states who identify as or lean toward the Republican Party (47%) are evangelical Protestants....

Massachusetts, one of the five states outside the South to vote Tuesday, is the biggest exception to this trend; only 10% of Massachusetts Republicans are evangelicals, while fully half (50%) are Catholics....

Among Democrats, people with no religious affiliation are the largest group in three of the 11 states that will vote Tuesday....

Members of historically black Protestant churches also are a key Democratic constituency.... 

Evangelicals are the single biggest group among Democrats in Tennessee (39%), and they make up 20% of all Democrats in the 11 states that will vote Tuesday.

In Massachusetts (27%) and Texas (26%), about a quarter of Democrats are Catholics; in Texas, the overwhelming majority of Catholic Democrats (79%) are Hispanic....

FFRF Sues Over Governor's Removal of Bill of Rights "Nativity" Display

As previously reported, last December Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, as chairman of the Texas State Preservation Board, forced the executive director of the Board to remove from the state capitol rotunda a previously-approved display by the Freedom From Religion Foundation of a Bill of Rights "nativity" scene.  The display included figures of the founding fathers and a sign about the Winter solstice. The Governor complained that the display mocks Christians and Christianity. Yesterday, FFRF filed a lawsuit challenging the governor's action and requesting a declaratory judgment, injunction and nominal damages. The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Abbott,  (WD TX, filed 2/25/2016), contends:

Defendants have violated the Plaintiff’s Free Speech, Equal Protection and Due Process rights, and ... have violated the Establishment Clause, by removing and excluding the Plaintiff’s protected speech, a display, from a public forum, because of the content of the Plaintiff’s speech.

FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Amicus Briefs Supporting Government In Zubik Case Are Filed

Feb. 17 was the deadline to file amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the government's position in Zubik v. Burwell and its companion cases which challenge the accommodation for religious non-profits that object to the contraceptive coverage mandate under the Affordable Care Act.  21 amicus briefs were filed, and SCOTUSblog has links to most of them, as well as to the amicus briefs supporting petitioner which where due last month. (See prior posting.) Oral argument is set for March 23. With the death of Justice Scalia, the possibility of an evenly divided court is present.  That would affirm the Circuit Court decisions in all 7 of the cases in which review was granted.

Airline Faces Religious Objection To In-Flight Movie

According to Haaretz, Israel's El Al Airlines yesterday faced an unruly passenger demand for religious accommodation.  On a flight from Warsaw, Poland to Tel Aviv, an ultra-Orthodox Jewish passenger objected that the in-flight movie being shown was immodest.  He began pushing and striking at the screens showing it, breaking two of them. The movie was "Truth," an "R" rated film starring Cate Blanchett, Robert Redford and Dennis Quaid.  El Al has faced at least one prior incident of passengers objecting to the in-flight movies, and a number of times has faced religious demands by passengers for sex-segregated seating assignments. (See prior related posting.)

Feds Indict FLDS Leaders On Food Stamp Fraud Charges

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Utah announced on Tuesday the unsealing of an indictment against eleven leaders and members of the polygamous FLDS Church charging them with conspiracy to commit food stamp fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.  (Full text of indictment in United States v. Jeffs). According to the U.S. Attorney's Office:

The indictment alleges church leaders diverted SNAP proceeds from authorized beneficiaries to leaders of the FLDS Church for use by ineligible beneficiaries and for unapproved purposes. A large percentage of FLDS Church members living in the Hildale, Utah – Colorado City, Arizona, community known as Short Creek receive SNAP benefits, amounting to millions of dollars in benefits per year.

Essentially, FLDS leaders required food stamp recipients to donate their benefits to a central clearing house which then redistributed food and household items to all in the community, whether or not they were food-stamp eligible. The indictment includes counts seeking criminal forfeiture of assets.  Daily Beast  reports further on the indictments.

Housing Crunch For Orthodox Jews In New Jersey Places Focus On Real Estate Practices [UPDATED]

AP reported yesterday on the influx of ultra-Orthodox Jews into the town of Lakewood, New Jersey and surrounding communities.  AP reports that the influx is of Hasidic Jews, but as a commenter on Twitter to an earlier version of this post points out, the Jews in Lakewood, and the yeshiva that attracts them are largely in the Orthodox Lithuanian Jewish ("Yeshivish") tradition, not Hasidic. Nevertheless here is AP's report:

A housing crunch in Lakewood, home to one of the nation’s largest populations of Hasidic Jews, has triggered what residents of neighboring communities say are overly aggressive, all-hours solicitations from agents looking to find homes for the rapidly growing Jewish community.

The complaints have prompted towns, including Toms River, to update their “no-knock” rules and related laws, adding real estate inquiries to measures that already limit when soliciting can occur and allow residents to bar solicitations.

But Jewish leaders and others say the no-knock laws unfairly target Orthodox Jews and those seeking to help them find houses. Many current residents came to the community to study at one of the largest yeshivas in the world and eventually settled down....

On the other hand, some of the solicitation activity is reminiscent of the kind of activity that led to the federal Fair Housing Act's ban on "blockbusting."  42 USC Sec. 3604(e) makes it illegal:

For profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

AP describes one homeowner's experience:

James Jackson didn’t want to sell his home but thanked the black-suited man for his interest anyway.

That’s when the man put his hand on Jackson’s shoulder and told him he might want to reconsider. Many of his neighbors in the New Jersey shore town of Toms River, the man said, already planned to sell to Jewish buyers like those he represented.

“He asked me why I would want to live in a Hasidic neighborhood if I wasn’t Hasidic,” Jackson recalled. “He asked if I would really be happy, if it would be in my family’s best interests.”

Indiana City Strengthens LGBT Anti-Discrimination Protections

As reported by the Evansville Courier & Press, Evansville, Indiana city council on Monday, by a 7-2 vote, passed Ordinance G-2016-05 (full text) which expands anti-discrimination protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals.  Previously the city banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, but the city's Human Relations Commission essentially lacked enforcement power. Investigation and mediation were solely voluntary on the part of the parties. The new ordinance gives the Human Relations Commission the same enforcement powers in cases of LGBT discrimination, as in discrimination on other bases. The new ordinance however also enacts new exemptions from the city's anti-discrimination provisions.  It exempts religious and religiously affiliated organizations, as well as private social clubs. City Council rejected proposed broader exemptions for individuals and non-profits with a "religious conscience."

Religious Beliefs of Presidential Candidates Continue To Be Focus of Interest

International Business Times yesterday reviewed the religious faiths of each of the remaining candidates in the Republican and Democratic races for President of the United States, saying:

Some of the candidates’ paths to faith are more complicated than others, as they either deepened or found their faith at different points in their lives. Here we take a look at how each candidate identifies religiously, as well as at the religions of their children, spouses and parents.

Candidates' religious beliefs continue to spark controversy and interest.  As reported by the Wall Street Journal, candidate Ted Cruz yesterday dismissed his communications director Rick Tyler who had been his chief spokesman after Tyler posted on social media a video that misquoted a remark by rival Marco Rubio.  The misquote suggested that Rubio did not think the Bible had many answers in it, when in fact Rubio had said just the opposite.

Meanwhile last week, The Forward published an interesting opinion piece by Rabbi Valerie Lieber titled We Need To Out Bernie Sanders As A Jew-- For His Own Good.

Advocacy Organization Launches New Name and Website

The religious freedom advocacy organization Liberty Institute announced last week that it has changed its name to First Liberty Institute. The change is intended to emphasize the organization's focus on religious liberty. It has also launched a newly designed website with a new URL. First Liberty has released its 2016 edition of Undeniable: The Survey of Hostility to Religion in America. (full text).

UC Irvine Rejects Endowed Chairs in Religious Studies Because of Donor Restrictions

The University of California Irvine is rejecting some $6 million in contributions to create four endowed chairs relating to the religions and history of India. Inside Higher Ed reports that an Ad Hoc Committee on Endowed Chairs in the School of Humanities has recommended against the chairs because the agreements establishing them "include language that is not consistent with University policies related to religious and academic freedom."  (Full text of committee's report).  The report recommends rejection, regardless of agreement modifications, of two chairs proposed by the Dharma Civilization Foundation (DCF)-- one a chair in Indic and Vedic Civilization Studies and a second in Modern India Studies-- because "DCF is unusually explicit and prescriptive on appropriate disciplinary formations, what constitutes good or acceptable scholarship, and, indeed, what constitutes good or acceptable scholars."  According to Inside Higher Ed, The Dharma Civilization Foundation is:

a California entity that seeks to fund the academic study and teaching of Indian religions as a corrective to what it describes as widespread misrepresentations of Hinduism by scholars who do not practice the religion.

The Committee also recommended that two other proposed chairs endowed by families-- one chair in Jain Studies and one in Sikh Studies-- be returned to the dean's office for further review.  The Dean of the School of Humanities accepted all the recommendations.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• George Mader, Binding Authority: Unamendability in the United States Constitution — A Textual and Historical Analysis, (Marquette Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Nathan S. Chapman, The Establishment Clause, State Action, and Town of Greece, (William & Mary Bill of Rights, Vol. 24, 2015).
• Adam Lamparello, Contextualizing the Free Exercise of Religion, (February 16, 2016).
• Harry G. Hutchison, Hobby Lobby, Corporate Law, and Unsustainable Liberalism: A Reply to Judge Strine, (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 39, 2016).
• Leo E. Strine, Criminal Justice and (a) Catholic Conscience, (Santa Clara Law Review, Vol. 56, 2016, Forthcoming).
• Michael W. McConnell & Luke W. Goodrich, On Resolving Church Property Disputes, (Arizona Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Annalee Hickman Moser, We Believe in Being Honest: Dependency Exemptions for LDS Missionaries, (December 1, 2015).
• Twana A. Hassan, A Historical Analysis of the Development of Free Speech Justifications, (The Journal Jurisprudence, Vol. 28 (2015), 487-506).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. and Comparative Law):

• Omar Salah & Christa Rautenbach, Islamic Finance: A Corollary to Legal Pluralism or Legal Diversity in South Africa and the Netherlands?, (Comparative and International Law of Southern Africa, Forthcoming).
• David M. Tanovich, J(TR): Time to Remove Religion From the Oath, ((2014) 6 Criminal Reports (7th) 211-214)).
• Shalu Nigam, The Privileges of Being a Hindu, Upper Caste and Elite Class, Male in India, (February 10, 2016).
• Francesco Duranti, The Constitutional Reform on State-Church Relationships, (Two Centuries of Norwegian Constitution: Between Tradition and Innovation - Edited by Giuseppe Franco Ferrari - Eleven International Publishing, 2015).
• Sean T. Murphy, Submission to the Special Joint Committee on Physician Assisted Dying, (January 31, 2016).
• Irene Merker Rosenberg & Yale L. Rosenberg, Comparative American and Talmudic Criminal Law, (2016).

From SmartCILP:

• Monica Garcia-Salmones Rovira, Faith, Ritual and Rebellion in 21st Century (Positivist) International Law. (Reviewing Jorge Kammerhofer, Uncertainty in International Law: A Kelsenian Perspective; Jean d'Aspremont, Formalism and the Sources of International Law: A Theory of the Ascertainment of Legal Rules; International Legal Positivism in a Post-Modern World, edited by Jorge Kammerhofer and Jean d'Aspremont) 26 European Journal of International Law 537-555 (2015).
• Mark Strasser, Definitions, Religion, and Free Exercise Guarantees, 51 Tulsa Law Review 1-38 (2015).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Mu'min v. Wingard, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18479 (WD PA, Feb. 16, 2016), a California federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was denied the use of his legal religious name by the religious librarian.

In Simmons v. Upton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18421 (SD GA, Feb. 16, 2016), a Georgia federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies a Muslim inmate's  complaint that the new inmate religious practices policy violated his free exercise rights.

In Watson v. Pressley, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17355 (D SC, Feb. 11, 2016), a South Carolina federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17994, Jan. 21, 2016) and dismissed an inmate's complaints about restrictions on various of his Muslim religious practices.

[CORRECTION] In Hilson v. Beaury, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19844 (ND NY, Feb. 17, 2016), a New York federal district court refused, on the ground of qualified immunity, to allow an inmate to move ahead with his complaint over delay in processing his request to change his religion from Protestant to Muslim. UPDATE:This part of the recommendation was adopted by the court at 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35058, March 18, 2016.

In Clark v. Davis, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19971 (ND CA, Feb.17, 2016), a California federal district court dismissed allowed an inmate's complaint regarding prior prison rules on confidentiality of clergy relationships with death row inmates.

In Trapani v. Pullen, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20500 (ND NY, Feb. 17, 2016), a New York federal district court allowed a Jewish inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was deprived of kosher meals for a two week period.

Trump's Week of Controversial Religious Allusions

Donald Trump tonight won the South Carolina Republican primary, capping a week in which his religious rhetoric has sparked controversy.  On Thursday, Trump clashed with Pope Francis.  As reported by CNN:

One of the more unlikely battles to jolt a presidential campaign emerged Thursday when Pope Francis said Trump is "not Christian" if he wants to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump, true to form, shot back that the pontiff's comments were "disgraceful."

But by Thursday evening, the GOP front-runner was doing something unusual: de-escalating a fight.

"I don't like fighting with the Pope," Trump said at a GOP town hall in South Carolina hosted by CNN. "I like his personality; I like what he represents."

Trump called the Pope a "wonderful guy" and blamed the day's drama on the press.

Yesterday at a rally in South Carolina, Trump invoked a probably inaccurate story that has circulated on the Internet for years. As reported by the Washington Post:

As the crowd cheered him on, Trump told them about Pershing — “rough guy, rough guy” — who was fighting terrorism in the early 1900s. Trump didn't say where this happened, but variations of this story online usually state that it happened in the Philippines during the Philippine-American War — part of the island nation's protracted battle for independence — early in Pershing’s career.

“They were having terrorism problems, just like we do,” Trump said. “And he caught 50 terrorists who did tremendous damage and killed many people. And he took the 50 terrorists, and he took 50 men and he dipped 50 bullets in pigs’ blood — you heard that, right? He took 50 bullets, and he dipped them in pigs’ blood. And he had his men load his rifles, and he lined up the 50 people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the 50th person, he said: You go back to your people, and you tell them what happened. And for 25 years, there wasn’t a problem...."

Finally, this morning as Vice-President Joe Biden, rather than President Barack Obama, attended Justice Scalia's funeral mass, Donald Trump tweeted:

I wonder if President Obama would have attended the funeral of Justice Scalia if it were held in a Mosque? Very sad that he did not go!

Prayer At School Board Meetings Governed By School Prayer Criteria

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education, (CD CA, Feb. 18, 2016), a California federal district court, in a 26-page opinion, held that invocations at school board meetings are governed by case law relating to school prayer, not by the line of cases on legislative prayer. Emphasizing that students regularly attend and make presentations at school board meetings, the court found the invocation policy unconstitutional, saying in part:

Because of the distinct risk of coercing students to participate in, or at least acquiesce to, religious exercises in the public school context, the Court finds the legislative exception does not apply to the policy and practice of prayer in Chino Valley School Board meetings.

The court also invalidated the Board’s practice of praying reading from the Bible and making religious statements at various points in school board meetings. (Court's order).  FFRF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Court Rejects Free Exercise Defense To Federal Cockfighting Conviction

In United States v. Olney, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19947 (ED WA, Feb. 18, 2016), a Washington federal district court, after a bench trial, convicted Shane Scott Olney of sponsoring an Unlawful Animal Fighting Venture in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2156(a)(1). The court rejected defendant's claim

that as a baptized Catholic, and an enrolled member of the Yakama Nation, he "has a sincerely held religious belief that the Holy Scriptures quoted in Genesis 1:26-28 ... entitles him to rule over his fighting roosters, to breed them, exhibit them, train them, and to present them for gamecock fighting."....

The court explained:

Aside from the fact that the conduct Defendant claims to be protected is not the conduct for which he was tried and convicted, the Court finds the federal statute at issue does not unconstitutionally encroach upon his First Amendment rights....

The Court finds that the statute at issue is a neutral law of general applicability and thus, it is reviewed for a rational basis.... Here, the statute is related to prevention of cruelty to animals and thus, survives rational basis review.

Former Employee's Fraud Claim Against Diocese Dismissed

In Simon v. Finn, (MO Cir. Ct., Feb. 16, 2016), a Missouri state trial court dismissed a fraud claim against the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City- St. Joseph brought by Colleen Simon, formerly the director for social ministries of a local parish.  Simon was dismissed after a newspaper article disclosed that she was in a same-sex marriage.  While Simon claimed that she was falsely assured by the Diocese that her same-sex marriage would not impact her employment, the court said:

For the Court to inquire into the knowing falsity of the Diocesan agents’ ... representations to Plaintiff about her sexual orientation relative to her position in the Diocese would impermissibly entangle the Court in matters and decisions purely canonical, since the Court must necessarily examine the religious views and practices of the Diocese in an attempt to perceive the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s reliance on the Diocese’s representations.

However the court permitted Simon to move ahead with her claim that the Diocese violated Missouri law requiring it to furnish any former employee requesting it a letter describing his or her service. It also permitted Simon to move ahead with her wage and hour claim. ADF issued a press release announcing the court's decision.

UPDATE: Catholic Culture reported Feb. 23 that the Diocese and Simon have entered an undisclosed settlement of the wage and hour and the severance letter claims.

11th Circuit Upholds Contraceptive Mandate Accommodation, But Delays Enforcement Pending SCOTUS Decision

Yesterday in a consolidated appeal of cases coming from Alabama and Georgia, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision upheld the Obama Administration's accommodation for religious non-profits that object to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate.  In Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v. Burwell, (11th Cir., Feb. 18, 2016), the majority, in an 86-page opinion by Judge Pryor, held that the accommodation does not violate the protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because it does not substantially burden the religious exercise of non-profits.  Alternatively the majority concluded that the government has met RFRA's compelling interest and least restrictive means tests. Judge Pryor, in a n 86-page majority opinion, said in part:

We recognize that the plaintiffs sincerely abhor and object to the subsequent acts taken by the government and their TPA [third party administrator], which ultimately result in the TPA providing contraceptive coverage to their plan participants and beneficiaries. We acknowledge that they “may not accept [the] distinction” that we draw here between their conduct and the downstream, separate conduct of HHS and the TPAs to provide coverage.... But we simply cannot say that RFRA affords the plaintiffs the right to prevent women from obtaining contraceptive coverage to which federal law entitles them based on the de minimis burden that the plaintiffs face in notifying the government that they have a religious objection. 

Judge Anderson filed a 3-page concurring opinion focusing on the "less restrictive means" issue.

Judge Tjoflat, in a 55-page dissent, said in part:

If the substantial-burden test were as the majority believes it to be, federal judges would have to decide whether the burden itself substantially violated the adherent’s beliefs. That is, the majority would necessarily shift the gaze of its “objective inquiry” to the merits of religious belief. In this Bizarro World, it would be secular courts making ex cathedra pronouncements on whether Muslims are truly put out by requirements to shave their beards...., whether Seventh-day Adventists are sufficiently deterred from accepting employment by requirements to work on Saturdays..., whether Santeria priests could just make do without ritual sacrifice or Ache-infused beads and shells..., and whether the sacramental use of peyote is really that big of a deal to members of the Native American Church.... But, of course, the Constitution does not vest in the judiciary the authority to declare winners and losers in matters of faith.

Despite the majority's views on the merits, it stayed enforcement of the accommodation against plaintiffs pending the Supreme Court's decision later this term on the identical issue in Zubik v. Burwell.  Daily Report has more on the decision.

Canadian Clergy Sex Abuse Class Action Settled For $30 Milliion

The National Post reports that a court in Quebec has approved a $30 million settlement-- the largest in a clergy sex abuse case in Quebec history.  The case-- a class action brought in 2012-- alleged that at least 60 deaf students at the Catholic Church-run Montreal Institute for the Deaf (a boy's boarding school) were abused between 1940 and 1982. The suit named 28 members of the Clercs de St. Viateur du Canada and 6 lay people working at the school as offenders.