Supreme Court Denies Review In Oklahoma License Plate Controversy

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied certorari in Cressman v. Thompson,  (Docket No. 15-709, cert. denied 3/21/2016) (Order List). In the case, the 10th Circuit rejected a compelled speech challenge to Oklahoma's vehicle license plates whose design show a Native American shooting an arrow towards the sky. Plaintiff claimed that the depiction is based on a Native American legend, and in violation of his Christian beliefs the depiction teaches there are multiple gods and that the arrow is an intermediary for prayer. (See prior posting.) AP reports on the Court's denial of review. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Frederick Mark Gedicks, The Religious-Question Doctrine: Free-Exercise Right or Anti-Establishment Immunity?, (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2016/10, March 2016).
• Nathan B. Oman, Doux Commerce, Religion, and The Limits of Antidiscrimination Law, (Indiana Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Shannon Gilreath & Arley Ward, Same-Sex Marriage, Religious Accommodation, and the Race Analogy, (Wake Forest Univ. Legal Studies Paper March 2016).
• Stuart Chinn, Finding Common Ground Across Race and Religion: Judicial Conceptions of Political Community in Public Schools, (Utah Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Richard Moon, The Accreditation of Trinity Western University's Law Program, (Law Matters (CBA - Alberta), Summer 2015).
• Jeremiah A. Ho, Once We're Done Honeymooning: Obergefell v. Hodges, Incrementalism, and Advances for Sexual Orientation Anti-Discrimination, (Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 104, 2016).
• Anshul Kumar Pandey & Nilotpal Bansal, Mutilating the Past -- The Islamic State and the Last Song of History, (Februrary 19, 2016).

From SmartCILP:

• Henry L.Chambers, Jr., Telescoping and Collectivizing Religious Free Exercise Rights, 75 Maryland Law Review 392-414 (2015).
• John W. Compton, Evangelical Reform and the Paradoxical Origins of the Right to Privacy, 75 Maryland Law Review 362-382 (2015).
• Hon. Kermit V. Lipez, George Washington, Elena Kagan, and the Town of Greece, New York: The First Amendment and Religious Minorities, [Abstract], 16 Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 1-14 (2015).
• Loren F. Selznick, Running Mom and Pop Businesses By the Good Book: The Scope of Religious Rights of Business Owners, 78 Albany Law Review 1353-1392 (2014/2015).
• Symposium: Victoria Saker Woeste's Henry Ford's War on Jews and the Legal Battle Against Hate Speech. Introduction by Donna C. Schuele; essays by Aviam Soifer, Carroll Seron, Clyde Spillenger and Victoria Saker Woeste. 40 Law & Social Inquiry 1032-1079 (2015).

Recent Books:

• Daniel O. Conkle. Religion, Law, and the Constitution (Concepts and Insights Series), (Foundation Press, March 2016).
• Shanruo Ning Zhang, Confucianism in Contemporary Chinese Politics: An Actionable Account of Authoritarian Political Culture, (Lexington Books, March 2016).

Israel's Attorney General Says Bill Restoring Orthodox Control of Mikvehs Is Invalid

As previously reported, last month a 3-judge panel of Israel's High Court of Justice held that state-funded mikvehs  (ritual bath facilities) operated by Orthodox-controlled religious councils must be open for use by the Conservative and Reform Jewish movements for their conversion ceremonies as well as for Orthodox conversions. (See prior posting.)  In response, a bill was introduced into the Knesset (Parliament) by a member of the Orthodox United Torah Judaism Party to reverse the Court's ruling by requiring mikvehs to be run in accordance with Jewish law as interpreted by the ultra-Orthodox Chief Rabbinate.  The bill passed its preliminary reading in the Knesset last week.  Haaretz reports that yesterday Israel's Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit submitted a legal opinion to the government concluding that the bill is invalid because it violates the rights to freedom of religion, human dignity and equality.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Helling v. Johnson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30874 (ED WI, March 9, 2016), a Wisconsin federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was not permitted to read his Quran in his jail cell, but had to go to a dirty holding cell to do so, while other inmates could read their Bibles in their own cells.

In Bishop v. Jesson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30395 (D MN, March 9, 2016), a Minnesota federal district court accepted a magistrate's recommendations (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31142, Feb. 12, 2016) and permitted a detainee in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program to move ahead on a number of his state and federal claims objecting to the quality and quantity of food in the kosher meal program, as well as complaints about food meeting kosher standards.

In Berisha v. Farrell, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31607 (ND NY, March 8, 2016), a New York federal magistrate judge concluded that challenges by a corrections officer to a Muslim inmate's right to wear a beard did not impose a substantial burden on the inmate's ability to practice his religion.

In Williams v. Stovall, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31717 (WD AR, March 11, 2016), an Arkansas federal magistrate judge dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was denied a pork-free diet.

In Rodriguez v. Favro, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31758 (ND NY, March 9, 2016), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint of a Rastafarian inmate that he was permitted to wear his crown (a religious head covering) only in his cell and housing unit, and not outside of these areas.

In Peele v. Klemm, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32333 (WD PA, March 14, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge dismissed an inmate's rambling, incoherent complaint regarding restrictions on Muslim inmates' right to attend the two feasts of the Ramadan holiday.

In Green v. Hawkinberry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32615 (WD PA, March 14, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge dismissed a suit by an inmate who had filed a request to change religion who complained about the three years it took until he was able to qualify for the change and receive kosher meals.

In Robinson v. Cate, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32699 (ED CA, March 11, 2016), a case in which a Muslim inmate is seeking a Halal diet, a California federal magistrate judge recommended denying plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction granting him a kosher diet as a stopgap measure while his suit is pending.

In Carter v. Tegels, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33382 (WD WI, March 15, 2016), a Wisconsin federal district court dismissed Muslim inmates' challenges to a rule barring inmate-led religious services (which resulted in a failure to hold Jumu'ah services in April of 2012), and challenges to the failure to hire a Muslim chaplain.

A California federal district court (ND Cal., March 14 and 17, 2016) issued essentially identical opinions in 6 separate cases allowing inmates at San Quentin to move ahead with suits challenging correctional officers that limited Muslim inmates to one congregational prayer service per day, and barred groups of 5 or more from meeting for prayer. The cases are Saif'ullah v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33424; Fardan v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35542; Karafili v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35559; Abdullah v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35543; Shabazz v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35540; Aziz v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35555. UPDATE: Two more of these opinions were issued on March 24 and 25: Mitchell v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39666 and King v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39631.

7th Circuit: Hospital System's Retirement Plan Is Not An Exempt "Church Plan"

In Stapleton v. Advocate Health Care Network, (7th Cir., March 17, 2016), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals joined the 3rd Circuit (see prior posting) in holding that a retirement plan maintained by a church-affiliated hospital system does not qualify for the "church plan" exemption in ERISA if the plan was not initially established by a church.  Interpreting the language of the ERISA exemption, the court said in part:

Church-affiliated organization employees may participate in the same retirement plans as church employees with no further distinctions. Moreover, churches may have outside organizations maintain their plans. The only requirement is that a church must establish the plan in the first place.

Judge Kane filed a concurring opinion emphasizing that the court's interpretation "does not compel church-affiliated organizations to operate in a way that violates their religious beliefs."  This is one of a series of cases filed around the country challenging religiously-affiliated health care systems' reliance on the church plan exemption for their retirement plans.  In this case, plaintiffs charged that the plans failed to meet the vesting, reporting and funding requirements of ERISA. BNA Pension & Benefits Daily reports on the decision and its implications.

Georgia Legislature Passes Wide-Ranging Religious Freedom Bill

As reported by CNN, the Georgia General Assembly yesterday passed HB 757 (full text), the Free Exercise Protection Act. It contains wide-ranging religious freedom protections:

1. The bill protects clergy from any civil suit or tax penalty for performing or refusing to perform any marriage or other religious rite. It also provides that any individual is free to attend or not attend any marriage ceremony or other religious rite.
   
   
2. The bill prohibits local governments from requiring any business to operate on Saturday or Sunday.
   
   
3. The bill provides that churches and religiously affiliated organizations are not required to rent space to another person for an event that is objectionable to the religious organization. Also such organizations are not required to provide social, educational or charitable services that violate the organization's sincerely held religious beliefs.
   
   
4. The bill provides that no faith-based organization is required to hire or retain as an employee any person whose religious beliefs or practices (or lack of either) are not in accord with the organization's sincerely held religious belief.
   
   
5. The bill enacts RFRA language. The government may not substantially burden a person's religious exercise, except in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest that is furthered by the least restrictive means.  This provision, however is limited by several exceptions, including a provision that the RFRA language shall not be construed to "permit invidious discrimination on any grounds prohibited by federal or state law." It should be noted that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity are not prohibited by Georgia law, or by federal law as traditionally interpreted.
   
   
6. The bill waives sovereign immunity for suits seeking injunctive or declaratory relief or reasonable attorney's fees in various suits against the state under the statute.

Gov. Nathan Deal has said that he will veto any bill that allows discrimination in order to protect people of faith. (See prior posting.)  It is unclear whether the non-discrimination language included in HB 757 is sufficient to overcome the governor's objections.

Indian Court Says Sikh Witness Cannot Be Barred From Wearing Kirpan

In Singh v. State of Haryana, (High Ct. Punjab and Haryana, March 16, 2016), a trial court in the Indian state of Punjab held that Art. 25 of India's Constitution which protects freedom of conscience and religion invalidates a court's order barring a Sikh witness from wearing a kirpan while testfying.  The opinion contains lengthy discussion of the kirpan and of the freedom of religion provision in India's constitution. LiveLaw reports on the decision.

4th Circuit Upholds North Carolina's "Choose Life" License Plates

In ACLU of  North Carolina v. Tennyson, (4th Cir., March 10, 2016), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision upheld North Carolina's decision to issue specialty "Choose Life" license plates even though the state refused to also issue a pro-choice specialty plate.  The case was on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court with instructions to to the appeals court to reconsider the case in light of the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.  In reconsidering the case, the 4th Circuit's majority opinion said in part:

The specialty license plate program at issue here is substantively indistinguishable from that in Walker, and the Walker Court’s analysis is dispositive of the issues in this case. Accordingly, we now conclude that specialty license plates issued under North Carolina’s program amount to government speech and that North Carolina is therefore free to reject license plate designs that convey messages with which it disagrees.

Judge Wynn dissenting said in part:

I refuse to believe that with Walker, the Supreme Court meant to force us to choose that the mule in this case is either a horse or a donkey. Instead, Walker’s holding, when narrowly understood, does not lead to the conclusion that the North Carolina specialty plate speech at issue here constitutes pure government speech. On the contrary ..., it presents mixed speech—with private speech components that prohibit viewpoint discrimination.

U.S. Law Week reports on the decision.

False Online Prayer Website Closed Down

This week Washington state's attorney general Bob Ferguson announced that his office had reached an agreement with Christian Prayer Center, a website that offered online viewers prayers in English or Spanish for amounts ranging from $9 to $35.  According to the AG office's release, the website featured non-existent clergy and false consumer testimonials:

The websites contained fictitious testimonials from consumers using stock photos that claimed they successfully prayed to avoid home foreclosure, deliver a healthy baby, win the lottery, obtain negative results on an HIV test and put cancer into remission....

Between 2011 and 2015, CPC collected more than $7 million from 125,000 consumers nationwide. Some of these consumers were charged repeatedly, resulting in a total of over 400,000 transactions.

The settlement requires the website operators, among other things, to end unfair and deceptive business practices, return funds to consumers and pay attorneys' fees of $500,000.

Kerry Says ISIS Guilty of Genocide

As reported by CNN, Secretary of State John Kerry today said he had determined that ISIS (also known as Daesh) is guilty of genocide. At a news conference this morning (video  and full text of Kerry's statement), he said in part:

My purpose in appearing before you today is to assert that, in my judgment, Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control, including Yezidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims. Daesh is genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology, and by actions – in what it says, what it believes, and what it does. Daesh is also responsible for crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing directed at these same groups and in some cases also against Sunni Muslims, Kurds, and other minorities.

Kansas Passes Law Allowing Student Religious Groups To Limit Membership To Adherents

The Kansas legislature yesterday gave final passage to SB 175 (full text) that is designed to allow student religious groups at colleges and universities to restrict their leaders or their membership to those who share or comply with the organizations beliefs.  The bill provides in part:

No postsecondary educational institution may ... deny a religious student association any benefit available to any other student association ... based on such association's requirement that [its] leaders or members ...: (a) Adhere to the association's sincerely held religious beliefs; (b) comply with the association's sincerely held religious beliefs; (c) comply with the association's sincere religious standards of conduct; or (d) be committed to furthering the association's religious missions....

The bill gives a cause of action to any student group injured by a violation of this provision.  AP reports on the bill and some of the incidents leading up to it. It is expected that Gov. Sam Brownback will sign the bill into law.

Suit Against Dearborn Police On Forced Hijab Removal Is Withdrawn

Last July, a Muslim woman filed a federal lawsuit against the Dearborn, Michigan police department charging that she was required to remove her headscarf (hijab) while being booked on traffic charges. (See prior posting.) Now, according to yesterday's Dearborn Press & Guide, plaintiff Maha Aldahami has dropped the lawsuit.  It says that her attorney withdrew the suit when the city produced video that contradicted plaintiff's claims. The city says it follows a stringent policy on head coverings, and that an internal investigation showed no wrongdoing. According to MLive, Aldhalimi's lawyer says the suit was dropped because Dearborn satisfactorily amended its policy on religious head coverings after the lawsuit was filed.

Many Claims of Non-Liturgical Navy Chaplains Are Dismissed; Several Claims Survive

In In re Navy Chaplaincy, (D DC, March 16, 2016), a challenge to Navy procedures for selection and promotion of chaplains that has wound its way through the courts for over 16 years, the D.C. federal district court dismissed a substantial number of plaintiffs' claims.  The case has already generated over 20 decisions in the courts.  In the case (actually 3 consolidated cases), plaintiffs (Non-Liturgical Protestants) challenged both Navy policies and the practices of chaplain selection boards.  As explained by the court in its 59-page opinion:

[T]hey contend that the faith group categories recognized by the Navy are discriminatory and arbitrary..... In particular, they claim that the categories reflect neither religious demographics nor legitimate similarities or differences among the worship traditions represented.  Second, they allege that in the past ... the [Chaplain Corps] used religious quotas to apportion chaplain opportunities among various faith groups..... Third, Plaintiffs challenge a number of facially neutral personnel practices - both current and historical - that they believe have allowed religious bias to infect selection board outcomes.

The court dismissed most of plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing or on mootness or statute of limitations grounds. However the court allowed two former chaplains to proceed with their complaint that the Navy violated their free speech rights by interfering with their form of prayer. More specifically they allege that they were reprimanded for ending their prayer "in Jesus name." The court also allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their non-selection for promotion claims.  In addition, the Navy did not seek dismissal of challenges to policies on the promotion and early retirement selection board process.

Obama's Nominee To Supreme Court Has Said Little On Religious Freedom Issues

Today President Obama nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. (President's remarks announcing the nomination). (White House  media release with background information).  While Garland has served on the D.C. Circuit for 19 years (and served as Chief Judge since 2013) he has had little to say in judicial opinions about religious liberty or church-state separation.

The only opinion involving religious freedom claims actually authored by Judge Garland was Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661 (Jan. 30, 2004) which involved a claim by a former CIA lawyer that he had been fired solely because of his practice of the Jewish religion.  The opinion dealt solely with procedural issues growing out of the complaint being long, repetitive and argumentative.

Garland has served on 3-judge panels in a number of cases involving religious freedom or religious discrimination issues, joining an opinion written by one of the other judges on the panel.  Here is a brief summary of those cases:

• Henderson v. Kennedy, 253 F.3d 12 (Feb. 13, 2001), rehearing denied 265 F.3d 1072 (Oct. 2, 2001): The court ruled against evangelical Christians who claimed a National Park Service regulation prohibiting the sale of t-shirts on the National Mall violated RFRA and the equal protection clause.
  
• Levitan v. Ashcroft, 281 F.3d 1313 (March 8, 2002): in a Catholic inmate's challenge to a prison rule barring consumption small amounts of wine as part of Communion, the court held that a religious practice need not be a mandatory part of a religious creed to be protected by 1st Amendment.
  
• Conservation Law Foundation v. FERC, 216 F.3d 41 (June 23, 2000). The court found that there was no violation of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in its re-licensing of a hydroelectric project.
  
• In re England, 375 F.3d 1169 (July 27, 2004). Non-liturgical chaplains sued the Navy alleging discrimination.  The court refused to compel the Secretary of the Navy to release selection board members from their oath of confidentiality, to allow them to testify about selection board proceedings.
  
• McKeithan v. Boarman, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9024 (April 12, 2012). Summary dismissal of a suit charging discrimination based on sex and religion for failure to state a claim.
  
• Village of Bensenville v. FAA, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 1166 (Jan. 17, 2006). The court refused to grant a stay pending appeal of a district court opinion allowing expansion of O'Hare Airport. At issue was a RFRA challenge to the relocation of remains from a cemetery.

Finally, Garland was a member of several en banc panels that ruled (either summarily or in opinions by others) on issues related to religious rights:

• In Priests for Life v. United States HHS, 808 F.3d 1 (May 20, 2015), Judge Garland was part of the en banc panel that denied a rehearing in a case that rejected a religious non-profit's challenge to the Obamacare contraceptive mandate compromise.  Garland did not join either the concurring or dissenting opinions filed with the per curiam order.  The case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
  
• In re Charges of Judicial Misconduct, 769 F.3d 762 (Aug. 12, 2014). Judge Garland was part of the en banc panel that accepted the recommendation of a special committee to dismiss misconduct charges against Judge Edith Jones. One of the charges involved Jones invoking her religious beliefs to justify the death penalty.
• Newdow v. Roberts, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 27590 (June 29, 2010). Judge Garland was part of an en banc panel that denied a rehearing in case challenging religious elements in Presidential inaugurations.

If Garland is confirmed, he will bring the number of Jewish justices on the Supreme Court to 4.  The remaining 5 justices are Catholic. The New Yorker has an excellent background piece on other aspects of Chief Judge Garland's career.

UPDATE: Religion News Service has two interesting articles regarding Garland's religious beliefs: Merrick Garland is Jewish. Does it matter? and Obama plays the Jewish card, leaving GOP in a pickle.

UPDATE 2: Another opinion written by Judge Garland, Payne v. Salazar, 619 F.3d 56 (2010), should probably also be classified as a religious freedom case.  At issue were procedural questions on when a plaintiff can bring suit because of retaliation against her by her supervisor for filing a religious discrimination complaint.

House Unanimously Passes Resolution Calling ISIS Actions "Genocide"

On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed by a vote of 393-0 House Concurrent Resolution 75 (full text) that expresses the sense of Congress that atrocities committed by ISIS against Christians and other ethnic and religious minorities should be labeled war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. As pointed out in this CNN Op-Ed by Frida Ghitis:

This was one more maneuver in a long-running battle between Congress and the administration. Months ago, Congress set a deadline of March 17 for the State Department to designate ISIS actions as genocide. But according to news reports, Obama administration officials say it appears likely the administration will let the deadline pass while it ponders the legal consequences of the designation.

Some have charged that the State Department's concern is that once ISIS's actions are labelled "genocide," under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide the United States would be committed to "prevent" and "punish" it. However, in a State Department press briefing on Monday, spokesman John Kirby said in part:

[T]here’s a legal definition for genocide. But I don’t want to get into the specifics of it at this point given that the Secretary’s still working his way through his own determination.... [H]e’s taking it very seriously, and ... he wants to take an analytical approach to this based on the best information that’s available....  [T]he argument that somehow it’s being slow-walked or slow-rolled because of the likely pressure that it might result in further calls for military action just is baseless....

Tennessee Legislature Passes Bill To Prevent Religious Indoctrination In Schools

As reported by The Tennesseean, the Tennessee legislature yesterday gave final passage and sent to the governor for his signature HB 1905 (full text). The bill, responding to concern about a middle school social studies unit on Islam, is intended to prevent religious indoctrination. It provides:

The inclusion of religion in textbooks, instructional materials, curriculum, or academic standards shall be for educational purposes only and shall not be used to promote or establish any religion or religious belief.

The bill requires local school boards to develop, with public comment, policies on inclusion of religion in the curriculum. It requires schools to make syllabuses for courses in grades 6-12 publicly available. It calls for revision of the current social study standards and requires teacher training institutes to provide instruction on "what is constitutionally permissible when teaching religious content and strategies for dealing with religious content in curriculum that are educationally sound, fair, neutral, and objective." [Thanks to Blog from the Capital for the lead.]

Israeli Court Sentences Muslim Preacher For Incitement To Racism

In Israel this week, a Jerusalem Magistrate's court sentenced a Muslim preacher to 11 months in prison (and another 6 months suspended) on three counts of incitement to racism.  According to YNet News, Sheikh Khaled Mughrabi regularly delivered speeches at al-Aqsa Mosque, filmed them and uploaded some of them to YouTube.  In one speech, Mughrabi said that the Holocaust was a result of the Jews’ corruption and took place because Jews prepared "special bread" for Passover by kidnapping children, placing them in a barrel full of needles, and using their blood to make the bread. The indictment referred specifically to 3 speeches in the summer of 2015.

Florida Governor Signs Pastor Protection Act

On March 10, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed HB 43, known as the Pastor Protection Act. (Full text) (Bill history).  The new law protects clergy as well as churches, religious organizations and their employees from liability or penalties for refusing to solemnize a marriage or refusing to provide goods, services, or facilities related to the marriage solemnization or celebration where doing so would violate a sincerely held religious belief. Liberty Counsel issued a press release on the governor's action.

"Seven Drums" Believer Wins Right To Wear Fox Hat In License Photo

Willamatte Week and KTAU report on an Oregon man who recently won his administrative appeal to allow him to wear unusual head gear in his driver's license photo. The man, Jay Bishop, is a practitioner of the Washat religion, generally known as the Drummer-Dreamer or Seven Drums faith.  It is rooted in a Native American belief system held by Nez Perce tribes. Bishop wears a cable knit hat that looks like an orange and cream fox head-- the fox is his religious totem. While the local DMV office last summer allowed him to wear the hat in his license renewal photo, when the license got to the state level for review it was rejected because it was not compatible with the state's facial recognition software. Bishop was without a license for 9 months while his appeal was ongoing.  The DMV said it attempts to accommodate religious beliefs, but had never heard of this religion.

8th Circuit Upholds Denial of Citizenship To Muslim In U.S. On Religious Worker's Visa

In Al-Saadoon v. Lynch, (8th Cir., March 14, 2016), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the denial of the naturalization application filed by an Islamic scholar and his wife who entered the U.S. from Iraq on a religious worker's visa.  Initially the USCIS denied the application on the ground that applicants were not of good moral character.  The district court affirmed on the ground that information on applicants' naturalization application showed that the husband changed religious employers a few months before getting the required INS pre-approval for the change.  The 8th Circuit held that the district court's findings are supported by substantial evidence.  In an interesting footnote, the 8th Circuit said:

The district court stated an alternative basis for its denial of Hamod's petition for naturalization. It concluded that "even if some of Hamod's religious worker services to the ICCC starting in 2000 were voluntary and not paid . . . , those services constitute unauthorized employment." Hamod argues that this conclusion violates his right to freely exercise his religion. In particular, he argues that ... the district court's decision regarding voluntary services punishes him for exercising his religion through volunteer work in his local community of faith. We decline to address Hamod's free-exercise claim, however, because the record clearly supports the district court's primary basis for the petition's denial—Hamod was actually employed by the ICCC before he received the authorization required by his visa.

9th Circuit Rules In Favor of Church's Homeless Ministry

In Harbor Missionary Church Corp. v. City of San Buena Ventura, (9th Cir., March 14, 2016), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to issue a preliminary injunction to allow a church to continue to operate its homeless ministry from the same site as its church building. The city had denied a conditional use permit to the church. The appeals court said in part:

The Church asserts that its religion calls for it “to provide for both spiritual and temporal needs together.” The district court erred by questioning the validity of the Church’s religious beliefs and by determining that its homeless ministry could be divided piecemeal when the Church insisted on the importance of keeping its homeless ministry as a whole at the same location....

The district court abused its discretion when it concluded, without analysis, that a complete denial of the conditional use permit was the least restrictive means by which the City could further its compelling interest in public safety. On remand, the district court should ... detail why the conditional use permit recommended by the City’s staff would or would not sufficiently protect the neighborhood from any negative effects shown to be the result of the Church’s ministry to the homeless.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Dispute Over Control of Sikh Dharma Company

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last Thursday heard oral arguments in Puri v. Khalsa (Docket No. 13-36024) (video of full oral arguments).  Courthouse News Service has extensive background on the case in which Bibiji Inderjit Kaur Puri, the widow of the leader of the Sikh Dharma faith, is seeking a seat on the board of the company that makes Yogi Tea and which also controls various parts of the Sikh Dharma religious movement. Here is an excerpt from CNS's excellent report:

Bibiji sued in Multnomah County [Oregon] Circuit Court, claiming that her husband had wanted her to be a board member and accusing the board of Unto Infinity of inflating their salaries and executing a self-serving sale of the company's cereal division that cheated Sikh Dharma....

The parties agreed to settle in arbitration. But Bibiji moved the case to Federal Court, claiming the settlement was never ratified and was unfair.... There, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mossman dismissed the case, finding that Bibiji lacked standing to sue ... because she is not a board member. He also found that the First Amendment prohibited him from installing the leaders of a religious organization.

On Thursday, Bibiji's lawyer ... urged a panel of the Ninth Circuit to apply "neutral principles of law" rather than a First Amendment exception.

(See prior related posting.)

Pastor Introducing Trump Says Bernie Sanders Must "Come to Jesus"

At a Donald Trump event in Hickory, North Carolina today, Pastor Mark Burns who spoke before Trump and Gov. Chris Christie took the stage called for Bernie Sanders to accept Jesus.  As quoted by Politico, Burns said in part:

Bernie Sanders who doesn't believe in God. How in the world are we going to let Bernie? I mean really? Listen, Bernie gotta get saved. He gotta meet Jesus. He gotta have a come to Jesus meeting.

Egypt's Justice Minister Fired Over Comment Seen As Blasphemous

Egypt's Justice Minister Ahmed El-Zend was dismissed from office yesterday by Egypt's Prime Minister Sherif Ismail after comments that were interpreted as blasphemous went viral. Ahram Online gives background:

Last week, in response to a TV host's question on whether he would jail journalists, El-Zend said, "Even if he was a prophet, peace and blessings be upon him."

The 70-year-old then briefly uttered Islamic words of repentance before adding that "the culprit, whatever his description is... I am not talking about jailing a journalist or jailing a teacher, I am saying jailing a defendant."

El-Zend subsequently asked for forgiveness, saying his comment was a slip of the tongue, but Al-Azhar (the center of Islamic learning in Egypt) issued a statement warning against even unintentional blasphemous comments.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Robin Fretwell Wilson, 'Getting the Government Out of Marriage' Post Obergefell: The Ill-Considered Consequences of Transforming the State’s Relationship to Marriage, (University of Illinois College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 16-14, March 2016).
• Lauren Sudeall Lucas, The Free Exercise of Religious Identity, (UCLA Law Review, Vol. 64, No. 1, 2017 Forthcoming).
• Marc O. DeGirolami, On Expressivism and Retributivism in 'The Mighty and the Almighty', (Journal of Analytic Theology (Forthcoming)).
• Caroline Mala Corbin, The Contraception Mandate Accommodated: Why the RFRA Claim in Zubik v. Burwell Fails, (American Constitution Society Issue Brief, March 2016).
• Briton Jacob Myer, In Pursuit of Religious Freedom: The RFRA and How It Applies to Non-Profit Organizations and Their Objections to the Accommodation of the Affordable Care Act Contraceptive Mandate, (November 23, 2015).
• Peter Nicolas, Backdating Marriage, (California Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Khaled A. Beydoun, Electing Islamophobia, (March 6, 2016).
• Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, Fragmented Oversight of Nonprofits in the United States: Does it Work? Can it Work?, (Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 91, No. 3, 2016).

From SSRN (Non-U.S Law):

• Christa Rautenbach, The South African Constitutional Court's Use of Foreign Precedent in Matters of Religion: Without Fear or Favour?, (Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol. 18, No. 5, 2015).
• Melissa Crouch, Constitutionalism, Islam and the Practice of Religious Deference: The Case of the Indonesian Constitutional Court, (Australian Journal of Asian Law, Vol. 16, No. 2, Article 6, 2016).
• Nadirsyah Hosen, The Constitutional Court and ‘Islamic’ Judges in Indonesia, (Australian Journal of Asian Law, Vol. 16, No. 2, Article 4, 2016).
• Faridah Jalil, Searching for the Benchmark in the Administration of Islamic Criminal Law: Malaysia Experience, (May 30, 2015).
• Faridah Jalil, Challenges and Prospects on Access to Justice in Malaysia, (November 11, 2015).
• Emilia Justyna Powell & Stephen D. McDowell, Islamic Sovereignty Norms and Peaceful Settlement of Territorial Disputes, (iCourts Working Paper Series No. 47, March 2016).
• Amir Attaran, Commentary: The Limits of Conscientious and Religious Objection to Physician-Assisted Dying after the Supreme Court's Decision in Carter v. Canada, (Health Law in Canada 36(3):86-98, 2016).

From SmartCILP:

• Alan M. Hurst, The Very Old New Separationism, 2015 Brigham Young University Law Review 1-61.
• Mary McDonough, Catholic Health Care and the Affordable Care Act: A Matter of Social Justice, [Abstract], 10 Intercultural Human Rights Law Review 69-116 (2015).
• Wolfgang P, Muller, The Internal Forum of the Later Middle Ages. A Modern Myth?, 33 Law & History Review 887-913 (2015).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Wilson v. Soto, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27449 (CD CA, March 2, 2016), a California federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27451, Jan. 21, 2016) and allowed a Muslim inmate to proceed on a RLUIPA claim for equitable relief growing out of a strip search in the presence of female prison staff. Other claims were dismissed, but some with leave to amend. Plaintiff was required to file an amended complaint in order to move ahead.

In Seina v. Federal Detention Center Honolulu, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28544 (D HI, March 7, 2016), a Hawaiian federal district court dismissed a Native American inmate's claim that his right to properly conduct an American Indian Pipe Ceremony was severely hindered because he was not treated for his medical condition (hypertension).

In Hill v. Management Training Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28686 (SD MS, March 7, 2016), a Mississippi federal magistrate judge dismissed a Catholic inmate's complaint that because of an expansive lock down, during the one year period of his incarceration he was only able to attend one religious service.

In Johnson v. Nevada Department of Corrections, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29355 (D NV, March 7, 2016), a Nevada federal district court permitted a Muslim inmate to proceed with claims that his kufi was confiscated, he was denied halal meals and was not served meals on the Ramadan schedule on time.

In Mujahid Ta'Lib Din v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29676 (ND CA, March 8, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge permitted a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his complaint that Muslim congregational prayers during open day room hours were improperly limited.

In Vega v. Hardy, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29911 (ND IL, March 9, 2016), an Illinois federal district court permitted an African Hebrew Israelite inmate who had taken a Nazirite vow to move ahead with his complaint that the warden would not permit him to grow a kouplock as part of his hairstyle.

Virginia Legislature Passes Bill To Protect Clergy and Religious Groups That Object To Same-Sex Marriage; Governor Threatens Veto

Yesterday the Virginia General Assembly gave final passage to S.41 (full text) that protects clergy, religious and religiously affiliated organizations and their employees and volunteers acting in the scope of their employment from being required to participate in the solemnization of any marriage or from receiving adverse treatment of any kind by the state because the person acted on the basis of a sincere religious or moral belief that marriage should be only the union of one man and one woman. As reported by the Washington Blaze, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has said he would veto the bill.  It should be noted that the language of the bill requires careful reading to avoid misinterpreting it as being broader than it is.  Section B. of the bill applies its protection to any "person," but that is limited by the narrow definition of "person" in Section A. The president of the Family Foundation of Virginia accurately, albeit not totally objectively, described the scope of the bill:

This legislation balances the recently discovered right to whatever definition of marriage you want with our nation’s longstanding principle of religious free exercise by ensuring that the heavy hand of government cannot penalize clergy or religious charities simply because of beliefs about marriage.

Suit Seeks Site Plan Approval For Mosque

A suit was filed in New Jersey federal district court by the Islamic Society in a prosperous New Jersey suburb whose attempts to obtain site plan approval for a mosque have been thwarted so far. The complaint (full text) in Islamic Society of Basking Ridge v. Township of Bernards, (D NJ, filed 3/10/2016), summarized the mosque's efforts:

What should have been a simple Board approval for a permitted use devolved into a Kafkaesque process that spanned an unprecedented four years and included 39 public hearings.

 The complaint cites anti-Muslim attitudes among those object to the mosque, and contends that the refusal to approve the sit plan violated RLUIPA, the 1st and 14 Amendments and various New Jersey statutory and constitutional provision.  New York Times reports on the lawsuit. [Thanks to Mel Kaufman for the lead.] 

UPDATE: New Jersey Advance Media reported on March 16 that the Justice Department has opened an investigation into the actions of Bernards Township.

Next SCOTUS Nominee Might Be A Hindu

Washington Post, in an article titled What would a Hindu justice mean for the Supreme Court?, reported that D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan is on President Obama's shortening list of potential Supreme Court nominees.  He would be the first Hindu justice ever to serve on the Supreme Court.  When sworn in as judge on the D.C. Circuit, Srinivasan took the oath on the Bhagavad Gita. Most of those interviewed by the Post suggested that Srinivasan's faith would have little impact on the positions he would take on the Court.  While Protestants are the largest religious group in the United States, no Protestant (mainline or evangelical) has been on the Supreme Court since Justice Stevens retirement in 2010.

New Federal Inter-Agency Initiative On Religious Discrimination Launched

On Tuesday, the Justice Department announced  "Combating Religious Discrimination Today," a new inter-agency initiative to promote religious freedom, challenge religious discrimination and increase enforcement of religion-based hate crimes.  The new community engagement effort launched by 5 federal agencies, will lead a series of community round tables across the country.  The first was in Newark, New Jersey on Tuesday and focused on addressing bullying and religious discrimination in schools. Among those addressing the round table were Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. (Full text of remarks.)  Subsequent round tables are scheduled for  Dallas, Birmingham (AL), Detroit and Palo Alto (CA).  They will focus on topics such as hate crimes, employment discrimination and discrimination by local zoning officials.

Jail Settles Suits Alleging Muslim Women Were Forced To Attend Christian Services

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported this week that Cuyahoga County (Ohio) has entered settlements in two separate lawsuits by Muslim women who said they were required by corrections officer Regina Watts to attend Christian religious services when they were serving time in the Cuyahoga County Jail. The women were housed in the "trustee pod" of the jail while serving time in 2014. Sakeena Majeed, who was in jail for misdemeanor assault received a settlement of $48,500.  Sonya Abderrazzaq was serving time for drunk driving settled for $32,500.  The jail has now moved religious services to other space instead of the pod where the two women were housed. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Federal District Judge Says Obergefell Does Not Bind Puerto Rico

In Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, (D PR, March 8, 2016), a Puerto Rico federal district court held that the recognition of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges  does not bind Puerto Rico until further action by the Supreme Court or Congress.  Relying on the so-called Insular Cases decided by the Supreme Court in the early 20th century, the court said "jurisprudence, tradition and logic teach us that Puerto Rico is not treated as the functional equivalent of a State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment...."  The court concluded:

It is in light of the particular condition of Puerto Rico in relation to the Federal Constitution, with due consideration of the underlying cultural, social and political currents that have shaped over five centuries of Puerto Rican history, that the court examines the effect of Obergefell in the instant case. The court’s analysis, therefore, does not end with the incorporation of the fundamental right to same-sex marriage in the States. Generally, the question of whether a constitutional guarantee applies to Puerto Rico is subject to determination by Supreme Court of the United States.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog has more on the decision.

Suit Challenges Pastor's Invitation To Texas Mayor To Speak At Groundbreaking For Cross

The Corpus Christi Caller Times reported yesterday on a lawsuit against the pastor of a local church who invited Corpus Christi's mayor to speak at a groundbreaking ceremony for a 210-foot tall cross placed along an Interstate highway near the Texas city. Mayor Nelda Martinez spoke at the ceremony about her late father's dream for a cross at the helm of the Corpus Christi Bay.  The lawsuit filed in state court by Patrick Greene accuses the pastor, Rick Milby, of violating state law-- apparently Art. I, Sec. 6 of the Texas constitution-- when he invited the mayor and council leaders to the groundbreaking. The city attorney calls the lawsuit frivolous.

Divorce Decree Restrictions Violate Mother's Free Exercise Rights

In Black v. Black, (WA App., March 8, 2016), a Washington state appeals court held that a trial court imposed improper conditions on the non-custodial parent in a divorce action.  Charles and Rachelle Black had three children whom they raised in a conservative Christian home and sent to religious-based schools.  After 17 years of marriage, Rachelle informed Charles that she is a lesbian, and two years later filed for divorce. The court's final parenting plan designated Charles as the primary residential parent, awarded him sole decision-making as to the children's religious upbringing and required Rachelle to refrain from having further conversations with the children regarding religion, homosexuality, or other alternative lifestyles. The appeals court reversed, saying:

While the best interests of the children is a trial court’s paramount concern ..., here there is no indication that Rachelle’s prior speech related to her sexual orientation or her religious views ... would cause harm to the children if such speech or conduct occurred in the future. Therefore, we hold that the restrictions are an unconstitutional burden on her freedom of speech and her free exercise of religion. 

What Counts As A "Church"?

RLUIPA Defense blog last week recounted the story of Spokane, Washington's "Jedi Alliance" which bills itself as a church.  Tim and Tyler Arnold purchased a large collection of arcade games. Looking for a place to house them permanently, they purchased a building that formerly was used as a Methodist church.  Then, however, city officials told them that the building was zoned only for residential use or use as church.  So the Arnolds registered as a church, opening the building on Sunday evenings for the public to play the arcade games or patronize the gift shop.  The Arnold brothers said:

Is it a church? Well, it’s a church in the sense that we took over a church building.  Are we here congregating? Yes, we’re here congregating getting together.  We can use all of this pop culture stuff to bring people together, to get people to have a reason to come together in a social setting.

Australian Court Says Sex-Segregated Seating At Muslim Lecture Violates Anti-Discrimination Law

In Bevege v Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia, (NSW Civ & Adm Trib, March 4, 2016), the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of the Australian state of New South Wales held that sex-segregated seating at a lecture sponsored by a Muslim group violates the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act of 1977. The sponsor of the lecture, Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia, identifies itself as an 'international political party with a franchise in Australia."  When Alison Bevege attended the group's lecture on American intervention in Iraq and Syria, she was directed to a section of the auditorium reserved for women and children.  Hizb ut-Tahrir argued to the court that separate seating of men and women "is a part of Islam, and Muslims globally are adhering to this practice through choice as part of their belief and culture."

While the Anti-Discrimination Act has an exemption for acts or practices "of a body established to propagate religion that conforms to the doctrine of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion," (Sec. 56(d)), the court concluded that this exemption does not apply.  It was not shown that Hizb ut-Tahrir was established to propagate religion.  Also because Hizb ut-Tahrir argued that Bevege would have been allowed to choose her own seat if she had requested to do so, this shows that separate seating was not necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of Muslims attending the lecture.

To avoid similar discrimination in the future, the court ordered that at events sponsored by the organization there must be notices that gender segregated seating is not compulsory, and ushers must be made aware of this.  Law and Religion Australia has more on the decision.

FLDS Leader Lyle Jeffs Denied Bond In Food Stamp Fraud Case

On Monday, a U.S. Magistrate Judge in Salt Lake City, Utah granted the prosecution's request to deny bond to FLDS Church bishop Lyle Steed Jeffs who is charged with conspiracy to commit food stamp fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Jeffs and ten others are charged with diverting millions of dollars in food stamp benefits to church leaders who then reallocated the benefits. (See prior posting.) KSL News reports that prosecutors convinced the court that Jeffs poses an extreme flight risk, despite the absence of precedent for denying bond in a welfare fraud case. Seven of the other defendants have been released on bond, subject to GPS monitoring and other conditions.

Court Says Jihadist's Religious Faith Was Not Reason For Life Sentence

In Shnewer v. United States, ( NJ, March 2, 2016), a New Jersey federal district court rejected a claim by a jihadist who was sentenced to life in prison for conspiracy to kill United States military personnel that his religious beliefs were improperly used in determining his sentence.  As reported by NJ Advance Media, at issue was the sentence imposed on Mohamad Shnewer, a key figure in a foiled plot to kill soldiers at Fort Dix and other military installations. In rejecting Shnewer's claims, the court said in part:

This Court did not use Mr. Shnewer’s devout Muslim faith to help this Court reach the conclusion that it would sentence him to ... life imprisonment, but rather ... this Court believed that Mr. Shnewer could not be rehabilitated and therefore posed a threat if released based upon his violent radical Islamic beliefs. This did not run afoul of the Constitution and did not amount to this Court using Mr. Shnewer’s devout Muslim faith to determine his sentence. 

RLUIPA Challenge Settled; Soup Kitchen Gets Permit To Operate

JDSupra reported yesterday on the settlement of three related RLUIPA lawsuits that were filed against the City of Norwich, Connecticut by St. Vincent de Paul Place, a ministry of The Polish Roman Catholic Congregation.  The suits sought authorization to continue to operate a soup kitchen and food pantry, and offer related services, at the site of a former parochial school. The Stipulated Judgment (full text) in St. Vincent de Paul Place, Norwich, Inc. v. City of Norwich, (D CT, Feb. 12, 2016), provides that the city will issue a special permit, subject to specified hours of operation, to the church.  The city commission approved the settlement at a public meeting, despite continued opposition from neighbors. City commissioners did not want to risk liability for the church's legal fees that the city would have incurred if it continued to litigate and ultimately lost. (See prior related posting.)

Fired Gay Music Director Sues Chicago Archdiocese for Discrimination

Following an EEOC complaint filed last year (see prior posting), the former music director of a suburban Chicago Catholic parish has now filed an employment discrimination suit in federal district court against the parish and the Archdiocese of Chicago. The Chicago Tribune reported yesterday on the lawsuit by Colin Collette against the Holy Family Catholic Community in Inverness and the Archdiocese, alleging violations of the federal Civil Rights Act, the Illinois Human Rights Act and the Cook County Human Rights Ordinance.  Collette was fired last July after he announced that he was engaged to be married to his longtime partner Will Nifong.  Collette says church leaders knew he was gay long before he posted his engagement notice on Facebook, and his subsequent marriage to his partner.  Collette is seeking damages, back pay and reinstatement.

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.