Parties Respond To Supreme Court's Proposed Contraceptive Compromise In Zubik Case

As previously reported, last month the U.S. Supreme Court in Zubik v. Burwell issued an unusual order seeking the parties' reactions to a Court drafted compromise on provision of health insurance contraceptive coverage for employees of religious non-profits. Yesterday both the government (full text of Government's brief) and the petitioners (full text of Petitioners' brief) filed briefs with their answers.  Neither side totally bought into the Court's alternative.  At the center of their disagreement is the question of whether employees of objecting religious non-profits will end up automatically receiving contraceptive coverage from an alternative source, or whether they will have to take separate independent action in order to obtain that coverage. The compromise floated in the Supreme Court's Order is ambiguous in this regard, suggesting:

Petitioners ... would not be required to submit any separate notice to their insurer, to the Federal Government, or to their employees. At the same time, petitioners’ insurance company—aware that petitioners are not providing certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds—would separately notify petitioners’ employees that the insurance company will provide cost-free contraceptive coverage.... 

In responding to the Court's proposal, the Government said in part:

Requiring an employer seeking an exemption from the contraceptive-coverage requirement to provide written notice plays an important role in implementing the accommodation, and eliminating that requirement would impose real costs on the parties whose rights and duties are affected—including objecting employers. But the accommodation for employers with insured plans could be modified to operate in the manner posited in the Court’s order while still ensuring that the affected women receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly, together with the rest of their health coverage.

On the other hand, Petitioners argued:

Under the current regulatory scheme, there is just a single plan that automatically comes with payments for contraceptive services. Petitioners’ employees, therefore, automatically receive free contraceptive coverage solely by virtue of their enrollment in petitioners’ plans. There is no reason why this must be so. Instead, to truly separate petitioners from the contraceptive coverage, there should, at a minimum, be “two separate health insurance policies (that is, the group health insurance policy and the individual contraceptive coverage policy),”... with separate enrollment processes, insurance cards, payment sources, and communication streams....

[I]f the contraceptive coverage is to be truly separate, not just an automatic and unavoidable component of the petitioner’s plan, then it must have an enrollment process that is distinct from (and not an automatic consequence of) enrolling in the employer’s plan. Otherwise, it is not independent of the employer’s plan. That process certainly need not be complex. Like activating a credit card, it could be as simple as having the insurance company send each eligible employee a contraceptive coverage card with a sticker attached providing a telephone number to call or website portal to use should she wish to activate the coverage.

Both the government and petitioners recognized that the Court's proposed alternative failed to deal with non-profits that self-insure and use third-party administrators to implement coverage. They both also recognized that petitioners' objections are more difficult to deal with in this context. The government's answer was that some designation or self-certification by the non-profit is unavoidable here, but " any employer that objects to a feature of the accommodation unique to self-insured plans can switch to an insured plan."

The non-profits, on the other hand, devoted a significant portion of their brief to the problem of self-insured employers, saying in part:

If commercial insurance companies begin making truly separate  contraceptive coverage available to the employees of petitioners with insured plans as contemplated by this Court’s order, then there should be no legal obstacle to allowing additional individuals to enroll in those plans, whether directly through the insurer or through the Exchanges..... 

The only question, then, would be how employees of employers with self-insured plans would learn of the availability of those contraceptive-only policies. Asking the objecting employer or the objecting church plan to provide employees with that information would go well beyond what this Court’s order contemplates and what RFRA can tolerate. But there are other means through which individuals could learn about the availability of such contraceptive-only policies and how to enroll. For instance, the government itself could provide that information and assist individuals in enrollment.....

The government also could require doctors and other healthcare providers who have no religious objections to contraception to provide individuals with information about how to enroll in a contraceptive only plan if their employer’s plan does not include such coverage, and to help them complete that process should they choose to do so.

Wall Street Journal reports on the briefs.

Challenge To Catholic Hospitals' Ethical Directives Dismissed On Standing and Ripeness Grounds

A Michigan federal district court has dismissed on standing and ripeness grounds a challenge to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services followed by Catholic hospitals.  In ACLU v. Trinity Health Corp., (ED MI, April 11, 2016), the ACLU sued claiming that provisions in the Directives that prevent terminating a pregnancy to stabilize a woman's condition when emergency complications occur violate the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and the Rehabilitation Act.  The court held that allegations of past injury because of the hospital's compliance with the Directives does not give standing for future-looking declaratory and injunctive relief, and allegations regarding one woman who is currently pregnant do not show a substantial risk of pregnancy complications or likelihood of future treatment at defendant's hospitals.  A report from Michigan Radio has reactions of the parties to the decision.

10th Circuit:Dismisses As Moot Challenge To Utah Polygamy Law

In Brown v. Buhman, (10th Cir., April 11, 2016), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed on mootness grounds the constitutional challenge to Utah's anti-polygamy laws that had been filed by the polygamous family from the television show "Sister Wives." A federal district court had held most of Utah's ban unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) The 10th Circuit, however, concluded that a new prosecution policy announced by the County Attorney for Utah County after the suit was originally filed has mooted the case.  County Attorney Jeffrey Buhman issued a policy that states:

The Utah County Attorney’s Office will prosecute the crime of bigamy under [the Statute] in two circumstances: (1) When a victim is induced to marry through their partner’s fraud, misrepresentation or omissions; or (2) When a person purports to marry or cohabits with another person in violation of [the Statute] and is also engaged in some type of abuse, violence or fraud. This office will prosecute the crime of child bigamy under Section 76-7-101.5 regardless of whether one of the parties is also engaged in some type of abuse, violence or fraud.

Further supporting the finding of mootness is the fact that the Brown family has moved to Nevada. AP reports on the court's decision.  Jonathan Turley, counsel for the Brown family, said in a posting that the decision will be appealed.  [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Provocative Anti-Muslim Rally Planned For Atlanta

According to yesterday's Atlanta Journal Constitution,  after the Georgia Building Authority rejected a request for a permit to hold a "United against Islam and Islamic immigration refugee rally" at Liberty Plaza across from the state capitol, authorities now expect a non-permitted, anti-Islamic protest on the sidewalks of the Georgia State Capitol on April 18.  The protest's organizer James Stachowiak, founder and editor of Freedom Fighter Radio, said that speakers at the rally will focus on the threat from Islamic immigration and refugees. He added:

We also plan to shred images of Obama, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Muhammad along with the shredding of the Koran. This will be an open carry event with the use of long arms as Georgia law allows.

CAIR-Georgia reacted with a press release stating in part:

We encourage these protesters to put down their guns, cancel their unsanctioned rally, and meet with representatives of our state’s Muslim community for an open and frank discussion of their concerns.

Rastafarian Minister Loses Fight To Solicit Ballot Signatures At Revenue Office

In Brown v. Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration, (WD AR, April 8, 2016), an Arkansas federal district court dismissed an action by Rev. Tom Brown, a Rastafarian minister, challenging a recent no-solicitation policy imposed by the state at certain Revenue Offices. For over a year Brown had stationed himself at a table on the lawn of the Fayetteville Revenue Office seeking signatures for a ballot initiative on the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act.  A number of patrons had filed police reports complaining of Brown's behavior. The court held that the solicitation ban is a reasonable restriction on speech in a non-public forum, saying in part:

As the ban is reasonably designed to promote the normal business activities of the State’s revenue offices and is viewpoint-neutral, the Court finds that the ban does not violate Rev. Brown’s constitutional rights. The ban does not prevent Rev. Brown from canvassing in other public forums, such as on city sidewalks, in plazas, or in parks. Similarly, Rev. Brown is still free to express to others his ideas about marijuana use, his religious faith, and the benefits of signing the ballot initiative he supports. 

White House Hosts Nowruz Celebration

The White House last Wednesday hosted its annual Nowruz celebration.  Nowruz is the Persian New Year celebrated as a secular holiday by many in the Middle East and central Asia, and celebrated as a religious holiday by Zoroastrians. (Wikipedia). First Lady Michelle Obama spoke at the East Room reception (full text of remarks), saying in part:

We think America is strongest when we recognize our many traditions, when we celebrate our diversity, and when we lift each other up.... We are a nation of immigrants.  And we should cherish the talent and energy and the beautiful traditions and cultures that come with that heritage, not just today but every day.

British Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Warning To Proselytizing Supervisor

In Wasteney v. East London NHS Foundation Trust, (UK EAT, April 7, 2016), the British Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) rejected a religious discrimination claim brought by the Head of Forensic Occupational Therapy at a public sector mental health clinic who described herself as a born again Christian.  She was issued a written warning for proselytizing a young Pakistani Muslim occupational therapist whom she supervised.  She gave the Muslim woman a book about another Muslim Pakistani woman who had converted to Christianity; during a one-on-one meeting prayed for the Muslim woman by laying hands on her; and invited the Muslim woman to various Christian church events. In upholding the finding of the Employment Tribunal (ET), the EAT said in part:

The ET did not find that the Respondent had pursued disciplinary action against the Claimant and imposed a warning on her because of or for reasons related to her sharing of her faith with a consenting colleague.  It expressly found that the Respondent took the actions it did because the colleague in question had made serious complaints about acts which blurred professional boundaries and placed improper pressure on that colleague.

Christian Post reporting on the decision quotes this reaction from the supervisor who lost her appeal:

I believe the NHS singled me out for discipline because Christianity is so disrespected. Previously a Christian worship service that I set up for patients was closed down, but accommodation for Muslims to practice their faith wholly facilitated and encouraged.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Varun Srinivasan, Need for a United or Unified Code? Understanding the Implications of the Uniform Civil Code, ((2016) 2 Madras Law Journal 13).
• Jeremy K. Kessler, The Early Years of First Amendment Lochnerism, (Columbia Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Michael J. T. McMillen, Critical Factors for Stimulating Private Sector Sukuk Markets, (Institutional Investor, Forthcoming).
• Craig Forcese & Kent Roach, Criminalizing Terrorist Babble: Canada's Dubious New Terrorist Speech Crime, (Alberta Law Review, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2015).
• Andrew J. Pecoraro, Testing the Limits of Obergefell: Incest Statutes and the Fundamental Right to Marry, (William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 58, 2017).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Bill Piatt, If the Pope Is Infallible, Why Does He Need Lawyers?,[PDF download], 43 Capital University Law Review 555-584 (2015).
• Kristina Benson, The Freedom To Believe and the Freedom To Practice: Title VII, Muslim Women, and Hijab, 13 UCLA Journal of Islamic & Near Eastern Law 1-19 (2014).
• Mara R. Revkin, Triadic Legal Pluralism in North Sinai: A Case Study of State, Shari'a, and 'Urf Courts in Conflict and Cooperation. 13 UCLA Journal of Islamic & Near Eastern Law 21-59 (2014).
• Ahmed Al-Dawoody, Al-Sarakhsī’s Contribution to the Islamic Law of War, 14 UCLA Journal of Islamic & Near Eastern Law 29-44 (2015).
• Rami Koujah, A Critical Review Essay of Anver M. Emon’s Islamic Natural Law Theories, 14 UCLA Journal of Islamic & Near Eastern Law 1-28 (2015).

CAIR Sues Challenging Procedures For Terrorist Watch List

Last week, CAIR-Michigan filed two federal lawsuits challenging the federal government's operation of the Terrorist Screening Database.  Inclusion on the list leads to placement on the no-fly list and on lists restricting access to licenses and firearms.  The suits allege that almost all Americans known to be on the watch list are Muslims or persons who could be mistaken for Muslims.  One of the suits, Baby Doe v. Piehota, (ED VA, filed 4/5/2016) (full text of complaint) is a class action seeking damages. The other, Elhady v. Piehota, (ED VA, filed 4/5/2016) (full text of complaint) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. The suits contend that selection of individuals for the watch list is illegally motivated by religious status and denies those on the list substantive and procedural due process rights by stigmatizing them and burdening their right of movement. Among other things, the suits seek a change in the watch list so that individuals placed on the list are furnished notice of the reasons for their inclusion and an opportunity to contest their listing.  CAIR issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuits.

2 Particularly Interesting Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

As regular readers of Religion Clause blog know, at least weekly I present a summary of recent prisoner free exercise cases.  This week, two of the recent cases deserve more mention than my typical brief description:

In Brown v. Bureau of Prisons, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44755 (D CT, March 31, 2016), a Connecticut federal district court dismissed a female federal prisoner's 1st Amendment claim, but allowed her to move ahead on her claim under RFRA that her rights were infringed when she was searched by a male correctional officer.  This suit is unusual because it was filed by a female inmate.  For reasons I have been unable to explain, almost all reported prisoner free exercise cases are filed by male inmates.  Perhaps it is related to differences in the way that women's prisons are administered.  If readers have other explanations, I would appreciate receiving them.

In McLenithan v. Williams, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45290 (D OR, April 4, 2016), an Oregon federal magistrate judge dismissed RLUIPA, free exercise and equal protection claims by an inmate seeking a kosher diet. Plaintiff described himself as a Seventh Day Adventist who practices Judaism as a second religion.  The court's RLUIPA analysis included the following:

Defendants have presented evidence establishing a compelling interest in limiting kosher diets to Jewish inmates, and this policy, in conjunction with ODOC's accommodation of traditional Seventh Day Adventist dietary practices, is the least restrictive means of meeting that interest. The evidence is undisputed that providing kosher meals costs $4,117.20 more per biennium for each additional inmate who requests kosher food. To be sure, the cost of accommodating Plaintiff alone is not significant. However, if Plaintiff were to be accommodated by providing the kosher meal option, other inmates will likely have to be accommodated as well, ultimately at great expense to ODOC. Indeed, Defendants provide evidence that if non-Jewish inmates were allowed the option of choosing the kosher meal plan, a substantial percentage would likely do so. Finally, the Court considers the substantial additional cost of providing kosher meals to non-Jewish inmates in the context of ODOC's overall budget.  Defendants provide evidence that ODOC's security budget is strained.

This analysis raises the question of whether compelling interest is measured differently when the government's interest is cost rather than security.  In Holt v. Hobbs, the Supreme Court required compelling interest in security be measured by looking only at the "particular claimant" whose religious exercise is being burdened.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Woodward v. Afify, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42738 (WD NY, March 29, 2016) a New York federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a complaint by a Muslim inmate that he was denied  access to Friday prayer services and Ramadan meals. He was allowed to move ahead on other retaliation claims.

In Henrius v. County of Nassau, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43795 (ED NY, March 31, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was not allowed to attend religious services on one occasion.

In Howard v. Skolnik, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44624 (D NV, March 31, 2016), a Nevada federal district court dismissed on qualified immunity grounds the decision by prison authorities to refuse to recognize Nation of Islam as a religion for approved prison activities.

In DeJesus v. Bradt, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44716 (WD NY, March 31, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that during Ramadan Muslims were not permitted to take unfinished food from the double evening meal back to their cells to eat during the night. The court allowed plaintiff to move ahead with his complaint that on 10 occasions during Ramadan he was not permitted to take a shower or engage in ritual cleansing before group prayer.

In Hogue v. Ada County, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45011 (D ID, March 31, 2016), an Idaho federal magistrate judge dismissed an inmate's complaint that as part of his behavioral management plan he was prohibited from possessing a Bible or any other religious book.

In Flynn v. Ward, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45075 (ND NY, April 4, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was forced to give up his prayer rug and mail it home.

In Sterling v. Sellers, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45607 (MD GA, April 5, 2016), a Georgia federal district court permitted a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his claim that he was not allowed to engage in daily congregational prayer. The magistrate's opinion in the case is at 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45896, Feb. 22, 2016.

In Sanders v. Cain, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42069 (MD LA, March 28, 2016), a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46031, Feb. 19, 2016) and dismissed as frivolous a Mormon inmate minister's complaint that he was unable to congregate with other Mormons in the main prison complex, or to hold fund-raisers. His claims regarding his status as an inmate minister and false disciplinary charges were dismissed insofar as they were brought in forma pauperis.

In Allen v. Ahlin, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46697 (ED CA, April 5, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's complaint that his religious rights were being infringed by the denial of a vegetarian diet.

In Huddleston v. Wilson County Criminal Justice Complex, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46598 (MD TN, April 5, 2016), a Tennessee federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate' complaint that his personal Baptist pastor had been unable to visit him because he was not on the jail's ministry list.

Bernie Sanders Accepts Invitation To Conference In Vatican On Social Justice and the Environment

Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders announced yesterday that he has accepted an invitation from the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences to attend an April 15 conference in the Vatican on restoring social justice and environmental sustainability.  As reported by Time magazine, in a New York campaign stop today, Sanders said: "I must tell you that I am a very great fan of the role that Pope Francis has been playing in talking about inequality in this world." [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Break-Away Presbyterian Church Settles Suit By Paying $1.1M For Its Building

According to yesterday's St. Louis Post Dispatch, a break-away Presbyterian congregation in Chesterfield, Missouri has settled a lawsuit against it by the Giddings-Lovejoy Presbytery.  When Bonhomme Presbyterian Church broke away from the Presbyterian Church (USA) to join the more conservative Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians, the Presbytery sued claiming that the congregation's property belongs to the Presbytery.  In the settlement, Bonhomme paid the Presbytery $1.1 million for the church building and property.

State Trooper Fired For Proselytizing During Traffic Stop

According to WCPO News, last Thursday the Indiana State Police fired state trooper Brian Hamilton after a formal complaint was filed against him by motorist Wendy Pyle who charges that when Hamilton stopped her to give her a warning ticket for speeding, he also asked her what church she attends and whether she was saved.  The ACLU has filed suit over the incident.  Hamilton was sued in 2014 by another woman for similar proselytizing during a traffic stop. (See prior posting.)

Abstention Required In Suit For Defamation In Excommunication Proceedings

In Pfeil v. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, (MN Sup. Ct., April 6, 2016), the Minnesota Supreme Court in a 3-2 decision (2 justices not participating), held that under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the 1st Amendment prohibits holding a church and its pastors liable in a defamation action for statements made during church disciplinary proceedings seeking to excommunicate plaintiffs. The majority concluded:

Ultimately, adjudicating [plaintiffs'] claims would excessively entangle the courts with religion and unduly interfere with respondents’ constitutional right to make autonomous decisions regarding the governance of their religious organization.

Justice Lillehaug's dissenting opinion complained:

 Today the court creates what is, essentially, an absolute privilege to defame in “formal church discipline proceedings.” No matter how false and malicious the statement, and no matter how much the victim is damaged, there is no remedy whatsoever in Minnesota’s courts.

Pope Francis Releases Historic Document on Family Life

As reported by Crux, the Vatican today released Pope Francis' much anticipated Apostolic Exhortation titled Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love). Here is the full text of 256-page document which grew out of meetings of Catholic bishops from around the world in 2014 and 2015 on issues of the family. The Vatican has also released a Summary of each of the document's nine chapters.  Of particular interest is Chapter 8 which deals with the Church's treatment of divorced Catholics. The Summary of that Chapter reads in part:

 As far as discernment with regard to “irregular” situations is concerned, the Pope states: “There is a need ‘to avoid judgements which do not take into account the complexity of various situations’ and ‘to be attentive, by necessity, to how people experience distress because of their condition’” (AL 296). And he continues: “It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community, and thus to experience being touched by an ‘unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous’ mercy” (AL 297). And further: “The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment” (AL 298).

... [T]he Pope states that “the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of scandal”. “Their participation can be expressed in different ecclesial services… Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church… This integration is also needed in the care and Christian upbringing of their children” (AL 299).

In a more general vein, the Pope makes an extremely important statement ... :“If we consider the immense variety of concrete situations, … it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is needed is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since ‘the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases’, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same” (AL 300).... 

Crux has also posted an analysis of the document

Hospital Offered Reasonable Accommodation To Employee Rejecting Flu Shot

In Robinson v. Children's Hospital Boston, (D MA, April 5, 2016), a Massachusetts federal district court dismissed a Title VII and state discrimination claim by a hospital emergency room worker who refused on religious grounds to be immunized for influenza. Plaintiff, who was apparently a follower of Nation of Islam, initially refused the vaccine because it contained pork products, but the hospital offered her a non-gelatin vaccine.  She continued to refuse on religious grounds, was granted a temporary medical leave and was allowed to look for a non-patient area position in the hospital. When she was unable to find another position, she was terminated.  The court held that the hospital had offered plaintiff reasonable accommodation and that  allowing her to remain in the patient area unvaccinated would have posed an undue hardship. Boston Herald reports on the decision.

Court Says Cross on County Seal Is Unconstitutional

In Davies v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, (CD CA, April 6, 2016), a California federal district court granted a permanent injunction requiring removal of a cross from the Los Angeles County Seal.  Under threat of a lawsuit in 2004, the County redesigned its Seal replacing a cross that was on it with a depiction of the San Gabriel Mission. Subsequently the San Gabriel Mission added a cross on its building and the County Board voted to add the cross to the Mission's depiction on the Seal. The district court held that the addition of the cross violates both the Establishment Clause and the California Constitution's No Aid clause. Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Constitutionality of Tax Code Parsonage Allowance

In a lawsuit filed this week, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is again challenging the constitutionality of the Internal Revenue Code's parsonage allowance.  The complaint (full text) in Gaylor v. Lew, (WD WI, filed 4/6/ 2016), contends that Section 107 of the Internal Revenue Code--which allows clergy to exclude from taxable income a housing allowance paid as part of their compensation-- violates the Establishment Clause.  The suit was brought by two FFRF officers who also received housing allowances.  One of the plaintiffs is an ordained minister who in prior years when employed by a church was able to claim the allowance.  In 2014, the 7th Circuit dismissed a similar suit on standing grounds because plaintiffs had not sought to exclude their FFRF allowances on their federal income tax returns or claim a tax refund. (See prior posting.) This time plaintiffs did file amended returns seeking a refund of taxes paid on their housing allowances. FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

FFRF Sues Connecticut City Over Refusal To Allow Winter Solstice Banner

A suit was filed two weeks ago by the Freedom From Religion Foundation challenging the refusal by Shelton, Connecticut authorities to allow FFRF to place a Winter Solstice display in a city park. The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. City of Shelton, Connecticut, (D CT, filed 3/22/2016) alleges that the city allows the American Legion to place a "heralding angels" religious display in Constitution Park every Christmas season. However the city refused to allow FFRF to put up a banner reading in part: "At this season of the Winter Solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell...." The city thought the banner would be offensive to many. The complaint alleges free speech and equal protection violations.  FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the federal lawsuit. Yesterday WSHU News had a longer report on the lawsuit.

Court Says Minister Can Move Ahead With Challenge To Ban on His Transitional Housing Project

Martin v. Houston, (MD AL, April 6, 2016), involves an attempt by the Alabama legislature to close down a transitional housing arrangement consisting of a group of mobile homes for male sex offenders being released from prison.  The facility was set up by a Christian minister who imposed behavior standards on residents and required them to attend church services. The Alabama legislature passed a statute tailored only to apply to this facility. The law, whose coverage was limited to one county, declared a facility where more than one sex offender lived together to be a public nuisance.  In a suit by the minister operating the facility, an Alabama federal district court held that plaintiff had adequately alleged free exercise, bill of attainder and due process claims.  It held that the complaint had not adequately alleged a RLUIPA violation because the law does not involve government making individualized assessments of proposed property use.

9th Circuit: Denial of Exemption For Use of Cannabis Does Not Impose Substantial Burden On Religious Exercise

In Oklevueha Native American Church of Hawaii v. Lynch, (9th Cir., April 6, 2016), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a church and its founder were properly denied an exemption from federal laws that prohibit the possession and distribution of cannabis. Under RFRA, denial of an exemption does not impose a "substantial burden" on plaintiffs' exercise of religion because the primary sacrament of the church is peyote.  Plaintiffs consume cannabis only as a substitute. They do not claim that peyote is unavailable or that cannabis serves a unique religious function.

Episcopal Church Still Holds Title To Property of Break-Away Diocese

In Diocese of San Joaquin v. Gunner, (CA App., April 5, 2016), a California state appeals court held that applying neutral principles of law, the property of a break-away diocese still belongs to the Episcopal Church. It held that while the trial court wrongly held that diocese held the property in trust for the Episcopal Church, nevertheless the property still belongs to the Episcopal Church because the purported transfer of the property to the break-away diocese was invalid:

Schofield [bishop of the break-away diocese] was attempting to change the title holder of the property in dispute from the corporation sole known as The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin to the corporation sole known as The Anglican Bishop of San Joaquin. However, because the amendment changing the name of the corporation sole to The Anglican Bishop of San Joaquin was invalid, no corporation sole known as The Anglican Bishop of San Joaquin existed when these deeds were executed and recorded. 

New Study Surveys Restrictions On Women Wearing Religious Attire

The Pew Research Center yesterday released a report (full text) titled Restrictions on Women's Religious Attire.  It concludes:

50 of the 198 countries and territories included in the study had at least one law or policy regulating women’s religious attire in 2012 and 2013..... About three-quarters of those countries (39 of the 50, or 78%) had a law or policy limiting women’s ability to wear religious attire, while about a quarter (12 of the 50, or 24%) had at least one law or policy requiring women to wear particular attire. Some of these laws or policies applied nationwide, while others were imposed at the provincial, state or local level.   One country – Russia – had [both in different areas].

The study also found that in 2013, some 50 countries had at least one incident where women were harassed by private individuals either for wearing religious dress, or for not conforming to local customs concerning religious dress.

Tennessee Legislature Passes Bill Making the Holy Bible the Official State Book

Yesterday the Tennessee General Assembly passed HB615, designating the Holy Bible as the state's "official book." AP reports:

Sponsors argue the bill seeks to honor the historical significance of the Bible in Tennessee's history rather than serving as a government endorsement of religion.

But opponents say the measure trivializes the Bible by placing it alongside other Tennessee symbols like the small mouth bass as the state sport fish, the cave salamander as the state amphibian and the honeybee as the state agricultural insect.

The state's Attorney General in an Opinion issued in April (full text) concluded that the bill is unconstitutional, and Governor Bill Haslam has expressed doubts about the bill. It is unclear whether or not he will veto it.

Mississippi Governor Signs "Freedom of Conscience" Bill Protecting Anti-LGBT Practices

CBS News reports that Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant today signed into law House Bill 1523, the Freedom of Conscience From Government Discrimination Act passed last week by the legislature. The law protects various actions of government and private businesses based on religious or moral beliefs that marriage is a union of one man and one woman, that sexual relations should be reserved to heterosexual marriage, or that gender is an immutable characteristic determined at birth. (See prior posting). In his signing statement (full text), Bryant said in part:

This bill does not limit any constitutionally protected rights or actions of any citizen of this state under federal or state laws.

Reacting to the governor's statement, the ACLU said (full text) in part:

This is a sad day for the state of Mississippi and for the thousands of Mississippians who can now be turned away from businesses, refused marriage licenses, or denied housing, essential services and needed care based on who they are. This bill flies in the face of the basic American principles of fairness, justice and equality and will not protect anyone's religious liberty.

Brazilian Court Trains Clergy As Mediators

Religion News Service reports on an experimental mediation program instituted by the courts in the Brazilian state of Goias.  In a program called "Mediar e Divino" ("To Mediate is Divine"), the court is training evangelical pastors, Catholic priests and Protestant ministers to mediate in family law cases and disputes among neighbors. Brazilian courts face massive backlogs of cases.  In Goias state alone, 800,000 new cases were filed last year.

Army Grants Sikh Soldier Accommodation After His Preliminary Court Victory

As previously reported, last month the D.C. federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the Army from subjecting Sikh Army officer Simratpal Singh to any non-standard or discriminatory testing for his helmet and gas mask.  Now without mentioning the court decision, the Army has issued a Memorandum (full text) dated March 30 granting Singh an accommodation, subject to various conditions. The Memorandum from Assistant Secretary of the Army Debra Wada to Singh reads in part:

I have considered your request for a religious accommodation to permit you to wear a beard, turban, and uncut hair in observance of your Sikh faith.... I grant your request for an exception to Army personal appearance and grooming standards, subject to the limitations described below....

While assigned or performing non-hazardous duties, you may wear a beard, turban, and uncut hair in a neat and conservative manner that presents a professional and well-groomed appearance. The bulk or your hair, beard, or turban may not be such that it impairs your ability to wear the Army Combat Helmet ... or other protective equipment....

Because of the Army's strong interest in maintaining good order and discipline, the Army intends to develop clear uniform standards applicable to Soldiers who have received a religious accommodation. Until such standards are published, you may wear a black turban (or under turban, as appropriate).... 

The Memorandum goes on to specify precise hair and beard lengths, and says that Singh's commander is to provide quarterly assessments of the effect of the accommodation on unit cohesion and morale, good order and discipline, health and safety, and individual and unit readiness. West reports on the Army's action.

UPDATE: Stars and Stripes reported on April 11 that 3 additional Sikh enlistees have been granted similar accommodations.

Wolcott Replaces Glendon On USCIRF

In a March 21 press release, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom announced that at the recommendation of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, on March 14 Ambassador Jackie Wolcott was appointed for a two-year term to USCIRF to succeed Commissioner Mary Ann Glendon whose term expires on May 14. During most of 2015, Wolcott served as USCIRF's executive director. Prior to that she held a number of State Department positions including a Deputy Assistant Secretary position in which she was responsible for human rights issues arising in the United Nations.

Qualified Immunity For Commissioners Asking Religious Questions To Constable Candidate

In Lloyd v. Birkman, (WD TX, April 1, 2016), a Texas federal district court held that members of the Williamson County (Texas) Commissioners' Court enjoyed qualified immunity in a suit by an unsuccessful candidate for County Constable.  The position was normally an elected one, but the current Constable resigned and the next election was over one year away. Thus under state law the Commissioners had the power to appoint a new Constable to serve until the next general election.  During interviews for the position, Commissioners asked candidates about their church membership, views on gay marriage and abortion, and political ideology. Plaintiff contended that these questions violated his rights of free expression and association, as well as the free exercise and establishment clauses. The court, however, concluded that there was not "clearly established law" that this line of questioning was improper in the context of private interviews for an interim appointment to a normally elective position. (See prior related posting.)

Business Owner Unsuccessful In Suing Churches That Opposed New Strip Club

In Harrington v. Hall County Board of Supervisors, (D NE, March 31, 2016), a Nebraska federal district court dismissed a number of claims brought by the owner of an adult entertainment company against two churches that circulated a petition opposing attempts to open a strip club in Hall County, Nebraska. The court also dismissed claims against a director of one of the churches.  The adult entertainment company owner alleged that the churches engaged in a conspiracy to adopt and enforce an unconstitutional zoning resolution. Plaintiff also alleged violations of the antitrust laws, defamation, tortious interference with business relationships, infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.  The court additionally rejected the claim that individual members of the County Board of Supervisors violated the Establishment Clause when at a public hearing they thanked supporters of the petition for supporting Christian values.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Paul Horwitz, Against Martyrdom: A Liberal Argument for Accommodation of Religion, (Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 91, No. 4, 2016).
• Tim S. Braimah, Divorcing Sexual Orientation from Religion and Politics: Utilizing the Convention Grounds of Religion and Political Opinion in Same-Sex Oriented Asylum Claims, (International Journal of Refugee Law, 2015).
• John D. Blum, Restoring the Parameters of Public Health in a Time of Hobby Lobby and Ebola: The Case for a Wellness Account, (2 Belmont Law Review 119 (2015)).
• John Fahner, Free Conscience in Decline: The Insignificance of the Free Exercise Clause and the Role of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the Wake of Hobby Lobby, (2 Belmont Law Review 185 (2015)).
• M. Cathleen Kaveny, Law, Religion, and Conscience in a Pluralistic Society: The Case of the Little Sisters of the Poor, (Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 394, March 2016).
• Vincy Fon, A Talmudic Bankruptcy Solution: The CCC Principle, (March 21, 2016).

From elsewhere:

• Justice, The Legal Magazine of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, No. 57, Winter 2015-2016.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Navarro v. Herndon, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39682 (ED CA, March 25, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that a Native American inmate be allowed to move ahead with his complaints regarding denial of access to a sweat lodge, to a  spiritual advisor and to religious property.

In Seagraves v. Treachler, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40992 (D NJ, March 29, 2016), a New Jersey federal district court permitted a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his free exercise and RLUIPA claims that the prison chaplain denied his request for vegetarian meals.

In Bey v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41017 (MD PA, March 29, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations that an inmate who was a member of the Moorish Science Temple of America and objected to the Therapeutic Community program in which he was required to participate can move ahead with an establishment clause, but not a free exercise clause, claim.

In Presley v. Scott, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40107 (ND AL, March 28, 2016), an Alabama federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41087, March 2, 2016) and dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies a Native American inmate's complaint that authorities seized his medicine bag and the refused to allow him to retrieve religious objects when he was transferred.

In Hoever v. Bellelis, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41168 (ND FL, March 29, 2016) a Florida federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41174, Feb. 24, 2016) and dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was denied his English version of the Bible and two devotional books for 26 days.  During that time he had his own Spanish Bible and could pray.

In Givens v. Vaughn, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41208 (SD IL, March 29, 2016), an Illinois federal district court allowed an African American Hebrew Israelite inmate to move ahead with complaints regarding denial of group Sabbath day services and ending of his kosher diet as well as retaliation and equal protection claims.

In Thomas v. Dakota County Law Enforcement Center, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41596 (D MN, March 29, 2016), a Minnesota federal district court held that because plaintiff, a Muslim inmate, named defendants only n their official capacities, his only claim that can move forward is one that the county had a policy of prohibiting Muslim prisoners from holding religious gatherings.

In Uduko v. Cozzens, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42048 (ED MI, March 30, 2016), a Michigan federal district court, while dismissing claims against a number of defendants, allowed an inmate who was Nigerian and a Protestant to move ahead with claims based on retaliation and discrimination against the prison chaplain who barred defendant from leading Protestant services or Bible or study groups, and later barred him from prophesying or praying for others in group services.

In Sanders v. Cain, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42069 (MD LA, March 28, 2016), a Louisiana federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that Mormons could not worship together on Sundays at the main prison complex and were denied club status, and that his transfer to another part of the prison prevented him from congregating or holding fund raisers with other Mormons.

In Johnson v. Ely State Prison, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42378 (D NV, March 30, 2016), a Nevada federal district court, while disagreeing in part with a magistrate's reasons, agreed that material facts remain for the fact finder on a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was prevented from attending Jum'ah for three years while held as a high risk inmate serving disciplinary sanctions.

Refusal To Enter Requested Surname on Birth Certificate Did Not Violate Free Exercise Rights

In Nix El v. Williams, (D DC, March 30, 2016), the D.C. federal district court rejected a claim by the father of a newborn daughter that his religious rights were infringed when D.C. Department of Health officials refused to list his daughter's surname on her birth certificate as "Nix El" rather than as "Nix", the parents' surname. D.C. statutes require the surname to match that of a family member. Plaintiff, who is a member of the Moorish Science Temple, contended that he wished to add "El" to his daughter's name because it is a title of nobility. In the suit, plaintiff had asked for declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages of $136 million plus punitive damages of $1 million per day for each day his daughter did not have a birth certificate.

Montana Court Issues Preliminary Injunction To Allow Parochial School Participation In Tax Credits

According to The Missoulian, in Montana on Thursday, a state trial court judge issued a preliminary injunction barring the Montana Department of Revenue from enforcing its rule that excludes religiously affiliated schools from participating in the state's new School Contributions Tax Credit law. (See prior posting.) The Department of Revenue takes the position that participation in the school aid program by religiously affiliated schools violates state constitutional bans on that prohibit direct and indirect payments or appropriations to religious or sectarian schools.

Mississippi Legislature Sends Governor Broad "Freedom of Conscience" Bill

The Mississippi Legislature today gave final passage to H.B. 1523 (full text) and (adopted amendment). Titled Protecting Freedom of Conscience From Government Discrimination Act, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 32-17 House by a vote of 69-44.

The statute, one of the broadest to date enacted by states, protects three separate beliefs if held on religious or moral grounds: (1) marriage is a union of one man and one woman; (2) sexual relations should be reserved to heterosexual marriage; and (3) gender is an immutable characteristic determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth.

The statute protects from any kind of adverse state action a religious organization that on one of these bases refuses to solemnize a marriage or refuses to provide services, accommodations, goods or facilities for a marriage.  It also allows religious organizations to use these beliefs in making employment decisions or decisions regarding the sale, rental or occupancy of housing facilities, or in providing adoption or foster care services.

The statute protects from adverse government action any adoptive or foster parents who guide or raise a child consistent with these beliefs.  It protects any person who refuses provide counseling or fertility services or treatment because of these beliefs (except for emergency medical treatment).

The statute goes on to protect anyone who refuses to provide specific kinds of wedding-related services because of these beliefs, including photography, wedding planning, printing, floral arrangements, dress making, hall or limousine rental or jewelry sales and services.  It also protects any person who imposes sex-specific policies based on these beliefs on students or employees or regarding access to rest rooms, locker rooms and showers.

The statute goes on to protect state employees who speak out on these issues in their private capacity or in the workplace to the extent other political, moral or religious beliefs can be expressed. It allows county clerks to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licences consistent with these beliefs, and allows judges and others to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

According to CBS News, Republican Gov. Phil Bryant so far refuses to say whether or not he will sign the bill into law.

Court Strikes Down Mississippi's Ban On Adoption By Same-Sex Couples

In Campaign for Southern Equality v. Mississippi Department of Human Services, (SD MS, March 31, 2016), a Mississippi federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring Mississippi from enforcing its statutory ban on adoption by same-sex couples. After devoting much of the opinion to issues of standing and 11th Amendment immunity, the court held that the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision requires striking down of the Mississippi adoption ban:

... [T]he majority opinion [in Obergefell] foreclosed litigation over laws interfering with the right to marry and “rights and responsibilities intertwined with marriage.”... It also seems highly unlikely that the same court that held a state cannot ban gay marriage because it would deny benefits—expressly including the right to adopt—would then conclude that married gay couples can be denied that very same benefit.

MS News Now reporting on the decision notes that Mississippi was the last state in the country to have a statutory ban on same-sex adoption.

Israel's High Court Recognizes Conversions Performed Outside of the Chief Rabbinate's Jurisdiction

Israel's High Court of Justice yesterday dealt another blow to the monopoly power of the country's Chief Rabbinate.  The Jerusalem Post reports that the Court, in an 8-1 decision, held that non-Israeli nationals who convert to Judaism through private Orthodox rabbinical courts-- rather than through the Chief Rabbinate's State Conversion Authority-- are eligible for citizenship under Israel's Law of Return.  Last year, a group of senior Orthodox rabbis gave up on trying to make the State Conversion Authority more accessible-- particularly to the many Soviet immigrants who are not recognized as Jewish under religious law-- and instead created their own non-state Orthodox conversion system known as Giyur Kahalacha.  It has converted some 150 people so far.  In Israel's complicated religious-political system, recognition under the Law of Return will likely require the Interior Ministry to register these converts as Jewish in the Population Registry. Then the question will be whether the Chief Rabbinate will recognize them as Jewish for purposes of marriage. Two leaders of the United Torah Judaism Party said that they would demand legislation to overturn the Court's decision.

Federal Agencies Adopt Final Rules On Partnering With Faith-Based Organization

Following up Notices of Proposed Rulemaking issued last August (see prior posting), yesterday, nine federal agencies published their final regulations implementing Executive Order 13559 that President Obama signed in 2010.  That Executive Order approved recommendations of the President's Advisory Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Yesterday's 304-page release (full text) titled Fundamental Principles and Policymaking Criteria for Partnerships With Faith-Based and Other Neighborhood Organizations adopts regulations aimed at preventing discrimination and assuring appropriate separation of religion and government.  A White House blog post describes the new rules.  The regulations:

Require agencies to ensure that all decisions about Federal financial assistance are based solely on merit, without regard to an organization's religious affiliation....

 Make clear that faith-based organizations are eligible to participate in federally funded social service programs on the same basis as any other private organization.

 Clarify what activities can and cannot be supported with direct Federal financial assistance by replacing use of the term "inherently religious activities" with the term "explicitly religious activities" and providing examples....

Prohibit organizations that receive Federal financial assistance from discriminating against beneficiaries ... based on religion ... or a refusal to attend or participate in a religious practice.

Require faith-based organizations that receive direct Federal financial assistance for domestic social service programs to provide written notice of certain protections to beneficiaries of the program....

In adopting the final regulations, the agencies refused to either broadly prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of religion by all recipients of Federal grants, or to clarify that such faith-based hiring is permissible. The Hill reports on the new rules.

ALJ Recommends Damages Against B&B That Rejected Civil Union Ceremony

In Wathen v. Walder Vacuflo, Inc., (IL Hum. Rts. Commn., March 22, 2016), an Illinois Human Rights Commission Administrative Law Judge-- after a recommended finding of liability entered last September-- recommended imposing damages of $30,000 for emotional distress arising out of a bed-and-breakfast's refusal to host a same-sex civil union ceremony, as well as $51,218 in attorneys' fees and costs.  The ALJ also recommended issuance of a cease-and-desist order and an order requiring Timber Creek Bed-and-Breakfast to host a celebration ceremony for complainants at 2011 rates. Reporting on the decision, WAND News published a statement from the B&B owner, who said in part:

We are not looking for a fight, but when immoral laws are purposely passed (or deemed constitutional) that blatantly conflict with God’s Word and when the heavy hand of government tries to force us as Christians to embrace sinful behavior, we have a moral obligation to resist and stand for Biblical truth. 

Virginia Governor Vetoes "Religious Freedom" Bill As Discriminatory

As he had promised, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, yesterday vetoed Senate Bill 41 that protected 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. (See prior posting.) In his veto message (full text), McAuliffe described the bill as one that shields "those who actively discriminate against same-sex couples" from civil liability.  McAuliffe said in part:

Although couched as a “religious freedom” bill, this legislation is nothing more than an attempt to stigmatize.  Any legitimate protections  ... are duplicative of the First Amendment ...; Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia; and the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  Any additional protections are styled in a manner that prefers one religious viewpoint—that marriage can only validly exist between a man and a woman—over all other viewpoints.  Such a dynamic is not only unconstitutional, it equates to discrimination under the guise of religious freedom.

This legislation is also bad for business and creates roadblocks as we try to build the new Virginia economy.

Washington Times reports on the governor's action.

Catholic School Principal's Title VII Suit Dismissed Under "Ministerial Exception"

In Fratello v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, (SD NY, March 29, 2016), a New York federal district court held that the "ministerial exception" to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act precludes the former lay principal of a Catholic elementary school from suing for employment discrimination.  Plaintiff alleged that her employment was terminated as a result of gender discrimination and retaliation. In relying on the ministerial exception doctrine as set out in the U.S. Supreme Court's 2012 Hosanna-Tabor decision, the district court said in part:

There is no dispute that Plaintiff is not a member of the clergy and that she would not be considered a minister for purposes of Church governance. But the issue here is one of U.S., not canon, law, and “minister” for purposes of the ministerial exception has a far broader meaning than it does for internal Church purposes. 

Obama Speaks At White House Easter Prayer Breakfast

Yesterday, President Obama (introduced by Vice President Joe Biden) spoke at his annual Easter Prayer Breakfast in the State Dining Room at the White House. (Full text of remarks.) The President said in part:

[I]n light of recent events, this gathering takes on more meaning.  Around the world, we have seen horrific acts of terrorism, most recently Brussels, as well as what happened in Pakistan -- innocent families, mostly women and children, Christians and Muslims.  And so our prayers are with the victims, their families, the survivors of these cowardly attacks. 

... [T]hese attacks can foment fear and division.  They can tempt us to cast out the stranger, strike out against those who don’t look like us, or pray exactly as we do.  And they can lead us to turn our backs on those who are most in need of help and refuge.  That’s the intent of the terrorists, is to weaken our faith, to weaken our best impulses, our better angels. 

... [I]f Easter means anything, it’s that you don’t have to be afraid.  We drown out darkness with light, and we heal hatred with love, and we hold on to hope.  And we think about all that Jesus suffered and sacrificed on our behalf -- scorned, abandoned shunned, nail-scarred hands bearing the injustice of his death and carrying the sins of the world.

AP reported on the President's remarks.

Alaska Appeals Court: Reconsider Sex Offender's Bar On Taking His Children To Church

In Binder v. State of Alaska, (AK, March 30, 2016), an Alaska appeals court remanded a case to the trial court to reconsider defendant's request that his conditions of probation be modified to allow him to visit and attend church with his children. The court said that it was not enough to leave this issue to the discretion of defendant's probation officer. Instead the court should decide whether, for example, defendant could attend church with his children supervised by a person approved by the court or his probation officer. The appeals court explained:

When probation conditions potentially infringe fundamental constitutional rights, a sentencing judge must scrutinize the conditions and consider whether less restrictive alternatives might suffice.

Bible Colleges Lose Challenge To State Regulation

In Illinois Bible Colleges Association v. Anderson, (ND IL, March 28, 2916), an Illinois federal district court rejected constitutional challenges by a group of Bible Colleges to three Illinois statutes that regulate institutions of higher education in the state.  The statutes generally require approval by the state Board of Higher Education to operate a degree-granting college or grant degrees or certificates of completion.  Plaintiffs argued, among other things, that the statutes "subordinate the Church’s responsibility to God in deciding how to properly educate students in religious teaching" and "unconstitutionally restrict... their ability to accurately describe the nature of the Bible Colleges’ curricula by regulating the use of the terms 'Bachelor’s,' 'Master’s,' or 'Doctorate' degrees." The court rejected plaintiffs' establishment clause, free exercise, speech, association and equal protection challenges to the statutes and dismissed the complaint.

FOIA Request Aimed At Human Trafficking Grant To Catholic Bishops

The ACLU earlier this month filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking the release of records related to the federal government’s award of Trafficking Victim Protection Act funds to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).  According to the complaint (full text) in ACLU v. Administration for Children and Families, (SD NY, filed 3/17/2016), in 2009 the ACLU filed a lawsuit claiming that the federal government violated the Establishment Clause by allowing USCCB under a 2006 grant to enter subcontracts with religiously-based reproductive health care restrictions in them.  Those subcontracts barred subcontracting agencies from furnishing abortion and contraception services or referrals to trafficking victims. The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed as moot because the government was no longer contracting with USCCB.  However in 2015 USCCB received a new grant, and the ACLU is now seeking documents to determine whether religiously-based restrictions are again being imposed. LifeSite News yesterday reported on the lawsuit.

Sikhs Sue Over Army Accommodation of Religious Practices

A lawsuit was filed yesterday by three observant Sikhs who have enlisted in the Army, but who are encountering difficulties in obtaining accommodation to allow them to continue to wear beards, uncut hair, and turbans.  The 54 page complaint (full text) in Singh v. McConville, (D DC, filed 3/29/2016), alleges in part:

[T]he Army has a long pattern and practice of discriminating against Sikhs.... The Army’s regulations promise that soldiers whose religious exercise poses no significant obstacle to the military’s mission will be generously accommodated.... [H]owever, the regulations themselves are defective and foster religious discrimination on a number of levels.... [T]hey force soldiers who need religious accommodations to violate their religious beliefs before they can apply for an accommodation, even if their religious exercises would clearly have no impact on the military’s compelling interests.

The regulations are also ... require soldiers to reapply for a religious accommodation every time they have a “transfer of duty stations, or other significant change in circumstances”..... The ambiguity in the regulations also creates an environment where the Army feels free to delay resolving requests for accommodation for long periods of time, leaving future soldiers in limbo and potentially forcing them to forgo other education and career opportunities while they wait for the Army’s decision.

Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit By Man Injured Through Faith Healing May Proceed

In Sung-Ho Hwang v. Grace Road Church, (ED NY, March 14, 2016), a New York federal district court allowed a mentally ill man (in a suit through his conservator) to move ahead with negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision claims against a Korean-based church and its members who forced him off his prescription medications and attempted to cure him through religious healing. Plaintiffs' treatment of defendant-- including tying his wrists, ankles, and knees in a chair or bed with duct tape, and placing a sock in his mouth to restrain his screams at night-- led to amputation of his right leg and exacerbation of his psychotic symptoms.  The court rejected a number of procedural defenses and, in permitting the negligent infliction claim to move forward, said:

Even if the church and its members had no duty to plaintiff until the moment they restrained him, they acquired a duty to exercise reasonable care to secure his safety during the period of his restraint.

New York Law Journal reports on the decision.

Supreme Court In Unusual Order Floats Alternative Compromise In Contraceptive Mandate Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued an unusual Order (full text) in Zubik v. Burwell and the six other cases consolidated with it, less than a week after the Court heard oral arguments in the case.  In what is apparently an attempt to avoid a 4-4 split in the case, the Court has essentially drafted its own version of a compromise on provision of contraceptive coverage in health insurance policies for employees of religious non-profits, and is asking the parties whether they will buy into it. The Order reads in part:

The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs that address whether and how contraceptive coverage may be obtained by petitioners’ employees through petitioners’ insurance companies, but in a way that does not require any involvement of petitioners beyond their own decision to provide health insurance without contraceptive coverage to their employees.  Petitioners with insured plans are currently required to submit a form either to their insurer or to the Federal Government (naming petitioners’ insurance company), stating that petitioners object on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage. The parties are directed to address whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners. 

For example, the parties should consider a situation in which petitioners would contract to provide health insurance for their employees, and in the course of obtaining such insurance, inform their insurance company that they do not want their health plan to include contraceptive coverage of the type to which they object on religious grounds. Petitioners would have no legal obligation to provide such contraceptive coverage, would not pay for such coverage, and would not be required to submit any separate notice to their insurer, to the Federal Government, or to their employees. At the same time, petitioners’ insurance company—aware that petitioners are not providing certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds—would separately notify petitioners’ employees that the insurance company will provide cost-free contraceptive coverage, and that such coverage is not paid for by petitioners and is not provided through petitioners’ health plan.

The parties may address other proposals along similar lines, avoiding repetition of discussion in prior briefing.....

Initial reactions from the non-profits suggest that they may be willing to accept this version of the compromise. A press release from the Becket Fund, counsel for Little Sisters of The Poor, petitioners in one of the cases, describes the Court's Order as an "excellent development."

Arbitration Clause In Mosque's By-Laws Covers Misappropriation Claims

In Matahen v. Sehwail, (NJ App., March 24, 2016), members of a local mosque sued claiming that defendants (also members of the mosque) misused the mosque's credit card for personal expenses and legal expenses of the mosque's Imam. Plaintiffs also claimed that one of the defendants was improperly maintained on the mosque's health insurance plan after he ceased working for the mosque and his children's school tuition was paid for by the mosque.  A New Jersey state appeals court held that an arbitration clause in the mosque's by-laws applies to these claims and ordered the claims be referred to arbitration. The clause provides:

The board shall create an Islamic Arbitration Committee of 3-5 members in case of disagreement among board members or general assembly members of matters related to the center, such committee shall consist of a Lawyer, an Imam, and Community Leaders. All disputes arising hereunder shall be resolved by arbitration by the aforementioned committee....

The court pointed out that the "general assembly" is the general membership of the mosque, and all the plaintiffs and individual defendants were members. New Jersey Law Journal reports on the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Pennsylvania City's Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone

Last week, three women who regularly act as pro-life "sidewalk counselors" outside two abortion clinics filed suit in a Pennsylvania federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Harrisburg's "Interference With Access To Health Care Facilities" Ordinance.  The ordinance bars congregating, patrolling, picketing or demonstrating within 20 feet of any health care facility entrance, exit or driveway.  The complaint (full text) in Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, (MD PA, filed 3/24/2016) contends that the ordinance violates freedom of expression, free exercise of religion, freedom of assembly, equal protection and due process rights. Liberty Counsel announced the filing of the lawsuit.

Bangladesh Court Throws Out Petition Seeking To End Islam As State Religion

As reported by Voice of America, yesterday a 3-judge panel of Bangladesh's High Court rejected on procedural grounds a controversial petition filed 28-years ago seeking to eliminate the designation of Islam as the country's state religion.  Petitioners argued that recognition of Islam-- practiced by 90% of the population-- as the state religion is inconsistent with the country's secular constitution and discriminates against religious minorities. As soon as the case opened in court yesterday, the judges ruled that because the secular group filing it never registered with authorities, it has no right to file a petition.

Wedding Chapel That Objects To Performing Same-Sex Ceremonies Lacks Standing For Most of Its Challenges

In 2014, two Christian ministers and their wedding chapel known as the Hitching Post brought suit in an Idaho federal district court to enjoin the city of Coeur d'Alene from enforcing its LGBT anti-discrimination ordinance against them, and for damages. In Knapp v. City of Coeur d'Alene, (D ID, March 25, 2016), the court held that because the city conceded within a week of the filing of the lawsuit that the religious chapel is exempt from the anti-discrimination law, plaintiffs lack standing to seek an injunction.  At most the chapel can sue for lost business on the one day after same-sex marriages became legal that it was closed out of fear it would be required to perform same-sex marriages.  The court did not reach the merits of whether plaintiffs' free speech, free exercise, equal protection and due process rights were in fact infringed on that day. (See prior related posting.)

UPDATE: The suit was eventually settled by the city paying plaintiffs $1000. (CDA Press, May 3, 2016).

Suit Challenges North Carolina's Anti-Transgender Law

The ACLU, Equality North Carolina and three individuals yesterday filed a federal lawsuit challenging a statute enacted last week in North Carolina which bars transgender individuals from using school and public agency bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.  The law also more broadly pre-empts local anti-discrimination laws. (See prior posting.)  The complaint (full text) in Carcaño v. McCrory, (MD NC, filed 3/28/2016) contends that the law was enacted for the purpose of disadvantaging members of the LGBT community and is based on animus against LGBT people.  Plaintiffs allege that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and infringes their right to privacy and right to refuse unwanted medical treatment.  Wall Street Journal reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said at a news conference that he will not defend the state's new law against the challenge in this lawsuit.  He called the law a national embarrassment and unconstitutional.  Cooper is running against incumbent Republican Gov. Pat McCrory who signed the anti-transgender bill. (AP, BuzzFeed, 3/29/2016).

Georgia Governor Will Veto Religious Liberty Bill

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal announced this morning that he will veto HB 757, the expansive Free Exercise Protection Act passed earlier this month by the state legislature. (See prior posting.)  As reported by CNN, the Republican governor has been under pressure from major business, technology and entertainment companies to veto the bill which was seen as condoning discrimination against members of the LGBT community.  In his veto message (full text), Gov. Deal said in part:

If indeed our religious liberty is conferred by God and not by man-made government, we should need the “hands off” admonition of the First Amendment to our Constitution. When legislative bodies attempt to do otherwise, the inclusions and omissions in their statues can lead to discrimination, even though it may be unintentional. That is too great a risk to take.

Some of those in the religious community who support this bill have resorted to insults that question my moral convictions and my character. Some within the business community who oppose this bill have resorted to threats of withdrawing jobs from our state. I do not respond well to insults or threats. The people of Georgia deserve a leader who will made sound judgments based on solid reasons that are not inflamed by emotion....

As I've said before, I do not think we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith based community in Georgia of which my family and I are a part of for all of our lives.

California Board of Regents Adopts Proposal Aimed At Campus Anti-Semitism

Last Thursday, the University of California Board of Regents unanimously adopted "Principles Against Intolerance" (full text) as a response to an increase in anti-Semitic incidents on UC campuses. The Introduction to the new document explains:

During the 2014-15 academic year, the Regents received correspondence and public comment from a variety of sources expressing concern that there has been an increase in incidents reflecting anti-Semitism on UC campuses. These reported incidents included vandalism targeting property associated with Jewish people or Judaism; challenges to the candidacies of Jewish students seeking to assume representative positions within student government; political, intellectual and social dialogue that is anti-Semitic; and social exclusion and stereotyping. Fundamentally, commenters noted that historic manifestations of anti-Semitism have changed and that expressions of anti-Semitism are more coded and difficult to identify. In particular, opposition to Zionism often is expressed in ways that are not simply statements of disagreement over politics and policy, but also assertions of prejudice and intolerance toward Jewish people and culture.

Anti-Semitism, anti-semitic forms of anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California.

As reported by the New York Times,  the version of the document that was adopted eliminated previously proposed language that would have condemned all forms of anti-Zionism.

More Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Greenhill v. Clarke, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37439 (WD VA, March 23, 2016), a Virginia federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to a Muslim inmate complaining about access to Jum'ah services, restrictions on beard length and handling of religious meals.

In Patterson v. Berrett, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37788 (D NV, March 22, 2016), a Nevada federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that wearing an identification wristband violates his free exercise rights.

In Guillory v. Hodge, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37898 (SD MS, March 23, 2016), a Mississippi federal  magistrate judge dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that his overcrowded cell made it difficult for him to perform Salat and Wudu; he was not allowed to have various religious items; and denied a modified meal schedule for Ramadan.

In Dawson v. Beard, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38115 (ED CA, March 23, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed a claims by a House of Yahweh inmate that he was denied access to religious services and the right to fast.

In McBride v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38398 (ED MI, March 24, 2016), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations and refused to dismiss complaints by deaf inmates that their rights were infringed by failure to provide sign interpreters at religious services.

In Davis v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38629 (D CO, March 24, 2016), a Colorado federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations and dismissed an inmate's claim that correspondence restrictions violated his free exercise rights.

In Abdul-Aziz v. Lanigan, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38884 (D NJ, March 24, 2016), a New Jersey federal district court while dismissing some claims allowed Muslim inmates to move ahead on complaints seeking injunctive and declaratory relief alleging that they were denied daily Halal meats and meals; donated Halal feast meals; personal prayer oils; and congregational prayer.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Avishalom Westreich, An International Perspective on Same-Sex Marriage Post Obergefell (and Some Thoughts on Legal Positivism as a Means of Reconciliation): The Israeli Case, (Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, Forthcoming).
• Sahar F. Aziz, Security and Technology: Rethinking National Security, (2 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 791 (2015)).
• Pok Yin Stephenson Chow, Has Intersectionality Reached its Limits? Intersectionality in the UN Human Rights Treaty-Body Practice and the Issue of Ambivalence, (Human Rights Law Review, 2016 (Forthcoming)).
• Candace B. Ford, Marriage, Religion, and the Art of Judging in Post-Obergefell Louisiana, (43 S.U. L. REV. ___ (2016)).
• Casey E. Faucon, Polygamy after Windsor: What's Religion Got to Do with It?, (Harvard Law & Policy Review, Vol. 9, p. 471, 2015).
• Ruth Colker, Freedom to Choose to Marry, (Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2016).
• Uladzislau Belavusau & Dimitry Kochenov, On the 'Entry Options' for the 'Right to Love' : Federalizing Legal Opportunities for LGBT Movements in the EU, (EUI Department of Law Research Paper No. 2016/09 (2016)).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Yusuf Sani Abubakar, Anowar Zahid & Ruzian Markom, Insurable Interest Under Life Insurance And Family Takaful, (Shariah Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2 (2015) 343-364).
• Anowar Zahid, et. al., Qarinah: Admissibility of Circumstantial Evidence in Hudud and Qisas Cases, (Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 2, March 2015).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Dolan v. Lowe, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35118 (MD PA, March 18, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal district court upheld prison authorities' refusal to allow an inmate to change his religious designation from Christian-Catholic to Islam so he could participate in Ramadan.

In Langford v. Koskela, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35712 (WD MI, March 21, 2016), a Michigan federal district court rejected a Muslim inmate's challenge to misconduct sanctions imposed when he refused to give a urine sample for drug testing while he was abstaining from food and water for Ramadan.

In Hayes v. Bruno, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35996 (D CT, March 21, 2016), a Connecticut federal district court rejected a claim by an Orthodox Jewish inmate that the prison's Common Fare diet, which had been certified as kosher by two rabbis who served a prison chaplains, did not meet Orthodox kosher standards because of the method of preparation.

In Weddle v. Baker, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36133 (D NV, March 21, 2016), a Nevada federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37307, Jan. 11, 2016) and dismissed a Jewish inmate's complaint that he was denied kosher meals.

In Cox v. Cronin, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36549 (WD NY, March 18, 2016), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate's complaint that barring him from NA meetings violated his free exercise rights because he had adopted NA as his religion. The court concluded that defendants were protected by qualified immunity.

In Al-Fuyudi v. Corrections Corporation of America, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36687 (WD OK, March 22, 2016), an Oklahoma federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37750, Jan. 26, 2016) and dismissed a complaint by a Muslim inmate in a private prison that he was not provided a proper and nutritionally adequate halal diet, was denied the right to wear a kufi at all times, and was not provided religious materials, access to Muslim television programs, and additional chapel time for services.

In Oliver v. Harner, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36835 (SD IL, March 22, 2016), an Illinois federal district court allowed an Assembly of Yahweh inmate to move ahead with his complaint against the prison chaplain that he was denied a kosher diet.

In McCombs v. Parker, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36906 (WD NC, March 22, 2016), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed without prejudice an inmate's complaint that he was denied a kosher diet and was denied the ability to attend a Messianic Jewish prayer service when the volunteer who was supposed to supervise it was ill.

In Booker v. Graham, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37100 (ND NY, March 21, 2016), a New York federal magistrate judge told defendants to wait until the completion of discovery to move for summary judgment in a case in which Muslim inmates complained that they could not attend daily Ramadan services or consult with an imam during a lock down and that they received inappropriate Ramadan food.

In Smith v. Davis, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37325 (ND CA, March 21, 2016), a California federal district court dismissed two of the defendants in a Muslim inmate's suit claiming that Muslim inmates were limited to one congregational prayer service per day and could not meet in groups of 5 or more for prayer. The suit continues against two others.