2016 Republican Platform on Marriage, Family and Society

Yesterday the Republican Party at its national convention adopted its 2016 Platform (full text).  This is the fourth in a series of posts that focus on Platform provisions dealing with moral values and religious liberty. Note that the excerpt continues after the jump. Here is the Platform section titled Marriage, Family and Society:

Foremost among those institutions is the American family. It is the foundation of civil society, and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman. Its daily lessons — cooperation, patience, mutual respect, responsibility, self-reliance — are fundamental to the order and progress of our Republic. Strong families, depending upon God and one another, advance the cause of liberty by lessening the need for government in their daily lives. Conversely, as we have learned over the last five decades, the loss of faith and family life leads to greater dependence upon government. That is why Republicans formulate public policy, from taxation to education, from healthcare to welfare, with attention to the needs and strengths of the family.

2016 Republican Platform on Abortion

Yesterday the Republican Party at its national convention adopted its 2016 Platform (full text).  This is the third in a series of posts that focus on Platform provisions dealing with moral values and religious liberty. Note that the excerpt continues after the jump. Here is the lengthy Platform section titled The Fifth Amendment: Protecting Human Life:

The Constitution’s guarantee that no one can “be deprived of life, liberty or property” deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that “all” are “endowed by their Creator” with the inalienable right to life. Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth.

2016 Republican Platform on Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday the Republican Party at its national convention adopted its 2016 Platform (full text).  This is the second in a series of posts that focus on Platform provisions dealing with moral values and religious liberty. Here is the Platform section titled Defending Marriage Against an Activist Judiciary:

Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent. We, therefore, support the appointment of justices and judges who respect the constitutional limits on their power and respect the authority of the states to decide such fundamental social questions.

2016 Republican Platform on Religious Liberty

Yesterday the Republican Party at its national convention adopted its 2016 Platform (full text).  This is the first in a series of posts that will focus on Platform provisions dealing with moral values and religious liberty. Note that the excerpt continues after the jump. Here is the Platform's lengthy section on Religious Liberty:

The Bill of Rights lists religious liberty, with its rights of conscience, as the first freedom to be protected. Religious freedom in the Bill of Rights protects the right of the people to practice their faith in their everyday lives. As George Washington taught, “religion and morality are indispensable supports” to a free society. Similarly, Thomas Jefferson declared that “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.” Ongoing attempts to compel individuals, businesses, and institutions of faith to transgress their beliefs are part of a misguided effort to undermine religion and drive it from the public square. As a result, many charitable religious institutions that have demonstrated great success in helping the needy have been barred from receiving government grants and contracts.

Religious Speakers At Republican Convention

Politico sets out the full schedule of speakers and events at the Republican Convention that began yesterday.  Here is the list of religious figures delivering invocations, remarks and benedictions:

Monday Afternoon Session:

• Invocation: Rabbi Ari Wolf
• Benediction: Pastor Mark Burns. Harvest Praise and Worship Center

Monday Evening Session:

• Prayers from Maria Foundation
• Invocation: Monsignor Keiran Harrington, Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, NY
• Benediction Pastor Paula White, New Destiny Christian Center

Tuesday Session:

• Invocation:  Harmeet Dhillon, San Francisco, CA
• Benediction: Sajid Tarar, Founder, American Muslims for Trump

Wednesday Session:

• Invocation: Nathan Johnson, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Remarks: Darrell Scott, Senior Pastor, New Spirit Revival Center Ministries
• Benediction: His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and Exarch of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans

Thursday Session:

• Invocation Reverend Dr. Steve Bailey, Pastor, New Philadelphia First United Methodist Church
• Remarks: Jerry Falwell, Jr., President, Liberty University
• Benediction: Roger W. Gries, Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus

New Pew Survey On Religion and the 2016 Campaign

Last week, the Pew Research Center released a 35-page Report (summary) (full text) setting out the results of a new survey on Religion and the 2016 Campaign, and on attitudes toward Religion in Public Life.  The survey found that white evangelical voters strongly favor Donald Trump, while religiously unaffiliated voters favor Hillary Clinton. The survey also found that a declining number of U.S. adults (62% vs. 67% in 2012) think it is important for the President to have strong religious beliefs. The survey was conducted June 15-26, 2016, using a national sample of 2,245 adults.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Holly Fernandez Lynch & Gregory Curfman, Bosses in the Bedroom: Religious Employers and the Future of Employer-Sponsored Health Care, (Law, Religion, and Health in the United States (Holly Fernandez Lynch, I. Glenn Cohen, Elizabeth Sepper, eds.) Cambridge University Press, 2017 Forthcoming).
• Roland Pierik, On Religious and Secular Exemptions. A Case Study of Childhood Vaccination Waivers, (General Subserie Research Paper No. 2016-02 (2016)).
• Kellen R. Funk, 'Interference in Churches Must Be Referred to the Rights of Property': Church Corporations and Conflict of Laws in Antebellum America, (Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2018).
• Merel Jonker, Mariëtte van den Hoven & Wendy Schrama, Editorial: Religion and Culture in Family & Law, (Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 1-6, June 2016).
• Wibo M. van Rossum & Mariëtte van den Hoven, Paucity and the Need for Value Sensitivity in Dealing with Youth Care: Why Legal and Youth Professionals Should Take Cultural and Religious Considerations Seriously, (Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 7-23, June 2016).
• Tammy Harel Ben-Shahar, Race, Class and Religion: Creaming and Cropping in Religious Charter Schools, (Columbia Journal of Race and Law, Forthcoming).
• Adam MacLeod, Tempering Civil Rights Conflicts: Common Law for the Moral Marketplace, (Michigan State Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Ethan Blevins, A Fixed Meaning of 'Religion' in the First Amendment, (July 13, 2016).

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

• Aan Jaelani, Religion, Economy, and State: Economic Thought of Al-Mawardi in Adab Al-Dunya Wa-Al-Din, (MPRA Paper No. 72090 (June 2016)).
• Jet Tigchelaar & Merel Jonker, How is a Judicial Decision Made in Parental Religious Disputes? An Analysis of Determining Factors in Dutch and European Court of Human Rights Case Law, (Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 24-40, June 2016).
• Eva Brems, SAS V France: A Reality Check, (July 15, 2016).

European Court Favors Muslim Employee's Right To Wear Hijab At Work

The Court of Justice of the European Union last week released an Advocate General's opinion on whether under European Union Directive 2000/78 a private employer may bar a Muslim employee from wearing a hijab at work when a customer objects to the head covering. The Advocate General's opinion in Bougnaoui v. Micropole SA, (CJ EU, July 13, 2016), is the first step in the Court's rendering an advisory opinion to France's Court of Cassation on the meaning of the EU employment discrimination directive.  The Advocate General's opinion provides a recommendation to a panel of the Court's judges who will then render a decision. The Advocate General concluded that barring wearing of the hijab under these circumstances amounts to both illegal direct and indirect discrimination. The Advocate General said in part:

73. When the employer concludes a contract of employment with an employee, he does not buy that person’s soul. He does, however, buy his time. For that reason, I draw a sharp distinction between the freedom to manifest one’s religion – whose scope and possible limitation in the employment context are at the heart of the proceedings before the national court – and proselytising on behalf of one’s religion. Reconciling the former freedom with the employer’s right to conduct his business will, as I shall demonstrate, require a delicate balancing act between two competing rights. The latter practice has, in my view, simply no place in the work context. It is therefore legitimate for the employer to impose and enforce rules that prohibit proselytising, both to ensure that the work time he has paid for is used for the purposes of his business and to create harmonious working conditions for his workforce....

133. ... It seems to me that in the vast majority of cases it will be possible, on the basis of a sensible discussion between the employer and the employee, to reach an accommodation that reconciles adequately the competing rights of the employee to manifest his or her religion and the employer to conduct his business. Occasionally, however, that may not be possible. In the last resort, the business interest in generating maximum profit should then in my view give way to the right of the individual employee to manifest his religious convictions. Here, I draw attention to the insidiousness of the argument, ‘but we need to do X because otherwise our customers won’t like it’. Where the customer’s attitude may itself be indicative of prejudice based on one of the ‘prohibited factors’, such as religion, it seems to me particularly dangerous to excuse the employer from compliance with an equal treatment requirement in order to pander to that prejudice. Directive 2000/78 is intended to confer protection in employment against adverse treatment (that is, discrimination) on the basis of one of the prohibited factors. It is not about losing one’s job in order to help the employer’s profit line.

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Johnson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90255 (MD PA, July 11, 2016), Muslim inmates alleged various interferences with their ability to pray 5 times per day.  A Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a number of the claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissing on the merits a claim that plaintiff is not allowed to pray while in the prison library and while at his adult education classes.

In Lane v. Tavares, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91052 (MD PA, July 12, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge recommended that a Muslim inmate be allowed to proceed with his complaint that authorities have failed to accommodate his religious needs.  He often cannot attend Friday Prayers because his heart condition prevents him from climbing the five flights of stairs to reach the chapel.

In Giraldes v. Beard, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91205 (ED CA, July 13, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge, denying a preliminary injunction, rejected a Catholic inmate's claim that denial of conjugal visits infringed his free exercise rights and his rights under RLUIPA.

In Roberts v. Perry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91639 (WD NC, July 14, 2016), a North Carolina federal district court allowed an inmate to proceed with his complaint that authorities refuse to recognize Nation of Israel as an approved faith group and that inmates are limited to ten religious publications.

In Allah v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91939 (WD VA, July 15, 2016), a Virginia federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that the file from his litigation that included much Nation of Gods and Earths material was seized by prison authorities.

House Hearing Examines Blasphemy Laws and Censorship Around the World

On Thursday, Congressional Hearings titled Blasphemy Laws and Censorship by States and Non-State Actors: Examining Global Threats to Freedom of Expression  were held by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.  Transcripts of most of the testimony as well as a video of the full hearing are available on the House Committee's website.

Difficult Week For New York Orthodox Rabbi As Politics of U.S. and Israel Cause Him Problems

It has been a difficult week for respected Modern Orthodox Rabbi Haskel Lookstein.  Lookstein is the Rabbi Emeritus of Manhattan's Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, the synagogue attended by Donald Trump's daughter and son-in-law. Lookstein is also the rabbi who sponsored Ivanka Trump's conversion to Judaism.  So this week he was tapped to offer an invocation at the Republican National Convention. However a petition (full text) signed by over 800 Orthodox Jews took Lookstein to task, saying in part:

We, the undersigned, are outraged that Rabbi Haskel Lookstein – rabbi emeritus of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun and the Ramaz School – has decided to lend his blessing to Donald Trump and speak at the Republican National Convention.

Donald Trump openly spouts racist, misogynistic rhetoric; he advocates torture, the expulsion of millions of families, some long settled in America, and insinuates that some citizens of this great country are somehow less than others.

So Lookstein decided not to speak at the Convention after all, saying: " The whole matter turned from rabbinic to political, something which was never intended."  The Forward reports on these developments.

Meanwhile, as reported by the Times of Israel, Israel's Supreme Rabbinical Court, the court which hears appeals in personal status matters, ruled on Wednesday that it will not recognize religious conversions performed by Rabbi Lookstein in the United States. It required an American woman who had converted to Judaism under Lookstein's auspices to convert again in Israel in order to get married there.  The ruling, of course, calls into question the Israeli rabbinate's willingness to recognize Ivanka Trump's conversion as well.  Israel's Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi David Lau says he recognizes Lookstein's conversions, but the Chief Rabbinate is separate from the Supreme Rabbinical Court. Israeli officials such as Jewish Agency head Natan Sharanksy also back Lookstein.

7th Circuit Grants Preliminary Injunction To Wiccan Inmate

In Knowles v. Pfister, (7th Cir., July 13, 2016), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in an opinion by Judge Posner reversed the trial court and ordered entry of a preliminary injunction to allow a Wiccan inmate to wear a one-inch pentacle medallion around his neck.  Finding that the inmate's "freedom of religion has been gratuitously infringed by the prison," the appeals court rejected the Illinois federal district court's reasoning, saying in part:

We have trouble seeing the force of these points—(1) what an adequate remedy at law would be (monetary compensation for the loss of a religious entitlement?); (2) how forbidding a religious observance important to a devout practitioner could be thought harmless to him because other observances remained open to him... and (3) how the plaintiff could obtain any relief unless the warden was enjoined from violating RLUIPA.

11th Circuit: Florida Prisons Must Offer Kosher Food

In United States v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, (11th Cir., July 14, 2016), the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Florida must provide kosher meals for inmates with a sincere religious basis for demanding such meals. The court wrote in part:

The Secretary argues that denying a kosher diet statewide is the least restrictive means of furthering Florida’s interest in cost containment, but she fails to rebut three arguments to the contrary. First, she fails to explain why the Department cannot offer kosher meals when the Federal Bureau of Prisons and other states do so.... Second, the Secretary fails to explain why the Department cannot offer kosher meals when it offers vegan, medical, and therapeutic diets at similar marginal costs.... Third, the Secretary fails to explain why the less restrictive alternative of enforcing rules that limit access to, and continued participation in, the program would not further her stated interest. The United States produced evidence that the Department is not screening out insincere applicants or enforcing the rules of participation in the program, and the Secretary does not contest that evidence. She instead responds that enforcing the rules would be too time intensive....

AP reports on the decision, pointing out that it was handed down only two days after oral argument in the case.

Israel Finally Appoints Rabbinical Appellate Judges

After months of controversy, nine new judges have finally been appointed to Israel's Supreme Rabbinical Court, the court which hears appeals in Jewish divorce and certain other personal status matters.  Jerusalem Post reports that nine judges were appointed on Tuesday, bringing the court up to its required complement of ten. Facing a large backlog of cases, the court was operating with temporary appointments which were about to expire. (Haaretz. June 16).  The new appointees for the first time include 5 judges who have served in the IDF.  However women's groups strongly criticized one of the new appointees.

New Blog Focuses On Religious Freedom and LGBT Rights

Michigan State Law Professor Frank Ravitch has launched a new blog, Freedom's Edge.  The blog will focus on the relationship between Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and Reproductive Freedom. Freedom's Edge is now listed in the Religion Clause sidebar.  Welcome to the blogosphere!

Anti-Islamic Group Sues Claiming Federal Law Shields Social Media Censorship

Yesterday the American Freedom Defense Initiative, its President Pamela Geller, its Vice President and the organization Jihad Watch sued the federal government contending that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields Facebook, Twitter and YouTube when they censor anti-Islamic postings by plaintiffs.  The complaint (full text) in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Lynch, (D DC, filed 7/13/2016), alleges that censorship and discrimination by social media outlets violate California anti-discrimination laws, but the CDA section on "Protection for 'Good Samaritan' blocking and screening of offensive material" allows Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to engage in discriminatory conduct. Among the allegations in the complaint against the social media sites are:

The discriminatory way in which Facebook applies its restrictions is evidenced by the fact that Facebook allows vicious posts and pages against Israel to stand, but when Plaintiff Geller and others expose the truth behind that Islamic hatred, the speech is prohibited.,,,

The Twitter policy, in effect, mirrors Islamic blasphemy standards as applied to censor speech critical of Islam, such as Plaintiffs’ speech.

The Center for Security Policy issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Mississippi AG Will Not Appeal Injunction Against Conscience Protection Act, Despite Governor's Appeal of Decision [UPDATED]

In a strong statement (full text) issued yesterday, Mississippi state Attorney General Jim Hood announced that he will not appeal a federal district court's injunction against enforcing HB 1523 , Mississippi's anti-LGBT Conscience Protection Act, (See prior posting.) Hood said in part:

First, both HB 1523’s critics and supporters acknowledge that the bill did not change state or federal law. For example, there is no state law requiring pastors to marry same-sex couples, and I doubt that the Legislature would ever pass one.  Moreover, the Mississippi Legislature has already passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which protects a person’s right to exercise his or her religious beliefs.  HB 1523’s critics and supporters also recognize that HB 1523 cannot overturn or preempt federal law.  As acknowledged by our Governor, HB 1523 is not a defense to a federal lawsuit.

Simply stated, all HB 1523 has done is tarnish Mississippi’s image while distracting us from the more pressing issues of decaying roads and bridges, underfunding of public education, the plight of the mentally ill and the need to solve our state’s financial mess....

Second, to appeal HB 1523 and fight for an empty bill that dupes one segment of our population into believing it has merit while discriminating against another is just plain wrong. I don’t believe that’s the way to carry out Jesus’ primary directives to protect the least among us and to love thy neighbor....

Misinformation that, without HB 1523, pastors, churches, bakers, wedding planners or other private service providers will be forced to violate their religious beliefs has been used repeatedly to frighten our citizens into supporting the dogmatic politicians who use religion for political gain.

Hood added however that depending on the wording of the final order he might appeal a separate federal court decision extending the injunction in an earlier same-sex marriage case to all court clerks who were not parties.(See prior posting.)

UPDATE: It should be noted that Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant has already filed a Notice of Appeal in the case, so presumably he will pursue the appeal using counsel other than the Attorney General.

Ark Encounter and Public High Schools

According to Tuesday's Lexington Herald-Leader, now that Ark Encounter has opened in Kentucky, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has sent letters to more than 1,000 school districts in Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia telling them that field trips to the Noah's Ark theme park would violate the Establishment Clause. FFRF says it would expose students to proselytizing.  In response, Kentucky Education Commissioner Stephen Pruitt told schools that field trips should be an extension of classroom learning, and that neither outside groups nor the state Department of Education should dictate selection. Meanwhile FFRF has also protested the participation of two Kentucky high school marching bands in Ark Encounter's July 5 opening ceremonies. (FFRF press release.)

EEOC Sues For Rastafarian Fired From Disney World Hotel

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against HospitalityStaff, an Orlando, Florida based staffing company that fired Courtney Joseph, a Rastafarian employee who was assigned to work as a prep cook at a Walt Disney World resort hotel.  Joseph grew his hair into dreadlocks because of his religious beliefs.  For over a year, he worked with his dreadlocks tucked under his hat. However after a 2013 inspection of the kitchen by a Disney staff member for compliance with the company's appearance standards, the staffing company told Joseph he must cut his hair. When he refused, he was fired. The lawsuit alleges that HospitalityStaff made no effort to accommodate Joseph's religious beliefs. Orlando Sentinel reports on the lawsuit.

House Holds Hearing On HR 2802, First Amendment Defense Act

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform yesterday held a hearing on Religious Liberty and H.R. 2802, The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA). The Committee's website has extensive video and transcripts of the hearing.  As described by the Committee, FADA (full text of HR 2802) is a reaction to the Supreme Court's Obergefell  decision and would prohibit the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person because the person believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction about marriage. Among the witnesses was the lead plaintiff in the Obergefell case. Washington Blade reports on the hearing. Think Progress focuses on Rep. Cummings statements. On Monday, a group of interfaith religious and advocacy organizations sent the committee a letter (full text) opposing the bill.

Title VII Is Sole Basis For Claims of Religious Discrimination Against Federal Employee

In Holly v. Jewell, (ND CA, July 11, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge held that Title VII is the sole remedy for discrimination in federal employment.  Neither the First Amendment nor RFRA may be used as the basis for a religious discrimination claim by a federal employee.  In the case, plaintiff who was employed as a maintenance worker at the  San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park was also a Baptist minister.  While on a break and out of uniform, he performed a baptism at the seashore adjoining the park.  He was terminated for this-- though plaintiff also complained that he was questioned about a Bible that he kept to read on breaks.  The court dismissed plaintiff's RFRA claim, holding that recent Supreme Court RFRA decisions have not changed the rule that Title VII is the exclusive remedy for discrimination in federal employment.  The court also dismissed plaintiff's free exercise claim to the extent that it challenges conduct protected by Title VII, but held that plaintiff can file an amended complaint to the extent that he has a First Amendment claim that is separate from his Title VII claim.

Court Rejects Churches' Challenge To California's Abortion Coverage Requirement

In Foothill Church v. Rouillard, (ED CA, July 11, 2016), a California federal district court rejected challenges brought by three churches to letters issued by the California Department of Managed Health Care to seven health insurance companies informing them that under California law they cannot exclude abortion services from coverage when they cover maternity services.  Initially finding that the churches have standing to challenge the directive, the court dismissed with leave to amend plaintiffs' free exercise and equal protection challenges.  The court concluded that the directive was a neutral law of general applicability that survives the rational basis test.  The court dismissed without leave to amend the churches' free speech and establishment clause claims. (See prior related posting.)

Brexit Apparently Does Not Threaten Britain's European Human Rights Obligations

Reuters reports that in Britain, Interior Minister Theresa May will become the country's new Prime Minister tomorrow. She will be responsible for steering Britain's exit from the European Union.  She said yesterday  that there could be no second referendum and would be no attempt to rejoin the EU by the back door. According to a review by Law & Religion UK,  before the referendum May favored staying in the EU but withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights.  However on June 30 she said:

I’ve set my position on the ECHR out very clearly but I also recognise that this is an issue that divides people, and the reality is there will be no Parliamentary majority for pulling out of the ECHR, so that is something I’m not going to pursue.

Florida County Elections Supervisor Removes Mosque As Polling Site After Complaints

The Palm Beach Sun-Sentinel last week reported that Palm Beach County, Florida Elections Supervisor Susan Bucher has reversed her decision to make the Islamic Center of Boca Raton a polling location in the August state primary elections. After receiving some 50 complaints, she moved the polling site to a public library.  A CAIR press release yesterday called the move discriminatory, and said it would request reinstatement of the original decision, in light of the fact that churches and synagogues regularly serve as polling stations. CAIR also says it will file a public records request for all communications relating to the move. A CAIR spokesperson said:

The supervisor of elections is evidently targeted by an organized lobbying campaign spreading fear and Islamophobia. Her discretion to designate or remove polling sites must never be based on religious, racial or ethnic bias...

Religion Clause Blog Gets Press Coverage

Religion Clause blog received press coverage today in the Detroit Legal News in an article titled Faith and light: Professor's blog helps keep 'church-state' debate alive.

NYT Investigates Religious Fundamentalism In Saudi Arabia Today

The New York Times carries a very long investigative piece on the state of fundamentalist Islam in Saudi Arabia today. Beginning on the front page of today's print edition, the article in the Times online edition is titled A Saudi Morals Enforcer Called for a More Liberal Islam. Then the Death Threats Began. It focuses in part on a former employee of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice who earned the wrath of fundamentalists when he decided that much of what Saudis practice as religion is in fact merely Arabian cultural norms.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Shaun Alberto de Freitas, Doctrinal Sanction and the Protection of the Rights of Religious Associations: Ecclesia De Lange v the Presiding Bishop of the Methodist Church of Southern Africa, (726/13) [2014] ZASCA 151 (July 1, 2016).
• Joanna Diane Caytas, Disposing of Relics: Overt and Covert Blasphemy Statutes in Europe, (Columbia Journal of European Law: Preliminary Reference (April 1, 2016)).
• Sylvia Ann Law, Scott Skinner-Thompson & Hugh Baran, Marriage, Abortion and Coming Out, (Columbia Law Review Sidebar, Vol. 116, Forthcoming).
• Lucia Ann Silecchia, Laudato Si' and Care for Our Common Home: What Does it Mean for the Legal Professional?, (6 Seattle J. of Envtl. L. 1 (2016)).
• Adedayo Damilola Oyebade, Human Rights Protection: A Panacea for the Use and Involvement of Women in Terrorism, (June 29, 2016).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Alex Reed, RFRA v. ENDA: Religious Freedom and Employment Discrimination, 23 Virginia Journal of Social Policy and Law 1-37 (2016).
• Vincent J. Samar, Toward a New Separation of Church and State: Implications for Analogies to the Supreme Court Decision in Hobby Lobby by the Decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 36 Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice 1-31 (2016).
• 21st International Law and Religion Symposium. Keynote address by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch; articles by Neville Rochow, Vanja-Ivan Savic, Asma T. Uddin and Jean-Paul Willaime; comments by students Jarom R. Jones & Zachary D. Smith. 2015 BYU L. Rev. 585-874.
• Joseph D. Kearney, The Supreme Court and Religious Liberty, 99 Marquette Law Review 427-445 (2015).
• Mark Strasser, Free Exercise and Substantial Burdens Under Federal Law. 94 Nebraska Law Review 633-684 (2016).
• Human Rights and the National Interest: The Case Study of Asylum, Migration, and National Border Protection. Article by Fr. Frank Brennan; response by Mary Ellen O'Connell. 39 Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 47-95 (2016).
• Women in the Revolution: Gender and Social Justice After the Arab Spring. Introduction by Adrien K. Wing; articles by Mounira Maya Charrad, Shafiqa Ahmadi, Karima Bennoune, Sahar F. Aziz, Seval Yildirim and Fatina Abdrabboh; roundtable participation by Adrien K. Wing, moderator; Fatina Abdrabboh, Shafiqa Ahmadi, Sahar F. Aziz, Karima Bennoune, Mounira Maya Charrad, Sara Ghadiri, Ahmad E. Souaiaia, Seval Yildirim, discussants; interview of Mounira Maya Charrad. 18 Journal of Gender Race & Justice 341-476 (2016).
• Symposium, Public Religion, Private Communities and Human Rights, Law & Ethics of Human Rights, Vol. 10, Issue 1 (May 2016).

Russian President Signs Anti-Terrorism Law That Restricts Religious Proselytizing

According to reports from USCIRF, Russia Religion News, and Forum18, last week Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law a package of anti-terrorism measures that were passed by the Russian State Duma in late June. The measures, part of which place extensive new restrictions on religious missionary activity, take effect on July 20. As explained by USCIRF:

The anti-terrorism measures would, among other provisions, amend the 1997 Russian religion law by redefining "missionary activities" as religious practices that take place outside of state-sanctioned sites. The new law thus would ban preaching, praying, proselytizing, and disseminating religious materials outside of these officially-designated sites, and authorize fines of up to $15,000 for these activities conducted in private residences or distributed through mass print, broadcast or online media.  Foreign missionaries also must prove they were invited by state-registered religious groups and must operate only in regions where their sponsoring organizations are registered; those found in violation face deportation and major fines.

According to Forum18:

Another part of the package of laws sharply increases Criminal Code Article 282.2 punishments for those convicted of allegedly "extremist" activity, who are often Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims who study the works of theologian Said Nursi. These punishments were last increased in February 2014.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.] 

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Gilbert v. Fox, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86811 (D CO, June 9, 2016), a Colorado federal district court held that an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights are violated by refusal to recognize his Nuwaupian Certificate of Live Birth Name is a challenge to conditions of confinement and cannot be decided in a habeas corpus proceeding.

In Gadbury v. California, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86891 (ED CA, July 1, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's attempt to obtain a vegetarian diet (which also meets his medical needs) for religious reasons.

In Ryan v. Graham, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87477 (ND NY, July 5, 2016), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a complaint by a Muslim inmate that his free exercise rights were infringed by limiting him to having eleven books in his cell while in special housing unit.

In Deen v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87607 (ND CA, July 6, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his complaint that Muslim inmates are not allowed to pray in groups of more than four.

In Davis v. Bateman, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88532 (ED PA, July 7, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was denied access to attend religious services on four occasions. He had attended both Christian and Muslim services a total of 61 times.

In Pierre v. Geo Group, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88698 (MD GA, June 3, 2016), a Georgia federal magistrate judge recommended that a Muslim inmate be permitted to move ahead with his complaint that he was forced to shave rather than being allowed to grow a beard as required by his religious beliefs.

Jehovah's Witnesses Win Another Round In Bid To Access Gated Communities In Puerto Rico

Watchtower Bible Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Municipality of Ponce, (D PR, July 6, 2016), is the latest installment in a 12-year battle by Jehovah's Witnesses to gain access to gated communities in Puerto Rico in order to proselytize door-to-door.  In prior decisions, the federal courts have ordered communities to grant access to Jehovah's Witnesses.  However in response certain gated communities argued that they are not subject to the court's orders because their roads and streets are completely private.  In this 50-page opinion, a Puerto Rico federal district court ruled that the streets within Estancias del Golf Club in the Municipality of Ponce are subject to the court's earlier orders  The court said in part:

Up to 2012, the residents of EGC went above and beyond to complete the last steps of the transfer of their streets to the Municipality. Suddenly, they took a one hundred eighty degree turn and demanded their streets now be private, when it became convenient to them. This Court will not allow Plaintiffs’ First  Amendment protected activity to be held hostage by the whim of residents associations within gated communities....

It has become quite common for urbanizations and some of their residents to believe it is unacceptable to have non-residents walk the streets within their gated communities. This constitutes a discriminatory pattern that our Constitution forbids....  Community gates in Puerto Rico narrow the concept of community and of individual through decisions about group social worth and social threat, about who is redeemable and who is dispensable, about who is “good” and allowable, and about who is “bad” and made to “go away.”

Texas Proposes Rule Change On Handling of Fetal Tissue

As reported by Catholic News Agency, on July 1 the Texas Health and Human Services Commission proposed rule amendments (full text) that would change the way in which health care facilities dispose of fetal tissue from an abortion or miscarriage.  Fetal tissue, regardless of how early in a pregnancy, would need to be disposed of by cremation or burial, instead of being treated in the same way as other pathological waste. The proposed change comes less than one week after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' restrictive regulation of abortion clinics. (See prior posting.)

In New Suit, 10 States Challenge Feds' Interpretation of Transgender Rights

Yesterday, Nebraska and nine other states filed suit against the federal government challenging interpretations of the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VII and Title IX by the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, OSHA and the EEOC.  Federal agencies have asserted that the ban on discrimination on the basis of "sex" includes a ban on discrimination based on gender identity. The complaint (full text) in State of Nebraska v. United States, (D NE, filed 7/8/2016) contends that these interpretations were adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and various constitutional provisions.  Joining Nebraska in the lawsuit are Arkansas, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming. Omaha World-Herald reports on the lawsuit. In May, eleven other states filed a similar lawsuit in federal district court in Texas. (See prior posting.)

Suit Alleges Grants For Church Preservation Projects Violate Massachusetts No-Aid Provision

A suit was filed yesterday against the town of Acton, Massachusetts by 13 of the town's residents and taxpayers challenging the town's approval of three Community Preservation grants to restore core facilities and religious imagery of two active local churches. The complaint (full text) in Caplan v. Town of Acton, Massachusetts, (MA Super. Ct., filed 7/7/2016) alleges that the grants violate Article XVIII, Section 2 of the Massachusetts Constitution that prohibits use of public funds "for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any church, religious denomination or society." Grants to Acton Congregational Church funded a master plan for historic preservation of the 170-year old church building and for repair of major stained glass window's in the church's building. A grant to the South Acton Congregational Church funded roof repairs. Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Boston Globe reports on the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Michigan's Attempt To Dissuade Assertion of Religious Objection To Immunizations

In Michigan yesterday, the mother of four children filed a federal lawsuit challenging Michigan's rules regarding exemption from the state's immunization requirements for school children.  Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.9215 allows parents to obtain an exemption from the requirements by presenting school officials a written statement "to the effect that the requirements ... cannot be met because of religious convictions or other objection to immunization." The state Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2014 adopted a rule (R 325.176(12)) requiring that any request for a non-medical exemption be certified by the local health department after giving the parents warning of the risks of their child not receiving vaccines.

The complaint (full text) in Nikolao v. Lyon, (ED MI, filed 7/7/2016), alleges that HHS has furnished local employees with a "Religious Waiver Note" providing them guidance on how to convince those with religious objections to nevertheless allow their children to be immunized. Plaintiff, a Catholic, contends that the Note contains misrepresentations about Catholic beliefs as to vaccination. She alleges further that when she went to the Wayne County health department to obtain certification of her religious objections, employees insisted that she needed to declare what religion she practices, explain her religious beliefs, and engage in a back and forth discussion with the ... nurse concerning her religious objection...." The complaint goes on:

54. Defendants attempted to use Mrs. Nikolao’s beliefs and adherence to Papal authority to coerce her into vaccinating her children by telling her lies about the Catholic faith and untrue Papal statements.

55. In the end ... Defendants refused to give Mrs. Nikolao a religious exemption, requiring her to mask her religious beliefs in the shroud of an “other” objection.

56. This façade on its own violated Mrs. Nikolao’s religion since, as a Catholic, she has a “grave responsibility . . . to make a conscientious objection with regard to those [vaccines] which have moral problems.”

Plaintiff claims that this violated her free exercise rights under the state and federal constitutions, the Establishment Clause and Michigan statutory law.  The Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Chaplains' Group Says New Military Policy On Transgenders Poses Religious Freedom Concerns

On June 30, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced that the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military is being lifted. (Links to DOD documents.) Those already in the military will be permitted to serve openly and will be provided appropriate medical care and treatment after receiving a diagnosis from a military medical provider indicating that gender transition is medically necessary. (Fact Sheet). The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty issued a statement (full text) yesterday raising questions about the new policy. The statement reacts to a conference call with a Pentagon official, and reads in part:

The official said that such persons will be required to receive a medical statement from a military medical professional that they suffer from gender dysphoria.... 

An endorser on the call asked whether medical professionals who hold a biblical view on human sexuality will be required to violate their consciences and do as these persons demand, and the response was that it is the responsibility of medical professionals to serve military persons. It’s an understatement to say that this raises serious religious liberty concerns,” said Chaplain (COL) Ron Crews.... “The Department of Defense must ensure ... that doctors and nurses who hold to a biblical view of human sexuality can serve in today’s military...."

The official on the conference call went on to say that “mixed genitalia” will be present in military bathrooms, showers, and barracks because service members will be in various stages of change in their sexual identity.... Crews said. “Do we want our sons and daughters to be forced to share showers and sleeping spaces in a ‘mixed genitalia’ environment with no recourse for objections of conscience?”

USCIRF Criticizes China's Restrictions On Muslims During Ramadan

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom yesterday issued a statement (full text) strongly criticizing restrictions imposed by the Chinese government on religious practices during Ramadan, ending with Eid al-Fitr. USCIRF Chair Thomas Reese, S.J. said:

The Chinese government once again has banned government employees, students, and children from fasting, and in some cases praying, during Ramadan.  While restrictions on Uighur Muslims’ religious practices take place year round, they are particularly onerous during Ramadan, giving lie to the government’s claim that Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang enjoy religious freedom.  They do not.  The Chinese government is violating its own constitution and international human rights standards by denying religious freedom to its citizens.

Obama Sends Eid al-Fitr Greetings

President Obama yesterday issued a statement (full text) sending greetings to the Muslim community on the arrival of Eid al-Fitr-- the holiday that marks the end of the month of Ramadan.  The President said in part:

Muslim Americans are as diverse as our nation itself—black, white, Latino, Asian, and Arab. Eid celebrations around the country remind us of our proud history as a nation built by people of all backgrounds; our history of religious freedom and civil liberties, and our history of innovation and strength. These legacies would not be possible without the contributions of Muslim Americans that make our country even stronger.

This past month, our country and the world endured challenges and senseless violence that broke our hearts and tried our souls.  Our prayers are with the hundreds of innocent lives, many of them Muslim, taken during the month of Ramadan in places like Orlando, Istanbul, Dhaka, Baghdad, and Medina. 

Here at home, we’ve also seen a rise in attacks against Muslim Americans. No one should ever feel afraid or unsafe in their place of worship. Many Americans have shared in the experience of Ramadan by volunteering in community service efforts to assist those in need and even fasting a few days with their fellow Muslim American co-workers. In the face of hate, it’s our American values and strength that bring us together to stand in solidarity and protect one another—thereby, making our Nation stronger and safer.

Muslim Americans have been part of our American family since its founding. This Eid, we recommit to protecting Muslim Americans against bigotry and xenophobia, while celebrating the contributions of Muslim Americans around the country, including one of our finest, the People’s Champion Muhammad Ali, to whom we bade farewell this Ramadan. Later this month, Michelle and I will host an Eid celebration at the White House and we look forward to welcoming Americans from around the country to celebrate the holiday.

NYC Human Rights Commission OKs Limited Women-Only Swimming Hours

As reported yesterday by dna info, the New York City Human Rights Commission has granted the city's Parks Department a limited exemption for gender anti-discrimination rules in order to accommodate religious objections to mixed gender swims at two of the city's pools.  Reserving a limited number of hours for women-only swimming to accommodate Hasidic Jewish women had become a controversial issue in recent weeks, with the New York Times last month editorializing against the practice. However now an HRC spokesman says:

Everyone in New York City should have an equal opportunity to enjoy recreation centers.  After weighing the Parks Department’s request for an exemption for limited women-only swimming hours at two Brooklyn pools and balancing the impact on the broader community, the Commission has granted a limited exemption. Maintaining limited women-only swim hours at these pools will allow all women to enjoy the pool without being asked to compromise their religious beliefs or affiliations and will have a minimal impact on other community members’ ability to access the pool.

The Parks Department though will substantially reduce the number of women-only swim hours to four hours per week.

Obergefell Decision Attacked By Suit Demanding License For Man-Object Marriage

As reported in a Liberty Counsel press release, in a rambling 44-page complaint filed last week Mark "Chris" Sevier, a Vanderbilt Law School graduate who was suspended from practice in 2011, filed suit challenging Kentucky's refusal to issue him a marriage license to allow him to marry his laptop computer.  Framed as a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision, the complaint (full text) in Sevier v. Davis, (ED KY, filed 7/1/2016)) alleges in part:

The Plaintiff seek one of two forms of relief: (1) that the state be enjoined from enforcing any laws and policies that prevents him from legally marrying an inanimate object in light of the decision in Obergefell v. Hodge ... and United States v. Windsor ... or alternatively, (2) that all forms of marriage outside the traditional definition of marriage be nullified in reviving the original marriage laws and bans, since laws that try to establish the plausibility of gay rights violates the establishment clause of the first amendment....

If the plaintiffs request to many a machine is frivolous and "removed from reality," then certainly a man's request to many a man in order to call him his lawfully wedded wife in hopes that the society will whomp up more dignity for such marriages is equally "removed from reality" and culturally imperialistically arrogant. It is this kind of moral relativist that causes Middle Eastern Nations to hate the United States so much - because the adaptation of these values are a threat to the integrity of families - and they recognize that.

Sevier has previously filed similar lawsuits in Texas, Florida and Utah (see Above The Law). This time however he named as one of the defendants the equally adamant opponent of same-sex marriage, Rowan County Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis. (See prior posting.)  Alluding to this, the complaint alleges:

Unless total marriage equality is permitted as demanded by the Plaintiff, Mrs. Davis will have a valid cause of action under racketeering statutes against those who conspired to persecute and prosecute her maliciously as an an attempt to force her to convert to their sexually exploitative self-justifying world view.... Allowing the Plaintiff to marry an inanimate object will give those who put her in jail more credibility, since it will show that the Courts really believe that sexual orientation is based on civil rights matter and not an ideological religious one stemming from an attempt to legislate away feelings of shame and inadequacy.

Suit Challenges California's Elimination of Religious and Personal Belief Exemptions From Mandatory Immunization

A number of parents as well as several advocacy groups filed a lawsuit in a California federal district court last week challenging the constitutionality of California's SB 277, a law requiring school students (other than those being home-schooled) to be immunized against ten specific diseases, and removing the state's prior personal belief and religious belief exemptions. The law became effective on July 1. (See prior posting.) The complaint (full text) in Whitlow v. State of California, (SD CA, filed 7/1/2016) says that various plaintiffs have a variety of safety and religious objections to immunizations, including concern that some vaccines are manufactured with cell lines that began with aborted fetal cells. The complaint alleges that the new law violates a number of state and federal constitutional protections:

Defendants' conduct infringes on the Plaintiffs' and their children's fundamental rights, including parental rights, right to bodily integrity, right to informed consent and to refuse medical intervention, right to privacy, and/or right to free exercise of religion, by requiring Plaintiffs to choose between those rights and the right to education.

Los Angeles Times reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: The court denied a temporary restraining order, finding there were no allegations of immediate harm. Also there were no efforts to serve defendants. Whitlow v. California, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86848 (SD CA, July 5, 2015).

Church Sues Iowa Officials Over Transgender Access Rules

In Iowa yesterday, a conservative Christian church filed a federal lawsuit against officials of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and against the city of Des Moines alleging that their anti-discrimination laws requiring transgender access to restrooms and changing rooms consistent with gender identity violate its 1st and 14th Amendment rights.  The complaint (full text) in Fort Des Moines Church of Christ v. Jackson, (SD IA, filed 7/4/2016) focuses on the following Iowa Civil Rights Commission's interpretation of its public accommodation rules:

Sometimes. Iowa law provides that these protections do not apply to religious institutions with respect to any religion-based qualifications when such qualifications are related to bona fide religious purpose. Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions. (e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public).

The complaint alleges that the church invites the public to all its services and events, and that even those that are not overtly religious nevertheless "engender other important elements of religious meaning, expression, and purpose." It goes on to allege in part:

13. The Church believes and teaches that maleness or femaleness is designed by God and is tied to biology, chromosomes, physiology, and anatomy.

14. The Church’s religious beliefs mandate that sex is an immutable trait from which springs the natural and healthy desires for physical privacy and modesty in states of partial or full undress, such as in restrooms, showers, and changing rooms.

15. The Church recognizes that some individuals do not identify with their biological sex, and the Church welcomes those individuals, wants to be a blessing to them, and wants to minister to them.

16. The Act and City Code prohibit the Church from issuing statements that might cause individuals to believe that they are unwelcome because of their perceived gender identity.

17. The language of the Act and the City Code are broad enough to include within that prohibition sermons, theological expositions, educational speeches, newsletters or church worship bulletin text, or other statements from the Church and its leaders....

27. Allowing biological males to use facilities reserved for women and girls, and vice versa, violates the Church’s religious beliefs about human sexuality.

Des Moines Register reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE:  Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the Iowa Civil Rights Commission revised its interpretive pamphlet (full text) to read:

Places of worship (e.g. churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) are generally exempt from the Iowa law’s prohibition of discrimination, unless the place of worship engages in non-religious activities which are open to the public. For example, the law may apply to an independent day care or polling place located on the premises of the place of worship.

DC Circuit In Procedural Reversal Allows Religious Discrimination Suit To Proceed

In Al-Saffy v. Vilsack, (DC Cir., July 1, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court and allowed a religious and national origin discrimination claim against both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of State to proceed.  As stated by the court, "Determining whether Al-Saffy’s lawsuit was properly brought requires us to navigate a quagmire of procedural rules."  BNA Daily Labor Report summarizes the court's holding:

Mohamed Tahwid Al-Saffy raised genuine factual issues about whether Agriculture and State were his joint employers when he directed the trade offices in Saudi Arabia and Yemen.... Although Al-Saffy wasn't “officially employed” by the State Department, he reported directly to the ambassadors of Saudi Arabia and Yemen, who are State employees, the court said.....

The court also rejected arguments that Al-Saffy did not file his lawsuit in a timely manner.  Again BNA summarizes the court's holding:

An EEOC order that omits that required information can't trigger the 90-day deadline, the court said. Al-Saffy therefore retained the option to sue at any time after 180 days had elapsed from his filing of the original administrative complaint....

Israeli Court Says Shouting Allahu Akbar Can Amount To Breach of Peace

In Israel last week, a Jerusalem Magistrate's Court ruled that shouting Allahu akbar (God is great) at a group of Jews on the Temple Mount can be the basis for a conviction for disturbing the peace. According to The Algemeiner, the court wrote in part:

[chanting] Allahu akbar during prayer, at a site of prayer and in the spot in the prayer [book] where it is called for does not constitute a breach of the peace, but a fundamental right. However, when those calls are used as a form of demonstration or protest, or as a way of creating a riot or unrest, they do not constitute prayers and are therefore a clear disturbance of the peace.

German Court Says Legal Intern Can Wear Hijab

In Germany last week, a high-ranking law graduate who encountered a ban on wearing her hijab after she had begun her internship with the Bavarian judicial system won a court victory, at least for now.  According to The Local:

The battle started after [Aqilah] Sandhu successfully completed her state exams and started a traineeship with the Bavarian judicial system.

In July 2014, the highest court in the state sent her a letter informing her that she was forbidden from interrogating witnesses or fulfilling other legal duties as long as she continued to wear a headscarf....

She immediately asked for an explanation of the ban, to which she was told “[religious] clothing and symbols can impair the trust in the religious neutrality of the administration of justice.”...

Judge Bernhard Röthinger decided that the young lawyer was in the right, agreeing that there was no legal basis for the state's attack on her religious freedom.

Sandhu is now seeking damages.  However  the state says it will appeal.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Bernard Jackson, Mediation and Immediacy in the Jewish Legal Tradition, (June 26, 2016).
• Natasha Bakht & Lynda Margaret Collins, The Earth is Our Mother: Freedom of Religion and the Preservation of Aboriginal Sacred Sites in Canada, (Ottawa Faculty of Law Working Paper No. 2016-24, 2016).
• Musa Njabulo Shongwe, Cultural and Religious Relativism as Opposition to the Aims of International Human Rights Law: Revisiting the Universalism vs. Regionalism Debate, (June 29, 2016).
• William B. Turner, The National Masturbators' Task Force; or, The Importance of LGBT Political Organizing for Evaluating LGBT Equal Protection Claims in Competition with Free Exercise of Religion Claims, (Journal of Law and Sexuality, Forthcoming).
• Jennifer Hendry & Melissa L. Tatum, Human Rights, Indigenous Peoples, and the Pursuit of Justice, (34 Yale Law & Policy Review 351 (2016)).
• Sarah Cravens, 'Love's Congruence': A Theological Account of Wisdom for Judges, (Tulsa Law Review, Vol. 51, No. 3, 2015).
• Varun Kumar Aery, Bringing Marriage Equality Overseas: A New Argument for International Human Rights Law, (2 U.C. Davis J. Int'l L & Pol'y 22 (2015)).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Jill Wilson, Linda S. Rosenman, Ben White, Cheryl Tilse & Rachel Feeney, Cultural Considerations in Will-Making in Australia: A Case Study of Islamic or Sharia-Compliant Wills, (Alternative Law Journal, Vol. 41(1), Pp. 23-26, 2016).
• Michelle Limenta, Bayan Edis & Oscar Fernando, Disabling Labeling: The WTO Consistency of the Indonesian Mandatory Halal Labeling Law, (Society of International Economic Law (SIEL), Fifth Biennial Global Conference, Working Paper 2016/08, 2016).
• Asifa Quraishi-Landes, Islamic Constitutionalism: Not Secular. Not Theocratic. Not Impossible, (16 Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion 553 (2015)).
• M.B. Hooker, The Evolution of Singapore's Common Law Fiqh, 1957-2013, (Australian Journal of Asian Law, Vol. 17, No. 1, Article 9, 2016).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Steven P. Brown, The Girard Will and Twin Landmarks of Supreme Court History, 41 Journal of Supreme Court History 7-20 (2016).
• Carol Goforth, A Corporation Has No Soul, and Doesn't Go to Church: Relating the Doctrine of Piercing the Veil to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 67 South Carolina Law Review 73-97 (2015).
• Emilia Justyna Powell, Islamic Law States and the Authority of the International Court of Justice: Territorial Sovereignty and Diplomatic Immunity, 79 Law & Contemporary Problems 209-236 (2016).
• Evan C. Rothera, The Tenacious "Twin Relic": Republicans, Polygamy, and The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 41 Journal of Supreme Court History 21-38 (2016).
• Symposium on LGBT Antidiscrimination Law and Policy After Hobby Lobby. Foreword by David Dinielli; articles by Ira C. Lupu, Andrew Koppelman, Leslie C. Griffin and Elizabeth Sepper. 7 Alabama Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Law Review 1-170 (2015).
• Journal of Law, Religion and State, Vol. 4, Issue 2 (2016) has recently appeared.

Settlement Requires ChristianMingle To Include Same-Sex Date Searching

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, last week a California trial court entered a consent decree settling an Unruh Civil Rights Act class action that had been brought by two gay men against the dating sites ChristianMingle.com, CatholicMingle.com, AdventistSinglesConnection.com and BlackSingles.com. Plaintiffs charged that the sites did not allow users to meet singles of the same sex, thus violating state anti-discrimination laws that require business establishments to offer equal services regardless of sexual orientation. The judgment (full text) in Sparks Network Unruh Act Cases, (CA Super. Ct., June 27, 2016), requires that for the next two years the home pages of the sites must no longer provide the choices of "man seeking woman" and "woman seeking man," but instead only ask whether the user is a Man or Woman.  Those seeking a same-sex match can then search using text searching and profile building tools.  After that, the sites can be reconfigured so long as there is an option for those seeking a same-sex match to do so without indicating they are seeking someone of the opposite sex. The judgment also calls for future changes to create equal matching services.  Finally the judgment calls for defendant to pay damages totaling $18,000 and attorneys fees of $450,000.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Smith v. Jensen, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82909 (WD WI, June 27, 2016), a Wisconsin federal district court rejected claims by plaintiff who was committed as a sexually violent person that his right to freely exercise his Wiccan religion were infringed by a new restrictions on computer use and on computer access to clip art.

In Townsend v. Headley, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82947 (ND AL, June 27, 2016), an Alabama federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83182, May 11, 2016) and dismissed without prejudice the claim by a member of the Moorish Science Temple of America that his free exercise rights were infringed when "my chartel paper I use to open up as Grand-Shiek" (along with other papers, books, magazines and photos) was destroyed as contraband.

In Hardwick v. Senato, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83565 (D DE, June 28, 2016), a Delaware federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint of 4 years' delay in confirming his Jewish faith, and called for plaintiff to file an a mended complaint stating more clearly his claims regarding refusal of a position because he would not work on his Sabbath, and problems receiving kosher meals.

In Bryant v. Woodall, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83690 (MD TN, June 28, 2016), a Tennessee federal magistrate judge recommended that inmates who are members of the Odinic or Asatru faith be allowed to move ahead with their attempt to obtain approval for group worship and acquisition of various items used during worship ceremonies.

In Stile v. United States Marshals Services, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83747 (D NH, June 27, 2016), a New Hampshire federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83750, May 9, 2016) and allowed an inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he could not participate in weekly religious services while he was being housed the maximum security disciplinary unit.

In Amaker v. Goord, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83976 (WD NY, June 27, 2016), a New York federal magistrate judge (in addition to ruling on a number of non-religion related issues) recommended that an inmate be allowed to proceed with his free expression, but not his RLUIPA, complaint that delivery of incoming mail including Jehovah's Witnesses' magazines was denied. The court recommended dismissal of his complaint regarding occasional denial of food to break the fast during Ramadan, and his claim that denial of call outs was in retaliation for not complying with the prison grooming policy.

In Holland v. City of New York, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84586 (SD NY, June 24, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed on qualified immunity grounds a Muslim inmate's complaint about a strip search because there was no clearly established rule that, during a lockdown or other exigent situation, a correction officer is prohibited from conducting a strip search and viewing the private parts of a Muslim inmate of the opposite sex,

In Brown v. Fischer, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85105 (WD NY, June 23, 2016), a New York federal district court allowed a Rastafarian inmate to proceed with his complaint that, while in restraints after an attempt to injure himself, his dreadlocks were forcibly cut while he was told Rastafarians were not permitted in that housing unit.

In Kadonsky v. D'Ilio, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86224 (D NJ, July 1, 2016), a New Jersey federal district court allowed an inmate to proceed with his claim that a series of incidents led to ongoing theft and denial of access to his personal religious documents.

In Mehmood v. United States Marshals Services, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86082 (D NV, June 30, 2016), a Nevada federal district court held that petitioners had stated a colorable free exercise claim based on the lack of halal-certified meals, but dismissed without prejudice ordering each petitioner to file separately stating allegations specific to him.

In Green v. Director/Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86187 (SD CA, June 10, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies a Native American inmate's complaint that his free exercise rights were infringed when his religious items were confiscated and he was denied access to a sweat lodge, and that his 8th Amendment claims be similarly dismissed.

Court Refuses To Apply Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Jackson v. Mount Pisgah Missionary Baptist Church Deacon Board, (IL App., June 30, 2016), an Illinois state appeals court refused to apply the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in a breach of contract suit by a pastor who employment was terminated by his church.  The pastor contended that the church had agreed that his employment would be governed by the church's bylaws.  The court held:

[P]laintiff alleges that defendants failed to (1) provide a written notice of dissatisfaction; (2) hold a special meeting; (3) provide notice of a vote to the members; and (4) have a proper membership vote. To resolve this dispute, we need only look to the plain text of the church’s bylaws and the relevant facts to determine whether or not defendants breached their oral agreement by failing to comply with its bylaws. Since we need not inquire into any religious doctrines, and can address this issue employing neutral principles of civil law, we have jurisdiction to decide whether defendants breached their oral agreement with plaintiff.

The court went on to agree with the trial court's finding that defendants were completely compliant with the bylaws in dismissing the pastor.

Holocaust Survivor and Moral Spokesman Elie Wiesel Dies

Elie Wiesel, eulogized by the Washington Post as the "memory keeper of the Holocaust," died Saturday at age 87.  He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986.  President Obama issued a statement (full text) calling Wiesel one of the great moral voices of our time, and in many ways, the conscience of the world." Vice President Biden also issued a statement of condolence (full text) as did Bill and Hillary Clinton (full text) in a statement posted on the Clinton Foundation website.

Court Strikes Down Indiana's So-Called Anti-Discrimination Ban on Abortions

In Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health, (SD IN, June 30, 2016), an Indiana federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcing new regulation of abortions and abortion practices that were scheduled to take effect today.  One new prohibition (the so-called anti-discrimination provisions) bars abortion even before viability if the reason is the sex of the fetus, the fetus has been diagnosed with Down's syndrome or any other disability, or because of the race, color, national origin or ancestry of the fetus. The second provision requires abortion providers to inform their patients of these restrictions. The third provision alters the way in which healthcare providers must dispose of fetal tissue.  The court concluded:

nothing in Roe, Casey, or any other subsequent Supreme Court decisions suggests that a woman’s right to choose an abortion prior to viability can be restricted if exercised for a certain reason. The right to a pre-viability abortion is categorical.

Focusing on the fetal tissue disposal requirements, the court said that it:

can find no legal support for the State’s position that it has a legitimate state interest in “promoting respect for human life by ensuring proper disposal of fetal remains."

Chicago Tribune reports on the decision.

Alien Tort Suit Against Turkish Cleric Dismissed

In Ates v. Gulen, (MD PA, June 29, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed an Alien Tort Statute lawsuit (as well as related state law claims) that had been brought by three residents of Turkey against Fethullah Gulen, a Muslim cleric from Turkey presently living in Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs are followers of a Muslim sect known as the Dogan Movement which is critical of Gulen's Anatolian version of Islam.  Plaintiffs claim that Gulen, using influence he wielded over police, prosecutors and judges in Turkey, engaged in a campaign of persecution against plaintiffs, ultimately having them arrested and detained in Turkey for up to 20 months. The court elaborated;

Plaintiffs' action revolves around their key allegation that, in April of 2009, Golen "in effect issued instructions to his followers illegally to misuse the Turkish law enforcement system against the members of the Dogan Movement...."

The court concluded that it lacks jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute because there had been insufficient evidence of conduct that "touches and concerns" the territory of the United States to overcome the presumption that the Alien Tort Statute does not have extraterritorial application. The court found that the action is also barred by the act of state doctrine. Wall Street Journal reports on the decision.

Federal District Court Strikes Down Mississippi's Anti-LGBT Conscience Protection Law

In Barber v. Bryant, (SD MS, June 30, 2016), a Mississippi federal district court in a stinging 60-page opinion, issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Mississippi House Bill 1523, the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act.  The new law protects a wide variety of conduct, or refusals to provide goods and service, based on a religious or moral belief that: (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 court concluded that the law, which would have gone into effect today, violates both the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Summarizing the history of the bill, the court said:

In physics, every action has its equal and opposite reaction. In politics, every action has its predictable overreaction..... Obergefell has led to HB 1523.

The court summarized its conclusions:

HB 1523 grants special rights to citizens who hold one of three “sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions” reflecting disapproval of lesbian, gay, transgender, and unmarried persons.... That violates both the guarantee of religious neutrality and the promise of equal protection of the laws.

The Establishment Clause is violated because persons who hold contrary religious beliefs are unprotected – the State has put its thumb on the scale to favor some religious beliefs over others. Showing such favor tells “nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and . . . adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” ... And the Equal Protection Clause is violated by HB 1523’s authorization of arbitrary discrimination against lesbian, gay, transgender, and unmarried persons....

Responding to the state's argument that the law "is justified by a compelling government interest in accommodating the free exercise of religion," the court said that the state had "not identified 'even a single instance' in which Obergefell has led to a free exercise problem in Mississippi." The court added:

In this case, moreover, it is difficult to see the compelling government interest in favoring three enumerated religious beliefs over others....  It is not within our tradition to respect one clerk’s religious objection to issuing a same-sex marriage license, but refuse another clerk’s religious objection to issuing a marriage license to a formerly-divorced person. The government is not in a position to referee the validity of Leviticus 18:22 (“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”) versus Leviticus 21:14 (“A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take.”).

BuzzFeed and the Washington Post have additional coverage of the opinion.

Denial of Use Permit Did Not Impose "Substantial Burden" Under RLUIPA

In Livingston Christian Schools v. Genoa Charter Township, (ED MI, June 30, 2016), a Michigan federal district court held that a township's denial of a special use permit did not impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise rights of a Christian school.  The school sought to move to a building currently owned by a church and recently leased to the school. The court said in part:

The term “substantial burden” is not defined in the RLUIPA. The Sixth Circuit in Living Water Church of God v. Charter Twp. of Meridian articulated a standard which requires LCS to show that, “ . . . the government action place[s] substantial pressure on [it] to violate its religious beliefs or effectively bar[s] [it] from using its property in the exercise of its religion[.]” ... While it may be less convenient or more expensive for LCS to operate its school from a different location, the circumstances present here do not constitute a substantial burden.... Because LCS has not “proffered evidence showing that it cannot carry out its church missions and ministries due to the Township’s denial,” it has not established a substantial burden on its free exercise of religion.

The court also rejected the school's 1st and 14th Amendment challenges.

British Tribunal: Deportation of Imam Does Not Violate Islamic Center's Religious Freedom

In Hamat v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (UK UT, June 6, 2016), Britain's Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) rejected a claim that the government is unlawfully interfering with the choice of a religious leader by the Afghanistan Islamic Cultural Centre by deporting its imam who was in the country illegally. Britain's Human Rights Act, Sec. 13, which implements provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, provides in part:

If a court's determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.

The Tribunal held:

Whilst the effect of the appellant's removal inevitably has the effect of depriving the AICC and its membership of the imam of their choice, this was not the motive of the respondent's actions.... [T]he decision had not interfered with the freedom of choice of the Afghan Muslim community because their actions have not been prompted by a wish to favour one imam over another. The personality of the appellant has not influenced the decision....

The Tribunal went on to hold that Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion) would be violated only if the government's action would "make the free exercise of religion a practical impossibility." Here there are numerous options for the religious organization to recruit a replacement. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Belgian Council of State Says Proposed Ban On Ritual Slaughter Is Unconstitutional

JTA reported yesterday that in Belgium, the Council of State has issued an advisory opinion that proposed legislation to ban ritual slaughter would be overturned by the country's constitutional court as a violation of religious freedom.  The bill to end halal and kosher techniques in which animals are not stunned before slaughter was filed last month by the Green Party of the Flemish Region and is strongly supported by animal welfare minister, Ben Weyts of the New Flemish Alliance. It is largely a reaction to a legal fight by Muslim leaders in the Flemish region seeking to overturn the region's ban on the mobile temporary slaughtering areas that have been set up in previous years ahead of Eid al-Adha (the Festival of the Sacrifice). (Background.)