California Court Issues TRO Against Kaporos Practices

As previously reported, in late September an animal rights group filed suit against Chabad of Irvine in a California federal district court challenging Chabad's promotion of the pre-Yom Kippur ceremony of kaporos that involves use of live chickens which are then slaughtered. (Complaint in United Poultry Concerns v. Chabad of Irvine, (CD CA, filed 9/29/2016)). The complaint contended that defendants are in violation of California's unfair business practices law. On Oct. 6, the court on its own motion ordered plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. (Full text of court order.)  On Oct. 7, plaintiff filed a response (full text) arguing in part:

UPC has standing under the Unfair Competition Law based on its diversion of organizational resources spent addressing Defendants’ unlawful activity and attempting to convince authorities to take action. 

The court was apparently convinced.  It issued another order (full text) on Oct 7 granting plaintiff a temporary restraining order barring defendants from killing chickens or other animals in exchange for a fee or donation in violation of California Penal Code Sec. 597(a). It set a hearing on whether to order a preliminary injunction for October 13, the day after Yom Kippur-- effectively barring the pre-Yom Kippur practice by defendants for this year.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Rush v. Malin, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137779 (SD NY, Oct. 4, 2016), a New York federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to a Shi'a Muslim inmate who was not permitted to observe Muharram/Ashura separately from Sunni Muslims.

In Khan v. Barela, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139052 (D NM, Sept. 30, 2016), a New Mexico federal magistrate judge dismissed a complaint by a Muslim inmate that prison officials failed to give him a requested daily prayer schedule and Islamic Observance Calendar and required him to remain in a pod while Christian sermons were being presented.

No Religious Exemption To Immunization Requirements For Merely Moral Objections

In Watkins-El v. Department of Education, (ED NY, Oct. 6, 2016), a New York federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction, upholding a New York school's denial of a religious exemption from immunization requirements for plaintiff's children. An exemption is available only for "genuine and sincere religious beliefs...." The court said in part:

Although plaintiff asserts that his religion is "Islamism" and that he is a Moor, he does not claim that the tenets of Islamism or Moorish culture prohibit vaccinations.... Instead, Plaintiff bases his opposition on the assertion that these vaccines contain "monkey cells, pork derivatives, and aborted human fetuses," which Plaintiff's religion dictates he cannot consume.... Plaintiff's opposition to these substances may be genuine and sincere, but he has not demonstrated that it stems from a religious, rather than simply moral, belief.... Furthermore, Plaintiff presents no evidence that these vaccines in fact contain the substances to which he objects.

First Grade Teacher's Age Discrimination Suit Dismissed Under Ministerial Exception

In Ciurelo v. St. Regis Parish, (ED MI, Oct. 7, 2016), a Michigan federal district court held that federal (ADEA) and state (ELCRA) age discrimination claims brought by a former 1st grade teacher in a Catholic school are barred by the ministerial exception doctrine. The teacher's contract was not renewed after eight years of teaching. Finding that plaintiff was the type of employee to whom the doctrine applies, the court said in part:

While this Court has considered all the factors identified in the Hosanna-Tabor majority opinion, it concludes that the paramount factor of religious function ... provides the decisional pathway here. Plaintiff was unquestionably engaged in two important religious functions on a daily basis: religious teaching for 20 to 30 minutes and leading the morning prayers. These activities are the hallmark of religious exercises through which religious communities transmit their received wisdom and heritage to the next generation of believers. The First Amendment provides a shield to the church and her officials against a secular government’s incursion by way of its employment-law litigation process, which may undermine the freedom to appoint those entrusted with such matters of faith.

Liberal Jewish Groups Ask Israel's High Court To Order Egalitarian Prayer Space At Western Wall

As reported by YNet News, yesterday groups representing Reform and Conservative Judaism and the group Women of the Wall filed an amended petition with Israel's High Court of Justice asking it to order the government to provide egalitarian prayer space at the Western Wall (Kotel).  After long negotiations a compromise had been approved by the government early this year, but the agreement unraveled after objections from ultra-Orthodox parties in the government. (See prior posting.) A press release from the Israel Movement for Reform and Progressive Judaism describes yesterday's court filing:

The petition ... demands ... [establishment of] a permanent, national praying platform, respectable and accessible, serving as an official and organized part of the Kotel site, and which will regularly hold prayer services with no gender separation.... 

Furthermore, the petition demands ensuring suitable budgets for the building and on-going maintenance of the site in one of two ways – either complete implementation of the government decision to establish an egalitarian platform by Robinson’s arch or the establishment of a third prayer platform in the existing Kotel area (alongside a separate men’s and women’s section).

Furthermore, the petitioners demand that as part of the Kotel Heritage Foundation institutions, proper representation shall be given to the Reform and Conservative Movements and to Women of the Wall, and that the regulation regarding subordination to the Chief Rabbinate hereby be omitted from the Foundation regulations.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

New York Archdiocese Creates New Victim Compensation Fund

AP reports that on Thursday New York's Catholic Archbishop, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, announced a new compensation alternative for victims of clergy sex abuse.  The Archdiocese has established a new fund that will be administered by attorney Kenneth Feinberg who managed the federal 9-11 compensation fund.  For those who received compensation, records of the abuse and the Church's response to it will remain private unless disclosed by the victim. Those with pending abuse claims will have until Jan. 31 to apply for compensation.  Beginning Feb. 1, victims who have not yet filed claims will be able to apply to the fund. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Disclaimer Requirement Violates Pregnancy Center's Free Speech Rights

In Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, (D MD, Oct. 4, 2016), a Maryland federal district court held that a Baltimore ordinance requiring limited purpose pregnancy centers to post specified disclaimers is unconstitutional as applied to the pregnancy center bringing the lawsuit.  The ordinance requires centers to post signs in their waiting rooms stating that they do not provide or make referrals for abortion or birth control services. The court, applying strict scrutiny, held that this compels the pregnancy center to speak, delivering information that it would not otherwise transmit. The court said in part:

The City identifies two interests to support the Ordinance: (1) to protect the public from deceptive business practices, and (2) to promote public health by “ensuring that individuals who seek reproductive health services have access to truthful information about the services available at Pregnancy Centers.”...

[H]ere, even if there had been bountiful evidence of misleading advertising, there is no evidence that women were coming to the Center under false pretenses and suffering harmful health consequences because of it. Thus, the City has not satisfied the “demanding standard” of showing that the Ordinance actually promotes a compelling interest in solving a specific problem.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision and linking to other pleadings and court decisions in the long-running litigation.

Suit Over High School Assignment On Islam Moves Forward

In Wood v. Board of Education of Charles County, (D MD, Sept. 30, 2016), a Maryland federal district court refused to completely dismiss a suit by parents of an 11th grader who complained that their daughter's World History assignments "promot[ed] the Islamic religion over other faiths" and "required the students . . . to profess statements on the teachings and beliefs of Islam in written worksheets as graded homework assignments." The father warned the school against retaliating against his daughter for her adherence to her Christian faith. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief as moot since their daughter had now graduated.  However the court allowed the parents to move ahead with their Establishment Clause and compelled speech claim for damages against the school's principal and vice principal, saying in part:

Here, while discovery and trial may or may not prove otherwise, Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that in addition to learning facts about the background and beliefs relevant to Islam, Defendants required C.W. to “confess” the Islamic Profession of Faith....

The court also allowed the father-- who was barred from school grounds after threatening media coverage and a lawsuit-- to move ahead with his claim of retaliation. The court dismissed due process, Title VI and Title IX claims. See prior related posting.)

Conviction of Baptist Missionary In Russia Upheld On Appeal

As reported by Baptist Press, on Sept. 30 in Oryol, Russia, a city 220 miles southwest of Moscow, an appellate court upheld the conviction of Baptist missionary Donald Ossewaarde who was fined the equivalent of $642 (US) for violating Russia's anti-terrorism law amendments (full text in Russian) adopted earlier this year.  Among other things, the law limits who can operate as a foreign missionary and restricts locations where they can pray or proselytize. (See prior posting.) Ossewaarde, who held religious services in his home without notifying authorities, argued that technically his activities were not banned because he did not represent any officially registered religious organization.

Favoring Religious Over Non-Religious Objections Is Not Religious Discrimination

In Brown v. Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center, Inc., (NJ App., Oct. 3, 2016), a New Jersey state appellate court held that a community health educator who was fired for refusing to comply with a medical center's compulsory flu vaccination policy could not establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination under New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination.  Plaintiff argued that by permitting exemptions for those with religious objections, but not for those opposed to vaccination for other reasons, her employer had discriminated by favoring religious over non-religious grounds. According to the court:

[Plaintiff]  did not allege that the adverse employment action taken against her was because of her membership in a protected class. Without any allegation that she was a member of a protected class based upon her race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, plaintiff's LAD discrimination claim was futile.

New Jersey Law Journal reports on the decision.

Settlement Reached In Suit By College Researcher Who Claimed Anti-Creationism Discrimination

The College Fix today reports that a six figure settlement has been approved by a California state trial court in Armitage v. Board of Trustees of the California State University.  In the suit (see prior posting), a former electron microscope technician in the Biology Department of California State University Northridge claimed that he was terminated because of hostility to his published research findings supporting "young earth" creationist theory. The suit alleged infringement of plaintiff's free exercise and academic freedom rights.

Suit Claims Kaporos Violates California's Business Practices Law

A lawsuit was filed last week in a California federal district court by an animal rights group challenging the legality under California law of the pre-Yom Kippur ritual of kaporos (or kapparot) practiced by many observant Jews.  The ritual involves waving a live chicken overhead to symbolically transfer one's sins to it, and then slaughtering the chicken. The complaint (full text) in United Poultry Concerns v. Chabad of Irvine, (CD CA, filed 9/29/2016) alleges that the ritual as implemented by Chabad of Irvine constitutes an "unlawful business practice" under California's Business and Professions Code because the practice violates the state's ban on "intentional and malicious killing of animals" other than for use as food (California Penal Code Sec. 597(a), 599c).  The complaint adds:

taking out vengeance on an innocent animal for one’s own shortcomings is exactly the type of societal evil the legislature sought to prohibit in enacting this provision. 

According to the complaint Chabad charges $27 to each person for furnishing and disposing of the chicken, making a $25 profit per chicken. The suit seeks a preliminary and permanent injunctions and declaratory relief. On Monday, UPC issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

New California Law Requires Disclosure of Title IX Exemptions

As reported by The Advocate, last Friday California's Gov. Jerry Brown signed S.B. 1146 (full text) into law.  The new law requires religiously affiliated schools in California that have obtained an exemption from any of the anti-discrimination provisions of Title IX or California's Equity in Higher Education Act to publicly disclose that fact.  The federal Department of Education has granted exemptions nationwide to some 43 colleges and universities (6 in California) from non-discrimination requirements that conflict with the schools' religious tenets. These variously include bans on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as on other grounds. California schools now must disclose this fact to students, faculty and applicants for admission in publications, student orientation and other specified ways. Information on exemptions must also be filed with California's Student Aid Commission.

Workplace Program Is A "Religion" Under Title VII

In EEOC v. United Health Programs of America, (ED NY, Sept. 30, 2016), a New York federal district court in a 102-page opinion held that programs called "Onionhead" and Harnessing Happiness" that were introduced into the workplace are religious for purposes of Title VII, and not merely a conflict resolution tool. The court also refused to dismiss reverse religious discrimination and hostile work environment claims by various former employees, as well as conventional religious discrimination claim by one former employee. UPDATE: Newsday reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Term Opens With Action On Cert. Petitions and More

The U.S. Supreme Court opened its October 2016 Term on Monday, with the first oral arguments this morning. Here is a round-up of a number of developments leading up to, and occurring on, opening day.

Last Thursday, in advance of opening day, the Court granted review in eight cases (Order List), one of which was McLane Co. v. EEOC, No. 15-1248 (cert. granted limited to one question, 9/29/2016). (SCOTUSblog case page).  While the case involves EEOC charges of gender and age discrimination, the procedural issue which the court will decide may affect EEOC religious discrimination cases as well.  At issue is whether a district court’s decision to quash or enforce an EEOC subpoena should be reviewed de novo, or whether an appellate court should instead give more deference to the district court's decision. SHRM reports on the case.

As reported by the National Law Journal, on Sunday, the annual Red Mass was held (photos) at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington, D.C.  It was attended by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Breyer.  The late Justice Scalia's son gave a reading from the Bible at the ceremony.

On Monday, the Court issued its usual lengthy opening-day list of certiorari denials. This year's list of cases covered 64 pages of the 71-page Oct. 3 Order List.  Among the cases in which review was denied was Klingenschmitt v. United States, (Docket No. 15-1445). In a decision by the Court of Federal Claims (see prior posting) which was summarily affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court rejected claims by a Navy Chaplain that he was that he was wrongfully discharged from the Navy. The refusal to recertify Klingenschmitt as a chaplain culminated a long-running battle between him and the military over military regulations requiring chaplains to deliver inclusive prayers at military event.

Obama Holds Pre-Rosh Hashanah Call With 600 Rabbis

Rosh Hashanah begins this evening. As reported by JTA, last Monday President Obama held a pre-holiday conference call with over 600 rabbis from the Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstuctionist movements of Judaism.  In his opening remarks (full text), the President said in part:

... Rosh Hashanah is a time for reflection, and I'm not exempt from that. So, looking back on the last eight years, I'm both proud of what we've accomplished together, but also mindful of the work we have before us.....

... [W]e've still got a lot of work to do -- on the refugee crisis, on criminal justice reform, reducing violence, and creating a political culture in this country that’s a little more functional. But a new year brings new hope, and the community represented on this phone call has always known what it means to stand up for the less fortunate, the stranger, the immigrant, the refugee.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Christopher C. Lund, RFRA, State RFRAs, and Religious Minorities, (San Diego Law Review, Vol. 53, p. 163, 2016 (symposium)).
• Pranoto Iskandar, The Human Right to Non-Religious Beliefs: A Prospectus, (September 23, 2016).
• Christopher C. Lund, Keeping Hobby Lobby in Perspective, (in The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty (Micah Schwartzman, Chad Flanders, and Zoë Robinson eds., Oxford University Press, 2016)).
• Joel A. Nichols & John Witte, Religious Law and Religious Courts as a Challenge to the State (National Report for United States of America), (Religious Law and Religious Courts as a Challenge to the State: Legal Pluralism from a Comparative Perspective, Ed. Uwe Kischel (Verlag Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2016), 83-111).
• Nelson Lund, Rousseau's Rejuvenation of Political Philosophy: A New Introduction, (Rousseau’s Rejuvenation of Political Philosophy, N. Lund, Palgrave, 2016).
• Michele Goodwin & Allison M. Whelan, Constitutional Exceptionalism, University of Illinois Law Review, 2016, (Forthcoming).
• Paul J. Heald, Christian Libertarianism and the Curious Lack of Religious Objections to the Patenting of Life Forms in the United States, (September 29, 2016).
• Engy Abdelkader, A Comparative Analysis of European Islamophobia: France, UK, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden, (UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, Vol. 16, 2016).
• G. Michael Fenner, Same-Sex Marriage, Conscientious Objection and an Ambushed Pope, (Creighton Lawyer, Fall 2016).
• Katayoun Alidadi, The Limits of State Law in the Case of an Organized Secular-Humanist Community in the Southern Bible Belt: Model Behaviour Shaping Self-Restrained Law Use, (Rechtsphilosophie: Zeitschrift Fur Grundlagen Des Rechts, Forthcoming 2016).
• Jason N. E. Varuhas, Damages and Human Rights: Introduction, (Chapter 1 of JNE Varuhas, Damages and Human Rights (Hart Publishing, 2016)).
• Jeremy Waldron, What a Dissenting Opinion Should Have Said in Obergefell v. Hodges, (September 28, 2016).
• Iain T. Benson, Undazzling Equality, (September 24, 2016).
• Brian D. Galle, Valuing the Right to Sue: An Empirical Examination of Nonprofit Agency Costs, (September 28, 2016).

From SmartCILP:

• Rowan W. Dorin, "Once the Jews Have Been Expelled": Intent and Interpretation in Late Medieval Canon Law, 34 Law & History Review 335-362 (2016).
• Mohammad Rasekh, Sharia and Law in the Age of Constitutionalism, [Abstract], 2 Journal of Global Justice & Public Policy 259-276 (2016).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In a lengthy opinion in Jackson v. Crawford, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130983 (WD MO, Sept. 26, 2016), a Missouri federal district court upheld the prison system's failure to include "atheism" as a religious preference on intake forms, but allowed an inmate to move ahead on his claim that he was not given a sufficient opportunity for a secular alternative to the standard substance abuse program.

In Mitchell v. Cicchi, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131900 (D NJ, Sept. 26, 2016), a New Jersey federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with a claim for nominal damages asserting that his free exercise rights were infringed when he was not allowed to attend an Eid feast because he was in maximum custody status.

In Warrior v. Gonzalez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132639 (ED CA, Sept. 27, 2016), a California federal district court dismissed a suit by a Muslim inmate challenging unclothed visual body cavity searches of Muslim inmates during Ramadan before they were allowed to attend religious programming.

In Williams v. Blood, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133517 (D UT, Sept. 27, 2016), a Utah federal district court refused to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies an inmate's complaint that authorities ended certain Islamic meetings and he was retaliated against for filing grievances about religious diet accommodations.

In Harris v. California Medical Forensic Service, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133752 (ND CA, Sept. 28, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed an inmate's claim that denial of use of marijuana burdened the exercise of his Christian Fundamentalist beliefs.

In Epperson v. Crawford, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134065 (WD KY, Sept. 29, 2016), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that a correctional officer dragged his prayer rug across the floor, but allowed him to move ahead with a complaint alleging retaliation for filing a grievance over the incident.

In Brewer-El v. Beckstrom, 2016 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 662 (KY App., Sept. 30, 2016), a Kentucky state appeals court upheld the dismissal of an inmate's complaint that his grievance would not be considered because he added the suffiix "EL" to his last name. He alleged this infringed his free exercise of religion.

In Williams v. Pollard, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134509 (ED WI, Sept. 29, 2016), a Wisconsin federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint over confiscation of his materials from Fruit of Islam, a subgroup (considered by authorities as a security threat group) within the religious group Nation of Islam. His retaliation claim was also rejected.

In Sharps v. Richardson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135297 (D MD, Sept. 29, 2016) a Maryland federal district court rejected a Muslim inmate's complaint that the vegetarian diet that complies with his religious requirements consists of a repetition of the same meals.

In Johnson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135434 (MD PA, Sept. 30, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to move forward with complaints that he was not permitted to engage in group prayer and was not allowed to pray in the prison library and at adult education classes.

In Elder v. Cook County Department of Corrections, 2016 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2117 (IL App., Sept. 30, 2016), an Illinois state appellate court upheld dismissal of a complaint by an inmate who was a follower of Hermeticism that his request for a copy of the Kybalion was ignored.

Constitutional Challenge Filed To Illinois Limits on Conscientious Objection By Doctors

A suit was filed this week in an Illinois federal district court by several pro-life pregnancy centers challenging the constitutionality recently enacted amendments to Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act. (See prior posting.)  The new amendments require doctors and health care facilities to inform patients of all health care options and, if the patient requests an option to which the physician has conscientious objections, the physician must refer or transfer the patient elsewhere for the procedure. The complaint (full text) in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Rauner, (ND IL, filed 9/29/2016), alleges that the amendments violate their religious freedom rights and require them to engage in compelled speech:

It would violate the religious and moral beliefs and conscience of Plaintiffs and their staff to comply with SB 1564 § 6.1(1)’s requirement that for every pregnant woman they treat, they must “inform” her that abortion as a “legal treatment option,” and that they must describe “benefits” of abortion that they disagree with.

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

Suit Challenges Veterans' Memorial Featuring Cross

A suit was filed yesterday in a New Jersey federal district court challenging on Establishment Clause grounds a war memorial erected outside the Veterans Memorial public library in Roselle Park, New Jersey.  As pictured and described in a report on the lawsuit by NJ Advance Media, the memorial depicts a soldier kneeling over a grave marked by a cross. The complaint (full text) in American Humanist Association v. Borough of Roselle Park, (D NJ, filed 9/30/2016) alleges in part:

When the government displays an iconic religious symbol – the symbol of Christianity – on its property, it sends a strong message of endorsement and exclusion. This message of religious favoritism is even more problematic because the cross display purports to be a government memorial honoring war dead. No such monument should honor just one religious group, but the cross at issue here does exactly that: it exalts Christian veterans and excludes everyone else.

UPDATE: NJ Advance Media reports that on Oct. 6, in light of the litigation, the Roselle Park Borough Council voted unanimously to dismantle the statue outside the library.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Suspended From Office Over Same-Sex Marriage Order

Alabama's 9-member Court of the Judiciary today unanimously concluded that Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore violated various Canons of Judicial Ethics in issuing an order to state probate judges telling them they had a duty under Alabama law to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite the U.S. Supreme Court's decision finding that denial of marriage licences to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. The Court of the Judiciary also found that Moore should have recused himself in a subsequent case involving same-sex marriage.  The Court suspended Moore from office for the remaining two years of his term.  As reported by NPR, Moore's age will disqualify him from again running for the state Supreme Court in 2018.  A majority of the court voted to completely remove Moore from office, but removal rather than suspension requires a unanimous vote.  In the 50-page opinion in In re Roy S. Moore, (AL Ct. Jud., Sept. 30, 2016), the Court of the Judiciary also took into account the fact that Moore had in 2003 been the subject of proceedings that removed him from office after his resistance to court orders relating to a Ten Commandments monument.

Nevada Supreme Court Upholds School Choice Plan, But Invalidates Appropriations For It

In Schwartz v. Lopez, (NV Sup. Ct., Sept. 29, 2016), the Nevada Supreme Court gave a mixed victory to opponents of the state's school choice program.  The state's Educational Savings Account program is the most extensive in the country.  It allows parents of any child who has attended a public or charter school for at least 100 days to receive into an educational savings account a portion of the state's public school funding for use at an eligible alternative private (including religious) school. (See prior posting.) The Court held that the plan does not violate Art. 2, Sec. 11 of the Nevada Constitution that requires the legislature to provide for a uniform system of common schools. Nor does it violate Art. 11, Sec. 10 that prohibits use of public funds for sectarian purposes since the funds cease being public funds when deposited in a parent's educational savings account.

The Court however held that no valid appropriation had been made by the legislature to fund the Educational Savings Account program.  The state is using funds appropriated for public schools. Therefore the Court remanded to the trial courts the two cases under review ordering the issuance of declaratory judgments and permanent injunctions against implementing the Educational Savings Account program until the legislature makes a valid appropriation to cover its costs.

Justices Douglas and Perry dissented in part contending that the Court should not have reached the issue of whether the plan violates Art. 11, Sec. 10's prohibition on use of public funds for sectarian purposes. Las Vegas Sun reports on the decision.

Two RLUIPA Suits Over Rezoning For Islamic School Are Settled

According to the Ann Arbor News, Pittsfield Township, Michigan yesterday reached agreements to settle two related RLUIPA lawsuits challenging the township's refusal to rezone a vacant parcel of land for construction of a pre-K through 12 school by the Michigan Islamic Academy. One suit was brought by the Justice Department (see prior posting). The Consent Order (full text), which must still be approved by the court, is described in a DOJ press release:

As part of the settlement, the township has agreed to permit MIA to construct a school on the vacant parcel of land, to treat the school and all other religious groups equally and to publicize its non- discrimination policies and practices [by signage and on the Internet].  The township also agreed that its leaders and various township employees will attend training on the requirements of RLUIPA.  In addition, the county will report periodically to the Justice Department.

The other suit was brought by the Michigan Islamic Academy (see prior posting).  In settling that suit, Pittsfield Township's insurers will pay $1.7 million in damages and attorneys' fees.  CAIR-MI described this as "one of the largest-ever RLUIPA settlements."  As part of the settlement, Michigan Islamic Academy agreed to add a residential development with "significant landscape buffering" between the school and adjacent residential lots.

Muslim Palestinian Teacher's Discrimination Claims Survive Motion To Dismiss

In Hashem v. Hunterdon County, (D NJ, Sept. 20, 2016), a New Jersey federal district court refused to dismiss certain claims by a New Jersey high school history teacher that her school and her supervisors discriminated and retaliated against her on the basis of religion, race and national origin.  The teacher, Sireen Hashem, a Muslim Arab of Palestinian descent, was reprimanded for showing a video, at the suggestion of another teacher who had also shown it, featuring the young Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani girl's education advocate. Subsequently Hashem's contract was not renewed.  According to the court:

Hashem alleges that she was instructed not to "teach current events in the same manner as her non-Arab, non-Palestinian and non-Muslim colleagues." ...On a separate occasion, Hashem was allegedly told "not [to] mention Islam or the Middle East in her class, and that she "should not bring her culture, life experience or background into the classroom."

While dismissing a number of her claims, the court allowed the teacher to move ahead with claims for employment discrimination, disparate treatment, retaliation and discriminatory discharge.

Baptist Joint Committee Appoints New Executive Director

In a press release issued earlier this week, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty announced that it has chosen Amanda R. Tyler as its next executive director. She will replace Brent Walker who is retiring.  The Baptist Joint Committee is a D.C.-based advocacy group that promotes both religious liberty and separation of church and state.

Appeals Court Upholds Ban On Father Discussing Religion During Child Visitation

In Koch v. Koch, (FL App., Sept. 28, 2016), a Florida state appellate court upheld a trial court's order in a parenting plan that was part of a divorce proceeding prohibiting the father from discussing any religious matters during his two hours per week visitation time with his 3 children.  The trial court had concluded that religiously-based admonishments, threats of damnation, and demonization of the children’s mother was abusive to the children, causing them anxiety and severe emotional distress.

Jewish Religious Court Lacks Standing To Appeal Bankruptcy Stay of Its Proceedings

As previously reported, last year a New York federal bankruptcy court held that the statutory automatic stay of proceedings against a debtor that is triggered by the filing of a petition in a bankruptcy reorganization applies to invalidate proceedings against a debtor and its principals brought in a Jewish religious court (bais din). In In re Congregation Birdchos Yosef, (SD NY, Sept. 27, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed for lack of standing an appeal of the bankruptcy court's decision brought by the Jewish religious court involved:

 Any effect on the Bais Din from that decision is indirect, seeks to challenge orders directed at third parties, and is insufficient to confer standing.....

Appellant argues that “[t]he Bais Din is a gatekeeper who ensure [sic] that community members can seek to enforce community standards and Jewish law,” and that the Bankruptcy Court’s Order enforcing the automatic stay “interferes with this function.”... This contention underscores the lack of any direct, financial impact the Bankruptcy Court’s Order has had – or could have – on the Bais Din....

That the Bais Din claims that its or its constituents’ constitutional right to the free exercise of religion was impaired by the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling does not give it standing.

Supreme Court Calendar Adjusted This Year For Jewish High Holidays

National Law Journal reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has adjusted its argument calendar to accommodate the Jewish High Holidays which this year come in early October.  The first day of Rosh Hashana falls on Oct. 3-- the first Monday in October.  While 28 USC Sec. 2 requires the Supreme Court to begin its term on the first Monday in October, this year the Court will only hold a brief session that day for announcements and swearing in new members of the Supreme Court bar. The Court also will not sit at all on Yom Kippur, October 12.  Currently 3 Justices are Jewish-- Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan.  Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland is also Jewish.

Islamist Sentenced By International Criminal Court For Destruction of Religious Sites In Mali

In In the Case of  The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, (ICC,  Sept. 27, 2016), a trial chamber of the International Criminal Court sitting in The Hague unanimously found Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi guilty of war crimes for directing attacks against religious and historic buildings-- primarily mausoleums that were UNESCO World Heritage sites-- in Timbuktu, Mali in 2012. The Chamber sentenced Al Mahdi, leader of a morality brigade known as the Hesbah, to 9 years in prison.  A summary issued by the International Court sets out background:

In early April 2012, following the retreat of Malian armed forces, the groups Ansar Dine and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) took control of Timbuktu. From then until January 2013, Ansar Dine and AQIM imposed their religious and political edicts on the territory ... the Hesbah....

The mausoleums of saints and mosques of Timbuktu are an integral part of the religious life of its inhabitants.... These mausoleums are frequently visited by the residents – they are places of prayer and, for some, places of pilgrimage....

Mr. Al Mahdi expressed his opinion that all Islamic jurists agree on the prohibition of any construction over a tomb, but recommended not destroying the mausoleums so as to maintain relations between the population and the occupying groups. Nevertheless, Ag Ghaly [the Ansar Dine leader] gave the instruction to proceed.... Despite his initial reservations, Mr Al Mahdi accepted to conduct the attack without hesitation on receipt of the instruction.... He ... wrote a sermon dedicated to the destruction of the mausoleums, which was read at the Friday prayer at the launch of the attack. He personally determined the sequence in which the buildings were to be attacked.

The International Criminal Court issued a press release announcing the decision. AP reports on the case.

City Seeks To Ban Elaborate Christmas Display

In Plantation, Florida, the city-- citing code violations-- is asking a Broward County court to enjoin Mark and Kathy Hyatt from erecting the elaborate Christmas display that they have put up at their home for the last 23 years.  According to WSVN News yesterday, the Hyatts' neighbors complain that the display draws thousands to the neighborhood each year between Thanksgiving and the end of December, creating noise, litter and severe traffic problems.

State High School Athletic Association Sued Over Its Refusal To Allow Broadcast of Pre-Game Prayers

In Tampa, Florida yesterday, a Christian high school filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA) which refused to allow the school to use the loudspeaker at a state football championship game for pre-game prayer.  The complaint (full text) in Cambridge Christian School v. Florida High School Athletic Association, (MD FL, filed 9/27/2016), alleges that both Cambridge Christian and its opponent at the game, another private Christian school, wanted to lead students, teacher and fans in communal prayer before the game.  FHSAA, the state agency that supervises and regulates interscholastic athletics for both public and private schools in Florida, refused on the ground that as a state agency, it could not legally grant permission of this kind, especially since the stadium in which the championship game was being played is a public facility paid for mostly by tax dollars. The teams ended up praying together on the field, but could not be heard by spectators and fans.

The school contends that the refusal to allow it to use the loudspeaker for prayer, while it is available for non-religious messages and cheer leading before, during and after the game, violates its rights under the free exercise, free speech and establishment clauses of the state and federal constitutions as well as under the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Tampa Bay Times reports on the filing of the lawsuit.

Preliminary Injunction Denied In Challenge To Grants To Churches

Americans United reported Monday that a Massachusetts state trial court has denied a preliminary injunction in Caplan v. Town of Acton, Massachusetts, a suit challenging the town's approval of three Community Preservation grants to restore core facilities and religious imagery of two active local churches. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs contended that the grants violate the Anti-Aid provision of the Massachusetts constitution.

Catholic Order Sued For Release of Records of Abusive Priests

AP reports on a lawsuit filed in Cook County Illinois Circuit Court on Monday against  a Chicago-based religious order, the Claretians Missionaries, seeking release of all records relating to allegations of abuse by any of its priests.  The suit was filed by Eric Johnson, a 51-year old Colorado man who says that he was abused over 40 years ago by a 15-year old boy, Bruce Wellems, who later became a prominent Claretian priest known for his work with at-risk youths. In the 1990's the Claretians promised Johnson that they would closely monitor Wellems and not allow him access to children unless another adult was present.  Johnson filed suit when the Claretians did not follow through on that promise.

Suit By Web Designer Challenges LGBT Anti-Discrimination Law

Last week, Lorie Smith, the owner of a Colorado graphic and web design company, filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Colorado's public accommodation anti-discrimination law.  The complaint (full text) in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, (D CO, filed 9/20/2016) alleges that the anti-discrimination provisions as they apply to plaintiffs violate various provisions of the 1st and 14th Amendments, including the free exercise clause.  The complaint alleges:

7. Colorado law makes it unlawful for Lorie and 303 Creative to publish, display, or mail any communication stating that they will not design, create, or publish websites celebrating same-sex marriages. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(2)(a).

8. Colorado law also makes it unlawful for Lorie and 303 Creative to publish, display, or mail any communication indicating that a person’s patronage at 303 Creative is “unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable” because of sexual orientation. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(2)(a).

9. Therefore, Lorie and 303 Creative cannot explain on 303 Creative’s website their religious belief that God designed marriage as an institution between one man and one woman and why they cannot create wedding websites promoting and celebrating any other conception of marriage.

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

Court Requires School To Allow Transgender 5th Grader To Use Bathrooms Matching Her Gender Identity

In Board of Education of Highland Local School District v. U.S. Department of Education, (SD OH, Sept. 26, 2016), an Ohio federal magistrate judge granted a preliminary injunction to a fifth grade transgender girl requiring her school to allow her to use the girls' restroom.  The court found that she was likely to succeed on her Title IX and equal protection claims, saying in part:

the Sixth Circuit, as well as several other courts of appeals, have held that sex-discrimination claims based on gender noncomformity are cognizable under Title IX’s close cousin, Title VII.

Finding that heightened scrutiny is called for on plaintiff's equal protection claim, the court said in part:

Amici from school districts in twenty states around the country ... provide further support for the Court’s conclusion that Highland cannot show that allowing a transgender girl to use the girls’ restroom would compromise anyone’s privacy interests. When they adopted inclusive policies permitting transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity, all of these school districts wrestled with the same privacy concerns that Highland now asserts.... The school administrators agreed that although some parents opposed the policies at the outset, no disruptions in restrooms had ensued nor were there any complaints about specific violations of privacy.

The court conversely denied the school's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent federal agencies from enforcing their interpretation of Title IX.

EEOC Sues Over Hospital's Requirement For Clergy Certification To Grant Religious Accommodation

AP reports that the EEOC filed a religious discrimination lawsuit in a Pennsylvania federal district court last Thursday charging that Erie (PA)'s St. Vincent Hospital wrongfully fired six employees who refused for religious reasons to get flu shots.  At issue is the hospital's requirement that for employees to obtain religious exemptions from the requirement, they must present a certification from a member of the clergy.  The six employees who did not provide proof of their religious beliefs were adherents of  Russian Orthodox, Independent Fundamental Baptist, Christian mysticism, Methodist and nondenominational Christian faiths. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Court Refuses To Invoke Ministerial Exception Doctrine To Dismiss Discrimination Suit At Early Stage

In Yin v. Columbia International University, (D SC, Sept. 26, 2016), a South Carolina federal district court, agreeing with a magistrate's recommendation, rejected defendant's invocation of the ministerial exception doctrine as a basis for dismissing for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)) a Title VII and the Equal Pay Act lawsuit.  Plaintiff, a female Asian-American Ph.D., was terminated from her faculty position at CIU, a multi-denominational Christian college. She claimed racial, gender and national origin discrimination as well as retaliation. The college claimed that plaintiff (who taught in the school's education program) was required to further the spiritual and pastoral mission of the University including teaching the gospel, spreading the Christian faith, and participating in worship.  However the court held since plaintiff's complaint does not reflect these duties, it is too early in the proceedings to dismiss on ministerial exception grounds.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Farrah Ahmed, The Autonomy Rationale for Religious Freedom, Modern Law Review, Forthcoming.
• Jason C. Roberts, Unwinding Non-Native Control over Native America's Past: A Statistical Analysis of the Decisions to Return Native American Human Remains and Funerary Objects under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 1992–2013, (University of Hawaii Law Review, Vol. 38, 2016).
• James M. Oleske, Grand Theory or Discrete Proposal? Religious Accommodations and Health Related Harms, (73 Washington and Lee Law Review Online 387 (2016)).
• Amos A. Israel-Vleeschhouwer, Engaging Religious Laws, Players and Communities: Confronting Religious Dis-Empowerment, (in Kyriaki Topidi & Lauren Fielder (eds.), Religion as Empowerment: Global Legal Perspectives (Routledge, 2016), 149-181).
• Abhilasha Shrawat, The Dark Side of Personal Law: Gender Inequality, (September 19, 2016).

From SmartCILP:

• Rob Atkinson, Liberalism, Philanthropy, and Praxis: Realigning the Philanthropy of the Republic and the Social Teaching of the Church, 84 Fordham Law Review 2633-2675 (2016).
• Roni Adil Elias, Transforming the Business Corporation into a Religious Association: How Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Made the Religious Values of Fictional Persons Mean More than the Reproductive Rights of Women, 40 N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change 1-27 (2016).
• Mark Strasser, Narrow Tailoring, Compelling Interests, and Free Exercise: On ACA, RFRA and Predictability, 53 University of Louisville Law Review 467-508 (2016).
• Symposium. Religion and the Law. Introduction by Eloisa C. Rodriguez-Dod; articles by Beverly Moran, Rahimjon Abdugafurov, Haider Ala Hamoudi, Karima Bennoune, Marie A. Failinger, Timothy J. Tracey, Shawn Markus Crincoli, Mary Anne Case, Frank S. Ravitch, Robert Katz, Asma T. Uddin and SpearIt. 11 Florida International University Law Review 1-219 (2015).
• Waris Husain, Simmering Shia Genocide in Pakistan: Early Warning and Action, 6 Human Rights & Globalization Law Review 3-28 (2015/2016).

New Guam Law Lifting Abuse Limitation Period Will Likely Force Archdiocese Into Bankruptcy

AP reports that Guam Governor Eddie Calvo on Friday signed Substitute Bill No. 326-33 (full text) which retroactively eliminates the statute of limitations for civil suits alleging child sexual abuse. Passage came after abuse allegations were leveled against Guam's Catholic Archbishop Anthony Apuron.  A letter (full text) from the Apostolic Administrator of the Archdiocese of Agana read at mass on Sept. 18 says that he is urging the Vatican to remove Apuron and appoint a successor.  He apologizes to victims, but says that retroactive lifting of the statute of limitations will likely force the Archdiocese to file for bankruptcy.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Whitney v. Varner, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127018 (MD PA, Sept. 19, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal district court held that where an inmate refused to provide a written indication of his religious preference, prison officials could not be found to have substantially burdened the exercise of his unknown belief.

In Sims v. Frakes, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127229 (D NE, Sept. 19, 2016), a Nebraska federal district court allowed a Native American inmate to proceed on his claim for prospective injunctive relief challenging limitations placed on sweat lodge and Pow Wow ceremonies.

In Windham v. Rodriguez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127501 (ED CA, Sept. 19, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge rejected a Muslim inmate's claim that destruction of his Qur'an by a corrections officer substantially burdened his religious exercise, and held that to the extent he is suing for deprivation of property, he has an adequate post-deprivation remedy.

In Gray v. Perkins, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128117 (D NH, Sept. 20, 2016), a New Hampshire federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that in a cell search his Bibles, religious books, and religious pamphlets were seized and not returned.

In Bethel v. Jenkins, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128815 (SD OH, Sept. 21, 2016), an Ohio federal district court, adopting a magistrate's recommendation, held that an exception that treated religious books shipped to inmates more favorably than other books did not violate the Establishment Clause or equal protection clause.

In Furnace v. Gipson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129156 (ED CA, Sept. 20, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that an inmate be permitted to file and proceed with his third amended complaint claiming that prison authorities denied him a religious name change and denied his request to purchase religious items. UPDATE: The court adopted the magistrate's recommendations at 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160521, Nov. 17, 2016.

In Eleby v. Graham, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129831 (ND NY, Sept. 21, 2016), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a complaint by a Nation of Islam inmate who objected to a 6-day period during Ramadan where, because of a lockdown, Muslim inmates were not permitted to meet for communal meals or prayer and were provided a bag meal instead of a hot halal meal to break fast at sun up.

In Lewis v. Maye, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129861 (D KS, Sept. 21, 2016), a Kansas federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a suit by a Nation of Islam inmate who contended that the prison chaplain did not consider the NOI holiday of Savior's Day important enough to be recognized or given precedence over other activities in the multi-faith Life Connections Program.

In Harris v. Escamilla, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130006 (ED CA, Sept. 22, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a Muslim inmates's complaint that during a cell search a corrections officer stepped on his Qur'an and there was delay in his obtaining a replacement copy.

In Miles v. Guice, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130316 (ED NC, Sept. 23, 2016), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed a suit by a member of Nations of Gods and Earths who wanted group worship, holiday fasting, a vegan diet and written materials, and wanted to possess a medallion or flag.

In Howard v. Foster, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130465 (D NV, Sept. 23, 2016), a Nevada federal district court refused to dismiss an inmate's complaint about conduct that an officer assigned to oversee Muslim religious services was disruptive and yelled so that inmates were unable to complete their services.

No Taxpayer Standing To Challenge NC Magistrate Opt-Out Law

In Ansley v. Warren, (WD NC, Sept. 20, 2016), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed for lack of standing an Establishment Clause challenge to North Carolina's S.B. 2 that allows magistrates to recuse themselves from performing same-sex marriages on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. Plaintiffs, asserting taxpayer standing, pointed to expenditures involved in implementing the opt-out provisions.  The court held, however:

Plaintiffs have not pointed to the establishment of any specific appropriation of funds by the legislature to implement the allegedly unconstitutional purpose of S.B. 2. The funding provisions that Plaintiffs challenge here—travel expenses for magistrates and retirement contributions—are not “expenditures made pursuant to an express [legislative] mandate and a specific [legislative] appropriation,” ... but are “incidental expenditure[s] of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute,” which is not sufficient for the purposes of standing.

Dealing with a separate due process concern, the court said:

Because a magistrate’s “sincerely held religious objection” is secret, a person appearing before a state magistrate on a matter in said magistrate’s jurisdiction will not be aware of a potential bias against them. A law that allows a state official to opt out of performing some of the duties of the office for sincerely held religious beliefs, while keeping it a secret that the official opted out, is fraught with potential for harm that could be of constitutional magnitude.... But such matters must be dealt with as they arise.

Limit On Parolee's Ability To Attend Church Is Too Broad

In United States v. Hernandez, (ED NY, Sept. 20, 2016), a New York federal district court held unconstitutional a condition of supervised release limiting church attendance that was imposed on defendant after he completed 4 years in prison for receiving child pornography.  Defendant, a 38-year old man, was not permitted to attend church services where minors are present. The court said that this totally prevents him from attending the church of his choice with his father. The court concluded:

Defendant has a right to attend church services. Preventing him from going to his place of worship because the services are also attended by minors unnecessarily burdens that right. It is reasonable to apply a condition that defendant not physically touch minors while attending church services, unless doing so is a part of his religious obligation.... This condition is narrowly tailored. It strikes the necessary balance of allowing defendant to exercise his freedom to associate and participate in religious services, while protecting minors.

Muslim Safety Officer Awarded $100,000 In Discrimination Suit

In Dingus v. Tennessee Department of Safety, (ED TN, Sept. 20, 2016), a Tennessee federal district court, on remand from the 6th Circuit, awarded damages of $100,000 to a former Tennessee safety officer for mental anguish and emotional distress he suffered as a result of religious discrimination.  De'Ossie Dingus, a Sunni Muslim, sued under Title VII claiming discrimination and harassment over the years. Knoxville News Sentinel reports on the decision.

Interlocutory Appeal Unavailable In Ministerial Exception Case

In Trinity Christian School v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2256 (CT Super. Ct., Aug. 22, 2016), a Connecticut trial court dismissed an interlocutory appeal from a decision of the state Commission on Human Rights.  In the case, a Commission referee refused to dismiss a pregnancy discrimination claim brought by an employee against Trinity Christian School.  The school appealed claiming that it is immune from liability under Connecticut's Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The court held however that any defense the school has is under the ministerial exception doctrine, which is an affirmative defense to liability.  Therefore an interlocutory appeal is not available. The court rejected the school's argument that merely requiring it to defend the case with an affirmative defense would impose a burden on religious belief.

Hearing On Hyde Amendment And Born Alive Protection Act

Yesterday the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice held a hearing titled The Ultimate Civil Right: Examining the Hyde Amendment and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.  The hearing was held as the 40th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment approaches.  A video of the full hearing and transcripts of prepared testimony by witnesses are available on the committee's website. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act (HR 3504) has passed the House but has not been voted on by the Senate.

Religious Scholar Among Recipients of Nation Medals of Arts and Humanities

Yesterday President Obama presented the 2015 National Medals of the Arts and Humanities to 22 awardees. (Full text of President's remarks.) Among them was Princeton Professor of Religion Elaine Pagels, who has written widely on Gnosticism  and early Christianity.  The citation presented to her reads:

The 2015 National Humanities Medal to Elaine Pagels for her exploration of faith and its traditions.  Through her study of ancient manuscripts and other scholarly work, she has generated new interest and dialogue about our contemporary search for knowledge and meaning.

Gay Student Sues Catholic High School That Barred His Bringing Same-Sex Date To Homecoming

Lance Sanderson, a former student at Memphis, Tennessee's Christian Brothers High School, filed suit in a Tennessee state court on Tuesday alleging that the private Catholic boy's school-- which receives federal funds-- violated Title IX when it prohibited him from bringing his same-sex date from another school to the school's Homecoming Dance.  NBC News reports that the suit seeks $1 million in damages for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent training and a violation under Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments.  The Obama administration, and several courts, have recently concluded that Title IX is broad enough to include sexual orientation discrimination. IdentitiesMic has more details on the failed attempts by the school to work out a compromise with Sanderson, and its ultimate policy statement that technically would have allowed him to bring a same-sex date from his own school.

Fire Department Can Exclude Employee's Religious Messages From E-Mail System

In Sprague v. Spokane Valley Fire Department, (WA App., Sept. 21, 2016), the Washington state Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a fire department's termination of a firefighter who insisted on using the department's internal e-mail system to distribute religious messages.  Jonathan Sprague, founder of the Spokane Christian Firefighters Fellowship, was found to have violated departmental policies limiting use of the e-mail system to official communications. He sent out messages, including scriptural passages, on meetings of his group. Judge Korsmo's majority opinion concluded:

It should go without saying that a fire department's business is firefighting, not discussion of religion. Pointing out that Mr. Sprague violated the prohibition against public use in that specific manner did not thereby convert the policy to one of opposition to religious speech any more than challenging use of e-mails to promote chess tournaments or a political candidate could be interpreted as anti-chess or anti-political speech. The policy was anti-private use, not anti-religion.

Judge Lawrence-Berrey filed a concurring opinion.  Chief Judge Fearing dissented in an opinion that begins with a quotation from the Biblical Book of Matthew. He said in part:

The majority holds that the fire department held the prerogative to preclude the use of its e-mail for the voicing of religious messages. I note that a government entity, as a general proposition, enjoys this prerogative. Nevertheless, the Spokane Valley Fire Department opened its email system to employee messages of solving personal problems and societal ills through the grace of God when the fire department delivered employee assistance programs newsletters, through the department e-mail, addressing those same problems and ills. The Spokane Valley Fire Department's discipline of Sprague for addressing a topic from Sprague's spiritual perspective constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of Sprague's free speech rights. The government may not prefer secular chatter over religious oration.

Faith-Based Recovery Home Loses Challenges To Fire Code Enforcement

In Affordable Recovery Housing v. City of Blue Island, (ND IL, Sept. 21, 2016), an Illinois federal district court in a 40-page opinion dismissed a claim under RLUIPA and its Illinois counterpart, the 1st and 14th Amendments, as well as under the Fair Housing Amendments Act, brought against the city by a faith-based recovery home for drug and alcohol addicts. At issue was the city's enforcement of its fire code sprinkler system requirement that led to the eviction of 73 men from the facility, and the city refusal to grant an accommodation that would have given the facility 3 years to install a sprinkler system.

The court held that the eviction was pursuant to the fire code, not the zoning code, so RLUIPA does not apply. Moving to the claim under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the court then held that the eviction stemming from a delayed enforcement of the fire code and the refusal to grant an accommodation did not impose a substantial burden on the facility's religious exercise and, in any event, the city's enforcement of its sprinkler regulations was in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. The court also rejected the claim that the city violated RLUIPA by demanding that the facility apply for a special use permit.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Upholds Rulings In Landlord's Assault On Muslim Tenant

In Commonwealth v. Obi, (MA Sup Jud Ct, Sept 21, 2016), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a series of rulings by a trial court judge in the criminal trial of a female landlord for assault and battery after she pushed a tenant, who is Muslim, down a flight of stairs. Defendant Daisy Obi, described by the court as "a septuagenarian Christian minister," had  history of harassing tenants, but in this case she also made a number of anti-Muslim statements to tenant Gilhan Suliman with whom she had a number of landlord-tenant issues.

After a jury trial, the trial judge sentenced Obi to 6 months in jail and 18 months probation with two special conditions: (1) she must disclose to prospective tenants that she had been convicted of assaulting a tenant and she had several previous harassment prevention orders issued against her, and (2) she must attend an introductory class on Islam. The court upheld the disclosure requirement, and refused to consider Obi's challenge to the requirement she attend a class on Islam since objections to it were not raised at trial. However the court observed:

conditions of probation that touch on religion and risk incursion upon constitutionally protected interests should be imposed only with great circumspection.

Finally the Court upheld the trial judge's refusal to allow defendant to exercise a peremptory challenge against a juror who wore a headscarf of the type commonly worn by Muslim women.

VA Updates Guidelines On Religious Exercise At Its Facilities

On Aug. 19, the Veterans Administration issued an internal memorandum (full text) updating its Policy Guidance on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression In VA Facilities.  The memo revises a 2014 Guidance.  A press release yesterday from the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty welcomes the revision, saying in part:

This should make clear that churches may sing Christmas carols and distribute Christmas cards at VA hospitals. Further, veteran organizations may set up MIA/POW tables that include a sacred text.

Russian Supreme Court Bans Aum Shinrikyo As Terrorist Organization

According to Interfax and Russia Beyond the Headlines, the Russian Supreme Court yesterday agreed with the Prosecutor General's Office and the Federal Security Service that Aum Shinrikyo is a terrorist organization. The decision to ban the organization's activities in Russia was made after an in camera hearing by the Court.  Wikipedia describes Aum Shinrikyo as a Japanese doomsday cult best known for its 1995 Sarin attack on the Tokyo subway system. Aum Shinrikyo combines elements of Eastern religions and Christianity, but is generally seen as an offshoot of Japanese Buddhism.

Magistrates Lack Standing To Challenge Memo From Administrative Office On Same-Sex Marriages

In Breedlove v. Warren, (NC App., Sept. 20, 2016), the North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of standing a suit by two former magistrates who objected on religious grounds to a Memo issued by the state Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) indicating that magistrates have a constitutional duty to perform marriages for same-sex couples on the same basis as other marriages, and that refusal to do so is grounds for suspension or removal from office. The two resigned after they were not granted religious accommodations. The Court concluded that, despite the AOC memo, under North Carolina law it is various judges, not the AOC, that has authority to sanction, suspend or remove magistrates. The Court concluded:

the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint... fail to demonstrate an injury that defendants were capable of inflicting upon plaintiffs, and by extension fails to show that such an injury could be redressed.

WRAL News reports on the decision, and reminds readers that late last year the North Carolina legislature enacted a bill giving magistrates the right to opt out of performing marriages on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. (See prior related posting.)

Court Denies Preliminary Injunction To Football Coach Seeking To Pray On Field

According to AP, a Washington federal district court judge on Monday denied a preliminary injunction to high school football coach Joe Kennedy.  The coach, who says he was acting in accordance with his Christian beliefs, was suspended with pay by the Bremerton, Washington school district after he insisted on praying at mid-field at the end of games. He sued, claiming the school's directive barring him from doing so is unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) The denial of preliminary relief means that the school does not have to immediately reinstate Kennedy.

Does Sharia-Compliant Financing By Non-Profit Cause Loss of Property Tax Exemption?

In what may well be a case of first impression, the Islamic Center of Nashville on Monday filed suit in a Tennessee federal district court challenging its inability to maintain its property tax exemption after it financed new building construction employing a well-recognized Sharia-compliant technique that uses a legal fiction to avoid borrowing at interest. The Islamic Center of Nashville has continuously operated the Nashville International Academy, a grade K-8 school, at the same site since 1995.  In 2008 it constructed a new school building on the site, financing the construction through a 5-year Ijara agreement.  The agreement involved transfer of title to an entity owned by the bank in exchange for construction funds, repayment captioned as rent, and a return of title once the required number of "rent" payments had been made.

Tennessee Code Sec. 43-610.7 exempts from property tax:

real and personal property owned by religious, charitable, scientific or non-profit educational institutions which is occupied and used by such institutions purely and exclusively to carry out one or more of its purposes....

In May 2016, the Tennessee State Board of Equalization Appeals Commission concluded (full text of opinion) that, while it was sympathetic with the Islamic Center's sincere desire to comply with its religious principles, the formal transfer of title to an entity owned by the bank meant that the property was not exempt from taxation from 2008 to 2013 (when the Islamic Center regained formal title). The Islamic Center then sued for a declaratory judgment and damages.  The complaint (full text) in Islamic Center of Nashville v. State of Tennessee, (MD TN, filed 9/19/2016) argues:

Here, ICN was ironically denied the religious exemption from property taxes by Defendant specifically because of its adherence to its religious tenets.

The suit claims violations of state and federal RFRAs, RLUIPA, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the Establishment Clause. The Tennessean reports on the lawsuit.

Full Text of Complaint In 2011 Discrimination Suit By Family of Alleged NY/NJ Bomber

As reported today by CNN, the family of Ahmad Khan Rahami-- the alleged New York/ New Jersey bomber-- filed a federal lawsuit in 2011 claiming religious, racial and national origin discrimination by Elizabeth, New Jersey and its police department.  At issue was the city's repeated attempts to apply a 10:00 pm closing ordinance to the Rahami's chicken restaurant, while the family contended that the restaurant came within one of the exemptions in the ordinance.  Here is the full text of the complaint filed by the family in Rahami v. City of Elizabeth,(D NJ, filed 4/6/2011). Alleged bomber Ahmad Rahami was not one of the named plaintiffs in the case.

Obama Appoints Delegation To Babi Yar Commemoration

Yesterday President Obama announced the appointment of a Presidential Delegation to attend the Commemoration of the 75th Anniversary of the Babyn Yar Massacre in the Ukraine. The 4-person delegation is headed by Marie Yovanovitch, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, and also includes the chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council.  The History Channel summarizes the events in Kiev in 1941:

The German army took Kiev on September 19, and special SS squads prepared to carry out Nazi leader Adolf Hitler’s orders to exterminate all Jews and Soviet officials found there. Beginning on September 29, more than 30,000 Jews were marched in small groups to the Babi Yar ravine to the north of the city, ordered to strip naked, and then machine-gunned into the ravine. The massacre ended on September 30, and the dead and wounded alike were covered over with dirt and rock.

Perhaps reflecting current international tensions in the area, the White House announcement used the Ukrainian term (Babyn Yar) rather than the more commonly used Russian name (Babi Yar) for the site.

European Court: Greece Violated Rights of Conscientious Objector

In Papavasilakis v. Greece, (ECHR, Sept. 15, 2016) [full text in French], the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment found that a Jehovah's Witness' freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights) were infringed by procedures used in Greece to consider his application to perform alternative civilian service instead of military service. As summarized by the Court's English-language press release:

Domestic law provided that the Special Board, when it examined applications for exemption from military service for conscientious objectors, had to be composed of two university professors, one senior or other advisor at the State Legal Council and two high-ranking army officers. Accordingly, if at the time it interviewed Mr Papavasilakis the Special Board had sat with all of its members present, the majority would have been civilians. However, only the two officers and the chairman were present on that day. In the Court’s view Mr Papavasilakis could thus have legitimately feared that, not being a member of a religious community, he would not succeed in conveying his ideological beliefs to career officers with senior positions in the military hierarchy.

A Chamber Judgment may be appealed to the Grand Chamber.

USCIRF Gets Acting Executive Director

Last week, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom announced the appointment of Erin D. Singshinsuk as its Acting Executive Director while it searches for a person to fill that position on a permanent basis. The new appointee has been affiliated with several organizations having an international focus including the U.S. Institute for Peace where she served as the Vice President for Management and CFO.  Singshinsuk replaces Jackie Wolcott, the previous executive director, who was appointed to be a member of the Commission in March. (See prior posting.)

Court Employee Sues Under Title VII When Fired For Refusing To Process Same-Sex Marriage Licences

A Title VII lawsuit was filed earlier this month in a Florida federal district court by an employee of the Broward County, Florida clerk's office who was fired because she refused to process marriage license applications for same-sex couples. The complaint (full text) in Parker v. Forman, (SD FL, filed 9/9/2016), contends that plaintiff Yanicka Parker, as a Christian, has a sincere religious belief "that persons of the same sex cannot and should not be morally or legally recognized as husband and wife, and that God will judge individual Christians, as well as the society of which they are a part, who condone or institute same sex marriages."  The complaint asserts:

There were many other clerks available, willing and able to perform same sex marriages.

... Given that issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples was a miniscule part of the clerk’s job and overall responsibilities, and Ms. Parker was willing and able to perform all other aspects of her job, Defendant ... could have easily accommodated her religious beliefs.

Plaintiff seeks an injunction and damages for defendants' refusal to accommodate her religious beliefs. Christian Post yesterday reported on the lawsuit.

Court Refuses To Bar Enforcement of Anti-Discrimination Law Against Wedding Invitation Designers

In Brush & Nib Studio LC v. City of Phoenix, (AZ Super. Ct., Sept. 19, 2016), an Arizona trial court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Phoenix, Arizona's public accommodation anti-discrimination ordinance against a business that designs custom wedding invitations. Refusing to dismiss on ripeness grounds, the court held that the law does not violate plaintiffs' free speech or free exercise rights. Rejecting plaintiffs' compelled speech argument, the court said in part:

Here, there is nothing about custom wedding invitations made for same-sex couples that is expressive.... The printing of the names of a same-sex couple on an invitation or thank you note does not compel Plaintiffs to convey a government mandated message, such as an endorsement or pledge in favor of same-sex marriages, nor does it convey any message concerning same-sex marriage.... It is absurd to think that the fabricator of a wedding invitation for a same-sex couple has endorsed same-sex marriage merely by creating or printing that invitation. Moreover, there is nothing about the creative process itself, such as a flower or vine or the choice of a particular font or color, that conveys any pledge, endorsement, celebration, or other substantive mandated message by Plaintiffs in regard to same-sex marriage.

Responding to plaintiffs' free exercise challenge, the court said in part:

the sale of wedding invitations free of the names of same-sex couples clearly is not the exercise of religion, and certainly is not a burden on the free exercise of their religion. Nothing about the ordinance has prevented the Plaintiffs from participating in the customs of their religious beliefs or has burdened the practice of their religion in any way.

ADF which represented plaintiffs in the case issued a press release responding to the decision. The press release is accompanied by links to pleadings in the case and to the relevant city ordinances.

4th Circuit: Sectarian Invocations Led By County Commissioners Are Permissible

In a 2-1 decision today, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing the trial court, upheld the practice in Rowan County, North Carolina Board of Commissioners of opening their meetings with an invocation led on a rotating basis by one of the commissioners.  In Lund v. Rowan County, North Carolina,  (4th Cir., Sept. 19, 2016), the majority in a 54-page opinion held that the Board's practice is constitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court's Town of Greece  decision, saying in part:

The Board’s legislative prayer practice falls within our recognized tradition and does not coerce participation by nonadherents. It is therefore constitutional.

The district court (see prior posting) had held that Town of Greece does not cover sectarian invocations delivered by the county commissioners themselves instead of invited clergy. The majority, however, said:

Nowhere did the [Supreme] Court say anything that could reasonably be construed as a requirement that outside or retained clergy are the only constitutionally permissible givers of legislative prayer.

Judge Wilkinson, dissenting, said in part:

This combination of legislators as the sole prayer-givers, official invitation for audience participation, consistently sectarian prayers referencing but a single faith, and the intimacy of a local governmental setting exceeds even a broad reading of Town of Greece.

Charlotte Observer reporting on the decision says that the ACLU, representing plaintiffs, will ask for en banc review.

Recent Articles and Upcoming Conference of Interest

From SSRN:

• James M. Oleske, A Regrettable Invitation to 'Constitutional Resistance,' Renewed Confusion Over Religious Exemptions, and the Future of Free Exercise, (20 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. in Symposium, 'Law and Religion in an Increasingly Polarized America', (Forthcoming)).
• Sarah M. Stephens, Employer Conscience after Hobby Lobby and the Continuing Conflict between Women's Rights and Religious Freedom, (2016).
• Richard W. Garnett, Justice Scala, Religious Freedom, and the First Amendment, Notre Dame Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1637 (2016).
• Nuel Chinonyelum Oji, Obergefell v Hodges and the Problem of Judicial Legislation, (University of Nigeria Bar Journal(UNBJ) 3 (2016) 147).
• Catherine Jean Archibald, Transgender Bathroom Rights, (Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, Forthcoming).
• Riley Fredrick, Marriage Equality: The Paralleled Progress between Public Approval and Supreme Court Decision-Making, (Florida State University Law Review, Forthcoming).

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

• Paul Maginn & Graham Ellison, ‘Ulster Says No’: Regulating the Consumption of Commercial Sex Spaces and Services in Northern Ireland, (Urban Studies, Forthcoming).
• Aleksandra Gliszczynska-Grabias & Wojciech Sadurski, Law of Ritual Slaughter and the Principle of Religious Equality, (Journal of Law, Religion and State, Forthcoming).
• Jeffrey A. Redding, Transgender Rights in Pakistan?: Global, Colonial, and Islamic Perspectives, (September 11, 2016).
• Satvinder Juss, The Justiciability of Religion, (Forthcoming in the Journal of Law and Religion - Cambridge University Press).
• Howard Kislowicz, On Collective Constitutional Rights: Lessons for Religious Rights from Language Rights, ((2016) 75 S.C.L.R. (2d) 31).
• Solomon A. M. Ekwenze, Nigeria's Multi-Religious Platform: A Myth or Reality - Public Holidays a Question, (September 7, 2016).
• Federico Masera, State, Religiosity and Church Participation, (September 14, 2016).
• Connor M. Ewing, The Structural Articulation of 'Equal Dignity', (August 28, 2016).

From SmartCILP:

• Zachary Bray, RLUIPA and the Limits of Religious Institutionalism, (2016 Utah Law Review 41-103).
• Julia L. Ernst, How Should the South African Constitutional Court Approach Tensions Between Women's Rights and Religious Rights?, 60 New York Law School Law Review 493-516 (2015/16).
• Ruth C. Stern & J. Herbie DiFonzo, Dogging Darwin: America's Revolt Against the Teaching of Evolution, 36 Northern Illinois University Law Review 33-82 (2016).

Upcoming Conference:

• Religious Critiques of Law, Pepperdine University, March 9-10, 2017.