Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Ware v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, (5th Cir., July 28, 2017), the 5th Circuit held that prison grooming restrictions which prevent a Rastafarian inmate from wearing dreadlocks violate RLUIPA.

In Johnson v. Roskosci, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116243 (MD PA, July 24, 2017), a Pennsylvania federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with his complaint that his religious tribal cultural beads were confiscated as contraband.

In Evans v. Brown, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117108 (ND CA, July 26, 2017), a California federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he has not been allowed to participate in the Ramadan meal program.

In Muhammad v. Ponce, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117275 (CD CA, July 26, 2017), a California federal district court dismissed with leave to amend a Nation of Islam inmate's complaint seeking an injunction that would allow him to observe Saviour's Day each year with a commemorative fast followed by a ceremonial meal.

In Bailey v. Batista, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118035 (D MT, July 27, 2017), a Montana federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was denied vegetarian meals.

Further Evidence Needed To Rule On Ministerial Exception Defense

In Stabler v. Congregation Emanu-El of the City of New York, (SD NY, July 28, 2017), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss a suit alleging gender, age and disability discrimination brought by the Librarian of a New York synagogue who says that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.  Defendants asserted the "ministerial exception" doctrine as a defense. The court held, however, that development of a further factual record is necessary to determine whether plaintiff performed sufficient religious functions to be considered a ministerial employee.

Trinity Lutheran Decision Does Not Apply to Neutral Ban on Funds to Private Schools

As reported by the Detroit Free Press, a Michigan state Court of Claims judge held this week that the U.S. Supreme Court's Trinity Lutheran decision is not a basis for lifting a preliminary injunction issued earlier this month barring payment of $2.5 million the legislature had allocated to private schools to cover the cost of complying with state mandates. That injunction was based on a Michigan state constitutional provision that bars public funds for "any private, denominational or other nonpublic, pre-elementary, elementary, or secondary school".  In Council of Organizations and Others for Education About Parochiaid v. State of Michigan, (MI Ct. Cl., July 25, 2017), the court said in part:

... the Court concludes at this juncture that the constitutional provision at issue in this case, Article 8, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution, can be understood as falling within the category of neutral and generally applicable laws, rather than n provision that singles out the religious for disfavored treatment....  [T]his Court is disinclined to extend the Trinity Lutheran decision to a case that plainly does not involve express discrimination.

DOJ, EEOC File Opposing Briefs On Title VII and LGBT Discrimination

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief (full text) with the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the court's en banc rehearing in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc.  In the case the Justice Department argued that "Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination does not encompass sexual orientation discrimination."  That position directly contradicts the position taken by the EEOC in an amicus brief (full text) filed last month in the same case.  The EEOC argued that sexual orientation discrimination claims "fall squarely within Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex." BuzzFeed reports on the Justice Department's brief.

Gov. Sam Brownback Picked As Ambassador For International Religious Freedom

The White House announced on Wednesday that President Trump will nominate Kansas Governor Samuel Brownback to be Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. Before becoming governor, Brownback served for 15 years as U.S. senator where he was a key sponsor of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.  Reactions to Brownback's nomination varied. In a press release, the ACLU said in part:

... throughout his tumultuous tenure, Gov. Brownback worked tirelessly to erode the protections that the First Amendment affords for the separation of church and state.  More troubling, Gov. Brownback has been one of the nation's leading proponents of the notion that people, businesses, and even governments should be able to discriminate against others because of their own religious beliefs.

On the other hand, Liberty Counsel's press release applauded the nomination, saying in part:

Innocent people around the world are imprisoned, tortured, and persecuted for their faith. Christians and religious minorities are suffering more persecution than at any time in history. Gov. Brownback has proven that he will fight for religious freedom and will do an excellent job defending this sacred freedom around the world.

New York Times reported on the President's choice.

Court Interprets Vaccination Provision In Custody Decree

In In Re the Paternity of: G.G.B.W., (IN App., July 26, 2017), an Indiana appeals court held that the mother of a minor child should be held in contempt of a custody decree when she refused for religious reasons to have the child vaccinated.  A decree consented to by the mother and father of the child provided:

If the child attends a school that requires vaccinations for enrollment, and the child will be denied enrollment unless she receives the vaccinations, then the child will be given the required vaccinations for enrollment.

The court held that this requires the child be vaccinated upon enrollment in a school that requires its students to be vaccinated, even when a religious exemption from the vaccination requirement was available under Indiana statutes, saying:

If the parties intended the religious objection exemption to apply, they most likely would not have included the vaccination provision in the agreement at all, because a religious objection would always trump a school’s vaccination requirement and the provision would be meaningless.

The father was particularly concerned because of the danger that would be posed to his twin infant children if they were around the older child who was not vaccinated. Indiana Lawyer reports on the decision.

Catholic School Teacher Stripped of Tenure May Sue

In Mis v. Fairfield College Preparatory School, 2017 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3741 (CT Super., June 20, 2017), a Connecticut trial court refused to dismiss a suit by a tenured teacher at a Jesuit prep school whose employment was terminated by the president of the school. The president insisted that teacher Jason Mis engaged in "moral misconduct" when he took an unauthorized ride in a golf cart at a country club during a fundraising fashion show for the school.  Mis requested a committee hearing on his dismissal, as provided for in the school's handbook.  The hearing committee concluded that Mis had not engaged in moral misconduct, and that termination of his tenure was not supported.  Nevertheless the school terminated Mis, who then sued for breach of contract and defamation.  The court rejected the school's attempt to raise the ministerial exception as a bar to jurisdiction.  It went on to hold that the suit may be adjudicated using neutral principles of law without deciding between competing definitions of moral misconduct.

Trump Administration Reverses Policy Allowing Transgender Individuals To Serve In Military

Last year, Obama Administration Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced that the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military was being lifted. (See prior posting.) Today, President Trump in a series of three Tweets (1, 2, 3) announced a reversal of that policy, saying:

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you.

EEOC Files Two Religious Discrimination Suits

Last week, the EEOC filed two religious discrimination cases.  In Michigan, it filed suit against a Tim Horton's franchise for refusing to accommodate an employee who for religious reasons wanted to wear a skirt instead of the pants that are a standard part of the company's uniform. According to the EEOC, the Romulus, Michigan Tim Horton's refused to accept the explanation in a letter from the employee's  Pentecostal Apostolic minister, and fired the employee.

In Maryland, the EEOC filed suit against a security services firm because of its treatment of Muslim security guard Kelvin Davis.  According to an EEOC press release, when Davis complained to management about a racial slur directed at him by his supervisor, the company retaliated against him, among other ways, by revoking the prior accommodation it had granted to allow Davis to wear a beard. Ultimately intolerable working conditions led Davis to resign.

KFC Franchisee Sues Over Right To Sell Halal Chicken

In Illinois, the owner of eight Chicago-area Kentucky Fried Chicken franchises sued the franchisor, KFC, Inc. in federal court after it attempted to enforce a provision in the franchise agreement that effectively would destroy the ability of the 8 stores to sell halal chicken.  In Lokhandwala v. KFC Corp., (ND IL, filed 7/24/2017), the complaint (full text) alleged that in 2016 the company for the first time claimed that it had a long-standing policy of prohibiting religious claims about Kentucky Fried Chicken products.  The policy was aimed at preventing lawsuits and customer confusion.  The Halal Food Disclosure Requirements of Illinois law require sellers of halal food to post a disclosure statement identifying the distributor and slaughter facility. Plaintiff alleges contract law claims, as well as claims under the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

Injunction Extended To Protect Iraqi Nationals From Immediate Deportation

In Hamama v. Adducci, (ED MI, July 24, 2017), a Michigan federal district court, in a 35-page opinion, issued a new preliminary injunction-- extending the one issued earlier this month-- preventing some 1444 Iraqi nationals with deportation orders from being removed while they attempt to convince immigration courts that their return will subject them to persecution, torture and possible death.  The Iraqis involved are Chaldean Christians, Kurds, and Sunni and Shiite Muslims.  The court said in part:

... all Petitioners will be targeted for torture or death based solely on their association with America.... Further, the perpetrators will not be limited to just ISIS, whose fortunes and influence may wax and wane with time. The record demonstrates that other Sunni groups, Shi’a militias backed by Iran, as well as Iraq’s own internal security forces, harbor  prejudice towards those affiliated with America, which will manifest itself in the form of torture and extrajudicial killings.... All Petitioners are also at risk due to the media coverage of their criminal records.... And it appears that most Petitioners are religious minorities who will face persecution at the hands of ISIS, other sectarian militias, or Iraq’s own forces.

Detroit Free Press reports on the decision.

Canadian Court Convicts 2 FLDS Leaders of Polygamy

In the Canadian province of British Columbia yesterday, a trial court found two former bishops of the FLDS Church guilty of polygamy.   The two, who were part of the FLDS colony in Bountiful, B.C., married multiple women in so-called celestial marriages.  Canadian Press reports that James Oler who was married to five women, and Winston Blackmore who was married to 25 women in celestial marriages, were convicted after an earlier 12-day. Blackmore's lawyer plans to appeal on constitutional grounds. (See prior related posting.)

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Barnes v. Annucci, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110564 (ND NY, July 14, 2017), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended that a Nation of Islam inmate be allowed to move ahead with his complaint that during a cell search, authorities confiscated and discarded three of his kufis.

In Oppenheimer v State of New York, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5709 (NY App, July 20, 2017), a New York state appeals court held that a Muslim inmate's free exercise claim growing out of a pat frisk by a female corrections officer cannot be asserted in the state Court of Claims.

In Potts v. Holt, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113250 (MD PA, July 19, 2017), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a suit by an inmate complaining about a 4-day interruption of religious meals while prison officials were dealing with a food poisoning outbreak.

In Alster v. Fischer, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113348 (W NY, July 20, 2017), a New York federal district court dismissed some claims by a Jewish inmate for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and on other grounds, but permitted him to move ahead with claims of denial of communal celebrations for Sabbaths and holy days; his exclusion from Jewish group events; and lack of Jewish worship space.

In Kindred v. Bell, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114195 (ED CA, July 20, 2017), a California federal magistrate judge recommended denying a preliminary injunction to a Native American civil detainee who complained about failure to deliver to him a package containing religious items and about confiscation of a bolo tie.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Yishai Blank, In Search of the Secular, (Institutionalizing Rights and Religion: Competing Supremacies 126-144 (L. Batnitzky & H. Dagan eds., Cambridge University Press) (2017)).
• Howard Kislowicz, Business Corporations as Religious Freedom Claimants in Canada, (June 16, 2017).
• Michelle Biddulph, We Don't Need No (Catholic) Education — But Why Can't It Be Saved by Section 1? A Comment on Good Spirit School Division No. 204, (Forthcoming, Saskatchewan Law Review (2017)).
• JoAnne Sweeny, Breaking Through Gridlock to Protect Human Rights: The Case for a Congressional Human Rights Committee, (54 S.D. L. Rev. 21 (2017)).
• Syuhaida Idha Abd Rahim, Mohd Asmadi Yakob, Siti Khurshiah Mohd Mansor, & Rukiah Mohamad, Talaqqi Method in Teaching and Learning Islamic Education at Pondok Institutions, (Global Journal of Business and Social Science Review, Vol. 4 (3) 2016. 68-73).
• Laila Refiana Said, Siti Aliyati Albushairi &Gusti Rina Fariany, The Competitiveness Creation Strategy of Islamic Banking, (Global Journal of Business & Social Science Review, Vol. 5(2) 2017. 29-34).
• Javier Martin Reyes, Ni si, ni no, sino todo lo contrario: El Tribunal Electoral, la Iglesia católica y la imposible nulidad de la elección de Gobernador en Aguascalientes (Neither Yes nor No, but the Opposite: The Election Court, the Catholic Church, and the Impossible Nullification of the Gubernatorial Race in Aguascalientes), (February 23, 2017).

From SmartCILP:

• L. Darnell Weeden, Marriage Equality Laws Are a Threat to Religious Liberty, 41 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 211-236 (2017).
• Stephen L. Carter, Scalia, J., Dissenting: A Fragment on Religion, 126 Yale Law Journal 1612-1628 (2017).
• Corri Zoli, The "God Gap" In International Affairs: Missing Cross-Cultural Conversations in International Humanitarian Law and Islamic Jurisprudence, 28 Florida Journal of International Law 273-328 (2016).
• John W. Teeter Jr., Of Blood and the Buddha: A Nichiren Primer on Counseling Clients, [Abstract], 28 Florida Journal of International Law 343-352 (2016).

Ark Encounter Land Transfer Jeopardizes Tax Incentives

WHAS reported Saturday that Ark Encounter theme park may not get the $18 million in sales tax rebate incentives previously promised to it because the land on which the theme park sits has been sold for a nominal amount to a non-profit entity owned by the theme park's founder. The sale for $10 of the theme park land to Ken Ham's Crosswater Canyon-- a breach of contract-- means that Grant County, Kentucky where Ark Encounter is located will lose $700,000 in expected revenue from Safety Assessment fees as well as property taxes, even though the theme park has cost the county $715,000 for extra police and fire personnel. The Safety Assessments do not apply to non-profits. Officials are hopeful that negotiations will resolve the dispute.

UPDATE: According to Cincinnati.com, in  order to preserve its tax incentive, Ark Encounter on July 24 sold the theme park property back to its for-profit entity.

Plaintiffs Awarded Attorneys' Fees In Suit Against County Clerk Kim Davis

In Miller v. Davis, (ED KY, July 21, 2017) a Kentucky federal district court awarded $224,703 in attorney’s fees and costs to plaintiffs who previously obtained a preliminary injunction against Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis.  Davis, citing her religious beliefs, stopped issuing marriage licenses entirely in order to avoid issuing licenses to same-sex couples.  The court yesterday held that plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys' fees because they were the “prevailing party” --they obtained a preliminary injunction that granted the relief they sought. The ultimate dismissal of the case after a change in the law rendered it moot did not change this conclusion.  The court, in a 50-page opinion, said in part:

In this case, the Plaintiffs “prevailed by every measure of victory.” The relief Plaintiffs obtained—the ability to secure marriage licenses and marry—was “preliminary” in name only. It is not the “fleeting” success that fails to establish prevailing-party status.  After the Court obtained compliance with the Preliminary Injunction Orders, Plaintiffs received marriage licenses. And once the plaintiff-couples received their marriage licenses, their rights were not subject to revocation….

... Couples continued to receive marriage licenses after the Kentucky General Assembly amended the law – albeit, on a form Davis felt more comfortable with. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction success materially altered their legal relationship with Davis, and that court-ordered change was enduring and irrevocable. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs “prevailed” within the meaning of § 1988 and are entitled to attorneys’ fees.

The court also held that the state of Kentucky, not Rowan County, is liable for the attorneys’ fees. AP reporting on the decision says Davis plans to appeal, but the state of Kentucky has not yet decided whether it will appeal the ruling. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Constitutionality Of No-Fly List Upheld

In Mohamed v. Holder, (ED VA, July 20, 2017), a Virginia federal district court upheld the constitutionality of the government's No-Fly List in a challenge by a Muslim American citizen originally from Somalia.  One of plaintiff's challenges implicated religious freedom rights. The court said in part:

He argues that many First Amendment freedoms, such as the free exercise of religion, cannot be fully enjoyed without recognizing the right to travel internationally, such as by traveling to Mecca to fulfill the Islamic duty of hajj....  

There is much to warrant extending the fundamental right to travel or movement to include international travel. As Plaintiff correctly observes, the right to international travel is recognized by international agreements to which the United States is a party, and in today’s world, restricting a person’s right to international travel can, in some circumstances, have as profound an adverse effect on a person’s ability to exercise other liberty interests as a restriction on the right to interstate travel. .... 

Nevertheless, the United States also has a long history of judicially sanctioned restrictions on citizens’ international travel in the interests of foreign affairs and national security that would never have been countenanced with respect to interstate travel.... Moreover, the Supreme Court has strongly implied, though it has not explicitly stated, that there is no fundamental right to international travel.

Church Youth Group Covered By Megan's Law

In State v. S.B., (NJ Sup. Ct., July 20, 2017), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a youth ministry associated with a church is a "youth serving organization" under Megan's Law. That law prohibits sex offenders whose victims were minors from participating in any way in these youth organizations.  The court emphasized it was deciding a question of statutory interpretation and that no constitutional issue was raised by the parties.  In the case, the defendant whose sexual assault convictions took place in 1991 was a volunteer youth leader, counselor, mentor, and chaperone for children ages 12- 17 in the church's No Limits Youth Ministry. NJ.com reports on the decision.

Court Enjoins Illinois Law Requiring Referrals Out For Abortions

In National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Rauner, (ND IL, July 19, 2017), an Illinois federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs, a group of pro-life health care facilities and medical personnel, who object to Illinois SB 1564.  The statute, as a condition of immunity from suit for not performing conscience-infringing health care services, requires objecting personnel to refer the patient elsewhere for the services.  The court, citing other free-expression cases, concluded:

...the amended act under review in this case applies only to health care providers with conscience-based objections to certain legal treatment options such as abortion. Therefore, the court finds that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of showing that the amended act discriminates against health care providers that are of the point of view that abortion is wrong by compelling only them to speak a message that, from their viewpoint, is abhorrent.

The court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the statute

to the extent that enforcement would penalize health care facilities, health care personnel, or physicians who object to providing information about health care providers who may offer abortion or who object to describing abortion as a beneficial treatment option.

Christian Post reports on the decision.

Catholic Order Sues To Force Rerouting of Pipeline

A religious Order of Catholic women last week filed suit in a Pennsylvania federal district court contending that a decision of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The complaint (full text) in Adorers of the Blood of Christ v. Federal Energy Regulator Commission, (ED PA, filed 7/14/2017), contends that FERC's approval of the Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline route running through the religious Order's property, and giving Transcontinental Pipeline Company the power to take the land by eminent domain, substantially burdens the Order's religious belief that it must protect and preserve the land it owns. The suit contends that because FERC could approve an alternative route that goes around the property owned by the Catholic Order, it has not used the least restrictive means to achieve its goal. Adorers announced the lawsuit in a blog post.

Activist's Suit Argues Gay Pride Flags Are Religious Symbols

The San Diego Union Tribune reported yesterday that anti-gay marriage activist Chris Sevier has filed suit against four members of Congress seeking to force them to remove rainbow flags they have in the hallways outside their Congressional offices.  According to the Union Tribune:

Sevier’s 38-page complaint asks the federal District Court in the District of Columbia to determine that “‘homosexuality’ and other forms of self-asserted sex-based identity narratives are a ‘religion,’” and that the colorful banners are a religious symbol for the “homosexual denomination.” ...

Sevier also asked the court to overturn Supreme Court rulings that ended a prohibition against sodomy and federal policies that only recognized opposite-sex marriages, as well as Obergefell V. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that found that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.

Further, he said the members who displayed the flag should be removed from office.

Sevier has previously lost suits, aimed at discrediting same-sex marriage, in which he challenged state refusals to allow him to marry his laptop. (See prior posting.)

Court Dismisses Husband's Suit Over Pastor's Affair With Wife

In Laidlaw v. Converge Midatlantic, 2017 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 203 (PA Com. Pl., July 19, 2017), a Pennsylvania trial court dismissed a suit brought by a husband who is seeking damages for a sexual affair between his wife and the pastor of the couple's church.  In prior years the pastor had furnished marriage counseling to the couple.  While the suit was framed as claims for negligence, infliction of emotional distress, fraud and defamation, the court held that these are in reality "heart balm" torts which were eliminated by case law and statute in Pennsylvania decades ago.  The court added:

Even if Appellant's claims were not barred as obsolete heart balm torts, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution requires this Court to dismiss them because they would constitute impermissible state intrusion upon religion. Appellant's claims against his church and pastor for the affair are wholly based in religious doctrine, perceived social pressures from his religious community, and his own faith-his personal faith in his pastor and in his church. Therefore, the Court would be forced to interpret and evaluate church canons, discipline, and faith to determine the merit of his claims.

Tax Court Says Omission of Cost of Donated Property Justifies Full Disallowance of Deduction

In RERI Holdings I, LLC v. Commissioner, (US TC, July 3, 2017), the United States Tax Court held that a charitable deduction for property should be disallowed in full because the taxpayer failed to include the property's cost basis on IRS Form 8283, the form for reporting Non-Cash Charitable Contributions.  The taxpayer did include the fair market value of the property, which it listed as $33 million.  The Tax Court concluded that the actual fair market value was $3.46 million. Reporting on the case, BNA Daily Report for Executives [subscription required] says that the case has caused a stir among tax lawyers because cost basis is rarely relevant and failure to include it is generally seen merely as a technical violation.  The Tax Court, however, said that listing of cost basis assists the IRS in determining whether the fair market value is overstated.

Supreme Court Rules Again On Scope of Travel Ban During Appeal

Once again the Supreme Court has found a complicated middle path in the ongoing challenge to President Trump's second Travel Ban Executive Order.  As previously reported, a Hawaii federal district court held that the government too narrowly interpreted the Supreme Court's temporary order that precludes while appeal is pending, enforcement of the ban against foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.  The government asked the Supreme Court to clarify the matter.  Today in Trump v. Hawaii, (Sup. Ct., July 19, 2017), after receiving briefs on the matter, the Supreme Court refused to stay the portion of the district court's order that allows in otherwise banned foreign nationals from 6 Muslim-majority countries if the travelers have grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, or cousins in the United States. The Supreme Court however suspended, while the government's appeal to the 9th Circuit is pending, the portion of the district court's order that would have allowed entry of refugees who have assurances of placement from a resettlement agency, as well as those entering under the Lautenberg Program.  Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch said they would have stayed the entire district court order.  SCOTUSblog reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Pence Speaks To Christians United For Israel

On Monday, Vice President Mike Pence delivered a nearly 25-minute address at the Christians United for Israel Washington Summit.  His remarks (full text) included extensive references to the Trump Administration's support for Israel and to Pence's own religious beliefs.  Here are a few excerpts:

Now as the Good Book says: If you owe debts, pay debts.  If honor, then honor.  If respect, then respect.  And I’m really here on the President’s behalf and on our entire team’s behalf to pay a debt of gratitude to all of you who helped elect a President who is fighting every single day to defend faith, restore freedom, and strengthen America’s unbreakable bond with our most cherished ally, Israel....

My friends, to look at Israel is to see that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob keeps his promises, keeps the promises He makes to His people and to each one of us.

Ezekiel prophesized:  “Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live.”  And the State of Israel and her people bear witness to God’s faithfulness, as well as their own....

For my part, like all of you, my passion for Israel springs from my Christian faith.  The songs of the land and the people of Israel were the anthems of my youth.  As for me and my house, we pray for the peace of Jerusalem and all who call her home.  It’s really the greatest privilege of my life to serve as Vice President to a President who cares so deeply for our most cherished ally.

Russian Court Labels Novel By German Rabbi As "Extremist" Literature

According to JTA, on Monday a Russian court in the city of Sochi classified as "extremist" literature a novel written by a prominent 19th century German rabbi, Marcus Lehmann.  The novel set in Medieval Europe and titled Forcibly Baptized traces the protagonist's determination to maintain his Jewish faith in the face of outside pressures to renounce it.  The Sochi court's decision added the book to the federal list of banned extremist materials compiled by Russia's Ministry of Justice.  Rabbi Boruch Gorin, a prominent aide to Russia's Chief Rabbi strongly denounced the action of the court, saying that it is attempting to limit the growth of Jewish spiritual life.

German Judge Says Litigant May Not Wear Hijab In Court

Daily Sabah reported yesterday that in the German state of Brandenburg, a family court judge has informed a Muslim woman who is suing her husband for divorce that she cannot appear in court wearing a headscarf.  The judge sent a judicial letter to the woman's attorney explaining: "Religiously motivated statements such as headscarves are not allowed in the courtroom and during a hearing."  The Muslim woman bringing the divorce action was originally a refugee from Syria. An appeal has been filed, delaying the divorce hearing originally scheduled for July 27.

USCIRF Issues Report On Women's Rights and Religious Freedom

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom yesterday issued a new report titled Women and Religious Freedom: Synergies and Opportunities.  Here is the "Overview" section of the 14-page report:

Observing the synergies between FORB [Freedom of Religion or Belief] and women’s equality has not been made particularly straightforward by the architecture of international human rights law. The human rights sources that address FORB and women’s rights to equality are distinct, and emerged from the lobbying of separate constituencies.

This textually distinct basis is compounded by the thrust of the research and advocacy in women’s rights, which strongly highlights that violations to women’s rights are carried out in the name of religion, or at least that violations to women’s rights are excused or postponed due to the intransigence of religious tradition and culture, whether perpetuated by state or non-state actors or a combination thereof. This serves to exacerbate the (mis)perception of a necessary and inevitable clash between women’s rights to equality and FORB.

The juxtaposition of these two allegedly conflicting rights is conceptually untenable and counterproductive.  It violates the universality of human rights in and of itself, since unless there is a holistic approach to human rights, its “indivisibility” and “interdependence” is denied. Furthermore, it fails to provide full redress to all, since it forces female claimants to “choose” to advance their right to either equality or FORB.

The purpose of this paper is to seek to identify synergies as well as complexities between FORB and the right to women’s equality through the analysis of various international human rights law documents impacting this topic.

Russian Supreme Court Appeals Panel Affirms Ban on Jehovah's Witness Activity

Tass and BBC News reported yesterday that the appellate panel of the Russian Supreme Court has rejected an appeal of an April 2017 finding by a single judge of the Supreme Court that the Jehovah's Witness national headquarters in St. Petersburg and its 395 local affiliates should be classified as "extremist" organizations. (See prior posting.) The presiding judge yesterday held:

The ruling passed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on April 20 shall remain unchanged and the appeal shall not be entertained.

This affirms the ban on all Jehovah's Witness activity and the order that the organizations' property be seized by the state.  Jehovah's Witness respondents plan an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

Suit Challenges Hawaii's Notice Mandate For Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers

A suit was filed last week in Hawaii federal district court challenging Hawaii's SB 501 enacted earlier this year that requires "limited service pregnancy centers" to disseminate on-site to patients a notice that says:

Hawaii has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, including, but not limited to, all FDA-approved methods of contraception and pregnancy-related services for eligible women. To apply online for medical insurance coverage, that will cover the full range of family planning and prenatal care services, go to mybenefits.hawaii.gov. Only ultrasounds performed by qualified healthcare professionals and read by licensed clinicians should be considered medically accurate.

The complaint (full text) in Calvary Chapel Pearl Harbor v. Chin, (D HI, filed 7/12/2017), alleges in part:

Plaintiffs are a non-profit, pro-life, Christian church operating a pregnancy center known as A Place for Women ..., and a national non-profit pro-life membership organization with 5 affiliates in Hawaii. Plaintiffs seek to provide help and pro-life information to women in unplanned pregnancies so that they will be supported in choosing to give birth....

The Act, however, imposes government compelled speech upon the Plaintiff pregnancy centers ... in ways that undermine the centers’ messages.

The complaint contends that the law infringes free speech and free exercise of religion, is unconstitutionally vague and violates federal statutory law that protects health care entities from being required to refer patients for abortions. Christian Times reports on the lawsuit.

British Survey of Anti-Semitic Crime Finds Overall Increase For 2016, But Fewer Violent Crimes

As reported by JTA, Britain's non-profit organization Campaign Against Antisemitism yesterday released its National Antisemitic Crime Audit-- 2016 in Review.  The report found 1,078 Anti-Semitic crimes in 2015, an increase of 14.9% from the prior year.  105 of these were violent crimes. Violent anti-Semitic crime though fell by 44.7% from 2015.  According to the report:

Ever since crime targeting British Jews began to surge in 2014, each successive year has set a new record for antisemitic crime, and each year fewer crimes have been charged. 2016 was the worst year on record for antisemitic crime, yet instead of protecting British Jews, the authorities prosecuted merely fifteen cases of antisemitic hate crime, including one solitary violent crime.

Kansas Court Says No Appeal On Vaccination Order For Children In State Custody

In an unpublished opinion, a Kansas state appeals court appears to have held that a mother who has religious objections to vaccination has no right to appeal a trial court order that her children, who have previously been placed in temporary custody of the state, receive physician-recommended vaccinations.  In In the Interest of M.H.D., K.S.D., and O.H.D., (KA App., July 14, 2017), the court held that while the mother was given a hearing on the issue at the trial court level, the trial court order entered more than 30 days after the children's placement does not fit within the category of orders over which Kansas statutes give the Court of Appeal appellate jurisdiction.

Suit Challenges Christian-Only Ownership Rules In Chautauqua Cottage Community

A discrimination lawsuit was filed in a Michigan federal district court last week against the Bay View Association, a Lake Michigan summer community with roots in the Chautauqua Movement. The complaint (full text) in Bay View Chautauqua Inclusiveness Movement v. Bay View Association of the United Methodist Church, (WD MI, filed 7/10/2017), challenges provisions in the Association's rules that limit cottage ownership to practicing Christians.  The suit contends that this is religious discrimination that violates the U.S. and Michigan constitutions, the federal Fair Housing Act, and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.  Petoskey (MI) News-Review reports on the lawsuit.

Recent Articles of Interest

Fom SSRN:

• Ronald J. Colombo, Religious Conceptions of Corporate Purpose, (74 Wash.& Lee L. Rev. 813 (2017)).
• Helen L. Norton, Government Speech and the War on Terror , (86 Fordham L. Rev. (2017 Forthcoming)).
• Heidi Kitrosser, Free Speech, Higher Education, and the PC Narrative, (101 Minnesota L.Rev. 1987 (2017)).
• Martin H. Redish & Matthew Fisher, Terrorizing Advocacy and the First Amendment: Free Expression and the Fallacy of Mutual Exclusivity, (Fordham Law Review, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP:

• Symposium: The First Amendment Post-Obergefell: The Clash of Enumerated and Unenumerated Rights. Remarks by Justice Daniel Kelly; articles by Barry W. Bussey, Travis Weber, J. Caleb Dalton, Bill Piatt. 29 Regent University Law Review 183-308 (2016-2017).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litigation, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107468 (SD OH, July 12, 2017), an Ohio federal magistrate judge rejected RLUIPA and free exercise challenges to the provision in Ohio's Execution Protocol that allows the warden to limit a death row inmate's last words statement if it contains language intentionally offensive to the execution witnesses. Plaintiffs claimed that this might limit them from including a prayer for atonement in their last words because witnesses might find the prayer offensive.

In Crawley v. Parsons, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107775, (WD VA, July 12, 2017), a Virginia federal district court allowed a House of Yahweh inmate to move ahead with his claim against the prison chaplain that he was not allowed to participate in the 2015 Passover observance. His claims against other defendants for this, and his claims regarding observance of the Feast of Tabernacles were dismissed.

In Crutcher v. Bolling, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106778, (ND AL, July 11, 2017), an Alabama federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107832, May 18, 2017), and dismissed without prejudice an inmate's complaint that conditions of solitary confinement denied him access to church.

Quebec Tribunal Finds Discrimination When Jewish Owner Enforces Jewish Practice On Jewish Employees

In Canada, Quebec's Tribunal for Human Rights in a decision last month held that the Jewish owner of a hair salon violated the religious rights of a Jewish employee when she decided that none of the Jewish employees should work on Saturdays, the Jewish Sabbath.  Hair stylist  Richard Zilberg wanted to include Saturdays in his 6-day work week since this was the busiest day of the week, but Spa Liv Zen owner Iris Gressy prohibited it. Zilberg was fired after he revealed to a client the reason he was no longer available on Saturdays.  In Commission on Human Rights and Youth Rights v. 9220-3454 Quebec, Inc., (QCTDP, June 27, 2017), the Tribunal held that this violated Zilberg's rights under Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to equality in employment, freedom of conscience and religion, and dignity and respect for his private life.  According to the Tribunal:

[Zilberg] stated that the Defendants’ decision amounted to a hurtful determination of how he should practice his religion. He felt outraged that the Defendants could ... impose upon him a religious practice that violates his rights to freedom of conscience and religion.

... [H]e felt no less true to his faith because, for various personal reasons, he did not conform to the religious practice of observing the Sabbath; he in fact celebrated other important Jewish holidays with his family.

... Consequently, the interdiction to work on Saturdays imposed upon Mr. Zilberg genuinely affected him as he practiced his religion according to his own personal values.

The Tribunal awarded Zilberg $6,006 in material damages and $4,000 for the moral prejudice he suffered, and $2,500 in punitive damages. Neither Cressy nor her business contested the claims against them and neither were present at the Tribunal hearing. Canadian Press this week reported on the decision.

SCOTUS Review Sought In Florist's Refusal To Sell For Same-Sex Wedding

A petition for certiorari (full text) has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Arlene's Flowers, Inc. v. State of Washington, (cert. filed, 7/14/2017).  In the case, the state of Washington's Supreme Court held that a florist's religiously-motivated refusal to sell arranged flowers for a same-sex wedding violates the Washington Law Against Discrimination. (See prior posting.) The petition for review asks the U.S. Supreme Court to combine this case with the Masterpiece Cake Shop case in which it has already granted review (see prior posting), or to at least hold this case until it decides Masterpiece Cake Shop. Tri-City Herald reports on the cert. petition.

Establishment Clause Challenge To Portrayal of Hinduism In California Schools May Proceed

In California Parents for the Equalization of  Educational Materials v. Torlakson, (ND CA, July 13, 2017), plaintiffs challenge the treatment of Hinduism in the Standards and the Framework for history and social science courses taught in the California public schools.  They claim discrimination against Hinduism as compared to the treatment of other religions.  A California federal district court last week held that plaintiffs had stated a claim under the Establishment Clause.  The court relied on impressions of one sixth-grader to support its conclusion that the curriculum may have favored other religions over Hinduism:

The primary message that sixth grade student received was that her teacher and classmates considered Hinduism “cruel,” “primitive and unjust,” and that Hinduism had not been treated with “fairness and dignity.” ... The student formed this impression based in large part on the Framework’s content, which emphasized that the caste system was a part of Hinduism. 

The court however dismissed plaintiffs' equal protection challenge, holding that the equal protection clause may not be used to challenge the content of school curriculum.  The court also rejected plaintiffs' claims of discrimination in the process of adopting the curriculum Framework, as well as free exercise and substantive due process challenges. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Christian Refugees To U.S. Outnumber Muslim Refugees So Far In 2017

A Pew Research Center analysis released last week shows that during the first months of the Trump Administration, Christian refugees admitted to the United States outnumber Muslim refugees. This is a change from last year.  During fiscal 2016, of refugees admitted, 46% were Muslim and 44% were Christian. But from Jan. 21 until June 30 of this year, 50% are Christian (9,598), 38% are Muslim (7,250), 11% are other religions and 1% have no religious affiliation.  The difference is in part accounted for by shifts in the countries of origin of admitted refugees.  During the first months of the Trump Administration, the largest number of refugees (3,235) came from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

2nd Circuit: Ministerial Exception Requires Dismissal of Sex Discrimination Claim By Catholic School Principal

In Fratello v. Archdiocese of New York, (2d Cir., July 14, 2017), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that the principal of a Catholic elementary school is barred by the "ministerial exception" doctrine from pursuing her claim that gender discrimination accounted for the school's refusal to renew her contract. The court said in part:

... [T]he plaintiffʹs claims are barred because she is a minister within the meaning of the exception.  Although her formal title was not inherently religious, the record reflects that, as part of her job responsibilities, she held herself out as a spiritual leader of the school and performed many religious functions to advance its religious mission.

The court noted some of the tensions inherent in the doctrine:

The irony is striking.  We rely in part on Fratelloʹs supervisorsʹ and faculty officialsʹ prior praise of her performance of her religious responsibilities as proof that she could be fired for the wrong reason or without any reason at all.... This case thus lies at the center of the tension between an employerʹs right to freedom of religion and an employeeʹs right not to be unlawfully discriminated against. The ministerial exception, as we understand it to be interpreted by the Supreme Court, resolves that tension in this case against Fratello and in favor of the Archdiocese, the Church, and the School.

New York Law Journal, reporting on the decision, says plaintiff will seek en banc review.

Attorney General Sessions Speaks At Hate Crimes Summit

On June 29, Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivered remarks (full text) at the Civil Rights Division's Hate Crimes Summit.  Sessions focused on recent hate crime arrests and convictions, saying in part:

The Department has prosecuted a number of high-profile hate crimes cases this year as we seek to bring criminals to justice.

In March ... a suspect was found and arrested in Israel for allegedly making threatening phone calls to Jewish community centers, inflicting terror across the nation.  In April, we brought federal charges against him, and our investigation into these acts as possible hate crimes continues....

Just last week, we sought and a federal grand jury returned an indictment against a man in Texas for burglary and arson of the Victoria Islamic Center.   He now faces up to 40 years in federal prison.   Earlier this month, a man in Tennessee was sentenced to over 19 years in prison for trying to recruit people to help him burn down a mosque in a small town in New York.   Also this month, the Department indicted a man from Kansas for shooting three men at a bar because he thought they were of Persian origin.... 

We have and will continue to enforce hate crime laws aggressively and appropriately where transgendered individuals are victims.  Last month, Joshua Brandon Vallum was sentenced to 49 years in prison for assaulting and murdering Mercedes Williamson.   This is the first case prosecuted under the Hate Crimes Prevention Act involving the murder of a transgender person.

I personally met with the Department’s senior leadership and the Civil Rights Division to discuss a spate of murders around the country of transgender individuals.   I have directed the Civil Rights Division to work with the United States Attorney’s Offices and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to identify ways the Department can support the state and local law enforcement authorities investigating these incidents and to determine whether federal action would be appropriate.

4th Circuit En Banc: Rowan County's Invocation Practice Violates Establishment Clause

In Lund v. Rowan County, North Carolina, (4th Cir., July 14, 2017), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of appeals sitting en banc held by a 10-5 vote that the prayer practices of the Rowan County Board of Commissioners violates the Establishment Clause. Judge Wilkinson’s 42-page majority opinion reads in part:

We conclude that the Constitution does not allow what happened in Rowan County. The prayer practice served to identify the government with Christianity and risked conveying to citizens of minority faiths a message of exclusion. And because the commissioners were the exclusive prayer-givers, Rowan County’s invocation practice falls well outside the more inclusive, minister-oriented practice of legislative prayer described in Town of Greece. Indeed, if elected representatives invite their constituents to participate in prayers invoking a single faith for meeting upon meeting, year after year, it is difficult to imagine constitutional limits to sectarian prayer practice.

The great promise of the Establishment Clause is that religion will not operate as an instrument of division in our nation. Consistent with this principle, there is a time- honored tradition of legislative prayer that reflects the respect of each faith for other faiths and the aspiration, common to so many creeds, of finding higher meaning and deeper purpose in these fleeting moments each of us spends upon this earth. Instead of drawing on this tradition, Rowan County elevated one religion above all others and aligned itself with that faith. It need not be so. As the history of legislative invocations demonstrates, the desire of this good county for prayer at the opening of its public sessions can be realized in many ways that further both religious exercise and religious tolerance.

Judge Motz, joined by Judges Keenan and Harris, filed a concurring opinion emphasizing that the majority’s holding is consistent with Supreme Court precedent in Marsh and Town of Greece cases.

Judge Niemeyer, joined by Judge Shedd, filed a dissenting opinion arguing that the majority opinion “actively undermines the appropriate role of prayer in American civic life.”  Judge Agee also filed a dissenting opinion which was joined by Judges Niemeyer, Traxler, Shedd, and Diaz, arguing that the majority opinion is “irreconcilable” with Marsh and Town of Greece.  Charlotte Observer reports on the decision.

District Court Broadens Those Still Allowed Entry Under Trump's Travel Ban [UPDATED]

In State of Hawai'i v. Trump, (D HI, July 13, 2017), a Hawaii federal district court held that the government has too narrowly interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court's order that precludes enforcement of President Trump's second travel ban executive order against foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.  The district court held that qualifying close familial relationships include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States.  It also held that a refugee seeking entry has a bona fide relationship with a U.S. entity when a resettlement agency has given the refugee assurance that it will provide, or arrange for, reception and placement services to that refugee.  A similar relationship exists for those in the Lautenberg Program for refugee admissions. New York Times reports on the decision.

UPDATE:  As reported by SCOTUSblog, on July 14, the Trump Administration asked the Supreme Court to clarify that the district court's decision is an incorrect interpretation of the Supreme Court's order.  The Supreme Court ordered plaintiffs in the case to file a response to the government's motion for clarification by noon on July 18.

Michigan Outlaws FGM In Package of Bills Signed By Governor

On July 11, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed a series of bills dealing with female genital mutilation. As summarized by the governor's press release:

The bill package amends various public acts to prohibit and prosecute those who perform female genital mutilation. Specifically, the bills prohibit performing genital mutilation, create criminal penalties for offenders, provide sanctions against healthcare licensees, require increased public education surrounding the topic and extend criminal and civil statutes of limitations.

One of the bills, HB 4636, outlaws FGM and provides:

It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the person on whom the operation is performed, or any other person, believes that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual, or that the person on whom the operation is performed, or that person’s parent or guardian, consented to the operation.

HB 4642 requires the Department of Health and Human Services to:

Develop and administer an educational and outreach program that, at a minimum, informs the public, including members of new immigrant populations to this state that commonly practice female genital mutilation and health care providers, of the health risks and emotional trauma inflicted by the practice of female genital mutilation and the criminal penalties for female genital mutilation.

Vatican-Approved Article Criticizes Conservative Catholic Support of U.S. Evangelical Political Agenda

The Washington Post today reports that an article in the influential Jesuit magazine La Civilta Cattolica-- whose content is approved by the Vatican Secretariat of State-- is critical of conservative Catholic support for the evangelical political agenda in the United States. The article is authored by the journal's editor and by a Presbyterian pastor who edits of the Argentine edition of the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.  The article (full text in Italian) whose title translates to Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism: A Surprising Ecumenism, is summarize by the Post:

The Rev. Antonio Spadaro, editor of the influential Jesuit journal La Civilta Cattolica, said a shared desire for political influence between “evangelical fundamentalists” and some Catholics has inspired an “ecumenism of conflict” that demonizes opponents and promotes a “theocratic type of state.”

Spadaro also took aim at conservative religious support for President Donald Trump, accusing activists of promoting a “xenophobic and Islamophobic vision that wants walls and purifying deportations.”...

Spadaro specifically criticized the far-right Catholic American media organization ChurchMilitant.com. Spadaro said the media outlet framed the presidential election as a “spiritual war” and Trump’s ascent to the presidency as “a divine election.”

Spadaro’s critique also appears aimed in part at America’s Catholic bishops, who have fought for religious exemptions from gay marriage laws and other measures church leaders consider immoral, and have often characterized those with opposing views as wishing to persecute Christians.

AG Sessions Speaks To Conservative Christian Advocacy Group

On July 11, Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke to a meeting sponsored by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian advocacy organization.  The full text of his remarks, which focused on religious liberty, was published by The Federalist yesterday.  Here are some excerpts:

The challenges our nation faces today concerning our historic First Amendment right to the “free exercise” of our faith have become acute. I believe that this recent election was significantly impacted by this concern and that this motivated many voters. President Trump made a promise that was heard. In substance, he said he respected people of faith and he promised to protect them in the free exercise of their faith. This promise was well received.

.... America has never thought itself to be a theocracy. Our founders, at least the most articulate of them, believed our government existed as a protector of religious rights of Americans that were essential to being a created human being.

The government did not exist to promote religious doctrine nor to take sides in religious disputes.... The government’s role was to provide the great secular structure that would protect the rights of all citizens to fulfill their duty to relate to God as their conscience dictated and to guarantee the citizen’s right to exercise that faith.....

The president has ... directed me to issue guidance on how to apply federal religious liberty protections. The department is finalizing this guidance, and I will soon issue it.

The guidance will also help agencies follow the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Congress enacted RFRA so that, if the federal government imposes a burden on somebody’s religious practice, it had better have a compelling reason....

Under this administration, religious Americans will be treated neither as an afterthought nor as a problem to be managed. The federal government will actively find ways to accommodate people of all faiths. The protections enshrined in the Constitution and our laws protect all Americans, including when we work together, speak in the public square, and when we interact with our government. We don’t waive our constitutional rights when we participate fully in public life and civic society.

This administration, and the upcoming guidance, will be animated by that same American view that has led us for 241 years: that every American has a right to believe, worship, and exercise their faith in the public square....

Novel Facts Do Not Assure Qualified Immunity In Prisoner Suit

In Parkell v. Senato, (3rd Cir.,  July 11, 2017), the U.S. 3rd Circuit court of Appeals vacated a Delaware federal district court's grant of qualified immunity to prison officials who refused an inmate's request for a kosher diet.  The court said in part:

We do not doubt that Parkell’s belief system—which he characterizes as “Jewish/Wicca”—is novel. But “officials can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law even in novel factual circumstances.”...

AP reports on the decision.

Priest's Defamation Suit Against Diocese Survives Ecclesiastical Abstention Claim

According to the Palm Beach Post, in a July 11 four-page opinion a Florida state trial court judge refused to dismiss a defamation suit brought by Catholic priest Rev. John Gallagher against his former diocese.  In response to Gallagher's claim that the diocese attempted to cover up sexual abuse by a visiting priest, the diocese posted responses on its website and in a letter read at all masses in the diocese.  The diocese (which contends that it reported the abuse to law enforcement authorities immediately) called Gallagher a liar who needed professional assistance.  The court held that the defamation claim "can be assessed using neutral principles of law and without resolving a church controversy."  It is expected that the diocese will appeal, arguing that the dispute involves church discipline and internal policies for handling complaints. (See prior related posting.)

Trump Meets With Supportive Evangelical Leaders

CNN reports that President Trump on Monday met in the Oval Office with a group of evangelical religious leaders.  These leaders comprise his Evangelical Advisory Board. Attendees included Johnnie Moore, a former senior vice president at Liberty University, Jack Graham, the pastor of the Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas, and former Minnesota representative Michele Bachmann.  Vice President Pence also attended the meeting.  Photos posted by participants in the meeting show Trump with his head bowed in prayer surrounded by the religious leaders, some of whom have their hands on his shoulders.  Johnnie Moore told CNN:

We similarly prayed for President Obama but it's different with President Trump.  When we are praying for President Trump, we are praying within the context of a real relationship, of true friendship.

In yesterday's White House Press Briefing (full text) by Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, the following exchange about the President's meeting with faith leaders took place:

 Q    On the meeting with the Faith Advisory Board, someone tweeted out a picture of the meeting the other day, and there was a -- the picture showed people, faith leaders laying their hands on the President as they were praying.  And I think there was an inference or implication from that photo coverage that they were praying for him because of a political crisis.  Could you explain a little bit more about how the meeting came about and what it meant to the President to have them there?

MS. SANDERS:  The idea that somebody would only pray when they're in crisis I think makes you miss the entire point of what prayer is about.  You should do that every day, and that's -- I think you can do that in the best of times and the worst of times.  So I think it would be ridiculous to suggest the only time you might do that is in a time of crisis.

Q    How did the meeting come about?  And what did it mean to the President?

MS. SANDERS:  It’s his Faith Advisory Board, and they meet from time to time to speak about issues that are important to that community.

Court Bars Removal of Iraqi Christians and Shiites Until They Get Judicial Hearing

In Hamama v. Adducci, (ED MI, July 11, 2017), a Michigan federal district court issued an injunction barring the enforcement of removal orders against 1,444 Iraqis-- mostly Chaldean, but also other Christians and Shiite Muslims-- until they are given a judicial hearing on their claims that they are entitled to relief from removal because of their status as persecuted religious minorities in Iraq. The injunction extends a temporary suspension of their removal granted by the court last month. (See prior posting.)

While a federal statute-- 8 USC Sec. 1252(g)-- removes federal district court jurisdiction to hear any claim on behalf of an alien arising from action by the Attorney General to execute a removal order against the alien, the court held that enforcing that provision here would be an unconstitutional suspension of the right to habeas corpus. The court said in part:

The mechanism provided by the REAL ID Act for judicial review of removal orders — filing motions to reopen proceedings in immigration courts and subsequent review in the courts of appeals — does not take into account the compelling confluence of grave, real-world circumstances present in our case. This makes relegation to the immigration courts, without a stay from this court in place, an alternative that is neither adequate nor effective.

Without a stay in place, deportations will begin immediately, which may mean a death sentence for some deportees.... Beginning in August 2014, ISIS began carrying out large-scale killings.... Religious minorities were particularly vulnerable to these atrocities, with Christians being given the horrific choice to “pay a protection tax, convert to Islam, or be killed.”... 

While death is certainly the most egregious outcome deportees face, other persecution would also compromise their ability to pursue their removal challenges from foreign shores.... ISIS routinely commits arbitrary executions, torture, and sexual enslavement against religious minorities and those affiliated with the United States....

Detroit Free Press reports on the decision.

UAE Company Stops Payments, Saying Its Own Islamic Bonds Are No Longer Shariah-Compliant

According to a report yesterday in Bonds & Notes, an Abu Dhabi based company, Dana Gas, announced last month that it is ceasing payments on its 4-year sukuk that are to mature in October.  The company says it is taking this action because the bonds are no longer Shariah-compliant. Investors say that the payment stoppage on the $700 million (US) issue was really a way to avoid default, and they believe courts will not uphold the company's action.  Apparently there are no centralized Shariah boards to approve Islamic finance deal structures in Arab countries, leaving open the possibility of issuers making their own rulings as here.

Suit Seeking U.S. Edit of Qur'an Dismissed As Frivolous

In Levay v. United States, (ED MI, July 11, 2017), a Michigan federal district court, adopting a magistrate's recommendation (LEXIS link), dismissed as frivolous a suit by a Jewish plaintiff  seeking a formal declaration that "Koranic Sharia Law" is incompatible with U.S. constitutional law. The suit also asks for the court to direct Congress to outlaw certain passages from the Qur'an, to issues a federally approved and edited version of the Qur'an, to withdraw tax exempt status from mosques that do not adopt this new version, and to establish a National Islamic Registry Program. The court said in part:

Levay’s suit seeks relief for the threat of violence that Islamic extremism poses to him and his community. But he does not allege injury to him personally, or an imminent, particularized threat of future injury.... Even if Levay did allege an actionable injury, the Court does not have the authority to direct Congress to legislate on an issue, much less vanquish the specter of religiously-motivated violence.... And, more fundamentally, Levay’s requests for a state-issued Koran, a national registry of Muslims, and financial sanctions for rogue mosques offend basic constitutional principles..... Levay does not have standing to bring suit and requests remedies which violate the Constitution.

UPDATE: In Levay v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130138 (ED MI, Aug. 16, 2017), the court denied a motion by the plaintiff to amend the judgment.

First Canadian Prosecution For Selling Mislabeled Kosher Food

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency last week announced that it has successfully prosecuted the first case brought before a provincial court involving misrepresentation of a kosher food product. Section B.01.049 of the Food and Drug Regulations prohibits selling food that does not meet the kashruth requirements applicable to it.  On June 22, Creation Foods Company plead guilty to two counts of violating the Food and Drugs Act, and was fined $25,000. Using a forged kosher certificate, the company sold cheese that did not meet requirements of kashrut to two Jewish summer overnight camps for young people.  The Forward has more details on the case.

Court Issues Detailed Instructions For Church Board Election

In Rock Church, Inc. v. Bristulf, (NY Cty. Sup. Ct., June 28, 2017), a New York trial court ordered a special meeting for an election of a church board of trustees, setting out detailed instructions for conducting the election.  The order came after three earlier court orders, each of which ordered a special meeting to elect a board, failed to result in a successful election. Part of the detailed instructions provided:

As the meeting is not the Annual Business Meeting, Section 5.7 of the By-laws (allowing all members the "right to express their opinion on any matter relating to the Church at the Annual Business Meeting") shall not apply. The only business to be conducted at the meeting shall be the voting to elect the Board of Trustees and such vote shall be conducted without prior discussion.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Andrew Koppelman, How Could Religious Liberty Be a Human Right?, (Int. J. Const. Law, Forthcoming).
• Yitshak Cohen, Metahalakhic Principles in R. Meir Simcha Hacohen of Dvinsk's Oeuvre, (June 15, 2017).
• Perry Dane, Playacting: A D'Var Torah on Parshat Hukkat, (July 1, 2017).
• Michael Asimow, Jewish Lawyers on Television, (Journal of the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Iss. 2, p. 14, 2017).
• Dr. Sayeeda Anju, Informative Discussion on Women's Rights Ensured in CEDAW and Islamic Law, (June 30, 2017).

From SmartCILP:

Symposium: The Implications of Obergefell v. Hodges for Families, Faith and the Future. Articles by John Finnis, Lynn D. Wardle, Richard S. Myers, Charles J. Russo, Lynne Marie Kohm, Jason S. Carroll, Walter Schumm, J. David Bleich, William C. Duncan, student Sandra Alcaide. 14 Ave Maria Law Review 1-162 (2016).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Simmons v. Atkins, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103707 (ED CA, July 5, 2017), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend a complaint by a Native American inmate that he is denied weekly attendance at the sweat lodge, a properly trained medicine man or spiritual adviser, and material to make religious tools and artifacts.

In Saif'ullah v. Albritton, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102438 (ND CA, June 30, 2017), a California federal court dismissed claims of ten of the 11 plaintiffs for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The remaining plaintiff was permitted to move ahead on his complaint that Muslim inmates are only allowed to pray in groups of more than 5 in the open day room once per day, while similar restrictions are not applied to Christian and Jewish inmates.

In Monson v. Steward, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104036 (D OR, July 6, 2017), an Oregon federal magistrate judge dismissed a suit by a Rastafarian inmate who complained that he was (until filing the lawsuit) denied a kosher diet.

In Hosannah v. Nassau County Criminal Supreme Court Sergeant Officer(s), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104652 (ED NY, July 5, 2017), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended that an inmate be allowed to file an amended complaint against proper defendants asserting his claim that he is not allowed to attend Jewish religious services because of his escape risk status. UPDATE: The court adopted the magistrate's recommendations in Hosannah v. Sposato, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117962 (ED NY, July 26, 2017).

4th Circuit: OK For College To Downgrade Applicant Whose Interview Discussion of Religion Was Inappropriate

In Buxton v. Kurtinitis, (4th Cir., July 7, 2017), the 4th Circuit rejected free speech and Establishment Clause challenges brought by a rejected applicant seeking admission to a Maryland community college radiation therapy program.  The applicant was graded down on his interview score because he brought up the subject of religion often during the interview.  The court concluded:

... the Free Speech Clause does not protect speech expressed in an admissions interview from admissions consequences in a competitive process. Although Buxton argues that this conclusion will open the door to a wide range of discrimination ..., this fear is misplaced. That the Free Speech Clause is not implicated in this narrow context does not open the door to a parade of discriminatory horribles. Several constitutional protections against discrimination remain in full force even in a competitive application and interview process; the Free Speech Clause is simply not one of them.

The court also rejected the applicant's claim that his rejection that was based in part on his discussion of religion violates the Establishment Clause, saying in part:

... it was not Buxton’s religious belief that caused his low interview score, but rather his choice of topic in the interview room that informed the committee’s determination that he lacked interpersonal skills. This determination was “driven in part by a secular purpose,” ... and thus satisfies the first prong of Lemon.

3rd Circuit Rejects Religious Practice Defenses By Rabbis In Divorce Kidnapping Prosecutions

In United States v. Stimler, (3d Cir., July 7, 2017), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the convictions of three Orthodox Jewish rabbis for kidnapping related offenses.  The rabbis were involved in Jewish religious court (beth din) proceedings which would authorize forcible actions against a recalcitrant husband to convince him to provide his civilly divorced wife with a religious divorce document (a get).  They worked with "muscle men" who would be paid to kidnap and torture the targeted husband. Among the issues raised on appeal were two that focused explicitly on religious freedom claims.

The rabbis asserted that because it is a religious commandment to help a civilly divorced wife obtain a get, it violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to prosecute them for their role in doing so.  The appeals court rejected that argument, concluding that while the prosecution "undoubtedly constituted a burden on their sincerely held religious beliefs," it was not a "substantial" burden, saying in part:

the District Court properly analyzed whether the burden was “substantial” by looking to acceptable alternative means of religious practice that remained available to the defendants. Here, none of the defendants argue that they are unable to participate in the mitzvah of liberating agunot without engaging in kidnapping; as the District Court noted, “it is unclear whether all non-violent methods were exhausted before the alleged kidnappings took place here.” The defendants do not challenge this determination on appeal.... 

The court added that even if there were a "substantial" burden, "the government has a compelling interest in uniform application of laws about violent crimes and that no other effective means of such uniformity existed."

The appeals court also rejected the argument of one of the defendants that his joinder with the other two amounted to a separate RFRA violation.

The appeals court also upheld the district court's refusal to admit evidence about Jewish religious law and the religious motivation for the defendants' actions.  The federal kidnapping statute requires that the kidnapping be committed for some reward or benefit. The court held that the religious benefit of performing a mitzvah (commandment) is sufficient to come within the statute. It also apparently agreed with the district court's conclusion that a religious motivation does not negate criminal intent.  Additionally, the court rejected defendants' argument that the husbands, by practicing Orthodox Judaism and signing a marriage contract, implicitly agreed to the use of force that might be authorized by a Jewish religious court. Finally, on the evidentiary issue, the court said:

We further agree with the District Court that any marginal relevance that the religious evidence may have had was substantially outweighed by the prejudicial impact it would have had on the trial. Suggesting that the defendants acted for a religious purpose might have given rise to the potential for jury nullification, which we have held is substantially prejudicial.

NJ Advance Media reports on some of the other issues covered by the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for being the first reader to send me the lead.]

Cert. Petition Filed In Ten Commandments Case

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Bloomfield v. Felix.  In the case, a 3-judge panel of the 10th Circuit found that a Ten Commandments monument on a city hall lawn violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) The full 10th Circuit, over the dissent of two judges, denied en banc review.  (See prior posting.)  ADF issued a press release announcing the petition seeking Supreme Court review.

Settlement Reached In Suit Over University Service Learning Credit For Religious Activity

A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit against the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire (see prior posting) over its refusal to count religious teaching to children as a permissible type of community service to satisfy university students' service learning requirement. Credit was give for various sorts of non-religious teaching.  Under the settlement agreement (full text) in Liebl v. Schmidt, the University agreed to remove language from its Service Learning Guidebook and from as University Senate motion that had disallowed credit for "time spent directly involved in promoting religious doctrine, proselytizing or worship." The University also agreed to pay plaintiffs' attorneys fees of $15,000.  Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with the Wisconsin federal district court on July 6.  ADF issued a press release announcing the settlement.

Tribes Sue to Stop End of Protection For Yellowstone Grizzly Bears

Last month 17 Native American tribes, clans and individuals filed suit challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to lift protections for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone National Park area.  According to AP:

The Native American plaintiffs argue that trophy hunting for grizzly bears goes against their religious and spiritual beliefs. The lawsuit filed June 30 asks a federal judge to rule that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must consider the Native Americans' beliefs and consult adequately with them before removing grizzly protections that have been in place since 1975....

Basing a legal challenge of an Endangered Species Act decision on religious beliefs and inadequate tribal consultation has not been tried before, said the plaintiffs' attorney, Jeff Rasmussen.

In 9th Circuit Church Loses Suit Against Loud Music Festival

In Amistad Christiana Church v. Life Is Beautiful, LLC, (9th Cir., July 3, 2017), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim by a Christian church that a music festival put on by Life is Beautiful, LLC with a permit from the City of Las Vegas was so intrusive that it violated their free exercise and free speech rights.  The court found no state action, concluding that Life is Beautiful is a private entity not acting under color of state law.  The city's special event permit regulated permissible sound levels for the festival.  And the city is immune from civil liability for suits based on the exercise of its discretionary functions.

Scotland Investigates Upsurge In Prisoner Requests For Kosher Meals

The Forward reported yesterday that in Scotland, the Inspectorate of Prisons has begun an investigation into why there has been a huge upsurge in inmates requesting kosher meals.  The increase has added $313,000 per year to the cost of operating Scottish prisons.  According to the news report:

Inmates are believed to have started asking for kosher food after watching “Orange is the New Black,” the American television show in which a character named Cindy Hayes, played by Adrienne Moore, converts to Judaism to get “better quality food,” as she explains it in the series.

At one Edinburgh prison, 111 prisoners are being served kosher meals, and it is thought that hundreds of prisoners across the United Kingdom have applied to change their religion to Judaism since the episode aired in 2015.

EU Ban On State Economic Subsidies Invalidates Some Applications of Tax Exemption Treaty with Vatican

Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union prohibits EU states from granting aid that "distorts or threatens to distort competition [between Member States] by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods..."  In Congregación de Escuelas Pías Provincia Betania v. Ayuntamiento de Getafe, (CJEU, June 27, 2017), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that this provision may invalidate some applications of a treaty between Spain and the Vatican exempting from taxes the property in Spain of Catholic dioceses, parishes and religious orders.  At issue is a municipal tax that would apply to the renovation and extension of a building at a school operated by a Catholic order. According to the Court, the ban on favoring certain "undertakings" applies only to "economic activity."  To the extent that the building is used for educational activities subsidized by the Spanish government, the religious order is not engaged "economic activity" and the EU Treaty does not bar a tax exemption.  However

it would seem ... the Congregación’s educational activities that are not financed by the Spanish State, corresponding to early-years teaching, extracurricular activities and post-compulsory education, meet all the criteria ... of the present judgment for classification as ‘economic activities’....

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

European Court Upholds Defamation Judgment For False Charges of Anti-Muslim Statements

In Case of Medzlis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, (ECHR, June 27, 2017), the European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber by a vote of 11-6 held that the free expression rights of a Muslim religious community and three non-governmental organizations representing ethnic Bosnian Muslims were not infringed by a defamation judgment entered against them.  The suit grew out of a letter sent to authorities of the Brčko District's multi-ethnic radio station objecting to the appointment of "Ms. M.S." as director of the station.  Among other things, the letter claimed that M.S.:

(1) stated in an interview ... commenting on the destruction of mosques in Brčko, that Muslims were not a people ..., that they did not possess culture and that, accordingly, destroying mosques could not be seen as destruction of cultural monuments,

(2) as an employee of the BD radio demonstratively tore to pieces on the radio’s premises ... the calendar showing the schedule of religious services during the month of Ramadan...

These statements were inaccurate.  The majority concluded:

the authorities of the respondent State struck a fair balance between the applicants’ interest in free speech, on the one hand, and M.S.’s interest in protection of her reputation on the other hand, thus acting within their margin of appreciation....

The Court's press release on the decision summarizes the Court's reasoning.