Brownback Confirmed As Religious Freedom Ambassador-at-Large

Yesterday the U.S. Senate confirmed Kansas Governor Sam Brownback as Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom. A 49-49 tie vote on the confirmation was broken by Vice President Pence who voted in favor of the nomination. (Senate Vote Summary).  As reported by the Washington Post:

The vote highlighted how polarizing a figure Brownback has become during what has been a divisive tenure as governor of Kansas....  Brownback had faced opposition from LGBT groups over a decision he made as Kansas governor to scuttle an executive order that barred discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity....

Under Trump, the State Department folded its Office of Religion and Global Affairs into the Office of International Religious Freedom that Brownback will now lead. The restructuring gives him a larger profile.

USCIRF issued a press release welcoming the confirmation.

Suit Claims University Employee Dismissed Because of Anti-Muslim Discrimination

A former employee of Youngstown State University's Center for Student Progress filed suit this week claiming that his termination stemmed from discriminatory treatment against him because he is a Muslim.  The complaint (full text) in Jadun v. Youngstown Sate University, (ND OH, filed 1/23/2018) claims that the employee's dismissal violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as well as Ohio anti-discrimination law (ORC 4112.02). WFMJ News reports on the lawsuit.

School District Sued Over Middle East Geography Curriculum

The parent of a New Jersey middle school student filed suit this week against The Chathams school district claiming that the Middle East and North Africa unit of the 7th-grade Geography class violates the Establishment Clause by promoting Islam.  The complaint (full text) in Hilsenrath v. School District of the Chathams, (D NJ, filed 1/23/2018), alleges that an Intro to Islam Video on the Google Classroom assigned to the geography class was a "nearly five-minute long video [which] seeks to convert viewers to Islam and is filled with the religious teachings of Islam presented, not as beliefs, but as facts."  It also contends that an assigned animated presentation on the 5 Pillars of Islam seeks to convert students to Islam.  Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Republication of SPLC Hate Group Label Did Not Violate Lanham Act

The Southern Poverty Law Center  which tracks hate groups in the United States lists Liberty Counsel as an anti-LGBT hate group. GuideStar, an organization that provides information about non-profits to members of the public, picked up SLPC's hate group labels and included them in its descriptions of non-profits. In Liberty Counsel, Inc. v. GuideStar USA, Inc., (ED VA, Jan. 23, 2018), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a suit contending that GuideStar's republication of the hate group label for Liberty Counsel violated the Lanham Act.  The Lanham Act imposes civil liability on any person who "in a commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities ... of ... another person's goods, services, or commercial activities...." The court held that GuideStar's use of SLPC's labels is not commercial speech, and thus is not covered by the Lanham Act, adding:

Defendant's review of Plaintiffs organization would fall under the laws of the First Amendment, not that of the Lanham Ac.... Specifically, Defendant has an expressive right to comment on social issues under the First Amendment.

In a press release announcing the decision, Liberty Counsel said it is considering an appeal.

KFC Franchisee Loses Right To Advertise Halal Chicken

In Lokhandwala v. KFC Corporation, (ND IL, Jan. 23, 2018), an Illinois federal district court strictly enforced the provisions of a franchise agreement and upheld KFC's policy of barring a franchisee from advertising that it sells Halal chicken. While KFC allowed the marketing of Halal chicken by plaintiff for 14 years, in 2016 or 2017 it revoked consent based on a 2009 company policy prohibiting franchisees from making religious dietary claims.  The policy was based on concerns about varying religious standards and compliance difficulties.  Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Christian Student Group Gets Preliminary Injunction Because of Selective Enforcement

In Business Leaders in Christ v. University of Iowa, (SD IA, Jan. 23, 2018), an Iowa federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the University of Iowa to restore for 90 days the registered student organization status of Business Leaders in Christ.  The University revoked the group's registration for failure to comply with the University's Human Rights Policy.  The organization required that executive officers agree to live by Biblical principles. The University found that this would disqualify individuals from leadership positions based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The court concluded that the University's policy, as written, does not violate plaintiffs' free expression rights. However, the court found that as applied the policy is not viewpoint neutral and thus violates plaintiff's rights. Relying particularly on apparent non-enforcement against a Shia Muslim student organization, the court concluded that "on the current record ... BLinC has shown that the University does not consistently and equally apply its Human Rights Policy." The court said that after the expiration of the preliminary injunction, the University may prevent further injunctions by showing a change to its enforcement of its Policy. Cedar Rapids Gazette reports on the decision. Becket's case page has further background.

Missouri Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Satanic Temple Believer's Challenge To Abortion Law [UPDATED]

As reported by the Washington Post, the Missouri Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments in Doe v. Nixon,  a case brought by a woman who is a member of the Satanic Temple, challenging Missouri's restrictions on abortion. (See prior related posting.) Missouri's requires that abortion providers give patients a pamphlet that states :"The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being." Plaintiff contends that this violates her rights under the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. As reported by the Post:

[T]he Satanic Temple has a set of tenets that stipulate that a woman’s body “is inviolable and subject to her will alone”; that “she makes decisions regarding her health based on the best scientific understanding of the world, even if the science does not comport with the religious or political beliefs of others”; and that “human tissue,” — how the complaint defines a pregnancy dating to its conception — is part of her body that “she alone” can decide whether to remove.

UPDATE: A recording of the full oral arguments is now available online. According to a press release from the Satanic Temple:

D. John Sauer, Missouri’s Solicitor General announced to the State’s Supreme Court that ultrasounds are not mandatory to obtain an abortion. This information no doubt comes as a surprise to Missouri’s abortion providers who regularly perform ultrasounds they have perceived as mandated by the State. The issue arose during oral arguments in The Satanic Temple’s (TST) lawsuit, which asserts that State interference with the ability for a member of TST ... to terminate her pregnancy violates her rights under Missouri’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) because that interference has no medical or other compelling purpose.... 

... In an audio recording of the arguments published by the court, Justices of the court asked the State’s representative if, “it’s the position of the State that an ultrasound does not have to be conducted unless a person says they want the opportunity to hear the fetal heartbeat.” (13:16) Mr. Sauer affirms that the State’s interpretation of statute (MO Rev Stat § 188.027) is that women only be offered the “opportunity,” to have an ultrasound and listen to the fetal heartbeat, and if a woman declines hearing the audio, the ultrasound need not be performed and the requirement has been satisfied (15:20).

Impact On The Ground of School-Prayer Lawsuit

As previously reported, in December the mother of a Louisiana high school student filed suit against a local school board alleging extensive Establishment Clause violations.  Yesterday, CNN took an in-depth look at the extent to which religion has pervaded Lakeside Junior/High School, and at the impact on students and parents of the school's decision, in response to the pending lawsuit, to end recitation of the Lord's Prayer each morning.

Supreme Court Review Sought In Prisoner Free Exercise Case

Yesterday, a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Hoever v. Belleis.  In the case, the 11th Circuit held that denial of an English language Bible and devotional materials to an inmate for 20 days while in disciplinary confinement did not impose a substantial burden on his religious exercise. (See prior posting.)  The petition for review argues that the 11th Circuit created a circuit split by holding that only a burden on a practice mandated by a prisoner’s faith can constitute a substantial burden. It also seeks review on the issue of the availability of compensatory damages in prisoner cases alleging 1st Amendment violations.

Pence Speaks To Israel's Knesset

Yesterday U.S. Vice President Mike Pence delivered a lengthy address (full text) to Israel's Knesset (Parliament).  His remarks included numerous religious references and references to Jewish history.  He said in part:

In the story of the Jews, we’ve always seen the story of America. It is the story of an exodus, a journey from persecution to freedom, a story that shows the power of faith and the promise of hope.

My country’s very first settlers also saw themselves as pilgrims, sent by Providence, to build a new Promised Land. The songs and stories of the people of Israel were their anthems, and they faithfully taught them to their children, and do to this day. And our founders, as others have said, turned to the wisdom of the Hebrew Bible for direction, guidance, and inspiration....

The Jewish people’s unbreakable bond to this sacred city reaches back more than 3,000 years. It was here, in Jerusalem, on Mount Moriah, that Abraham offered his son, Isaac, and was credited with righteousness for his faith in God.

It was here, in Jerusalem, that King David consecrated the capital of the Kingdom of Israel. And since its rebirth, the modern State of Israel has called this city the seat of its government.

Suit Over Opening Prayers In Courtroom Survives Motion To Dismiss

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Mack, (SD TX, Jan. 19, 2018), a Texas federal district court refused to dismiss a an Establishment Clause challenge to the practice by a Texas Justice of the Peace of opening each court session with a lengthy Christian prayer by a guest chaplain from his chaplaincy program. The court concluded that two of the three plaintiffs had standing, and that they had stated a plausible claim that the judge's prayer practice violates the Lemon test.  the judge had campaigned on a platform of reinstituting religious values within the office.  Both Freedom From Religion Foundation and First Liberty issued press releases announcing the decision. First Liberty also has links to some of the pleadings in the case.  (See prior related posting.)

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• John M. Bickers, False Facts and Holy War: How the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause Cases Fuel Religious Conflict, (January 10, 2018).
• Mark Movsesian, Markets and Morals: The Limits of Doux Commerce, (William and Mary Business Law Review (Forthcoming)).
• Harold Berman & John Witte, The Integrative Christian Jurisprudence of John Selden, (in: R.H. Helmholz and Mark Hill, eds., Great Christian Jurists in English History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 139-61).
• Adam Chodorow & Ellen P. Aprill, The Parsonage Exemption Subsidizes Religion, (Tax Notes, Dec. 18, 2017).
• Fabienne Bretscher, Religious Freedom of Members of Old and New Minorities: A Double Comparison, (Erasmus Law Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2017).
• Jacco Bomhoff, Immanence and Irreconcilability: On the Character of Public Law as Political Jurisprudence, (Forthcoming in: M. Wilkinson & M. Dowdle (eds.), Questioning the Foundations of Public Law (Hart Publishing)).
• Gregory Scott Parks & Derek S. Hicks, ‘How Much a Dollar Cost?’ Political Ideology, Religion, and Poverty Policy Through the Lens of Kendrick Lamar’s Music, (January 18, 2018).
• Antje von Ungern-Sternberg, The Obama Era: Freedom of Religion, (Forthcoming, Anna-Bettina Kaiser, Niels Petersen and Johannes Saurer (eds.), The U.S. Supreme Court and Contemporary Constitutional Law: The Obama Era and Its Legacy, 2018).
• Marc Edelman, Trumped by the Courts? Exploring Gender Minorities' Bathroom Rights Under the Donald Trump Presidency, (University of Louisville Law Review, Vol. 56, 2018).
• Stephen Rushin & Griffin Sims Edwards, The Effect of President Trump's Election on Hate Crimes, (January 14, 2018).

From SmartCILP:

• Sofie G. Syed. Liberte, Egalite, Vie Privee: The Implications of France's Anti-Veil Laws for Privacy and Autonomy, 40 Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 301-332 (2017).
• Linda Przybyszewski, Scarlet Fever, Stanley Matthews, and the Cincinnati Bible War, 42 Journal of Supreme Court History 256-274 (2017).
• Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Judicial Independence: The Fortress Threatened From Within, 47 University of Memphis Law Review 1223-1233 (2017).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Ollie v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6684 (SD IL, Jan. 16, 2018), an Illinois federal district court dismissed a Christian inmate's complaint that he was not allowed to attend congregate religious services while in the Staff Assaulter Program.

In Jackson v. Climmer, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6656 (D OR, Jan. 16, 2018), an Oregon federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215490, Nov. 22, 2017) and dismissed an inmate's allegations that pork was included in his diet.

In Thompson v. Premo, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7907 (D OR, Jan. 16, 2018), an Oregon federal district court, in an inmate's challenge to his sentence, rejected his argument that jurors' free exercise rights were infringed when jurors were death-qualified for the guilt phase of his trial.

In Braziel v. Roy, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7106 (D MN, Jan. 17, 2018), a Minnesota federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215627, Dec. 21, 2017) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint regarding his suspension from the religious diet program and the policy underlying his suspension.

In Ramsey v. Fischer, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9114 (WD NY, Jan. 18, 2018), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate's complaint that upon transfer it took a week for him to be placed on the kosher meal plan and another month to receive matzah and grape juice for Friday evening Sabbath services.

Nuns Argue RFRA Claim As To Pipeline Before 3rd Circuit

On Friday the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Adorers of the Blood of  Christ v. FERC.  In the case, a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction a RFRA challenge by a Catholic order of nuns to the construction and operation of the Atlantic Sunrise gas pipeline through land owned by the order. (See prior posting.)  At issue is whether the nuns should have used procedures set out in the Natural Gas Act to raise their objections. NPR reports on the oral arguments.

Report Says Women of Color Disproportionately Give Birth In Catholic Hospitals In 19 States

The Columbia Law School Public Rights/ Private Conscience Project yesterday released a new report Bearing Faith: The Limits of Catholic Health Care for Women of Color. The study focuses on racial disparities of women giving birth in Catholic hospitals governed by Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.  According to the report:

The ERDs forbid hospitals owned by or affiliated with the Catholic Church ... from providing many forms of reproductive health care, including contraception, sterilization, many infertility treatments, and abortion, even when a patient’s life or health is jeopardized by a pregnancy. Catholic hospitals represent a large and growing part of the U.S. health care system. One in six hospital beds in the country is in a hospital governed by the ERDs....

This study finds that in nineteen out of the thirty-four states/territories that we studied, women of color are more likely than white women to give birth at hospitals bound by the ERDs.

The study found that in 12 states and one territory, Catholic hospitals disproportionately served white women, two states showed little disparity, and seven states had no Catholic birth hospitals.

Trump Administration Takes Several Actions Supporting Pro-Life Advocates

As reported by CNN, today was the 45th annual March for Life in Washington, D.C.  Both Vice-President Pence and President Trump addressed the marchers via video feed from the White House Rose Garden. (Video of remarks.) Today, President Trump also issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring January 22 as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. The White House additionally issued a Fact Sheet titled President Donald J. Trump is Standing Up for the Sanctity of Life.

Today, the Department of Health and Human Services also announced two pro-life initiatives. The HHS Office for Civil Rights issued a 216-page release (full text) proposing revisions in in order to expand enforcement authority as to rules that protect conscience objections in delivery of health care services. Second, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a Letter to State Medicaid Directors (full text) rescinding SMD #16-005, a 2016 letter to Medicaid.  That letter which today's action rescinded provided in part:

... [S]tates may not deny qualification to family planning providers, or take other action against qualified family planning providers, that affects beneficiary access to those providers—whether individual providers, physician groups, outpatient clinics or hospitals—solely because they separately provide family planning services or the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care, including abortion services (not funded by federal Medicaid dollars, consistent with the federal prohibition), as part of their scope of practice.

Supreme Court Grants Cert. In 3rd Travel Ban Challenge; Asks For Argument on Establishment Clause

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued an order (full text) granting review in Trump v. Hawaii, (Docket No. 17-965, cert. granted 1/19/2018).   In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the third version of President Trump's travel ban is inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act, but stayed its injunction pending Supreme Court review. (See prior posting.) While the 9th Circuit avoided ruling on plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim, the Supreme Court ordered the parties to brief and argue that issue (raised as Question 3 in Hawaii's brief in opposition), as well as the issues raised by the original petition for certiorari.  SCOTUSblog's case page has links to additional primary source material relating to the case.

No Title VII Claim Based on "Perceived" Religion

In Cole v. Cobb County School District, (ND GA, Jan. 18, 2018), a Georgia federal district court dismissed Title VII religious discrimination claims brought by a school principal who was transferred to a low performing school far from her home after parents complained about her introduction of mindfulness practices, including yoga, at her school.  The principal is Christian, but parents complained to the school board falsely claiming that the she was a Buddhist and was attempting to indoctrinate their children with Buddhism.  The court held that Title VII does not cover discrimination or reverse discrimination claims based on an individual's perceived, rather than their actual, religion,  The court however did permit plaintiff to move ahead with her Establishment Clause claim.

10th Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment In Title VII Suit By Seventh Day Adventists

In Tabura v. Kellogg USA, (10th Cir., Jan. 17, 2018), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's grant of summary judgment to employer Kellogg in a Title VII suit brought by Seventh Day Adventists who were seeking an accommodation for their Sabbath observance.  The court held:

Title VII required Kellogg reasonably to accommodate Plaintiffs’ religious practice, if Kellogg could do so without incurring undue hardship to its business. Whether Kellogg reasonably accommodated Plaintiffs’ Sabbath observance and, if not, whether Kellogg could do so without undue hardship, must await further proceedings.

In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected arguments that it should adopt per se rules defining reasonable accommodation, and instead emphasized that these issues must be decided on a case specific basis.  Business Insurance reports on the decision.  [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Trump Administration Is Planning Expanded Religious and Moral Exemptions For Doctors

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the Trump Administration is planning to expand exemptions from health care anti-discrimination rules for doctors who have religious or moral objections to gender transitioning or abortion.  The Department of Health and Human Services also plans to create  a division of "conscience and religious freedom protections" in the Department's Office for Civil Rights.  HHS sent its rule proposals to the White House for review last Friday.  President Trump might announce the changes on Friday when he addresses the March for Life on the National Mall by satellite. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

UPDATE: On Jan. 18, the Department of Health and Human Services formally announced formation of a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in its Office for Civil Rights.

"Church Plan" Class Action Settled

Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court held that retirement plans of religiously affiliated health care systems qualify as "church plans" exempt from ERISA. (See prior posting.) Now a settlement has been approved by an Illinois federal district court in a class action suit against Ascension, the largest Catholic health care system in the country. The suit was one of many that challenged the availability of the  church plan exemption.  As reported by Cook County Record:

Under the deal, Ascension agreed to pay $29.5 million into a trust fund, and agreed to not reduce any retiree accrued benefits for at least the next seven years, and provide various annual plan notices, “equitable provisions that mimic certain provisions” of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to a memorandum filed by plaintiffs in support of the settlement.

However, the deal would allow Ascension to buy out its full obligation, by contributing $25 million to the trust fund.

3rd Circuit: Preachers' Civil Rights Suit Dismissed On Immunity Grounds

In Karns v. Shanahan, (3rd Cir., Jan. 11, 2018), t U..S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a civil rights damage action brought by two evangelical Christian ministers who were arrested for preaching on an NJ Transit train platform without the required permit.  In a 2-1 decision, the court held that NJ Transit is an arm of the state and thus has 11th Amendment immunity.  The 3-judge panel agreed unanimously that the police officers who were also sued have qualified immunity.  WHYY News reports on the decision.

Advocacy Groups Say Military Is Imposing Religious Participation On Cadets

The Freedom From Religion Foundation and American Atheists announced this week that they have sent a joint letter (full text) to Secretary of Defense James Mattis complaining about an increased incidence of military members and their families being forced to participate in religious observances at military training facilities. The letter says in part:

By scheduling prayer in graduation ceremonies, and by leading cadets in prayer prior to examinations, our military training facilities are violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. By assigning menial or labor-intensive tasks to cadets who elect not to participate in worship services, these facilities are violating the equal protection principles enshrined in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Friendly Atheist Blog reports on the letter.

Couple Sues Printer Over Substitution of Anti-Gay Pamphlets For Wedding Programs

The New York Post this week reports on a lawsuit filed in Massachusetts federal district court against Vistaprint.  The company's North American Business Headquarters are located in Boston.  Plaintiffs are a same-sex couple who were married in a ceremony in Pennsylvania last September. The couple had ordered 100 copies of a customized program for their wedding.  When they opened the package Vistaprint sent to them, they found that instead of the programs they had been sent 80 copies of an anti-gay pamphlet titled "‘Understanding Temptation: Fight the good fight of the faith." The pamphlets warn: "Satan entices your flesh with evil desires." Vistaprint, which says it would not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, indicated that it had just learned of the incident and have begun an internal investigation.

Wife's Religious Convictions Do Not Override Vermont Divorce Law

In Maghu v. Singh, (VT Sup. Ct., Jan. 12, 2018), the Vermont Supreme Court rejected a wife's attempt to obtain dismissal of a no-fault divorce petition filed by her husband.  The couple was married in India and, among other contentions, the wife argued that Vermont's courts should defer to Indian divorce law. In rejecting that contention, the court said in a footnote:

We reject wife’s argument that the court’s grant of a no-fault divorce contrary to India’s Hindu Marriage Act, and the religious requirements reflected therein, impinges on wife’s free exercise of religion in violation of Chapter I, Article 3 of the Vermont Constitution. Quite the opposite, it would be constitutionally problematic, to say the least, if we began to decline access to a divorce from an otherwise qualified domiciliary on the basis of the religious convictions of the other party. 

Inter-American Human Rights Court Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage and Transgender Rights

In an Advisory Opinion (full text in Spanish) dated Nov. 24, 2017, but apparently first published on Jan. 9, 2018, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that the American Convention on Human Rights requires governments to recognize family rights of same-sex couples and transgender rights. As reported by the Washington Blade:

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights on Tuesday issued a landmark ruling that recognizes same-sex marriage and transgender rights in the Western Hemisphere. 

The seven judges who issued the ruling stated governments “must recognize and guarantee all the rights that are derived from a family bond between people of the same sex.” Six of the seven judges also agreed that it is necessary for governments “to guarantee access to all existing forms of domestic legal systems, including the right to marriage, in order to ensure the protection of all the rights of families formed by same-sex couples without discrimination.”

The court issued its ruling after the Costa Rican government in 2016 asked for an advisory opinion on whether it has an obligation to extend property rights to same-sex couples and allow transgender people to change their name and gender marker on identity documents.

The ruling says the Costa Rican government must allow trans people to legally change their name and gender marker on official documents.

According to La Voz,  "Costa Rica is the only country that gives the same weight to a CIDH ruling as it does to a national court’s judicial decision."

Church Camp Loses Challenge To Zoning Decision On Neighboring Dairy Farm

In House of Prayer Ministries, Inc. v. Rush County Board of Zoning Appeals, (IN App., Jan. 16, 2018), an Indiana state appeals court rejected a challenge by a church summer camp to a zoning board decision granting a special exception to a dairy farm to operate a concentrated animal feeding operation one-half mile from the summer camp.  The church argued in part that the grant of the special exception substantially burdens its religious exercise by "imperiling the health of the children" at its camp.  The court first held that the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act is not available to the church here because a RLUIPA claim can be raised only by a person with a property interest in the land that is regulated.  RLUIPA does not extend to other property that is merely affected by a land use decision as to neighboring land.

The court went on to hold that Indiana's state Religious Freedom Restoration Act was also not violated:

The [Board of Zoning Appeal's] apparent assessment that House of Prayer will not be substantially burdened in the exercise of its religion by the grant of the special exception is supported by substantial evidence.

Indiana Lawyer reports on the decision.

Suit Contends Ministerial Exception Does Not Bar Hostile Work Environment Claims

Yesterday's Cook County Record reports on a hostile work environment lawsuit filed in federal court in Chicago by Sandor Demkovich, former organist and music director of St. Andrew the Apostle Church in Calumet City, Illinois.  Demkovich was fired several days after he entered a same-sex marriage. His earlier lawsuit charging employment discrimination was dismissed on "ministerial exception" grounds.  The new lawsuit argues that the ministerial exception doctrine does not apply to hostile work environment claims.

Justice Department Supports Archdiocese Against Washington Area Transit Authority

As previously reported, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering an appeal by the Archdiocese of Washington challenging the refusal of the Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority to accept bus ads that promote religion, religious practices or religious beliefs. Yesterday the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief (full text) supporting the Archdiocese whose Christmas ad was rejected by WMATA. The brief argues that "WMATA’s policy constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination." National Law Journal reports on DOJ's action.

Suit In Belgium Challenges Kosher Slaughter Ban

In Belgium yesterday, three organizations filed suit challenging legislation in the Flemish Region of the country that bans kosher and halal slaughter beginning in 2019. As reported by The Daily Mail, the lawsuit contends that the legislation in Flanders violates the freedom of religion protections found in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Belgian Constitution. The Coordinating Council of Islamic Institutions has separately filed suit challenging the law. A suit filed last November challenged a similar law enacted by the Walloon Region. (See prior posting.)

Today Is Religious Freedom Day

As reported by Blog from the Capital, today is Religious Freedom Day, the anniversary of the passage of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom in 1786. Traditionally the President issues a Proclamation designating the day.

UPDATE: This morning President Trump issued a  Religious Freedom Day Proclamation (full text) which reads in part:

Our Constitution and laws guarantee Americans the right not just to believe as they see fit, but to freely exercise their religion.  Unfortunately, not all have recognized the importance of religious freedom, whether by threatening tax consequences for particular forms of religious speech, or forcing people to comply with laws that violate their core religious beliefs without sufficient justification.  These incursions, little by little, can destroy the fundamental freedom underlying our democracy.  Therefore, soon after taking office, I addressed these issues in an Executive Order that helps ensure Americans are able to follow their consciences without undue Government interference and the Department of Justice has issued guidance to Federal agencies regarding their compliance with laws that protect religious freedom.  No American — whether a nun, nurse, baker, or business owner — should be forced to choose between the tenets of faith or adherence to the law.

French Mayor Bars Pork Alternatives In Schools

The Washington Post yesterday reports on the newest battle in France over how to implement the principle of secularism (laïcité ):

Beaucaire, in the south of France, has become the latest fault line in a battle over the place of Islam in a staunchly secular society. On the day school started back after the holiday break, Julien Sanchez, the town’s 34-year-old mayor — and a member of the far-right National Front — outlawed alternatives to pork in school cafeterias, insisting that religious exceptions to the menu violate France’s vaunted Republican principles.

For many, his message was clear: Being French means eating pork, Muslims (and Jews) be damned. Unsurprisingly, outrage immediately ensued from virtually every corner of society: parents, the local opposition, Muslim leaders and even the French government.

One Count Dismissed In Michigan Female Genital Mutilation Case

A Detroit (MI) federal district court yesterday dismissed the most serious of seven charges against two doctors indicted for their involvement in alleged female genital mutilation of girls who are members of the Dawoodi Bohra, a Muslim sect from western India. (See prior related posting.)  In United States v. Nagarwala, (ED MI, Jan. 14, 2018), the court dismissed the Count charging violation of 18 USC Sec. 2423, Conspiracy to Transport Minor with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity.  The court held that "sexual activity" as used in the statute must involve libidinal gratification.  Applying that definition, the court said:

The government does not contend that Dr. Nagarwala or Dr. Attar sought or obtained any libidinal gratification from subjecting the minor victims to FGM....  In short, while the indictment may sufficiently allege a violation of the FGM statute – the statute adopted by Congress to address precisely such genital cutting – it does not allege that defendants transported minors intending that they engage in “sexual activity.” 

Detroit News reports on the decision.

Belief In Government Corruption Is Not a "Religious" Belief

The Daily Sentinel reports that last Thursday a Colorado federal district court jury found Rocky Hutson guilty on multiple fraud charges.  Hutson, a member of the sovereign citizen movement, had attempted to use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a defense.  However federal district court Judge Marcia Krieger rejected the defense, saying that while Hutson's beliefs about the corruption of the U.S. government are sincere, but they are not "religious" beliefs.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Matthew S. Erie, The Afterlife of Property: Affect, Time, Value, (Legalism: Property and Ownership, edited by Hannah Skoda, Tom Lambert, and Georgy Kantor. Oxford University Press, 89-114).
• Josh Blackman, The Domestic Establishment Clause, (Forthcoming in 23 Roger Williams University Law Review).
• Engy Abdelkader, The Muslim Ban and Separation of Powers Doctrine in Trump's America, (State, Religion and Muslims: Between Discrimination and Protection at the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Levels, Forthcoming).
• Michael A. Helfand, Reasoning Through Clashes between Religion and Equality: Case Law, Skeptics, and Social Coherence, (Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 33, 2018, Forthcoming).
• Robert A. Kahn, Denial, Memory Bans and Social Media, (January 2018).
• Michael A., Helfand, Reasoning Through Clashes between Religion and Equality: Case Law, Skeptics, and Social Coherence, (Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 33, 2018).

Recent Books:

• Katherine Ludwig Jansen, Peace and Penance in Late Medieval Italy (Princeton Univ. Press, Dec. 2017).
• Hüseyin Yılmaz, Caliphate Redefined: The Mystical Turn in Ottoman Political Thought, (Princeton Univ. Press, Dec. 2017).
• Mary Ziegler, Beyond Abortion: Roe v. Wade and the Battle for Privacy,  (Harvard Univ. Press, Feb. 2018).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Carter v. Fleming, (4th Cir., Jan. 8, 2018), the 4th Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in an inmate's suit claiming that the Common Fare menu does not comply with Nation of Islam dietary restrictions because it includes fried foods and challenging his suspension from the Common Fare diet.

In Brooks v. Williams, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3050 (Jan. 8, 2018), an Illinois federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214438, Dec. 19, 2017) and refused to dismiss on exhaustion grounds an inmate's claim that he was denied access to Rastafari Sabbath services.

In Newman v. Grzegorek, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3626 (ND IN, Jan. 9, 2018), an Indiana federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead whit his challenge to jail policies that prevented him from attending church services and Bible study.

In Trisvan v. Annucci, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3851 (ED NY, Jan. 9, 2018), a New York federal district court dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint a parolee's claim that his curfew and travel conditions prohibit him from praying at a mosque and participating in Ramadan between 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM, and from making a pilgrimage to Mecca.

In Canseco v. Spearman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3991 (ED CA, Jan. 9, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was not allowed to attend evening religious activities in the dining hall during Ramadan.

In Wallace v. Ducart, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4684 (ND CA, Jan. 10, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's claim that he was required to strip in front of female guards in violation of his religious beliefs, and was not allowed to properly clean himself before prayer.

In Hatcher v. Trotter, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4926 (WD TN, Jan. 11, 2018), a Tennessee federal district court, adopting a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215104, Dec. 20, 2017) dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was unable to attend Sunday religious services on one occasion due to a lock down.

In Rivera v. Davey, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5422 (ED CA, Jan. 10, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate's complaint that he was denied the opportunity to perform obligatory Jewish prayer services and holy day events.

Bureau of Prisons Says Objecting Chaplains Need Not Carry Pepper Spray

A Liberty Counsel press release today reports that the U.S. Bureau of Prisons has granted accommodation requests from prison chaplains who object on religious grounds to carrying pepper spray as a potential defense in emergency situations.  Various prison Chaplains were told to carry the spray after enactment of the Eric Williams Correctional Officer Protection Act of 2015.  Liberty Counsel sent a letter in October seeking a religious accommodation and religious exemption for chaplains.

Quebec Court: Muslim Community Center Is Not "House of Worship"

The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that a Quebec Superior Court judge has ruled that a Muslim community center in a Montreal suburb is not a "house of worship". The city of Mascouche attempted to shut down the community center in a strip shopping mall on the ground that under zoning rules "houses of worship" are not permitted in the area. A room in the community center was used by men for prayer. The court said however that "prayers can be uttered in all places and not exclusively in a place of worship."

Parents Challenge Teacher's Distribution of Material Disparaging Muslims

According to yesterday's Pasedena Star-News, the parents of a 7th grade boy have filed an appeal with the California Department of Education over the Mesa Union School District's clearing of a teacher's who distributed material disparaging Muslims.  The boy is being bullied by other students because of his religion. The paper reports:

The material the teacher distributed contained information taken from the website billionbibles.org, which makes “inaccurate and disparaging” statements about Islam and Muslims,” said Masih Fouladi, CAIR-LA’s advocacy manager.

The sheet of paper distributed by the teacher states Sharia Law, or Islamic religious law, gives Muslim men sexual rights over any woman or girl not wearing the hijab or head scarf; allows a man to marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9; and requires Muslims to lie to non-Muslims to advance their faith.

“The main issue at hand with this incident of bullying is that the material was drawn from a website that is clearly intended to promote one religion at the expense of another,” Fouladi said. “This has no place in our public school system and is a clear violation of the First Amendment.”

School District Says First Amendment Bars District Diwali Holiday

According to Fox4News yesterday, Coppell Independent School District in Texas has refused requests to schedule a day off from school during Diwali. Nearly half the students in the school district are Asian.  The school board however took the position that principles of separation of church and state prevent it from recognizing a religious holiday.  When proponents argued that the district schedules a holiday on Good Friday, the school district responded that Good Friday is considered a professional development and bad weather make-up day.

European Court Vindicates Critic of Anti-Muslim Political Remarks

In Case of GRA Stiftung gegen Rassismus und Antisemitismus v. Switzerland,  (ECHR, Jan. 9, 2018), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that the free speech rights of a civil rights organization were infringed when Swiss courts sanctioned it for a web posting calling remarks of a youth leader of a right wing party "verbal racism." The remarks were made in the context of a referendum on banning the building of minarets. A Swiss appellate court found that the web posting infringed the party leader's personality rights.  It required the organization to remove its web posting and replace it by the court's opinion. It also was required to pay legal and court costs. The ECHR held in part:

When assessing the impugned statements in the present case, it is first of all important to bear in mind the general background of the ongoing political debate in which both statements were made.

... Both B.K.’s speech and the applicant organisation’s article concerned a topic of intense public debate in Switzerland at the material time, which was the popular initiative against the construction of minarets, which was widely reported on in national and international media. The initiative, calling for a ban on the construction of minarets, was ultimately accepted by a referendum on 29 November 2009 and such a ban was included in the Swiss Constitution....

The Court reiterates that a distinction has to be made between private individuals and persons acting in a public context, as political or public figures. Accordingly, whilst a private individual unknown to the public may claim particular protection of his or her right to private life, the same is not true of public figures.... 

... B.K. had willingly exposed himself to public scrutiny by stating his political views and therefore had to show a higher degree of tolerance towards potential criticism of his statements by persons or organisations which did not share his views.

A Chamber Judgment may be appealed to the Grand Chamber.  the Court issued a press release summarizing the decision.  Law & Religion UK has more on the case.

Suit Challenges Canada's Denial of Grants to Pro-Life Group

In Canada last week, a pro-life group filed suit in Federal Court in Alberta challenging new rules that bar it from receiving grants under the Canada Summer Jobs Program.  According to Life Site News report on the lawsuit, Canada Summer Jobs provides grants to non-profit groups, small businesses, and public sector employers in order to create jobs for students between 15 an 30 years old.  The complaint (full text) in Right to Life Association of Toronto and Area v. Canada (Minister of Employment, Workforce and Labour), (Fed. Ct., filed 1/4/2018), contends that the grant restrictions infringe plaintiffs' freedom of religion, conscience and belief, as well as their equal protection rights, under Sections 2(a)-(b) and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Last December, Canada's Employment Ministry added a requirement that in order to receive a grant under the program, an organization had to attest to the following:

Both the job and the organization's core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights.  These include reproductive rights, and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.

Suit Challenges Rules Against Proselytizing At Alaska Town Festival

The Center for Religious Expression last week announced the filing of a federal lawsuit in Alaska challenging a rule at the Girdwood, Alaska Forest Fair that prohibits the distribution of religious literature.  Anchorage Daily News has more on the lawsuit:

During the Forest Fair, an annual Girdwood summer festival that celebrates tie-dye, home-spun crafts and public hula-hooping, signs posted on the tall trees alert visitors to three main rules: "No dogs, no politics, no religious orders."

But one of those rules, a doctrine of the fair for more than four decades, now faces a legal challenge. Last week, two evangelical Christians, one of whom is a well-known activist, filed a lawsuit in federal court saying the ban on "religious orders" infringes on their constitutional right to free speech....

The two plaintiffs say they were told that they could not continue to proselytize and distribute literature in the park where the festival is held.  They were required to move to sidewalks outside the park to distribute their gospel tracts. [Thanks to Jeff Pasek for the lead.]

6th Circuit: Tennessee Constitutional Amendment On Abortion Was Validly Adopted

In George v. Hargett, (6th Cir., Jan. 9, 2018), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge by Tennessee voters to the method by which votes were counted in 2014 on a state constitutional amendment.  At issue was an amendment that provides in part: "Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion."  Language in the Tennessee constitution on the number of votes needed to approve a constitutional amendment is ambiguous.  However a state court had upheld the interpretation by state voting officials.  The 6th Circuit, reversing the district court, upheld the state's determination that the amendment had passed. It also concluded that the vote counting method used by the state does not violated due process or equal protection provisions of the federal Constitution.  The Tennessean reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Notre Dame Alums Object To University's Contraceptive Mandate Position

As previously reported, Notre Dame University is allowing its its health insurance providers to continue to furnish contraceptive coverage for university employees and students, even though Trump Administration rules now allow the university to opt out on religious grounds. Life Site News yesterday reported that 66 lawyers who are Notre Dame alumni have signed a letter (full text) to Notre Dame president Father William Jenkins strongly objecting to the University's decision. The letter objects that the university "now doing voluntarily precisely what it said it could not do in good conscience...." The letter goes on to charge that the school's assertions "now appears to be a collection of flat-out misrepresentations" in what amounts to "a pretend lawsuit."  The letter continues in part:

If, then, there is some explanation that will absolve the University from the charge of playing fast and loose with the courts or mitigate to some degree its blame, we urge you to provide it.

If there is not, then the matter seems to us to be quite serious enough to demand the attention of the Fellows and the Board of Trustees. It will be bought to their attention in due course. Remedial action should be taken, an accounting given to the Notre Dame community, and thoughtful consideration given to how amends might be made to the courts. ...

Finally, though we hope it does not come to it, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does provide a means for federal courts to determine if there have been misrepresentations by litigants and, if so, what to do about it. A court can invoke the procedure on its own initiative. Given the wide publicity accorded the university's turnabout, Court of Appeals judges ... might think a Rule 11 hearing appropriate.

Trump Renominates Brownback for International Religious Freedom Post, Kacsmaryk For District Court

Yesterday President Trump sent a large number of renominations to the Senate, a step required after Democrats refused to consent to last Senate session's nominations rolling over into the new session.  As reported by the Kansas City Star, these included the renomination of Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback to be  Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom.

Last week, the President renominated 21 individuals for federal judgeships.  Among them is Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, nominated for Northern District of Texas.  Kacsmaryk specializes in religious liberty litigation as Deputy General Counsel at the First Liberty Institute.  Dallas Morning News reports on the renomination.

Supreme Court Refuses Review In Standing Case Challenging Mississippi's Conscience Law

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Barber v. Bryant, (Docket No. 17-547, cert. denied 1/8/2018) and Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, (Docket No. 17-642, cert. denied 1/8/2018). (Order List.)  In the companion cases, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed challenges to Mississippi's Conscience Protection Act for lack of standing. The law, Mississippi's HB 1523, protects against discriminatory action by state government anyone who acts in accordance with his or her religious beliefs or moral convictions that marriage is only between one man and one woman, sexual relations are reserved to such marriages, and gender is determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth. (See prior posting.) An en banc rehearing was denied by the 5th Circuit, over the dissent of two judges.  National Law Journal reports on the Supreme Court's action which leaves the law in effect.

Government Seeks Supreme Court Review of Third Travel Ban

The Justice Department last week filed a petition for certiorari (full text) in Trump v. State of Hawaii, a challenge to the President's third travel ban.  In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the third version of President Trump's travel ban is inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act. (See prior posting.)  The 9th Circuit avoided deciding the question of whether the Proclamation violates the Establishment Clause. SCOTUSblog has more on the cert. petition and the background of the case.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Muhammad Munir, Fundamental Guarantees of the Rights of the Accused in Islamic Criminal Justice System, (Hamdard Islamicus, Issue no. 4 (2017)).
• John Witte, Law, Religion, and Metaphor, (in Günter Thomas and Heike Springhart, eds., Risiko und Vertrauen/Risk and Trust: Festschrift für Michael Welker zum 70. Geburtstag (Leipzig: Evangeliche Verlagsanhalt, 2017), 177-195).
• Muhidin Mulalić & Ahmed Kulanić, Religious Extremism vs. Multiculturalism in Bosnia and Herzegovina, (Poligrafi Journal, Vol. 22, No. 85-86, p. 7-29, 2017).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Njie v. Yurkovich, (7th Cir., Jan. 5, 2018), the 7th Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of a lawsuit by a Rastafarian inmate, concluding that the district court wrongly concluded that all the claims were duplicative of those in another pending lawsuit.

In Hoskins v. Spiller, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 364 (SD IL, Jan. 2, 2017), an Illinois federal district court dis missed without prejudice a Muslim inmate's complaint about religious diet and Ramadan observance. It severed and allowed plaintiff to pursue separately complaints about prayer conditions and religious diet at another institution to which he was transferred.

In LeBaron v. Massachusetts Partnership for Correctional Healthcare, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213577 (D MA, Dec. 1, 2017), a Massachusetts federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing claims by a Messianic Jewish inmate that labeling him with a psychiatric condition and forcing him to take mental health drugs substantially burdens his free exercise of religion.

In Aguilar v. Linderman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 954 (D AZ, Jan. 2, 2018), an Arizona federal district court allowed an inmate who is an adherent of Assembly of Yahuwah-Is to move ahead with his complaint regarding a religious diet, but dismissed claims of inadequate religious feast meals and refusal to deliver religious literature mailed to him.

In Wonsch v. Garner, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74 (WD OK, Jan. 2, 2018), an Oklahoma federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213803, Nov. 22, 2017) and dismissed an inmate's claim that he was denied access to clergy, and was requred to take an 8-week Bible study course to be approved for baptism.

In Townsend v. Ouellette, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1427 (WD MI, Jan. 4, 2017), a Michigan federal district court allowed a Buddhist inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was denied a vegan-compliant Vitamin B-12 supplement, but dismissed his complaints regarding religious oil restrictions and denial of a PSA blood test in place of a digital rectal exam that violates his religious beliefs.

In Watford v. Newbold, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1636 (SD IL, Jan. 4, 2018), and Illinois federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that denial of dental and medical treatment violates his religious obligation to properly care for his body.

Amish Couple Required To Connect Property To Sewer System With Electric Pump

In Yoder v. Sugar Grove Area Sewer Authority, (Commonwlth. Ct. PA, Jan. 5, 2018), a Pennsylvania state appellate court, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the denial of an injunction sought by an Old Order Amish couple who object to the requirement that they connect to the local sewer system using an electric pump.  The dispute has wound its way through the courts for over five years.  (See prior related posting.)  The majority said in part:

Owners did not establish the injunction would not harm the public, or that the harm in denying the injunction outweighed the harm in granting it. We defer to the trial court’s findings as to weighing the harms and the adverse effect of an injunction on the public health. After several years of litigation on multiple fronts, we recognize a strong interest in accomplishing the mandatory connection without further delay. Because there are apparently reasonable grounds for the trial court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief, we affirm.

Judge McCullough dissented, relying on the state's Religious Freedom Protection Act. She argued that the trial court wrongly placed the burden on the property owners, rather than the sewer authority, to show the least restrictive means of furthering the state's interest.  She went on:

... [T]his case [should be] remanded to the trial court with the instruction to place the burden on the Authority to demonstrate the least intrusive means of non-electric connection to its sewer system. It may be that there are none and, if that is the case, then the trial court should re-open the issue of compelling Owners, against their sincerely held religious beliefs, to connect to the Authority’s sewer system. The Act requires the interest of the agency/authority to be “compelling” before it imposes a substantial burden on religious freedom. I question whether mandatory electric connection is such a compelling interest so as to countenance this infringement upon Owners’ religious freedom.

4th Circuit Strikes Down Baltimore's Posting Requirement For Pregnancy Centers

In Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc., v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, (4th Cir., Jan. 5, 2018), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held unconstitutional a Baltimore ordinance requiring any "limited service pregnancy center" to post a notice in its waiting room telling clients that it "does not provide or make referral for abortion or birth-control services."  Finding that the speech being regulated is neither commercial speech nor professional speech, the Court held that the ordinance violates plaintiffs' 1st Amendment rights.  The Court said in part:

The dangers of compelled speech in an area as ideologically sensitive and spiritually fraught as this one require that the government not overplay its hand. Without proving the inefficacy of less restrictive alternatives, providing concrete evidence of deception, or more precisely targeting its regulation, the City cannot prevail. The Baltimore ordinance, as applied to the Center, fails to satisfy heightened First Amendment scrutiny.

...This court has in the past struck down attempts to compel speech from abortion providers.... And today we do the same with regard to compelling speech from abortion foes. We do so in belief that earnest advocates on all sides of this issue should not be forced by the state into a corner and required essentially to renounce and forswear what they have come as a matter of deepest conviction to believe.

This is the second time that the case has made it to the 4th Circuit. (See prior posting.) The Baltimore Sun reports on the decision.

State Department Names "Countries of Particular Concern"

The State Department announced yesterday that it has redesignated ten countries as Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) under the International Religious Freedom Act. CPC's are nations guilty of the most egregious violations of religious liberty. The countries are: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.  The Sate Department also placed Pakistan on a Special Watch List-- a new category created by 2016 amendments to the International Religious Freedom Act. This category is for countries with severe violations of religious freedom.  Last April, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom had recommended six additional countries be added as CPC's. (See prior posting.)  In a Release yesterday praising the State Department's action, USCIRF urged the Department to also exercise its authority to designate non-governmental groups as "Entities of Particular Concern."

Parole Condition Barring Church Attendance Is Enjoined

In Manning v. Powers, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213749 (CD CA, Dec. 13, 2017), a California federal district court granted a preliminary injunction banning the government from enforcing two parole conditions imposed on Sherman Manning, a Baptist minister who had served 25 years in prison for sexual assaults on teenage boys.  One of the challenged conditions prohibited Manning from entering places where children congregate.  Authorities had interpreted that to prohibit him from entering any church.  In invalidating that broad prohibition, the court said in part:

To withstand constitutional scrutiny, a prohibition that is not neutral or generally applicable must advance "only those interests of the highest order," and be narrowly tailored to serve those state interests.... That criteria is not met here. Although public safety is a compelling state interest, the court finds that a blanket restriction on Manning's churchgoing is not narrowly tailored to suit this interest. None of Manning's convictions have any connection to churches or religious activity.... Additionally, the alleged prohibition is overbroad in that it may reach even church events at which no children, or very few children, are ever present. Therefore, the court concludes that an interpretation of SCP 18 that imposes a blanket prohibition on churchgoing is likely to result in a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

USCIRF Praises US Sanctions Against Burmese General

In a Dec. 21 press release, the U.S. Treasury Department announced the first sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act.  this week, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a press release focusing particularly on sanctions imposed on a Burmese army general for his abuses directed at Rohingya Muslims. USCIRF said in part:

USCIRF has long called for targeted sanctions against violators of religious freedom....  Tools that could be used include the Global Magnitsky Act, the Treasury Department’s “specially designated nationals” (SDN) list, and other provisions under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA).

Specific to Burma, USCIRF praises the inclusion of General Maung Maung Soe in the list of sanctioned individuals.  As the former head of the Burmese Army’s Western Command, he oversaw military operations in Rakhine State and myriad human rights abuses that resulted in more than 700,000 Rohingya Muslims fleeing the country since 2016.

FEMA Policy Change: Houses of Worship Now Eligible For Disaster Relief

The Federal Emergency Management Agency announced yesterday that:

private nonprofit houses of worship are now eligible for disaster assistance as community centers, without regard to their secular or religious nature.  These changes are effective for disasters declared on or after August 23, 2017 and for applications for assistance that were pending with FEMA as of August 23, 2017, including applications on first- or second-level appeal, that as of today have not yet been resolved by FEMA.

The policy change, also reflected in a new edition of FEMA's Public Assistance Program Policy Guide, reverses a long-standing policy that is currently being challenged in two separate lawsuits growing our of recent hurricane damage in Texas and Florida. (See prior posting.) Becket issued a press release calling attention to FEMA's policy change.

Bond Hearings Ordered For Detained Iraqi Immigrants

As previously reported, in July a Michigan federal district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing Iraqi nationals who are subject to long-standing deportation orders from being removed from the United States while they attempt to convince immigration courts that their return will subject them to persecution, torture and possible death.  Those affected are mostly Chaldean Christians, but some are Kurds and Sunni and Shiite Muslims.  Nevertheless, immigration officials began to arrest and detain some 300 of these Iraqis. 274 remain in custody.  Yesterday in  Hamama v. Adducci, (ED MI, Jan. 2, 2018), the same judge ordered bond hearings for those who have been detained for 6 months or more. Summarizing its more detailed holding, the court said:

Our legal tradition rejects warehousing human beings while their legal rights are being determined, without an opportunity to persuade a judge that the norm of monitored freedom should be followed.  This principle is familiar to all in the context of the criminal law, where even a heinous criminal — whether a citizen or not — enjoys the right to seek pre-trial release.  In the civil context of our case, this principle applies with at least equal force.  In either context, the principle illustrates our Nation’s historic commitment to individual human dignity — a core value that the Constitution protects by preserving liberty through the due process of law.

The court also granted in part plaintiffs' motions for nationwide class certification.  Detroit News reports on the decision.

Louisiana AG and Rep Release Pamphlet On Student Religious Rights

As reported by the New Orleans Times-Picayune, yesterday Louisiana's attorney general and one of its members of Congress released a new 15-page publication Louisiana Student Rights Review: Answers to Common Questions About Religious Freedom In Schools. The Introduction to the Q&A format pamphlet says in part:

The right to religious expression, in particular, has been increasingly challenged and misunderstood in recent years, and many people have been led to believe our elementary and secondary schools must be “religion-free” zones. To the contrary, both federal and state laws specifically protect religious freedom rights in public schools. Thankfully, Congress and our state legislature still recognize the fundamental importance of religious liberty—the first freedom listed in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

11th Circuit: Clergyman's Right To Retirement Benefits Was Ecclesiastical Matter

In Myhre v. Seventh-Day Adventist Church Reform Movement American Union International Missionary Society, (11th Cir., Jan 2, 2018), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a suit by a retired clergyman who contended that his retirement benefits were wrongfully terminated.  Concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the subject-matter of the dispute was purely ecclesiastical in nature, the appeals court said in part:

Myhre’s claims, which were predicated on his defrocking, his excommunication, and the termination of his retirement benefits due to a “theological disagreement” would have required encroachment into matters of church dogma and governance. Based on “the separation of church and state principles required by the [E]stablishment and [F]ree [E]xercise [C]lauses of the [F]irst [A]mendment,” ..., the district court could not interfere with the purely ecclesiastical decisions of the American Union regarding Myhre’s fitness to serve in the clergy or to remain a member of the denomination.

Court Refuses To Block School's Transgender Rest Room Policy

In Students & Parents for Privacy v. United States Department of Education, (ND IL, Dec. 29, 2017), an Illinois federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (see prior posting)  and refused to block a school district from allowing transgender students to use the restrooms and locker rooms of the gender with which they identify. The court pointed out that a good deal of the case was mooted by developments since the magistrate's recommendation:

First, Student A graduated from Fremd High School and the Locker Room Agreement pertaining to her was accordingly terminated....] Second, the United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights and the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division withdrew the administrative guidance that Plaintiffs had challenged in this action, and issued a joint guidance letter instructing that the views conveyed in the earlier materials should not be relied upon while the issue is under further consideration....

The court went on to hold:

In any event ..., the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Plaintiffs had not shown a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits that allowing transgender students access to sex-segregated facilities based on their gender identity violates Title IX or the privacy rights of the Student Plaintiffs with whom such facilities are shared, whether such facilities are restrooms or locker rooms. 

Happy New Year 2018!

Dear Religion Clause Readers:

Happy New Year 2018! I hope you continue to find Religion Clause an important resource for news on religious liberty and church-state developments. I continue to strive for objectivity in my posts and to provide links to an abundance of primary source material underlying each post.  I am pleased that my regular readers span the political and religious spectrum and include a large number of law school faculty, journalists, clergy, governmental agency personnel, students and others working professionally dealing with church-state relations and religious liberty concerns in the U.S. and around the world.

It has been a chaotic year in which lines between law and politics, news and opinion, religion and culture have all become increasingly blurred.  In such times, access to a wide spectrum of factual information is of increased importance.

Thanks again to all of you who are loyal readers-- both those who have followed Religion Clause for years and those of you who have only recently discovered the blog.  A special thanks to readers who have quickly sent me leads on recent developments, and to those who have alerted me to mistakes. All of you have made Religion Clause the most recognized and reliable source for keeping informed on the intersection of religion with law and politics. The ABA Journal continues to include Religion Clause as one of 55 legal blogs in its Blawg 100 Hall of Fame.  I encourage you to recommend Religion Clause to colleagues, students and friends who might find it of interest.  It is accessible via Twitter and Facebook, as well as through traditional online access and RSS feeds.

I also remind you that the Religion Clause sidebar contains links to a wealth of resources.  Please e-mail me if you discover broken links or if there are other links that I should consider adding.

Best wishes for 2018!  Feel free to contact me by e-mail (religionclause@gmail.com) in response to this post or throughout the year with comments or suggestions.

Howard M. Friedman

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Perry Dane, Establishment and Encounter, (Research Handbook on Law & Religion (Edward Elgar Publishing, Rex Ahdar, ed.) (Forthcoming)).
• John Witte & Don Browning, Emil Brunner, (in John Witte, Jr. and Gary S. Hauk, eds., Christianity and Family Law: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 307-322).
• John Witte, Foreword: What Does Christianity Offer to the World of Law?, (in Journal of Law and Religion 32 (2017): 4-8).
• John Witte & Gary S. Hauk, Editorial Introduction, (in John Witte, Jr. and Gary S. Hauk, eds., Christianity and Family Law: An Introduction (Cambridge University Press, 2017), 1-15).
• Joseph William Singer, Religious Liberty & Public Accommodation: What Would Hohfeld Say?, (in Wesley Hohfeld A Century Later: Edited Major Works, Select Personal Papers, and Original Commentaries (eds. Shyam Balganesh, Ted Sichelman, & Henry Smith (Cambridge U. Press, 2018, Forthcoming)).

From SSRN (articles on Martin Luther):

• John Witte, The Legal Turn of the Reformation, (in Luther – 95 Treasures, 95 People (Wittenberg: Stiftung Luthergedenkstätten in Sachsen-Anhalt, 2017), 451-455).
• John Witte, Martin Luther's Influence on Legal Reforms and Civil Law, (in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion (March, 2017)).
• John Witte, Luther the Lawyer: the Lutheran Reformation of Law, Politics, and Society, (in Law and Justice: A Christian Law Review 178 (2017): 6-36).
• John Witte & Steven Ozment, Martin Luther, (Published in John Witte, Jr. and Gary S. Hauk, eds., Christianity and Family Law: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 195-210).

From SmartCILP:

• Andrea Pin. Arab Constitutionalism and Human Dignity, 50 George Washington International Law Review 1-67 (2017).
• Jason A. Cantone & Richard L. Wiener, Religion at Work: Evaluating Hostile Work Environment Religious Discrimination Claims, [Abstract], 23 Psychology, Public Policy & Law 351-366 (2017).
• Martha M. Ertman. We Who Believe...Cannot Rest, [Abstract], 17 University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender & Class 9-14 (2017).
• Rabbi Nina Beth Cardin, Faith and Hospitality, [Abstract], 17 University of Maryland Journal of Race, Religion, Gender & Class 15-19 (2017).
• Marvin Lim, Scrutinizing Sex Under Natural Law: Unitive Sex, Self-Gratifying Sex, and Concepts of Harm, 45 Capital University Law Review 579-634 (2017).
• Eric Yordy, Clamorous Coexistence: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Internal Battle Between Religion and Nondiscrimination Laws [pdf download], 8 William & Mary Policy Rev. 51-86 (2017).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Smith v. Murphy, 2017 Conn. Super. LEXIS 4974 (CT Super., Nov. 28, 2017), a Connecticut trial court dismissed an inmate's complaints that his religious oils and his gold chain and cross were placed in temporary storage; however the court allowed him to move ahead on his claim that his oils were wrongly classified as contraband.

In Kollock v. Beemer, 2017 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 883 (NPA Commnw. Ct., Nov. 39, 2917), a Pennsylvania state appeals court rejected an inmate's claim that the sex offender treatment program required for parole forces him to admit guilt in violation of his religious convictions by forcing him to bear false witness against himself.

In Riddick v. Department of Corrections, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211696 (WD VA, Dec. 26, 2017), a Virginia federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaints that his request for Passover participation and food were not processed, was denied the Common Fare diet, and was not permitted to celebrate both Passover and Ramadan.

In Leibelson v. Collins, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212026 (SD WV, Dec. 27, 2017), dismissed the claim by a former inmate who is a transgender woman that her rights were infringed when she was removed from chapel which she was attending.  She attended so she could spend time with another inmate with whom she was having intimate relations.

In Orozco v. Kernan, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212146 (ED CA, Dec. 26, 2017), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend a Jewish inmate's complaint that Jewish inmates are spread out among institutions so that none of the locations have ten men for a prayer minyan.

In Monroe v. Gerbing, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212172 (SD NY, Dec. 27, 2017), a New York federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his complaint that during Ramadan, his medications were delivered during fasting hours.

In United States v. Parson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213201 (D NE, Dec. 29, 2017), a Nebraska federal district court ordered an inmate to submit to tuberculosis testing, rejecting his claim that this impermissibly violates his religious rights.

Annual Bibliography of Law & Religion Publications Released By AALS Section

The Law and Religion Section of the Association of American Law Schools has released its annual newsletter which includes a 22-page bibliography of articles and books on Law and Religion published last year, of blogs, and of forthcoming publications by various Section members.

Lithuanian Court Invalidates Jewish Community Election

JTA reports on a  Dec. 21 decision (full text in Lithuanian) by Lithuania's Vilnius District Court invalidating an election for president of the umbrella group, Jewish Community of Lithuania ("LBZ").  The lawsuit filed by the Vilnius Jewish Community challenges a change in voting rules adopted by LBZ's board in the middle of the campaign.  The change disenfranchised 2,200 members of the Vilnius Jewish Community and resulted in the re-election of Faina Kukliansky.  LBZ had earlier attempted to invalidate an election of an opponent of Kukliansky as head of the Vilnius Jewish Community.  LBZ criticized the Vilnius election, contending that Vilnius voters were "mainly Russian speakers calling themselves Jews, with only a minority of people with Litvak blood."