Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Ralston v. Cannon, (10th Cir., March 13, 2018), the 10th Circuit held it could not review in an interlocutory appeal on qualified immunity the district court's conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable juror to find that defendant intentionally interfered with plaintiff's right to free exercise by denying his kosher diet request.

In Roberts v. Perry, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39596 (WD NC, March 9, 2018), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's complaint that he was prevented from enrolling in the Messianic Faith Group to begin a weekly educational class, and that his mail (including religious correspondence and books from unauthorized sources) was stopped and another book was seized as contraband.

In Ward v. Rice, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39884 (WD AR, March 12, 2018), an Arkansas federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his complaint that prison policy bars the use of prayer rugs without alternatives being provided.  The court dismissed claims regarding the inmate's food tray and temporary denial of his Quran.

In Crowe v. Marquis, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40062 (ND OH, March 12, 2018), an Ohio federal district court dismissed a Native American inmate's complaint that his prayer pipe was lost or stolen and that he was misinformed that prison policy would allow his family to send him tobacco.

In Venkataram v. Bureau of Prisons, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39504 (SD FL, March 9, 2018), a Florida federal district court adopted in part a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40075, Jan. 16, 2018) and dismissed an inmate's attempt to obtain a vegetarian diet that complies with Hindu religious requirements.

In Ali v. Eckstein, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40878 (ED WI, March 13, 2018), a Wisconsin federal district court permitted a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his claim for nominal and punitive damages against one defendant growing out of the omission of plaintiff from the list to participate in the Ramadan meal bag program.

In Jones v. Finco, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41191 (WD MI, March 13, 2018), a Michigan federal district court, adopting a magistrate's recommendation, dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint about the food served to him during Ramadan.

In Mares v. LePage, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41907 (D CO, March 13, 2018), a Colorado federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140796, Aug. 31, 2017) and dismissed an inmate's complaint regarding impediments to changing his religious designation to Judaism, receiving kosher meals, a personal Torah and a visiting rabbi.

In Sangraal v. Godinez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41952 (SD IL, March 13, 2018), an Illinois federal district court awarded $1 nominal damages to a former inmate who followed pagan beliefs who challenged prisons' banning the pentacle, limiting the use of tarot cards, requiring additional screening of pagan literature, and subjecting him to religious messages in the chapel.

NYPD Sued Over Mugshot Policy For Muslim Women

AP reported yesterday on a lawsuit filed in federal district court in New York against the New York Police Department by two Muslim women who were forced to remove their hijabs to pose for mugshots.  While the NYPD says that its policy allows persons wearing religious head coverings to be taken to  a separate more private facility before removing the head covering to be photographed, apparently that policy was not followed in the case of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. The women along with the advocacy group Turning Point for Women and Families brought the lawsuit as a class action. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Judge Suspended, In Part For Refusal To Conduct Same-Sex Weddings

In In re Day, (OR Sup. Ct., March 15, 2018), the Oregon Supreme Court in a 91-page opinion suspended state circuit court judge Vance D. Day from his judicial office for three years without pay. The state's Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability had recommended the harsher penalty of removal from office. (Commission report).  A number of unrelated charges were involved; the court concluded that six of the counts had been proven.  One of those was described as follows by the court in its press release on the case:

Count 12 concerned a change in respondent's chambers relating to marriage requests that he received after issuance of a federal court ruling, in May 2014, that had invalidated Oregon's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Before that ruling, respondent had made himself available to solemnize marriages. After that ruling, he told his staff that, upon receiving any marriage request, they should check for any personal gender information available in the court's case register system, to try to determine whether the request involved a same-sex couple. If so, they should tell the couple that he was not available on the requested date or otherwise notify him so that he could decide how to proceed. If the request were from an opposite-sex couple, however, then they should schedule the wedding date.  Respondent's judicial assistant checked the system one time and determined that a requesting couple might be a same-sex couple, but respondent had an actual scheduling conflict, so she truthfully told the couple that he was not available.  Several weeks after that, respondent stopped solemnizing all marriages. The Court concluded that respondent's conduct had been willful and had violated Rule 3.3(B) (prohibiting manifestation of bias or prejudice in the performance of judicial duties) and related constitutional provisions. The Court did not address a number of constitutional challenges that respondent had raised as affirmative defenses to Count 12. It explained that, in light of the other, notably serious misconduct that the commission had proved by clear and convincing evidence, the misconduct at issue under Count 12 would not affect its consideration of the appropriate sanction, regardless of whether those constitutional challenges were meritorious or not.

Progressive Secular Humanist blog reports on the decision.

No Bivens Claim For Interference With Religious Exercise In Puerto Rican Forest

In Twum-Baah v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, (D PR, March 12, 2018), a Puerto Rico federal district court dismissed Federal Tort Claims Act, free exercise and racial/ ethnic discrimination claims by a representative of the Waroyal Ministry who took his congregation to the El Yunque National Forest as part of their worship. He also started a tour company that offered tours in El Yunque. Federal officials assert that plaintiff needs a special use authorization for his activities. The court said in part:

A liberal reading of plaintiff’s amended complaint suggests Twum-Baah claims officers Verdejo, Ortiz, and Henderon violated his First Amendment rights to freely exercise his religion and to peaceably assemble with the Excursionist Association for El Yunque. ... Nonetheless, the Court’s understanding of Bivens and subsequent decisions by the Supreme Court compels it to find Bivens claims are not available for violations of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause.

Suit Over News Photo of Arabic-Speaking School Child May Continue

In Mahdy v. Mason City School District, (SD OH, March 15, 2018), an Ohio federal district court refused to dismiss equal protection and false-light claims growing out of the use of a photo of a 5-year old (identified as J.M.) to illustrate a newspaper story criticizing a rise in the number of Arabic-speaking students in the Mason City, Ohio schools.  The student was the daughter of an Egyptian-born urologist at the University of Cincinnati. The article reported that most of the Arabic-speaking students were from Saudi Arabia on temporary visas to be treated at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and that their enrollment placed strains on the school system's budget. The court describes plaintiff's claims:

The Complaint alleges that neither Dr. Mahdy nor his wife gave permission to anyone to photograph J.M., to disclose her identity to the public, or to falsely associate her with the Children’s Hospital Destination Excellence Program.... The Complaint alleges that J.M. had to be removed from MECC due to the "wave of Islamophobia that is currently sweeping across our country," and because her family was "so distressed over the prejudice and discriminatory treatment expressed against Arabic-speaking students."

Ohio's Law Banning Abortion Because of Down's Syndrome Is Enjoined

In Preterm-Cleveland v. Himes, (SD OH, March 14, 2018), an Ohio federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Ohio's recently enacted ban on a physician performing an abortion if the woman's decision is based in whole or part on a pre-natal indication of Down's syndrome.The court said in part:

The State argues that Roe and Casey do not apply for two reasons. First, the State argues the “Supreme Court of the United States has never recognized a right to abort an unborn child on the basis of a disability.” ... The State suggests that Roe and Casey only apply to women who accidentally become pregnant.... The State argues that women only have the right to choose whether to have a child, not the right to decide whether to have a particular child....

This argument is not well-taken. The interest protected by the Due Process Clause is a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy pre-viability, and that right is categorical.

Reacting to the decision, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said:

 I strongly disagree with the district court's ruling that there is a categorical right to abortion that prevents even any consideration of Ohio's profound interests in combatting discrimination against a class of human beings based upon disability. We will be appealing.

Jurist reports on the decision.

Suit By "Clock Boy" Is Dismissed

In Mohamed v. Irving Independent School District, (ND TYX, March 13, 2018), a Texas federal district court dismissed a number of claims brought on behalf of the so-called "clock boy"-- a 14-year old African-American Muslim student who was suspended from school and arrested on "hoax bomb" charges when he brought an alarm clock he had constructed to school.  The complaint charged in part that the school district "has an 'ugly history of race struggles,' and the State of Texas and the IISD have a 'history of discrimination against Muslims in Texas curriculum and schools.'"  The court concluded that the complaint:

does not contain sufficient factual allegations from which the court can reasonably infer that A.M. was subject to unequal disciplinary treatment based on his religion or race....

Daily Caller reports on the decision.

Pakistani Court Says Citizens Must Declare Religion For Identity Documents

Christian Times reports on a decision last week from the Islamabad High Court in Pakistan.  The court ruled that all citizens must declare their religion when they apply for identity documents.  Human rights advocates say this will increase pressure on the Ahmadis who under Pakistani law are not allowed to refer to themselves as Muslims.  A spokesman for the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony, however, said the requirement will help religious minorities secure the 5% quota in government jobs to which they are entitled.

Massachusetts Lacks Standing To Challenge Expanded Contraceptive Mandate Exemptions

In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, (D MA, March 12, 2018), a Massachusetts federal district court held that the state of Massachusetts lacks standing to challenge recently adopted Interim Federal Rules expanding religious and moral exemptions from the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate. The court concluded that the state had "failed to set forth specific facts demonstrating that it is likely to incur an injury" from adoption of the rules. MassLive reports on the decision.

Montana's Anti-Polygamy Laws Upheld

In Collier v. Fox, (D MT, March 9, 2018), a Montana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations and dismissed a challenge to Montana's civil and criminal anti-polygamy laws. When the state denied Nathan Collier a marriage license to marry a second wife, he nevertheless entered a relationship with her and they hold themselves out as being married. The magistrate's Feb. 22 opinion (full text) dismisses the challenge to the state's criminal anti-polygamy provisions because there is no genuine threat that the parties challenging the law will be prosecuted, saying:

The State Defendants have taken the position that Nathan’s and Christine’s declaration to be husband and wife, without the accompanying possession of a state-issued marriage license, is insufficient to violate the Montana bigamy statutes. Therefore, this case presents the unusual situation where the State of Montana has taken the position that the Colliers’ conduct is not criminal, while the Colliers insist that it is.

Plaintiffs also challenge the state's refusal to issue a marriage license for Collier's marriage to his second wife.  The court held that the state's anti-polygamy law is constitutional, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1878 decision in Reynolds v. United States. Billings Gazette reports on the decision.

Church's Suit Challenging California Health Insurance Rules Dismissed As Not Ripe

In Skyline Wesleyan Church v. California Department of Managed Health Care, (SD CA, March 9, 2018), a California federal district court dismissed on ripeness and standing grounds a suit by a church challenging California insurance rules on the coverage of abortion services by health policies.  The church objected to providing its employees with policies that covered abortions.  Initially state regulators required all policies to contain such coverage, but subsequently said they would grant exemptions for policies offered exclusively to religious employers.  The court said in part:

At this point in time it cannot be said that the DMHC would deny a health care plan’s request to offer the exemption sought by Plaintiff because no such plan has been submitted. Thus, the existence of a controversy depends on a factual scenario that may or may not materialize, making this case unfit for review.

11th Circuit: Employer Offered Reasonable Accommodation

In Patterson v. Walgreen Co., (11th Cir., March 9, 2018), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a suit alleging religious discrimination and retaliation, held that Walgreens had offered reasonable accommodations for the religious needs of a Seventh Day Adventist employee whose beliefs did not permit him to work on Saturday. The employee, a training instructor, was fired in the aftermath of his refusal to conduct an emergency training session on a Saturday.  The court said in part:

To comply with Title VII, an employer is not required to offer a choice of several accommodations or to prove that the employee’s proposed accommodation would pose an undue hardship; instead, the employer must show only “that the employee was offered a reasonable accommodation, ‘regardless of whether that accommodation is one which the employee suggested.’” ...

Walgreens decided to terminate his employment only after he failed to conduct the emergency training session, insisted that Walgreens guarantee that he would never have to work on his Sabbath, and refused to consider other employment options within the company without such a guarantee.

[Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Micah Schwartzman, Nelson Tebbe & Richard Schragger, The Costs of Conscience, (Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2018-14 (March 2018)).
• Donald Carroll, A Groundless Clash of Freedoms?: The Religious Freedom of the Religiously Affiliated University and the Freedom of Faculty to Organize Under the NLRA, (March 2018).
• John D. Inazu, The Purpose (and Limits) of the University, (Utah Law Review, 2018 Forthcoming).
• Joseph E. David, 'Others-in-Law': Legalism in the Economy of Religious Differences, (Law, Culture and the Humanities, Forthcoming).
• Timothy Lubin, Towards a South Asian Diplomatics: Cosmopolitan Norms and Regional Idioms in the Use of Documents, (Studies in Historical Documents from Nepal and India, edited by Simon Cubelic, Axel Michaels, and Astrid Zotter. Heidelberg University Publishing / Kathmandu: National Archives, Nepal, 2018, pp. 37–84).
• Avishalom Westreich, Accommodating Religious Law with a Civil Legal System: Lessons from the Jewish Law Experience in Financial Family Matters, (Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 33, 2018).
• Benito Arruñada & Matthias Krapf, Religion and the European Union, (Pompeu Fabra University, Economics and Business Working paper Series, 1601 (2018).
• Marc D. Froese, Universal Economy: Reconsidering the Role of Ideas in the Multilateral Governance of Global Trade, (March 9, 2018).
• Rory K. Little, Hating Hate Speech: Why Current First Amendment Doctrine Does Not Condemn a Careful Ban, (Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2018).
• Oonagh B. Breen, Redefining the Measure of Success: A Historical and Comparative Look at Charity Regulation, (Forthcoming in Matthew Harding (ed.), The Research Handbook on Not-for-Profit Law (Edward Elgar, 2018).

From SmartCILP:

• Donohon Abdugafurova, Rahimjon Abdugafurov & Beverly Moran, Islamic Feminism and Invisible Work: The Case of the Disappearing Daughter-in-Law, [Abstract], 19 Georgetown Journal of Gender & Law 43-60 (2017).
• Marc-Tizoc Gonzalez, Criminalizing Charity: Can First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion, RFRA, and RLUIPA Protect People Who Share Food in Public?, 7 UC Irvine Law Review 291-345 (2017).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Hardy v. Agee, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5648 (6th Cir., March 5, 2018), the 6th Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies of a suit by a Muslim inmate claiming that while on room restriction he was prevented from attending religious services and classes.

In England v. Walsh, (9th Cir., March 9, 2018), the 9th Circuit upheld dismissal of claims regarding failure to list Nation of Islam in the Nevada Department of Corrections Religious Practice Manual, and furnishing an inmate a vegetarian diet to meet NOI dietary requirements.

In Ackbar v. Byers, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36006 (D SC, March 5, 2018), a South Carolina federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37278, Jan. 22, 2018) and dismissed a complaint by an inmate that his Nation of Gods and Earths material was confiscated.

In Duncan v. Lay, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35213 (ED AR, March 5, 2018), an Arkansas federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36288, Feb. 14, 2018) and allowed an inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he has been denied access to the chapel library.

In Broyles v. Presley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36190 (D KA, March 6, 2018), a Kansas federal district court dismissed a suit alleging lack of kosher food brought by an inmate who says he practices the Jewish faith, Yahweh Assembly in Yahshua.

In Goddard v. Alexakos, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36322 (ED KY, March 6, 2018), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that the federal medical center at which he was confined only offered a general Christian religious service and would not provide a separate service for "The Way" (a non-Protestant Christian religion).

In Carawan v. Mitchell, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36897 (WD NC, March 6, 2018), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that the prison had discontinued the Zakat fund through which inmates could fulfill their religious obligation to give charity.

In Trainauskas v. Fralicker, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37408 (SD IL, March 7, 2018), an Illinois federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with his complaint regarding disciplinary sanction related to letters he wrote about an Odinist religion known as The Guardians of Othala Kindred.

In Walker v. Harris, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37693 (MD GA, March 8, 2018), a Georgia federal district court adopted most of a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38118, Feb. 9, 2018) and allowed a Muslim inmate to proceed with an excessive force claim, but not a free exercise or RLUIPA claim, regarding action against him for tucking his pants legs in his socks.

In Dawson v. Wagatsuma, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39037 (D HI, March 9, 2018), a Hawaii federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that he was required to denounce his Native Hawaiian Religion in order to participate in the prison's Module Contract Program.

Michigan Supreme Court Refuses To Reverse Injunction Against Private School Aid

In Council of Organizations and Others for Education About Parochiaid v. State of Michigan,  (MI Sup. Ct., March 9, 2018), the Michigan Supreme Court in a brief order denied leave to appeal a preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Claims.  That injunction prohibited payment of $2.5 million the legislature had allocated to private schools to cover the cost of complying with state mandates. (See prior posting.)  Chief Justice Markham filed a dissenting opinion arguing that the decision of the Court of Claims should be reversed.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Rules On Renovation Grants To Church

Caplan v. Town of Acton, (MA Sup Jud Ct, March 9, 2018), is a challenge under the Massachusetts' constitution's"anti-aid" clause to two historic-resource grants for renovation purposes to an active church.  The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a 5-1 opinion, concluded:

the constitutionality of such grants must be evaluated under our three-factor test: a judge must consider whether a motivating purpose of each grant is to aid the church, whether the grant will have the effect of substantially aiding the church, and whether the grant avoids the risks of the political and economic abuses that prompted the passage of the anti-aid amendment. We also conclude that, in light of the history of the anti-aid amendment, a grant of public funds to an active church warrants careful scrutiny.... 

[W]e conclude that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim with respect to the stained glass grant. Although the record before us does not allow us to ascertain whether there is a motivating purpose behind this grant other than historic preservation, its effect is to substantially aid the church in its essential function and, given the explicit religious imagery of the stained glass, it fails to avoid the very risks that the framers of the anti-aid amendment hoped to avoid....

With respect to the Master Plan grant, we conclude that further discovery is needed before a determination should be made as to whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim.  This is in part because, unlike the stained glass grant, the Master Plan grant is far broader in its scope, including not only plans for the renovation of worship space but also plans for the renovation of the Fletcher and Hosmer Houses, which are both private residences....

Justice Kafker, joined by Justice Gaziono filed a concurring opinion.  Justice Cypher filed a dissenting opinion. MassLive reports on the decision.

Rwandan Government Closes Over 700 Churches

RNS reports that on Tuesday, the government of Rwanda shut down 714 of the more than 1300 churches in the country's capital city of Kigali.  The Rwanda Governance Board says that the closings were the result of building safety, hygiene and noise violations.  Most of the churches affected were small Pentecostal congregations that have multiplied in recent years.  Hygiene problems are common because Kigali does not have a sewage system or treatment plant.  Critics however say that the closures are an attempt by President Paul Kagame to suppress criticism. A Rwandan activist based in Canada said: "The churches constituted the last open space. Kagame knows this. The localized community of churches offered a slight space for daring to imagine and talk about change."

Hospital Can Assert Ministerial Exception Defense To Suit By Chaplain

In Penn v. New York Methodist Hospital, (2d Cir., March 7, 2018), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a hospital "only historically connected to the United Methodist Church but still providing religious services through its pastoral care department" may invoke the ministerial exception doctrine.  The court summarized its majority opinion:

Mr. Penn—a former duty chaplain at New York Methodist Hospital—brought a lawsuit alleging that New York Methodist Hospital and Peter Poulos discriminated against him on the basis of his race and religion, and retaliated against him after he filed charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the New York City Commission on Human Rights. New York Methodist Hospital, because of its history and continuing purpose, through its Department of Pastoral Care, is a “religious group.” Mr. Penn’s role within the Department of Pastoral Care was to provide religious care to the hospital’s patients and religious care only. Therefore, the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses warrant the application of the ministerial exception doctrine and the dismissal of this lawsuit.

Judge Droney dissented, saying in part:

The presence of a non‐sectarian chaplaincy department cannot transform an otherwise secular hospital into a religious institution for purposes of the ministerial exception.  If it could, most hospitals would be exempt from anti‐discrimination laws, as most—even clearly secular hospitals—have chaplaincy departments.... Moreover, the interfaith nature of the Department means that it is not run according to the tenets of any particular religion, thereby reducing the likelihood that evaluating the reasons for the termination of an employee such as Penn would “plunge [a court] into a maelstrom of Church policy, administration, and governance.”

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Appeals Court Says Mennonite Woman Must Remain In Jail Until She Will Answer Prosecution's Questions

A Colorado appeals court. after expedited consideration, has rejected religious liberty arguments raised by a Mennonite woman who refuses to testify on behalf of the prosecution in a capital case.  Greta Lindekranz was an investigator for defense attorneys. The prosecution wants her testimony to rebut arguments that convicted murderer Robert Ray received ineffective assistance of counsel.  Lindekranz, who opposes capital punishment on religious grounds, argues that answering questions on direct examination by the prosecution would make her a tool in the prosecution's efforts to execute Ray.  The trial court held that her refusal to answer questions put forward by the prosecution placed her in contempt, and it ordered her held in jail until she elects to answer the questions. (See prior posting.)  In People v. Ray and Concerning Lindekranz, (CO App., March 8, 2018), the appellate court refused to reverse the contempt citation.  It held that even if strict scrutiny applies, the state has a compelling interest in ascertaining the truth and rendering a just judgment in accordance with the law.  The court rejected Lindekranz's alternative of answering questions from the court, with the prosecution and defense then cross-examining her.

The court concluded:

Ms. Lindecrantz is in a tough spot — caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. We take no pleasure in declining to extricate her. But the state of the law being what it is, decline we must.

Colorado Public Radio, reporting on the decision, says that an appeal will be filed with the Colorado Supreme Court.

UPDATE: AP reports (March 10) that Lindekranz will now testify because her refusal to do so is hurting Ray's appeal. According to her lawyer: "Based on this dramatic change in circumstance, she has concluded that her religious principles honoring human life now compel that she must testify."

Canadian Agency Violates Foster Parents' Rights By Insisting They Say Easter Bunny Is Real

Canadian Press reports that an Ontario Superior Court judge ruled this week that a Christian couple's religious beliefs were infringed in violation of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms when the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton removed two foster children from their home.  The action closing their foster home came after a social worker insisted that the couple tell the two young girls that the Easter Bunny is real. Foster parents Frances and Derek Baars say that doing so would violate their religious beliefs.  The court wrote in part:

There is ample evidence to support the fact that the children were removed because the Baars refused to either tell or imply that the Easter Bunny was delivering chocolate to the Baars' home. I am more than satisfied that the society actions interfered substantially with the Baars' religious beliefs.

Suit Challenges City's Forcing of Homeless Into Faith-Based Shelters

In Amarillo, Texas, an advocate for the homeless has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the city's attempts to move homeless individuals from a tent city known as Christ Church Camp of New Beginnings to traditional homeless shelters.  The complaint (full text) in Donelson v. City of Amarillo, (ND TX, filed 2/28/ 2018), contends in part that the city has violated the Establishment Clause by forcing people into faith-based shelters.  Texas Observer reports on the lawsuit.

Christian Student Group Sues Over Decertification

The InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at Wayne State University has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the University's action removing its status as a recognized student organization.  The complaint (full text) in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/ USA v. Board of Governors of Wayne State University,  (WD MI, filed 3/6/2018), alleges that the action was taken against it because of the organization's requirements that its leadership share its Christian faith and affirm the group's statement of faith.  The university contends that this violates its non-discrimination policy.  InterVarsity has operated on Wayne State's campus for 75 years.  the complaint claims that the University's action violates various federal and state constitutional and statutory provision.  Detroit News reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: According to a press release from Becket, two days after the suit was filed the University reinstated InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, at least temporarily.

6th Circuit: Funeral Home Violated Title VII By Firing Transgender Employee

In EEOC v. R.G & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., (6th Cir., March 7, 2018), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a Title VII religious discrimination suit against a Michigan funeral home that fired Aimee Stephens, a transgender employee (funeral director/embalmer) who was in the process of transitioning from male to female. In a 49-page opinion, the court held first that Stephens was illegally fired because of her failure to conform to sex stereotypes.  The funeral home owner decided to fire Stephens "because Stephens was 'no longer going to represent himself as a man' and 'wanted to dress as a woman'."

The court also held that:

discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status violates Title VII.

Moving to defenses raised by the funeral home, including its defense under RFRA which the district court had relied upon, the court held:

the Funeral Home does not qualify for the ministerial exception to Title VII; the Funeral Home’s religious exercise would not be substantially burdened by continuing to employ Stephens without discriminating against her on the basis of sex stereotypes; the EEOC has established that it has a compelling interest in ensuring the Funeral Home complies with Title VII; and enforcement of Title VII is necessarily the least restrictive way to achieve that compelling interest.

Explaining its rejection of defendant's claim of a substantial burden under RFRA, the court said in part:

...simply permitting Stephens to wear attire that reflects a conception of gender that is at odds with Rost’s religious beliefs is not a substantial burden under RFRA. We presume that the “line [Rost] draw[s]”—namely, that permitting Stephens to represent herself as a woman would cause him to “violate God’s commands” because it would make him “directly involved in supporting the idea that sex is a changeable social construct rather than an immutable God-given gift,” ... —constitutes “an honest conviction.”...  But we hold that, as a matter of law, tolerating Stephens’s understanding of her sex and gender identity is not tantamount to supporting it.

Slate reports on the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk and Tom Rutledge for the lead.] 

Suit Filed Over Assets of Michigan-Based Communal Sect

The Detroit News this morning reports on a lawsuit that has been filed in an Oakland County, Michigan trial court over millions of dollars of assets of the Israelite House of David (IHOD).  IHOD was a communal religious sect created in 1903 and based in Benton Harbor, Michigan.  Members of the sect were required to remain celibate, and apparently only three members of the sect (one of whom is very ill) remain.  The suit was filed by Charles Ferrel who lives in Hawaii and was excommunicated-- he says wrongfully-- five years ago.  He alleges that defendants (two of the remaining members) have taken $50 million in assets from IHOD.  The sect's assets are located in Michigan, Hawaii and Australia,  Australia was envisioned by the sect as the place where its members would relocate when the world collapsed as predicted in the Book of Revelation.  In the suit, plaintiff seeks reinstatement as a member and control of the assets.  Alternatively he asks that the assets be turned over to the state of Michigan for it to dispose of them according to law.

British Court Issues FGM Protection Order To Protect 1-Year Old

According to the Manchester Evening News this week, a Family Court judge in Manchester, England has entered an "FGM protection order" at the request of social workers.  The order prohibits a 1-year old girl's family from flying the child back to India, their country of origin, for purposes of female genital mutilation.  The child's three older sisters had previously been flown to India for the procedure.  FGM protection orders have been available from British judges for about three years. (Background on obtaining an FGM Order).

Justice Department Sues Over County Nursing Home's Procedure For Obtaining Flu Shot Exemption

The Justice Department announced yesterday that it has filed a religious discrimination suit against a Wisconsin county because of the religious accommodation policy of a county-owned nursing home.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, (ED WI, filed 3/6/2018), challenges the nursing home's requirement that a religious exemption for staff from the requirement to obtain a flu shot is available only if the staff member furnishes a letter from his or her clergy leader.  Nursing assistant Barnell Williams sought a religious exemption, but was not affiliated with any church or organized religion.  She based her religious objection on her own interpretation of the Bible.  She agreed to receive a flu shot in order to preserve her job.  However, according to the complaint:

Williams suffered severe emotional distress from receiving the flu shot in violation of her religious beliefs, including withdrawing from work and her personal life, suffering from sleep problems, anxiety, and fear of “going to Hell” because she had disobeyed the Bible by receiving the shot. These deep emotional problems stemming from having to take the flu shot have plagued Williams to the present. 

Malaysia's Federal Court Says Conversions To Christianity Are For Sharia Courts

In Malaysia last week, the Malaysian Federal Court dismissed appeals by four women who seek to have their names and religious affiliation changed on their national identity cards-- from Muslim to Christian.  Three of the women were originally Christians, but embraced Islam when they married Muslim men.  Now they are divorced and wish to re-embrace Christianity.  The fourth woman is a convert from Islam to Christianity. According to World Watch Monitor, the country's highest civil court held that jurisdiction over these cases is only in the Syariah Courts, even though the Sarawak Shariah Court Ordinance 2001 has no provision for leaving Islam.  CBNNews yesterday further explained the implications of this holding:

In the past, Sharia courts have not allowed conversion from the Islamic faith.

Christian groups said they'll request Sarawak legislators to amend state law to allow conversion. In response, several Islamic groups said they plan to counter Christian conversion efforts by sending more Muslims into the state.

Located in Malaysia's east, Sarawak is about 40 percent Christian. Most Christians are Chinese ethnics. Overall, Christians are about nine percent of the Malaysia population while Muslims are about 61 percent. Leaving Islam is unthinkable for most ethnic Malays who believe to be Malay is to be Muslim.

Missouri Abortion Restriction Challenged In New Suit By Satanic Temple Member

A suit filed last week in a Missouri federal district court by a member of The Satanic Temple challenges Missouri's restrictions on abortion as a violation of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  The complaint (full text) in Doe v. Greitens, (ED MO,filed 2/28/2018), focuses on the requirements in Missouri law that a woman seeking an abortion be furnished a booklet that states in part that life begins at conception and an abortion will terminate the life of a living human being. It also challenges Missouri's 72-hour waiting period and the requirement that the woman be given the opportunity to view an active ultrasound.  The complaint says that plaintiff does not believe that life begins at conception and holds the religious belief that she alone can decide whether to remove human tissue from her body, according to the best scientific understanding of the world.

As previously reported, the Missouri Supreme Court in January heard oral arguments in a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenge by The Satanic Temple to the same abortion restrictions.  As reported by Friendly Atheist blog, one of the purposes of the new lawsuit is to undercut a mootness argument in the Missouri Supreme Court.  The lower court dismissed the lawsuit because the plaintiff was no longer pregnant.  The new suit is presumably intended to show that this challenge is one that is  within the exception for controversies that are capable of repetition but evade review.

Destruction of Native American Burial Site Did Not Violate RFRA

In Slockish v U.S. Federal Highway Administration, (D OR, March 2, 2018), an Oregon federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a RFRA challenge to the destruction of sacred Native American burial grounds in widening a highway.  Relying on Supreme Court and 9th Circuit precedent, the court held:

As in Lyng and Navajo Nation, plaintiffs contend that the sacred site at issue, which is located on federal land, has been desecrated and destroyed. Yet, as in those cases, plaintiffs have not established that they are being coerced to act contrary to their religious beliefs under the threat of sanctions or that a governmental benefit is being conditioned upon conduct that would violate their religious beliefs. Without these critical elements, plaintiffs cannot establish a substantial burden under the RFRA.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Rafael Domingo & Brigitte Basdevant-Gaudemet, Paul Fournier (1853-1935), (in Olivier Descamps and Rafael Domingo, Great Christian Jurists in French History (Cambridge University Press, 2019) (Forthcoming)).
• Rafael Domingo & Javier Martínez-Torrón, Javier, Great Christian Jurists in Spanish History: Introduction, (Rafael Domingo and Javier Martínez-Torrón (eds.), Great Christian Jurists in Spanish History (Cambridge University Press, 2018) (Forthcoming)).
• Berta E. Hernández-Truyol, Religion: Rites vs. Rights Resolving Tensions between LGBT Equality and Religious Liberty, (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in International Law (Andreas Ziegler, ed., 2018 Forthcoming)).
• Michael W. McConnell, Dressmakers, Bakers, and the Equality of Rights, (in Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground (William N. Eskridge, Jr. and Robin Fretwell Wilson, eds. 2018).
• Robbie Skyes & Kieran Mark Tranter, The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and Natural Law, (International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 2018).

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

• Robert C. Blitt, The Organization of Islamic Cooperation's (OIC) Response to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Rights: A Challenge to Equality and Nondiscrimination Under International Law, (February 28, 2018).
• Paul T. Babie, National Security and the Free Exercise Guarantee of Section 116: Time for a Judicial Interpretive Update, ((2017) 45 Federal Law Review 351).
• Adnan Zulfiqar, Jurisdiction over Jihad: Islamic Law and the Duty to Fight, (West Virginia Law Review, Vol. 120, No. 2, 2017).
• David Abraham, Circumcision: Immigration, Religion, History, and Constitutional Identity in Germany and the U.S., (18 German Law Journal 1745 (2017)).
• P.K. Pandey, Offences Relating to Religion in India, (Law Exam Times, 2017).
• Craig Martin, Striking the Right Balance: Hate Speech Laws in Japan, the United States, and Canada, (Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2018).

From SmartCILP:

• Gerald Benjamin, The Chassidic Presence and Local Government in the Hudson Valley, 80 Albany Law Review 1383-1464 (2016-2017). 

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Abdul-Aziz v. Lanigan, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30258 (D NJ, Feb. 26, 2018), a New Jersey federal district court, while dismissing some claims, allowed Muslim inmates to move ahead with a claim for prospective injunctive relief as to daily Halal meals.

In Fisher v. Schweitzer, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33166 (SD OH, March 1, 2018), an Ohio federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33457, Jan. 2, 2018) and dismissed an inmate's complaint that the warden stopped him from attending church as a way of punishing him for being the victim of an assault.

In Thomas v. Waugh, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33541 (ND NY, Feb. 28, 2018), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended allowing plaintiff, an African American of the Jewish-Hebrew faith, to proceed with his 1st Amendment free exercise claim growing out of the refusal by authorities to allow him to wear a tam as an alternative form of Jewish head covering. UPDATE: The magistrate's recommendation was adopted by the court at 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50282, March 27, 2018.

In Moore v. Jay, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34078 (WD OK, March 2, 2018),an Oklahoma federal district court refused at this point to dismiss a suit by a Muslim inmate who alleged that while he agreed to accept kosher food in place of halal food, he was intentionally deceived about the kosher status of the meals he was served.

Inmate Is Not "Employee" Under Title VII

A Texas federal magistrate's decision in Smith v. Gonzales, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31836 (ND TX, Feb. 2, 2018), adopted by the court at 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30160 (Feb. 26, 2018), rejected a Title VII religious discrimination claim filed by a state prison inmate.  Plaintiff David Wayne Smith alleged religious discrimination because he was required to work in his prison job on the Sabbath. The court, relying in part on a 1986 EEOC opinion, held that the inmate is not an "employee" for purposes of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Alabama Judicial Ethics Provision Enjoined In Part

In Parker v. Judicial Inquiry Commission of the State of Alabama, (MD AL, March 2, 2018), an Alabama federal district court held that a provision in Alabama's Canon of Judicial Ethics, because of its breadth, violates the free speech provisions of the 1st Amendment.  At issue was the provision that: "A judge should abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court...."  A complaint had been filed against Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker over his comments on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision on an earlier Alabama Supreme Court order barring probate judges from issuing licenses for same-sex marriages. The court issued a preliminary injunction barring the Judicial Inquiry Commission

from enforcing Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics 3A(6) to the extent that it proscribes public comment by a judge about a pending or impending proceeding in a court outside the state of Alabama, [or] ... proscribes public comment by a judge that cannot reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a proceeding in Alabama.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

4th Circuit Denies En Banc Review On Bladensburg Cross

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a vote of 8-6, has denied an en banc rehearing on the constitutionality of the 40-foot high Bladensburg Cross that has stood for over 90 years at an intersection in Prince Georges County, Maryland. Last October a panel of the 4th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, held the Latin Cross, created as a World War I Veterans' Memorial, violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) Yesterday in American Humanist Association v. Maryland- National Capital Park Planning Commission, (4th Cir., March 1, 2018), the full court's denial of review was accompanied by 4 separate opinions-- one a concurring opinion and 3 dissenting opinions.

Judge Wynn's concurring opinion said in part:

To allow this Court to circumscribe the Bladensburg Cross’s meaning and power, as the Commission and its amici request, would empower this Court to diminish the Latin cross’s many years of accrued religious symbolism, and thereby amount to the state degradation of religion that the Framers feared and sought to proscribe. Indeed, were this Court to accept that the Latin cross’s predominantly sectarian meaning could be overcome by a plaque, a small secular symbol, and four engraved words, as the Commission maintains, we would necessarily grant the government—and the judiciary, in particular—broad latitude to define and shape religious belief and meaning. Surely, the Constitution does not contemplate endowing the government with such extraordinary power to determine and prescribe individual citizens’ religious beliefs and religious communities’ joint understandings, appreciations, and teachings.

Judge Wilkinson's dissent, joined by Chief Judge Gregory and Judge Agee, said in part:

The dead cannot speak for themselves. But may the living hear their silence. We should take care not to traverse too casually the line that separates us from our ancestors and that will soon enough separate us from our descendants. The present has many good ways of imprinting its values and sensibilities upon society. But to roil needlessly the dead with the controversies of the living does not pay their deeds or their time respect.

This memorial and this cross have stood for almost one full century. Life and change flow by the small park in the form of impatient cars and trucks. That is disturbance enough. Veterans Memorial Park may not be Arlington National Cemetery, but it is the next thing to it. I would let the cross remain and let those honored rest in peace.

Washington Post, reporting on the decision, says that the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

St. Cloud Diocese To File For Bankruptcy

The Diocese of St. Cloud, Minnesota announced this week that it is planning to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization in response to 74 claims filed against it for past sexual abuse of minors.  The claims came after the state legislature in 2013 created a 3-year window for abuse suits from past years.  According to the Star-Tribune, this will be the fourth Minnesota Catholic institution to file for bankruptcy.

Tunisian Court Rejects Imams' Challenge To LGBTQ Radio Station

Slate reports on a Feb. 14 decision by a court in Tunisia dismissing a lawsuit filed by a union representing imams.  The suit asked the court to request the Tunisian Internet Agency to block access to the online LGBTQ radio station Shams Rad.  Petitioners argued that the station threatens "social and family values."  The court ruled that the union lacks standing to bring the suit, and that the radio station had not violated the rights of others.

Controversial Bill In Iceland Would Criminalize Muslim and Jewish Circumcision Practices

The New York Times this week reported on the controversy in Iceland over a bill introduced in the country's Parliament last month that would make circumcision of young boys for non-medial reasons illegal.  The bill, which would impose a penalty of up to 6 years in prison for violation, was introduced by four political parties and is backed by many doctors and nurses in Iceland.  According to the Times:

[O]rganizations representing Muslims and Jews, which practice male circumcision as a matter of religious tradition, are questioning the lawmakers’ motives. The Roman Catholic Church in the European Union has also objected that the legislation is an attack on religious freedom.....

The bill is perceived as an anti-immigration issue directed against Muslims, Rabbi [Pinchas] Goldschmidt [President of the Conference of European Rabbis] said, and "we the Jews are the collateral damage."

It is "basically saying that Jews are not anymore welcome in Iceland," he said.

Trump's Remarks As Rev. Billy Graham's Body Lies In State At Capitol

President Trump delivered remarks (full text) yesterday at the U.S. Capitol as Rev. Billy Graham's body was laid in state there.  He said in part:

Around us stand the statues of heroes who led the nation in prayer during the great and difficult times, from Washington to Lincoln to Eisenhower to King.

And, today, in the center of this great chamber lies legendary Billy Graham, an ambassador for Christ who reminded the world of the power of prayer and the gift of God’s grace.

Today we honor him as only three private citizens before him have been so honored.

New Report On 2017 Anti-Semitic Incidents

The ADL this week released its 2017 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents. The report summarizes its major findings in part as follows:

ADL identified 1,986 anti-Semitic incidents perpetrated throughout the United States in 2017. This is an increase of 57% over the 1,267 incidents reported in 2016. For the first time since at least 2010, an incident occurred in every US state. The states with the highest numbers of incidents were New York (380 incidents), California (268 incidents), New Jersey (208 incidents), Massachusetts (177), Florida (98), and Pennsylvania (96). These states combined made up more than half (62%)of the total number of incidents. The number of incidents tends to correlate with large Jewish populations.

Wall Street Journal reports on the new data. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

European Court Says Psychiatric Patient's Religious Rights Were Infringed

In a Chamber Judgment in Mockute v. Lithuania, (ECHR, Feb. 27, 2018), the European Court of Human Rights held that a Lithuanian woman's privacy and religious exercise rights were violated by the psychiatric hospital to which she had been admitted.  The facts were summarized by the dissenting opinion:

In 2003 the applicant, who at the time was 30 years old and had a long history of mental problems, after a mental breakdown was forcibly placed in a psychiatric hospital, where she spent 52 days. While being held there, psychiatrists disclosed information about the applicant's health and private life to a journalist as well as information about her health and treatment to her mother. In a subsequent television programme, parts of this information were released. The applicant furthermore claimed that the regime at the psychiatric hospital did not allow her to practise the religion of the Ojas Meditation Centre, the Lithuanian branch of the Osho religious movement, and that the psychiatrists had worked on her to convince her to be critical of her non-traditional religion.

The court held by a unanimous vote that her privacy rights under the European Convention on Human Rights were violated, and by a vote of 5-2 that her religious exercise rights were infringed.  The Court's press release on the case describes the holding on religious freedom:

[T]wo factors were decisive in concluding that there had been an interference with her right to freedom of religion. First, she had been held unlawfully at the hospital for more than 50 days and had for the most part been under a very strict regime, such that she had been unable either to practise meditation or to visit the Osjo Meditation Centre. Second, the doctors had tried to “correct” her to persuade her to abandon her religion, which they considered as “fictitious”, and she had felt constrained to obey them, even on pain of receiving a diagnosis which would have made her unemployable.

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

Mennonite Woman Jailed For Contempt For Refusal To Testify In Capital Case

CBS4 reports that in Arapahoe County, Colorado, a Mennonite woman has been held in contempt and remanded to jail for refusing to testify for the prosecution in the challenge to a conviction by Robert Ray who was sentenced to death for murder.  Ray is claiming inadequate representation at trial. The woman, Greta Lindecrantz, was an investigator for the defense in the original trial. Prosecutors want her to testify to show the adequacy of Ray's lawyers.  However Lindecrantz says that her religious beliefs prohibit her from participating in the killing of another person, and that is what prosecutors are asking her to do.

USCIRF Criticizes Treatment of Iranian Christians Seeking US Asylum

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a press release last week calling attention to some 100 Iranian Christians who have been waiting in Vienna for over a year seeking  asylum in the United States under the special provisions of the Lautenberg Amendment.  That law gives higher priority for refugee status to Iranian religious minorities, including Christians, Zoroastrians and Baha’is. USCIRF says that recent reports indicate these individuals have been denied asylum and could be returned to Iran where they may face discrimination or persecution.

Brazilian Court Rejects Censorship of Play Depicting Jesus As Trans Woman

In Brazil last week, the São Paulo Court of Justice (the highest state court) lifted an emergency injunction that had been issued by a local court banning further performances of the play "The Gospel According to Jesus, Queen of Heaven." The art news site Hyperallergic reports on developments.  The play is a one-woman show that depicts Jesus living in the present as a trans woman.  The controversial show was described by the lower court as  "disrespectful to a religion," "aggressive," and of  an "extremely low intellectual level." The appellate court, however, held that the injunction was unconstitutional censorship that effectively forbids artistic activity.

Religious Organizations Challenge City's New Anti-Discrimination Law

Five churches and a Christian radio station filed suit last week in a Wisconsin state trial court challenging a De Pere city anti-discrimination ordinance that does not clearly exempt religious organizations.  The complaint (full text) in Hope Lutheran Church v. City of De Pere, (WI Cir. Ct., filed 2/22/2018) says that the city has not been willing to assure churches and religious organizations that they will be exempt from the employment and public accommodation provisions of the law that takes effect next month.  The complaint contends:

As a result, the ordinance is likely to be imposed on churches and other religious organizations in a manner that would mandate government orthodoxy in core religious functions, communication, and conduct.

While the law does permit religious organizations to hire on the basis of religion, it does not exempt them from prohibitions on hiring on the basis of sex, marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity.  Fox 11 News reports on the law suit.

Another 3rd Travel Ban Cert. Petition Filed

As previously reported, last month the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Trump v. Hawaii, a challenge to the third version of President Trump's travel ban.  In light of that, plaintiffs who were largely successful in a similar challenge in the 4th Circuit (see prior posting) have now filed a petition for certiorari (full text) with the Supreme Court, telling the Court:

The court of appeals denied the cross-appeal below, which argued that the preliminary injunction should not have been limited to individuals with a bona fide relationship with a U.S. person or entity.  This petition seeks certiorari on that question, which is not presented in Hawai‘i. In addition, this petition raises the same four questions already before the Court in Hawai‘i, and requests that the cases be consolidated once again.

Muslim Advocates issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

Satanic Temple Sues City Over Invocation Policy

The Satanic Temple last week filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Scottsdale, AZ, challenging on federal and state constitutional grounds the invocation practices of the city.  The complaint (full text) in The Satanic Temple v. City of Scottsdale, Arizona, (D AZ, filed 2/23/2018), alleges that City Council meetings are regularly opened by prayers delivered only by members of Judeo-Christian faiths. An invocation originally scheduled to be given by a member of the Satanic Temple was cancelled, using the allegedly pretextual reason of connection to the community. Subsequently the mayor touted stopping the Satanists in an election pamphlet. The Scottsdale Independent reports on the lawsuit.

2nd Circuit En Banc: Title VII Covers Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In a 10-3 en banc decision yesterday, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, overturning prior 2nd Circuit precedent, held that "sexual orientation discrimination constitutes a form of discrimination 'because of . . . sex,' in violation of Title VII" of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  In Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., (2d Cir., Feb. 26, 2018), Chief Judge Katzmann filed the majority opinion which concluded that (1) sexual orientation discrimination is motivated in part by sex and thus is a subset of sex discrimination; (2) sexual orientation discrimination involves gender stereotyping; and (3) sexual orientation discrimination involves associational discrimination.  Only four other judges joined this opinion in full.

Judge Pooler, without a separate opinion, joined the gender stereotyping and associational discrimination rationales.  In concurring opinions, Judge Jacobs and Judge Sack agreed only with the associational discrimination approach.  Judge Cabranes concurred only in the judgment, saying sexual orientation is a function of sex.  Judge Lohier concurred on the basis of the majority's textualist approach.
Judges Lynch, Livingston and Raggi dissented based largely on legislative history and the intent of the drafters of Title VII. 

In the case, the Justice Department and the EEOC had filed amicus briefs taking opposite positions from each other.  (See prior posting.)  AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• David Bleich, Mitochondrial DNA Replacement: Moral and Halakhic Concerns, (International Journal of the Jurisprudence of the Family, Forthcoming).
• SpearIt, Legal Punishment As Civil Ritual: Making Cultural Sense of Harsh Punishment, (ECI Interdisciplinary Journal for Legal and Social Policy, Vol. 5 [2017], Iss. 1, Art. 1).
• Richard R. Carlson, The Sincerely Religious Corporation, (January 31, 2018).
• Desirée C. Schmitt, The Doctrine of Consular Nonreviewability in the Travel Ban Cases: Kerry v. Din Revisited, (February 2018).
• Joanna C. Schwartz, The Case Against Qualified Immunity, (Notre Dame Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Teri Dobbins Baxter, Child Marriage as Child Abuse and Constitutional Violation, (February 1, 2018).
• Muhammad Ahmad, Jihad, Jihadi Organizations and Liberation Struggle, (Hazara Islamicus, 6:2 (2017), 15-31).
• Muhammad Mehmood, Artificial Insemination in Shari’ah: A Case of Test-Tube Baby in Shari’ah and Its Legal Status in Pakistan, (Pakistan Annual Research Journal, 2017).

From SmartCILP:

• Angela C. Carmella, Catholic Institutions in Court: The Religion Clauses and Political-Legal Compromise, [Abstract], 120 West Virginia Law Review 1-94 (2017).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Dunham v. Wainwright, (5th Cir., Feb. 22, 2018), the 5th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an inmate's complaint that limits on the number of letters he can send at state expense interferes with his right to send correspondence to religious organizations.

In Jordan v. Commonwealth, (VA Sup. Ct., Feb. 22, 2018), the Virginia Supreme Court upheld a lower court's refusal to allow an inmate to change his name after he underwent a religious conversion. The inmate conceded that the denial would not hinder his free exercise of religion.

In Gillen v. Parker, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26881 (MD TN, Feb. 20, 2018), a Tennessee federal magistrate judge recommended upholding a prison's requirement that Musliim inmates must register their religion in order to participate in Ramadan and Eid al-Fitr celebrations.

In Clemens v. Warden, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27146 (ED PA, Feb. 20, 2018), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that one of his two Bibles was confiscated.

In Dawdy v. Allen, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27207 (ED MO, Feb. 21, 2018), a Missouri federal district court allowed a Jewish inmate to move ahead with a variety of complaints regarding the availability of kosher meals on holidays and the Sabbath; the requirement that there be 5 members for a religious community to have access to materials and services; and the denial of canteen funds for Jewish needs.

In Thomas v. Lakin, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27576 (SD IL, Feb. 21, 2018), an Illinois federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27639, Jan. 22, 2018) and dismissed as moot an inmate's complaint that his requests for a copy of the Qur'an, a prayer mat, religious services, and a religious diet were denied.

In Hartney v. Butcher, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28765 (SD TX, Feb. 21, 2018), a Texas federal district court dismissed a Native American inmate's complaint that some of his religious articles were confiscated.

In Hearns v. Gonzales, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28959 (ED CA, Feb. 22, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge allowed a Muslim former inmate to move ahead with his retaliation and free exercise claims growing out of a correctional officer's pouring bleach on, and confiscating, his prayer rug.

New Jersey Limit On Activities of Religious Cemeteries Is Upheld

In Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark v. Christie, (D NJ, Feb. 23, 2018), a New Jersey federal district court rejected due process and equal protection challenges to a 2015 New Jersey law that prohibits private religious cemeteries from selling headstones, vaults and monuments.  The law was enacted to extend to religious ceremonies the separation of industries law that previously applied only to non-religious cemeteries.  AP reports on the decision.

Christian Leaders Close Church of Holy Sepulcher In Protest of Israeli Tax and Land Policies

Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Armenian church leaders have closed the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (believed to be the site of Jesus' crucifixion and burial) in Jerusalem in protest of two legal moves by Israeli government officials. YNet News today describes the disputed actions:

As part of a battle with Finance Ministry over budgets to the capital, the Jerusalem Municipality informed the Finance, Interior and Foreign ministry and the Prime Minister's Office that it had started collecting property tax debts of more than NIS 650 million from some 887 properties across the city which belong to churches and United Nations institutions.

Municipality officials said these properties did not include houses of worship, which are exempt from paying property taxes by law, but rather properties used for non-prayer activities, including commercial activities.

Churches are exempt from paying property taxes as part of an agreement with the state, but the Jerusalem Municipality says it is not being compensated by the state for the money it is losing by not collecting these taxes.

Later on Sunday, an Israeli cabinet committee is due to consider a bill that would allow the state to expropriate land in Jerusalem sold by churches to private real estate firms in recent years.

The stated aim of the bill is to protect homeowners against the possibility that private companies will not extend their leases. The churches, major landowners in the city, say such a law would make it harder for them to find buyers for their land.

A statement from church leaders calls the moves a "systematic and unprecedented attack against Christians in the Holy Land."

State Appeals Court Rejects Religious Defense By B&B That Rejected Lesbian Couple

In Cervelli v. Aloha Bed & Breakfast, (HI App., Feb. 23, 2018), a Hawaii sate appeals court held that a 3-room bed & breakfast violated the state's public accommodation law when the B&B owner refused on religious grounds to accept a room reservation from a lesbian couple.  The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The court held that an exemption in a separate housing discrimination statute for small rooming houses does not apply to the public accommodation law.  The court also rejected defendant's state and federal constitutional privacy and free exercise defenses, finding that the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations.  Hawaii News Now reports on the decision.

Court Says Enforcing Contraceptive Mandate Against Christian College Violates RFRA

Last October, the Trump Administration issued Interim Final Rules that expanded exemptions from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate for organizations, colleges and businesses that have religious or moral objections to furnishing coverage for employees (or enrolled students), as well as for employees who object to having such coverage. (See prior posting.)  Shortly thereafter, the government entered settlement agreements in at least 13 cases conceding that the mandate imposes a substantial burden on plaintiffs’ exercise of religion and, thus, cannot be legally enforced against them under RFRA. (See prior posting).  In December, two separate federal district courts issued nationwide preliminary injunctions against enforcement of the Trump Administration's expanded exemptions. (See prior postings 1, 2).

Now this week in Wheaton College v. Azar, (ND IL, Feb. 22, 2018),  an Illinois federal district court granted Wheaton College a permanent injunction barring enforcement against it of the contraceptive coverage mandate to the extent that the mandate violates Wheaton College's conscience.  Wheaton is a Christian liberal arts college.  The court's decision came after the government conceded that enforcement of the mandate against the college would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Christian Group Challenges College's Speech Zone Policy

A lawsuit was filed this week in a Georgia federal district court by a Christian apologetics club against administrators of Kennesaw State University challenging the school's speech zone policy.  The complaint (full text) in Ratio Christi of Kennesaw State University v. Olens, (ND GA, filed 2/20/2018) complains that the school would not allow the group to set up a pro-life display on the Campus Green.  Instead it limited the display to a small area set aside as a "speech zone." The suit alleges in part:

Defendants prohibit individual students from reserving space on campus and require registered student organizations (“RSO”) to submit reservation requests between three and thirty days in advance.... These policies give KSU officials unbridled discretion, both over whether to grant, deny, or modify an RSO’s reservation request and over whether and how much to charge in security fees, and they quarantine any expressive activities KSU officials deem “controversial” to the small, less accessible “speech zone.”

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

College Coach Sues Alleging He Was Not Hired Because of His Jewish Heritage

A Title VII lawsuit was filed in Louisiana federal district court this week by a former assistant football coach at the Baptist-affiliated Louisiana College.  Plaintiff Joshua Bonadona, whose mother is Jewish, was raised in the Jewish religion.  He converted to Christianity while a student at Louisiana College, and was employed as an assistant football coach there for two years after he graduated.  He then went to Southeast Missouri State University for graduate work combined with a coaching position.  Two years after that he applied for an Assistant Coach opening that had arisen back at Louisiana College.  The complaint (full text) in Bonadona v. Louisiana College,  (WD LA, filed 2/21/2018), alleges that Bonadona received assurances from Louisiana College's head coach that he would be hired for the position.  In reliance on that he resigned his Southeast Missouri position.  However Louisiana College president, Dr. Rick Brewer, vetoed the hiring because of Bonadona's "Jewish blood." The lawsuit contends:

People of Jewish heritage are protected as a distinct race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Sharre Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615 (1987).  As such, employment discrimination against an individual based upon his Jewish ethnic heritage is prohibited under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2.

Yahoo Sports and the Bayou Brief report on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: Louisiana College issued a statement denying allegations in the lawsuit.

Americans United Names New Executive Director

Americans United for Separation of Church and State announced yesterday that  Rachel K. Laser has been appointed its new Executive Director.  Laser has had extensive experience in non-profit advocacy, having worked for Planned Parenthood, the National Women’s Law Center, Third Way and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.  She succeeds Rev. Barry W. Lynn who retired last year after 25 years as AU's leader. Washington Post carries an extensive article on Laser's appointment. [Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]

Supreme Court Defines Prisoner Contributions To Attorney Fee Awards

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in Murphy v. Smith, (Sup. Ct., Feb. 21, 2018), in a 5-4 decision, decided on the proper interpretation of a statutory provision relating to award of attorneys' fees in damage actions by prisoners, including actions alleging a violation of an inmate's First Amendment free exercise rights.  At issue is the provision in 42 USC § 1997e(d) relating to the amount an inmate must contribute out of his or her recovery toward attorneys' fees when the inmate has been awarded such fees.  The majority, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch, held that the statutory reference to the inmate's contribution of up to 25% of the monetary judgment toward satisfying the award does not give the trial court discretion to require less than 25%.  Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ginsberg, Breyer and Kagan, dissented arguing that the statute permits the exercise of discretion in determining the percentage (up to 25%) of a judgment that must be applied toward an attorneys' fee award.

Rev. Billy Graham Dies At Age 99

The New York Times chronicling his life, reports this morning:

The Rev. Billy Graham, a North Carolina farmer’s son who preached to millions in stadium events he called crusades, becoming a pastor to presidents and the nation’s best-known Christian evangelist for more than 60 years, died on Wednesday at his home. He was 99.

Suit Challenges Ban On Lesbian Foster Parents In Federally Funded Refugee Program

A lawsuit was filed yesterday against the federal government and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops challenging discrimination against same-sex couples in administration of the Unaccompanied Refugee Minor Program and the Unaccompanied Alien Children Program. The complaint (full text) in Marouf v. Azar, (D DC, filed 2/20/2018), alleges that various federal agencies use taxpayer funds to finance grants to the USCCB to implement these programs based on impermissible religious criteria.  Plaintiffs, a lesbian couple, were told by Catholic Charities of Fort Worth, a sub-grantee of USCCB, that they did not qualify to become foster parents of an unaccompanied refugee child. An official of the organization told them that foster parents must "mirror the holy family."  The complaint alleges in part:

By working to ensure that none of the children for which they are responsible are placed in homes of same-sex spouses based on USCCB’s religious beliefs, USCCB and its sub-grantees not only discriminate against same-sex spouses, but also effectively erase the non-Catholic identities and beliefs of many of the unaccompanied refugee children for which they are responsible. This conduct potentially increases those children’s alienation and vulnerability, while denying them access to loving homes that could serve them best—all at federal taxpayers’ expense.

Lambda Legal issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Washington Post reports on the filing of the suit.

Injunction Against Serving As Temple Director Upheld

In Sikh Temple Turlock, California v. Chahal, (CA App, Feb 20, 2018), a California state appeals court upheld the trial court's resolution of a governance dispute between two factions in a Sikh Temple.  As described by the court:

Following a bench trial, the [trial] court found the election of the First Board was valid. The court further concluded the April 2013 election did not occur and that appellants took control of the Temple by usurpation. Accordingly, the trial court reinstated the First Board and ordered that a judicially supervised election take place. The court also enjoined five of the appellants from serving as officers or directors of the Temple for five years.

The appeals court rejected challenges to the trial court's decision, including a a free exercise challenge to the 5-year injunction.  The court said in part:

 Appellants submitted evidence that a Sikh has a general obligation to perform selfless service. However, there was no testimony that serving on the board is itself a religious act, constitutes a religious practice, or is required to satisfy the seva obligation. In fact, the evidence suggests otherwise.... Thus, appellants’ claim that the ban infringes on the free exercise of their religion has no support in the record.

Christmas As Legal Holiday Does Not Violate County Employee's Rights

In Edelstein v. Stephens, (SD OH, Feb. 16, 2018), a Ohio federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing many of the claims of a state court staff attorney/magistrate who was fired after she requested eight days off for Jewish holidays. One of plaintiff's claims was that the county violated her free exercise and equal protection rights by designating Christmas as a legal holiday without similarly protecting the rights of non-Christians to celebrate their holidays.  The court said in part:

Butler County's policy establishing Christmas as a paid legal holiday for county employees is a neutral law that does not discriminate against a particular religion or set of religious beliefs or prohibit any conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons.... The Sixth Circuit has acknowledged that because there are "legitimate secular purposes for establishing Christmas as a legal public holiday," it follows that the establishment of Christmas day as a legal public holiday neither violates an individual's fundamental rights nor discriminates against her based on her religion.

The Butler County Journal-News reports on the decision.

"Parody Marriage" Bills Are Newest Attempt To Challenge To Same-Sex Marriage

A bill titled Marriage and Constitution Restoration Act (H 4949) was introduced into the South Carolina legislature last week (Feb. 15). A similar bill with the same title (HB 0167) was received for introduction in the Wyoming legislature on Feb. 14.  Taking a new approach to challenging same-sex marriage, the bills define marriage that does not involve one man and one woman as "parody marriage."  The bills then declare that parody marriages, as well as treating sexual orientation as a suspect class, violate the Establishment Clause because they are part of the religion of Secular Humanism.  They declare, on the other hand, that marriages between one man and one woman are secular because they arise "out of the nature of things" and are "natural, neutral and noncontroversial."   According to the Charleston City Paper, the bills in both states were written with the advice of Chris Sevier. Sevier has gained notice by filing lawsuits seeking to have his marriage to his computer recognized--- suits filed in an attempt to discredit non-traditional marriages. (See prior posting.)