8th Circuit: Satanic Temple Member Lacks Standing To Challenge Abortion Restrictions

In Satanic Temple v. Parson, (8th Cir., Aug. 28, 2018), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal (see prior posting) of a challenge to Missouri's abortion restrictions. The court said in part:

Mary Doe is a member of The Satanic Temple and a resident of the state of Missouri. After becoming pregnant, she sought an abortion in St. Louis, Missouri. She complied with certain state-mandated procedures, which the complaint alleges constituted direct and unwelcome personal contact with religion, in violation of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. After receiving the abortion, she filed this lawsuit....

Here, Mary Doe was not pregnant at the date the action was initiated and seeks only prospective relief.... Mary Doe therefore lacks constitutional standing. Additionally, although “[p]regnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness,” the doctrine does not apply here because she did not first establish standing.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

8th Circuit Embraces Historical Practices Test In Upholding "In God We Trust" on Currency

In New Doe Child #1 v. United States, (8th Cir., Aug. 28, 2018), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a constitutional challenge to the placement of the motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency.  While the result is consistent with that of numerous other circuits, the analysis set out by the majority opinion is of particular interest. Judge Gruender, writing for himself and Judge Beam, takes the position that the Supreme Court's decision in Town of
Greece v. Galloway  signaled a "'major doctrinal shift' in Establishment Clause jurisprudence," explaining:

In Galloway, the Supreme Court offered an unequivocal directive: “[T]he Establishment Clause must be interpreted by reference to historical practices and understandings.”...[H]istorical practices often reveal what the Establishment Clause was originally understood to permit, while attention to coercion highlights what it has long been understood to prohibit....

... [H]istorical practices confirm that the Establishment Clause does not require courts to purge the Government of all religious reflection or to “evince a hostility to religion by disabling the government from in some ways recognizing our religious heritage.”....

 Here, we recognize that convenience may lead some Plaintiffs to carry cash, but nothing compels them to assert their trust in God. Certainly no “reasonable observer” would think that the Government is attempting to force citizens to express trust in God with every monetary transaction.... Indeed, the core of the Plaintiffs’ argument is that they are continually confronted with “what they feel is an offensive religious message.” But Galloway makes clear that “[o]ffense . . . does not equate to coercion.”

Judge Kelly's concurring opinion argues that Galloway was merely a clarification of exiting Establishment Clause doctrine, not a sea change in it; but that exiting Supreme Court case law upholds the motto.

Judge Gruender, in portions of his opinion joined by all 3 judges on the panel, went on to reject plaintiffs' free speech, free exercise, RFRA and equal protection challenges.  In considering plaintiffs' RFRA challenge, the court held that plaintiffs have failed to allege a "substantial burden" on their exercise of religion, saying in part:

Here, the complaint alleges that the cost of the Plaintiffs’ adherence to their religious convictions is “relinquishing the convenience of carrying the nation’s money.” While cash may be a convenient means of participating in the economy, there are many alternatives that would not violate the Plaintiffs’ stated beliefs....

We recognize that, in limited circumstances, there may not be a viable cash alternative. But the complaint does not allege that the Plaintiffs are unable to make necessary or even regular purchases, and we do not think that difficulty buying “a popsicle from the neighborhood ice cream truck” or using a coin-operated laundry machine is what the Supreme Court had in mind when it said that RFRA protects against the denial of “full participation in the economic life of the Nation.” See Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. at 2775-76, 2779, 2783.

Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the decision. Reuters reports on the decision.

What Else Did President Trump Tell Evangelical Leaders?

As previously reported, yesterday President Trump spoke to evangelical leaders at a dinner in the State Dining Room of the White House. Subsequently the White House posted a transcript of the President's remarks.  It appears to be a transcript of the remarks as delivered, not merely as prepared, since audience applause is noted a various points.  However, CNN today reports on other quotations which it says were taken from a recording of the President's "closed-door remarks" in the State Dining Room. Apparently these preceded or followed the remarks posted by the White House.  Here are the quotes as reported by CNN:

This November 6 election is very much a referendum on not only me, it's a referendum on your religion, it's a referendum on free speech and the First Amendment. It's a referendum on so much.

It's not a question of like or dislike, it's a question that they will overturn everything that we've done and they will do it quickly and violently. And violently. There is violence. When you look at Antifa -- these are violent people. 

You have tremendous power. You were saying, in this room, you have people who preach to almost 200 million people. Depending on which Sunday we're talking about. 

You have to hopefully get out and get people to support us.  If you don't, that will be the beginning of ending everything that you've gotten.  The polls might be good, but a lot of them say they are going to vote in 2020, but they're not going to vote if I'm not on a ballot.  I think we're doing well, I think we're popular, but there's a real question as to whether people are going to vote if I'm not on the ballot. And I'm not on the ballot.

I just ask you to go out and make sure all of your people vote. Because if they don't -- it's November 6 -- if they don't vote, we're going to have a miserable two years and we're going to have, frankly, a very hard period of time.  You're one election away from losing everything that you've gotten.  Little thing: Merry Christmas, right? You couldn't say 'Merry Christmas.'

White House Dinner With Evangelicals

AP reports on a dinner at the White House last night with evangelical Christian leaders:

President Donald Trump says the government’s “attacks on communities of faith” are over as he hosts a dinner celebrating evangelical Christian leaders at the White House.

Trump says the government in recent years has tried to undermine religious freedom, but those days are over.

He’s pointing to efforts by his administration to secure the release of imprisoned pastors and limit federal funding for abortion providers.

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the President's remarks.

Suit Challenges Ban On On Town's Rental of Space For Worship Services

A suit was filed yesterday in a South Carolina federal district court against Edisto Beach challenging the Town's rule change that prohibits renting space in the town's Civic Center for religious worship services.  The complaint (full text) in Redeemer Fellowship of Edisto Island v. Town of Edisto Beach, South Carolina, (D SC, filed 8/27/2018), contends that the ban violates the First and 14rh Amendments.  ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Archbishop Calls For Pope's Resignation Over Cover-Up of Abuse

In a letter (full text) dated August 22, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who served as apostolic nuncio in Washington D.C. from 2011 to 2016, has leveled charges against senior clerics and Pope Francis himself in the cover-up of sex abuse charges against Archbishop Theodore McCarrick. (See prior related posting.) As reported by the National Catholic Register:

In an extraordinary 11-page written testament, a former apostolic nuncio to the United States has accused several senior prelates of complicity in covering up Archbishop Theodore McCarrick’s allegations of sexual abuse, and has claimed that Pope Francis knew about sanctions imposed on then-Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI but chose to repeal them.

In the letter, Archbishop Vigano concludes:

Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick's abuses and resign along with all of them.

Burning In Effigy Does Not Violate Ban In India On Mock Funerals

In Jadaun v. State of Upper Pradesh, (Allahabad High Court, Aug. 9, 2018), a trial court in India held that the burning in effigy of a living person by protesters does not violate the statutory ban on participation in a mock funeral ceremony.  LiveLaw reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Tihamer Toth, Competition and Democracy, (Versenytükör, 2017. V. issue, pp. 68-82).
• Ralph R. A. Janik, How Many Divisions Does the European Court of Human Rights Have? Compliance and Legitimacy in Times of Crisis, (20 Austrian Review of International and European Law (2018/2015) 125).
• Charles A. Sullivan, Clergy Contracts, (Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, Forthcoming).
• David W. Opderbeck, Christian Thought and Property Law, (Forthcoming, Christian Thought and Private Law, Cambridge University Press).
• Phil Lord, Scientology's Legal System, (August 15, 2018).
• Richard Albert, David Landau, Pietro Faraguna & Šimon Drugda, The I·CONnect-Clough Center 2017 Global Review of Constitutional Law, (Published by the Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy (2018)).
• Dara E. Purvis, The Constitutionalization of Fatherhood, (August 15, 2018).
• Erica Goldberg, 'Good Orthodoxy' and the Legacy of Barnette: FIU College of Law Symposium on the 75th Anniversary of West Virginia V. Barnette, (Forthcoming, FIU Law Review).
• Ihsan Yilmaz & Zahid Shahab Ahmed, Islam and Women Rights in Pakistan, (August 9, 2018).

From SmartCILP:

• Leonard Hammer, Cultural Heritage Protection and Sacred Spaces: Considering Alternative Approaches from Within the Human Rights Framework, 49 Columbia Human Rights Law Review 73-113 (2018).
• Allan W. Vestal, "In the Name of Heaven, Don't Force Men to Hear Prayers": Religious Liberty and the Constitution of Iowa, 66 Drake Law Review 355-451 (2018).
• Chelsea M. Baltes, Book Note. God and the Illegal Alien, United States Immigration Law and a Theology of Politics by Robert W. Heimburger, 32 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 237-245 (2018).
• Perspectives: How Cultural and Religious Diversity Affect Alternative Dispute Resolution. Franco Shapiro, moderator; Marcelo Rosadilla, Sukhsimranjit Singh, Marcio Vasconcellos, panelists, 18 Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 497-508 (2018).
• Mark Strasser, Free Exercise and Comer: Robust Entrenchment or Simply More of a Muddle?, [Abstract], 52 University of Richmond Law Review 887-922 (2018).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Saif'ullah v. Cruzen, Smith v. Cruzen, and Smith v Albritton  (9th Cir., Aug. 22, 2018), the 9th Circuit, in separate opinions, affirmed the dismissal of claims related to a prison's interruption of congregational prayer.

In Pevia v. Bishop, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139541 (D MD, Aug. 16, 2018), a Maryland federal district court dismissed a Native American inmate's complaint that while he was in maximum security he was not able to attend religious services.

In Blair v. Raemisch, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138796 (D CO, Aug. 16, 2018), a Colorado federal district court adopted in part a magistrate's recommendations (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139806, July 26, 2018) and dismissed an inmate's complaint about the religious vegan diet that was being served.

In Anderson v. Russell, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141296 (ED WA, Aug. 20, 2018), a Washington federal district court dismissed a complaint by a Christian inmate whose requests to receive special Passover meals were denied.

In Jones v. Malin, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141892 (SD NY, Aug. 21, 2018),  New York federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to defendants in an inmate's suit for monetary damages for Sing Sing's two month interruption in separate Shi'a Jumu'ah services.

In Tyler v. Ray, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142354 (D SC, Aug. 22, 2018) a South Carolina federal district court adopted a magistrate's report (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142732, July 26, 2018) and dismissed a complaint by a Jehovah's Witness civil detainee that he was not permitted to take his Bible and literature with him from his cell to recreation, and that there were limits on his ability to meet with outside religious volunteers and to receive books. UPDATE: The court's amended order is at 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155969, Sept. 12, 2018.

In Allen v. Echele, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143953 (ED MO, Aug. 23, 2018), a Missouri federal district court dismissed a pretrial detainee's complaint that he was denied a kosher diet.

Irish State Funded Catholic Schools Can No Longer Admit With Religious Preferences

CNN today reports on the change in school admission policies in Ireland that take effect this school year.  Some 90% of state-funded primary schools in Ireland are Catholic.  In the past, they have given priority to children who have been baptized as Catholic.  This has led some parents to have their children baptized only so they can be admitted into a high quality school.  In July, the Irish parliament passed a law prohibiting this favoritism

Iowa Pharmacy Board's Refusal To Recommend Cannabis Exception Is Challenged

A petition (full text) for review of a July 18 decision by the Iowa Board of Pharmacy has been filed in an Iowa state trial court.  In Olsen v. Iowa Board of Pharmacy, (IA Dist. Ct., filed 8/15/2018), petitioner contends that the Pharmacy Board abused its discretion when it refused to recommend to the state legislature that an exemption be added to the state drug laws to exempt religious use of cannabis by Rastafari.  The Board took the position that it lacks expertise to evaluate the use of controlled substances for religious purposes. A number of posts on the issue are at Carl Olsen's Blog.

Washington's Work-Study Program Challenged Over Non-Sectarian Employer Requirement

A suit was filed last week in federal district court in the state of Washington challenging Washington's structuring of its Work-Study program.  The Program provides financial aid to college students by paying part of a student's salary when the student is working for a participating employer, usually in a field related to the student's studies. Eligible employers, and jobs themselves, must be non-sectarian.  The complaint (full text) in Summit Christian Academy v. Meotti, (WD WA, filed 8/14/2018) contends that excluding religious employers and sectarian work violates the free exercise clause, the equal protection clause and the Establishment Clause. Institute for Justice issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Arkansas Commission Refuses To Dismiss Complaint Against Anti-Death Penalty Judge

In an Aug. 20 Order (full text begins at pg. 5) the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission refused to dismiss Allegations (full text) filed in June against Circuit Court Judge Wendell Griffen complaining about his granting of a temporary restraining order barring use for executions of vecuronium bromide sold to the state. (Background).  Griffen is charged with violating the Judicial Canon requiring impartiality through his participation in religious anti-death penalty rallies and vigils. Magnolia Banner News reports on the Commission's order.

Judge Authorizes Shut-Down of Cannabis-Based Church

A Riverside, California trial court judge last week authorized the city of Jurupa Valley to close down the Vault Church of Open Faith, a cannabis-based church that lists the prices for various kinds of marijuana online. According to the Press-Enterprise, the Vault's lead minister,  Gilbert Aguirre, who has no formal religious training typically leads services which often include smoking or eating marijuana products. Jurupa Valley bans marijuana businesses of all kinds.

Muslim School Sues City Over Harassment At City Pool

A Muslim school in Wilmington, Delaware has filed suit against the city alleging religious discrimination against students in the school's summer day camp by personnel at the city's swimming pool.  According to yesterday's Delaware Public Media, pool workers harassed pre-school students in the summer program of Darul Amaanah Academy because of the students' religious attire. Pool workers say they were enforcing a no-cotton policy, but parents say that children were traumatized.

Suit Challenges Exclusion of Sectarian Schools From Maine's High School Tuition Program

In Maine, small school districts that do not operate their own high schools or contract with a specific school for educational purposes, pay tuition for residents to attend a high school elsewhere in the state.  However state law bars paying tuition for students to attend sectarian schools.  On Monday a suit was filed challenging that exclusion.  The complaint (full text) in Carson v. Hasson, (D ME, filed 8/21/2018), alleges that this exclusion violates the 1st and 14th Amendments.  In a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit, First Liberty described the claims:

By singling out religious schools, and religious schools only, for discrimination, Maine violates the religious freedom and equal protection guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. As the U.S. Supreme Court’s Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a 7-2 majority in last year’s Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer decision, excluding a church “from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution…and cannot stand.” Armed with this recent decision, IJ and FLI’s clients intend to vindicate the principle that government programs cannot discriminate against religion.

Court Orders More Briefs On RFRA Defense By Peace Protesters

In an Order last week in United States v. Kelly, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138195, (SD GA, Aug. 15, 2018), a Georgia federal magistrate judge instructed both sides to provide additional briefing on the "particularized issues raised by Defendants' RFRA defense" in the prosecution of peace activists for breaking into Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay. Defendants argue that their "symbolic disarmament" of nuclear weapons at the base was an exercise of their sincerely held Catholic beliefs.  In ordering additional briefs, the court said in part:

At the August 2, 2018 motions hearing, counsel for both the Government and Defendants represented to the Court that Defendants' RFRA claim as a defense to criminal prosecution was an issue of first impression and that the applicability of RFRA to federal criminal law was an open question.... Subsequent to the hearing, however, the Government filed Supplemental Briefing that acknowledged RFRA's applicability to criminal prosecutions and its availability as a defense.... The Government now contends that Defendants' actions ... were not religious in nature and ... even assuming they were, the Government contends it has a compelling interest in protecting Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay....

Brunswick News reports on the court's Order.

Open Meeting Lawsuit Filed Growing Out of Alleged Anti-Jewish Curricular Materials

Jewish News Syndicate reports on a taxpayer lawsuit filed last week in state court in Massachusetts growing out of an ongoing dispute over teaching materials used in the Newton school system.  Newton residents have contended that the schools are using anti-Jewish anti-Israel educational materials, including ones funded by the Saudi oil company ARAMCO and the government of Qatar. The lawsuit alleges violations of the state's open meeting laws, contending that month after month the minutes of the meetings of the Newton School Committee deliberately omit names and summaries of remarks by citizens who have appeared before the committee to complain about anti-Jewish materials and Islamic religious lessons.  Critics of the curriculum also urge the firing of the current school superintendent.

Switzerland Denies Citizenship To Muslim Couple For Their Rejection of Gender Equality

BBC News reported last week that Swiss authorities have denied the citizenship application of a Muslim couple who refused to shake hands with individuals of the opposite sex during their citizenship interview. To obtain citizenship, an applicant must be well integrated into the Swiss community and demonstrate an attachment to the country, its institutions and a respect for its legal order. According to the report:

Officials stressed they were not rejected based on their religion but for their lack of respect for gender equality.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Conservative Christian Groups Oppose Arkansas Tort Reform Ballot Measure

AP reports that Arkansas' proposed constitutional amendment on tort reform (full text) is receiving surprising opposition from conservative Christian anti-abortion groups:

A Christian group has begun rallying churches and abortion opponents against the measure, saying that limiting damage awards in lawsuits sets an arbitrary value on human life, contrary to anti-abortion beliefs, and conflicts with biblical principles of justice and helping the poor....

The Family Council, which championed Arkansas’ ban on gay marriages, is organizing meetings with church leaders to call for the measure’s rejection.

“The Bible is full of references to justice, and [the proposal] creates an environment where the powerful can tip the scales of justice against everybody else, but especially the poor,” Jerry Cox, the Family Council’s head, said at a recent breakfast meeting with pastors.

Pastors were handed informational booklets emblazoned with the words “Don’t Put A Price Tag On Human Life.” Flyers left on each table offered attendees inserts for their church bulletins.

Court Says Religious Commitment To Climate Justice Prevails Over Historic Preservation Rules

According to the Keene Sentinel, last week a Massachusetts trial court judge ruled that a church's religious commitment to climate justice takes precedence over historic preservation rules:

A Massachusetts Superior Court judge last week ordered Bedford’s Historic District Commission to allow the First Parish Church to install solar panels on the roof of the sanctuary. In what could be a precedent-setting decision, the congregation can install panels to generate electricity in keeping with a principle of “climate justice.” John Gibbons, senior minister of the church, said in a press release, “This ruling makes it possible for us to give more than lip service to our religious values, to walk our talk and to live in greater harmony with the rhythms of nature.”

In other words, parishioners believed they needed to do something to cut carbon emissions to protect the earth. That principle of their faith overruled a strict adherence to preservation of the historic character of their 200-year-old building.

DC Circuit Remands Suit On Anti-Sharia Bus Ads

In American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, (DC Cir., Aug. 17, 2018), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded for further development of an argument based on a intervening Supreme Court decision a challenge to WMATA's guidelines on advertising that may be displayed on buses and in rail stations.  At issue is the constitutionality of a ban on "advertisements intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions." AFDI wanted to rent space to display ads that

make the point that the First Amendment will not yield to Sharia adherent Islamists who want to enforce so-called blasphemy laws here in the United States, whether through threats of violence or through the actions of complicit government officials. 

In a 2-1 decision, the majority held that WMATA did not engage in viewpoint discrimination in rejecting the ad. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2018 decision in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky , according to the majority, raised an additional issue that the parties should have the opportunity to brief:

whether the discretion vested in a government official to permit or prohibit speech is “guided by objective, workable standards.” Mansky, 138 S. Ct. at 1891.... We must determine whether Guideline 9 is so broad as to provide WMATA with no meaningful constraint upon its exercise of the power to squelch.....

The parties’ briefs predate the decision in Mansky. Yet Mansky invites arguments about whether Guideline 9 is capable of reasoned application.

Judge Henderson dissented, arguing that the suit should be dismissed on mootness grounds. WTOP reports on the decision.

VA Doctor's Statement Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Rose v. Borsos, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139466 (ED TN, Aug. 17. 2018), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed a claim by a VA hospital patient that a VA doctor violated the Establishment Clause when the doctor told the patient that "God would forgive [him] for committing suicide because of uncontrolled pain."

Trinity Western Drops Community Covenant Requirement For Students

As previously reported, in June the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision by two provinces to refuse to accredit Trinity Western University's proposed new law school. The provinces took the action because of the University's religious-based Community Covenant which, among other things, barred students, faculty and staff from "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman."  In response, last week the University announced that the Covenant will no longer be mandatory for students.  However, as reported by Inside Higher Ed, the Covenant will remain mandatory for faculty, staff and administrators. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead via TaxProf Blog.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Elizabeth Papp Kamali, Trial by Ordeal by Jury in Medieval England, or Saints and Sinners in Literature and Law, (Kate Gilbert and Stephen D. White, eds., Emotion, Violence, Vengeance and Law in the Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of William Ian Miller (Leiden: Brill, 2018)).
• Daniel O. Conkle, Animus and Its Alternatives: Constitutional Principle and Judicial Prudence, (Stetson Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Samuel Wolfe Calhoun, Separation of Church and State: Jefferson, Lincoln, and the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Show It Was Never Intended to Separate Religion from Politics, 74 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. Online 459 (2018).
• Rafael Domingo & Giovanni Minnucci, Alberico Gentili and the Secularization of the Law of Nations, (in Rafael Domingo and John Witte, Jr. (eds.), Christianity and Global Law. An Introduction (Cambridge University Press, 2020).
• Robert C. Blitt, The Wolf Act Amendments to the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act: Breakthrough or Breakdown?, (July 26, 2018).
• Katie R. Eyer, Animus Trouble, (Stetson Law Review, Forthcoming).

From SSRN (Free Speech issues):

• Noah Chauvin, Policing the Heckler's Veto: Toward a Heightened Duty of Speech Protection on College Campuses, (Creighton Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Jason M. Shepard & Kathleen Bartzen Culver, Culture Wars on Campus: Academic Freedom, the First Amendment and Partisan Outrage in Polarized Times, (San Diego Law Review, Vol. 55: 87-158 (2018)).
• Gregory S. Gordon, Freedom of Expression, Hate Speech, and Incitement to Terrorism and Genocide: Resonances and Tensions, (in"Incitement to Terrorism"; Published by Brill, Eds Bayefsky, A.F., Blank, L.R., (2018)).

From SSRN (Religious Law)

• Yehezkel Margalit, Temporary Marriage – A Comparison of the Jewish and Islamic Conception, (33(1) Journal of Law and Religion 89 (2018)).
• Doug Magendanz, Gratian in Paradise: Canon Law and the Desecularisation of Civil Society, (August 1, 2018).
• Joshua Carback, On Sharia in American Family Law: Confronting the Dangers of Legal Pluralism, 7 International Journal of Jurisprudence of the Family 115 (2016)).
• Yeheil Kaplan, Enhancement of International Rights and Norms Prescribed for Children: The Promise of Interpretation of Religious Law, (7 International Journal of Jurisprudence of the Family 269 (2016).
• Nashon Perez & Elisheva Rosman-Stollman, Balaniyot, Baths and Beyond: Israel's State-Run Ritual Baths and the Rights of Women, (July 29, 2018).

From SSRN (Islam and Muslim Nations):

• Geoffrey Swenson, Why U.S. Efforts to Promote the Rule of Law in Afghanistan Failed, (International Security (2017) Vol. 42(1), pp.114-151).
• Ihsan Yilmaz, Nation Building, Social Engineering and Unofficial Legal Pluralism in Turkey and Pakistan, (June 4, 2017).
• Ihsan Yilmaz, Islamist Educational Policies, Islam and Erdoganist Nation Building in Turkey, (July 4, 2017).
• IhsanYilmaz, Islamic Counter-Hegemonic Legal Knowledge and Its Unofficial Interpretation and Glocal Dissemination, (March 4, 2018).
• Sharif Islam, The Ibn Rushd Syndrome: In Search of Rational Muslim, (July 10, 2018).

Court Awards Attorneys' Fees In Contraceptive Mandate Case

In Catholic Benefits Association LCA v. Azar, (WD OK, Aug. 15, 2018), an Oklahoma federal district court awarded attorneys' fees that were dramatically lower than requested by plaintiff's counsel.  The case was one of the lengthy challenges to the Obama Administration's contraceptive coverage mandate's applicability to religious non-profit organizations.  Plaintiffs' counsel requested $3.1 million in fees. In a 36-page opinion, the court ultimately awarded $718,607 in fees and expenses.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Smith v. Penzone, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135075 (D AZ, Aug. 10, 2018), an Arizona federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was denied assistance with a three-day fast based on the Christian faith surrounding the Ritualistic Day of Atonement, and was denied religious services.

In Robinson v. Cameron, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135394 (WD PA, Aug. 9. 2018), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge, in a case on remand from the 3rd Circuit, recommended dismissing an inmate's complaint that the sex offender program's requirement that he take responsibility for his offenses amounts to a religious confession which is only to be made to God through Jesus.

In Kelly v. Warden, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135602 (SD CA, Aug. 10, 2018), a California federal district court allowed a Catholic inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was not allowed to change his name to that of his stepfather, which he needed to do to obey the religious obligation to honor his father.

In Chrisco v. Scoleri, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136238 (D CO, Aug. 13, 2018), a Colorado federal magistrate judge dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was forcibly medicated because of his religious belief in Alchemical Christianity.

In Woodward v. Ali, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136436 (ND NY, Aug. 10, 2018), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended that a Muslim inmate be allowed to move ahead with his complaint that he was removed from the Ramadan meal list, and this was done in retaliation for a complaint he filed against the Muslim chaplain.

In Grayson v. Furlow, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136446 (SD IL, Aug. 13, 2018), an Illinois federal magistrate judge allowed an inmate who is a member of the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem and who has taken the Nazirite vow to move ahead with his complaint that his dreadlocks were forcibly cut off in order to have a second identification photo taken.

In Wright v. Lassiter, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136823 (WD NC, Aug. 13, 2018), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed an inmate's claims that his religious items were confiscated on various occasions.

In Wilbur v. Fitzpatrick, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136898 (D ME, Aug. 14, 2018),  a Maine federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate's complaint that he was denied access to attend religious services and other faith activities as the result of disciplinary restrictions.

In Snowden v. Prince George's County Department of Corrections, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137107 (D MD, Aug. 14, 2018), a Maryland federal district court allowed Muslim inmates to move ahead with their complaint that they were not permitted to perform Friday religious services or daily congregational prayer, while authorities arranged services for Christian inmates.

In McMillan v. Hughes, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138953 (D NJ, Aug. 16, 2018), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that officers humiliated him by criticizing his religious requirement of trimming excessive pubic hair.

EEOC Sues Over Hostile Treatment of Catholic Employee

The EEOC announced on Thursday that it had filed a Title VII lawsuit against New Jersey-based Hackensack Meridian Health alleging a manager's religious harassment of a Catholic employee. According to the press release:

Hackensack was aware of but failed to stop a hostile work environment at its Edison, N.J., facility. Shortly after the employee was hired to perform clinical data analytics work, his manager learned he was Catholic and reacted negatively upon seeing a crucifix in the employee's office. Since then, the manager regularly belittled him, screamed at him, and ridiculed his work in front of others.

Dutch High Court Rules Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion

The Guardian reported yesterday that Netherlands highest court, the Council of State, has ruled that law student Mienke de Wilde who is a Pastafarian cannot wear a colander on her head in her passport and drivers license photo. While Dutch law allows the head to be partially covered for such photos for genuine religious reasons, the court ruled that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster lacks the seriousness and coherence required of a religion.  The court said:

It is important to be able to criticise religious dogma freely through satire but that does not make such criticism a serious religion.

Court Not Barred From Adjudicating Church Merger

In Pure Presbyterian Church of Washington v. Grace of God Presbyterian Church, (VA Sup. Ct., Aug. 16, 2018), the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's judgment enforcing a merger agreement between two local Korean speaking Presbyterian churches. Seven months after the congregations had been worshiping together, one of the congregations attempted to withdraw from the merger. The other congregation sued to validate the merger. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that it lacked jurisdiction under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, saying in part:

There is nothing inherently ecclesiastical about an agreement to merge two entities.  Although a dispute over the existence or effect of a merger agreement could turn on questions of church doctrine, that is not the case here. Contract law principles are “neutral principles” of law that courts can employ to resolve a dispute between churches. Whether a church voted to merge is a question of fact that does not require a court to resolve an “ecclesiastical” question. Although the merger agreement spelled out who would continue to serve as pastor and which entity would survive, neither of the parties, nor the court, relied on any theological or ecclesiastical principles to resolve the issue of whether the churches agreed to merge and whether Grace Presbyterian honored its commitment under the merger agreement.

Defamation Suit Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Orr v. Fourth Episcopal District African Methodist Episcopal Church, (IL App., Aug. 14, 2018), an Illinois state appellate court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a defamation lawsuit brought by Rev. Charles Orr, the chairperson of a committee responsible for screening candidates for admission to the ministry within the AME Church. A woman whose application for the ministry was deferred charged Orr with sexual harassment. The charge was shared with others in the church hierarchy.  The court said in part:

Plaintiff failed to present evidence that defendants published Tamara’s statements to anyone outside of the internal disciplinary procedures of the AME Church. The statements made pursuant to the internal disciplinary procedures come within the ecclesiastic abstention doctrine and, accordingly, are protected by the first amendment.

WGLT News reports on the decision.

Suit Claims Utah Medical Marijuana Initiative Violates Mormons' Religious Freedom

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that yesterday a suit was filed in Utah state court seeking, on free exercise and free speech grounds, to remove Utah's medical marijuana initiative from the November ballot.  The suit, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, challenges the provision (Sec. 26-60b-110) in the initiative (full text) that bars refusals to rent to a medical marijuana card holder. The complaint reads in part:

In the United States of America, members of all religions, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have a constitutional right to exercise their religious beliefs. This includes the right not to consort with, be around, or do business with people engaging in activities which their religion finds repugnant....

The State of Utah is attempting to compel the speech of Utah landowners by suppressing their ability to speak out against cannabis use and consumption by only renting to tenants who do not possess or consume cannabis," the complaint reads, “and who support their viewpoints in opposition against cannabis possession and consumption.

In the suit, plaintiff contends that his "religious beliefs include a strict adherence to a code of health which precludes the consumption and possession of mind-altering drugs, substances and chemicals, which includes cannabis and its various derivatives." Apparently this is based on interpretation of the Mormon Word of Wisdom health code.

No Standing To Assert Jewish Tenant's Free Exercise Objection To Saturday Eviction

Hurley v. Town of Southampton, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137089 (ED NY, Aug. 13, 2018) involves various claims by the owner of a rental property stemming from his prosecution for violating Southampton's transient rental law. In the case, a federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing for lack of standing the owner's assertion that the free exercise rights of one of his tenants were violated when he was evicted by Code Enforcement officials. Plaintiff claimed that the Saturday eviction of the tenant and his children forced the tenant, an Orthodox Jew, to drive his car on the Sabbath in violation of his religious beliefs.

Masterpiece Cakeshop Sues Colorado In New Religious Accommodation Dispute

In the wake of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in June, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips is again entangled in litigation.  The complaint (full text) in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. v. Elenis, (D CO, filed 8/14/2018) alleges that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Phillips' free exercise, free speech, equal protection and due process rights when on July 2 it issued a Determination (full text) that Phillips violated the state's public accommodation anti-discrimination law by refusing to bake a birthday cake that celebrates a customer's gender transition.  The district court lawsuit alleges in part:

6.... [S]ome Colorado citizens, emboldened by the state’s prosecution of Phillips, have targeted him. On the same day that the Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’s case, a Colorado lawyer called his shop and requested a cake designed with a blue exterior and pink interior, which the caller said would visually depict and celebrate a gender transition. Throughout the next year, Phillips received other requests for cakes celebrating Satan, featuring Satanic symbols, depicting sexually explicit materials, and promoting marijuana use. Phillips believes that some of those requests came from the same Colorado lawyer.

7. Phillips declined to create the cake with the blue and pink design because it would have celebrated messages contrary to his religious belief that sex—the status of being male or female—is given by God, is biologically determined, is not determined by perceptions or feelings, and cannot be chosen or changed. A mere 24 days after Phillips prevailed in the Supreme Court, Colorado told him that he violated Colorado law by declining to create that cake. In so doing, the state went back on what it told the Supreme Court in its Masterpiece briefing—that its public accommodation law allows Phillips to decline to create cakes with pro-LGBT designs or themes.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Fox 31 News reports on the lawsuit.

Indonesian Blasphemy Trial Underway For Woman Who Complained About Mosque Loudspeakers

AP reports on the blasphemy trial of an ethnic Chinese woman in the Indonesian province of North Sumatra. The woman was charged after she complained in 2016 about the volume of a mosque's loudspeakers. Reports of her complaint led to a July 2016 riot in which 14 Buddhist temples were burned and ransacked. Two people have been charged for instigating that riot.  Prosecutors are asking for an 18 month prison term in the blasphemy trial.

Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report On Catholic Dioceses Sex Abuse Is Released

As previously reported, last month the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered the public release (with certain redactions) of a 900-page grand jury report on allegations of child sexual abuse, failure to report abuse, and other acts endangering children by persons associated with 6 Pennsylvania Catholic dioceses.  The full text of the report was made public yesterday. Statements on the release of the report, or in anticipation of it, were issued by the Catholic dioceses of Allentown, Erie, Greensburg, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, and Scranton. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports on the statement by Pennsylvania's attorney general upon release of the document.

Fraudulent Concealment Claim Against LDS Church Can Proceed

In Denson v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (D UT, Aug. 13, 2018), a Utah federal district court permitted a sexual assault victim to move ahead with her suit against the LDS Church for fraudulent concealment of its knowledge that the president of the Mission Training Center was a sexual predator. A number of other claims were dismissed, including those against the sexual predator that were dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.  Fox 13 News reports on the decision.

1st Circuit RefusesTo Change District Court's Language Criticizing Anti-LGBT Activist

In Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively, (1st Cir., Aug. 10, 2018), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals refused to purge the opinion of a Massachusetts federal district court of language that harshly criticized the actions of anti-LGBT activist Pastor Scott Lively.  The 1st Circuit said that because Lively had won in the district court, it lacks jurisdiction over an appeal, noting:

federal courts of appeals have no roving writ to review ... a district court's word choices...

The case involved an Alien Tort Statute lawsuit against Lively growing out of his aid to anti-LGBT activists in Uganda. The district court held that there had been insufficient conduct in the United States to support a suit under the ATS. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Federal Contract Compliance Office Issues Directive On Religious Rights of Contractors

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs last week issued Directive 2018-03 (Aug. 10, 2018) in order to maximize free exercise rights of federal contractors and subcontractors. OFCCP is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination and equal opportunity provisions applicable to contractors and subcontractors.  The Directive says in part:

Recent court decisions have addressed the broad freedoms and anti-discrimination protections that must be afforded religion-exercising organizations and individuals under the United States Constitution and federal law. See, e.g., Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 1731 (2018) (government violates the Free Exercise clause when its decisions are based on hostility to religion or a religious viewpoint); Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012, 2022 (2017) (government violates the Free Exercise clause when it conditions a generally available public benefit on an entity’s giving up its religious character, unless that condition withstands the strictest scrutiny); Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2775 (2014) (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to federal regulation of the activities of for-profit closely held corporations)....

OFCCP staff are instructed to take these legal developments into account in all their relevant activities, including when providing compliance assistance, processing complaints, and enforcing the requirements of E.0. 11246....

Liberty Counsel issued a press release discussing the Directive. Think Progress reports on the Directive.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Brendan T. Beery, Rational Basis Loses Its Bite: Justice Kennedy's Retirement Removes the Most Lethal Quill from LGBT Advocates' Equal-Protection Quiver, (Syracuse Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Rachel A. Harmon, Policing, Protesting, and the Insignificance of Hostile Audiences, (Knight First Amend. Inst. (Nov 2, 2017)).
• William D. Araiza, Animus and its Discontents, (Florida Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Teemu Ruskola, Notes on The Neutered Mother, or Toward a Queer Socialist Matriarchy, (Emory Law Journal, Vol. 67, No. 1165, 2018).
• Julia Quigley, Payments in Lieu of Trouble: Nonprofit Pilots as Extortion or Efficient Public Finance?, (NYU Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2018).

From SmartCILP:

• Tesch Leigh West, When Corporations Go to Church: Free Exercise Under Hobby Lobby, [Abstract], 27 Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 37-71 (2018).
• Carson Holloway, Judicial Review and Subjective Intentions, [Abstract], 9 Faulkner Law Review 1-26 (2017).
• Hon. Kenneth Starr, [Abstract], Presidents as Tradition Creators and Tradition Keepers, 9 Faulkner L. Rev. 27-43 (2017).
• Roberto Rosas, The Ecclesiastical Tribunals Field Hospital for Wounded Marriages The New Matrimonial Processus Brevior, 16 Seattle Journal for Social Justice 427-485 (2017).
• Allan W. Vestal, Cents and Sensibilities, 20 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 245-311 (2017).
• Patrick Weil, Freedom of Conscience, But Which One? In Search of Coherence in the U.S. Supreme Court's Religion Jurisprudence, 20 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 313-370 (2017).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In  Allah v. Semple, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131476 (D CT, Aug. 6, 2018), a Connecticut federal district court dismissed a Nation of Gods and Earths inmate's complaint that his ability to practice his religion has been blocked.

In Evans v. Prisk, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131900 (WD MI, Aug. 6, 2018), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132655, July 5, 2018) and dismissed a Jehovah's Witness inmate's free exercise claim, but permitted him to move ahead with his equal protection complaint that the rule requiring at least 5 inmates before a group religious service will be held was applied unequally.

In Lopez v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133827 (CD CA, Aug. 7, 2018), a California federal magistrate dismissed, with leave to amend, a Jehovah's Witness free exercise and equal protection claims alleging denial of weekly religious services and of chapel time with his volunteer chaplain.

In Simmons v. Atkins, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133863 (ED CA, Aug. 7, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate's complaint that he is not allowed to conduct sweat lodge ceremonies for himself and other indigenous inmates.

In Crayton v. Ramey, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133954 (ND CA, Aug. 6, 2018), a California federal district court allowed an inmate who was a member of the "original Hebrew faith (Black Jews) religions" to move ahead with his free exercise complaint that defendant made "foul derogatory remarks ridiculing ... [his] Hebrew religious faith."

IRS Grants Non-Profit Church Status To Lesbian Anti-Trans Organization

TaxProf blog and Forbes report on the recent decision by the Internal Revenue Service to grant 501(c)(3) non-profit status to the Pussy Church of Modern Witchcraft.  The IRS also granted the organization tax status as a church. PCMW describes itself as "a congregation of adherents to our female born, lesbian-feminist-based religions beliefs and traditions." It goes on to say "We expressly reject the concepts of gender identity, transgenderism, and gender as being meaningful to defining what a Woman or Girl is." [Thanks to Steven H.Sholk for the lead.]

No Free Exercise Violation In Teacher's Support of Transgender Student

In Leontiev v. Corbett School District, (D OR, Aug. 10, 2018), a Oregon federal district court dismissed a suit brought against a school district and a number of individuals by the mother of a transgender male high school student. The suit alleged that several individuals interfered with plaintiff's parental relationship in helping the student leave his home. It also alleged that one teacher violated plaintiff's First Amendment rights by disparaging her religion when she told a deputy sheriff that plaintiff and her husband were conservative Christians who were not supportive of the student's gender transition. The court said:

... [T]he Court can find no case, that supports the constitutional principle that an off-duty teacher who has never had a particular student in her class violates the Free Exercise Clause of that student’s parent when the teacher, off school premises, expresses her personal opinion, even if that expression is critical of the parent’s religious beliefs. If a public school teacher makes derogatory comments about a particular religion in a classroom in the presence of students, that teacher very well may have violated clearly established principles under the First Amendment, either in violation of the Establishment Clause or, perhaps, the Free Exercise Clause. But that is not what happened in this case....

Court Refuses To Dismiss Church's Challenge To Zoning Conditions For Homeless Shelter

In First Lutheran Church v. City of St. Paul, (D MN, Aug. 8, 2018), a Minnesota federal district court allowed a church located in a residential are of St. Paul to move ahead with a variety of challenges to conditions imposed on its partnering with a homeless shelter. Plaintiff claimed that the conditions, among other things, violate its rights under RLUIPA, the 1st Amendment, the equal protection clause and provisions of the Minnesota constitution. However the court did dismiss it substantive due process challenge. The court had previously granted a preliminary injunction as to two of the conditions.

Chautauqua Cottage Community Eliminates Christian-Only Clause

As previously reported, last year a suit was filed in Michigan federal district court against the Bay View Association, a Lake Michigan summer community with roots in the Chautauqua Movement, challenging provisions in the Association's rules that limit cottage ownership to practicing Christians. Now, according to the Grand Rapids News, nearly 70% of the members of the Association have voted to amend its bylaws to eliminate the requirement that members be of the "Christian persuasion."

Church's RLUIPA Zoning challenge Can Move Ahead

In Redemption Community Church v. City of Laurel, Maryland, (D MD, Aug. 8, 2018), a Maryland federal district court refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a small Christian church challenging the city's zoning regulations that require houses of worship located on less than one acre in a commercial zone to obtain a special zoning exception.  The church planned to operate a non-profit coffee house and a house of worship from the same property. The court held that the church had adequately stated claims for violation of RLUIPA's equal terms and non-discrimination provisions as well as various provisions of the 1st and 14th Amendments.

UK Employment Tribunal Says Scottish Independence Is Protected Philosophical Belief

The United Kingdom's Equality Act prohibits not just religious discrimination, but also discrimination on the basis of any philosophical belief.  Scotland's Sunday Herald reports that a Scottish Employment Tribunal has held that Scottish independence qualifies as a philosophical belief under the statute.  The case was brought by Christopher McEleny, a Scottish National Party member of a local Council who was planning to run for an SNP leadership position.  McEleny contended that the Ministry of Defense illegally discriminated against because of his independence beliefs when it suspended. his security clearance.  This led to his being fired from his position as an electrician at a munitions site.  Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

Catholic Politicians and the New Church Stance On The Death Penalty

As previously reported, last week the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a change to the Catechism of the Catholic Church so that it now rejects capital punishment in all cases. An AP report now looks at the impact this change may have on politicians in the United States who are Catholic, saying in part:

Pope Francis' decree that the death penalty is "inadmissible" in all cases could pose a dilemma for Roman Catholic politicians and judges in the United States who are faced with whether to strictly follow the tenets of their faith or the rule of law.

Some Catholic leaders in death penalty states have said they'll continue to support capital punishment. But experts say Francis' change could shift political debates, loom over Supreme Court confirmation hearings, and make it difficult for devout Catholic judges to uphold the law as written.

The question of whether or not Catholic political and judicial leaders would be sinning if they continue to support the death penalty is up for interpretation.

"It's going to be a matter of conscience," said the Rev. Peter Clark, director of the Institute of Clinical Bioethics at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia. "Judges may have to recuse themselves from many cases, if they truly think it's in conflict with their conscience."

Christian Student Group Sues University of Iowa

A suit was filed yesterday in federal district court by two related Christian student organization against the University of Iowa. The complaint (full text) in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/ USA v. University of Iowa, (SD IA, filed 8/6/2018), challenges the University's deregistration of IVCF as a recognized student organization because the group imposes a religious belief requirement on its student leaders.  Plaintiffs contend that the University has violated their 1st Amendment rights under the Free Exercise, Establishment and Speech clauses, as well as their rights under various provisions of the Iowa constitution and statutory law.  Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

UPDATE: On Aug. 14, Becket Fund reported that an agreement has been reached with the University for it to reinstate, while litigation is pending, nearly 40 student groups that had been suspended under this university anti-discrimination policy.

Amicus Briefs In Bladensburg Cross Cert Petitions Now Available

Links (via SCOTUS blog) are now available to the numerous amicus briefs (as well as briefs of the parties) in the certiorari petition in Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association.  In the case, the 4th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, held that the 40-foot high Bladensburg Cross that has stood for over 90 years as a World War I Veterans' Memorial, violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting). Links are also available to the largely overlapping set of briefs in the related cert. petition in American Legion v. American Humanist Association.

New Survey On Religious Refusals To Provide Service and More

On August 1, the Public Religion Research Institute announced the results of its July 2018 Survey on attitudes toward religiously-based service refusals, LGBT rights and other issues of discrimination. Here are some excerpts from its report:

Close to half (46%) of Americans believe that the owners of wedding-based businesses, such as caterers, florists, and bakers, should be allowed to refuse to serve same-sex couples if doing so violates their religious beliefs, while about as many (48%) say these types of businesses should be required to serve same-sex couples. One year earlier, a majority (53%) of the public said wedding-based businesses should be required to serve gay and lesbian couples, while only about four in ten (41%) said they should not.....

Among major religious groups, white evangelical Protestants express the strongest support for allowing wedding businesses to refuse services.

Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the public express support for same-sex marriage. Only 28% of Americans oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.... More than seven in ten (71%) Americans say they favor laws that would protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations....

Relatively few Americans believe Jewish people in the U.S. are experiencing a considerable amount of discrimination. Only 30% say that Jewish people face a lot of discrimination..... Americans are far more likely to say Muslims are experiencing a substantial degree of discrimination in the U.S. More than six in ten (62%) Americans say there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims....

Connecticut RFRA Does Not Immunize Against Employment Discrimination Suits

In Trinity Christian School v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities,  (CT Sup. Ct., Aug. 7, 2018 [official release date]), the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not confer complete immunity to religious institutions for employment discrimination suits, and does not operate as a jurisdictional bar to such actions. Thus an interlocutory appeals of an administrative agency's refusal to dismiss a suit is not permitted.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Engy Abdelkader, Muslims and Islam in U.S. Public Schools: Cases, Controversies and Curricula, (Education, Citizenship, National Identity and Core Values In Western Societies, Brill Publishers (2019 Forthcoming)).
• Cary Franklin, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt and What It Means to Protect Women, (Forthcoming, Reproductive Rights and Justice Stories (Foundation Press, 2019)).
• Gal Amir, 1648 or 1948? No Room for Westphalia in the Middle-East, (9 Journal on European History of Law no. 1, 99-107 (2018)).
• Kenneth Townsend, A Common Enterprise: Law and the Connection between Civil and Heavenly Realms in the Writings of John Calvin, (Concordia Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Douglas NeJaime & Reva Siegel, Religious Exemptions and Antidiscrimination Law in Masterpiece Cakeshop, (128 Yale Law Journal Forum __ (2018 Forthcoming)).
• J. Stuart Adams, Taking Colliding Trains Off a Collision Path: Lessons from the Utah Compromise for Civil Society (July 10, 2018). (Chapter 21,  The Contested Place of Religion In Family Law, (Robin Fretwell Wilson, ed., Cambridge University Press, 2018)).
• Guillem Riambau, Clin Lai, Boyu Lu Zhao & Jean Liu, Legal Origins, Religion and Health Outcomes: A Cross-Country Comparison of Organ Donation Laws,(July 24, 2018).
• Geoffrey Swenson, Legal Pluralism in Theory and Practice, (International Studies Review, 2018).
• Alan E. Brownstein, Attempting to Engage in Socially Coherent Dialogue About Religious Liberty and Equality, 31 J. Civ. Rts. & Econ. Dev. 71 (2018).
• Rafael Domingo, Contardo Ferrini (1859–1902): A Contemplative Legal Historian, (In Orazio Condorelli and Rafael Domingo (eds.), Great Christian Jurists in Italian History (Cambridge University Press, 2020)).
• Anna Offit, Review Essay: Giving Life to the Death Penalty, (Political and Legal Anthropology Review, Forthcoming).
• Jack Harrison, 'Because of Sex', (Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 1, 2018).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Brown v. Brown, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126580 (SD MS, July 30, 2018), a Mississippi federal district court adopted in part a magistrate's recommendations (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126903, June 11, 2018) and dismissed Bivens claims and certain other claims by a federal prisoner who claimed religious discrimination while employed at the prison, but allowed plaintiff to move ahead with his 5th Amendment equal protection claim.

In Neal v. Miyares, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126993 (SD FL, July 26, 2018), a Florida federal magistrate judge recommended denying an inmate's request for an injunciton orderng that he receive fresh kosher meals.

In West v. Kind, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127452 (ED WI, July 31, 2018), a Wisconsin federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his complaint that his religious beliefs were infringed by allowing him to be strip searched by a transgender male who he regards as a female.

In Hardrick v. MacLaren, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126697 (WD MI, July 30, 2018), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127932, June 18, 2018) and refused to grant summary judgment to either party in an Muslim inmate's suit complaining that defendant blocked accommodating his late request for inclusion in Ramadan meals.

In Hallom v. Bowens, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128224 (ND IL, July 31, 2018), an Illinois federal district court dismissed plaintiff's complaint that a Cook County jail employee refused to accommodate his request to attend group Baptist religious services while he was in protective custody.

In Lambright v. Indiana Department of Corrections, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128577 (ND IN, July 31, 2018), an Indiana federal district court allowed a Jewish inmate to move ahead to seek an injunction requiring that he be provided with kosher meals.

In Shaw v. Kaemingk, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129520 (D SD, Aug. 2, 2018), a South Dakota federal district court dismissed a complaint by an inmate who is a follower of Dorcha Cosán that his religious rights were infringed because he was unable, due to his indigency, to access Internet service to receive books, music and games.

In Hall v. WV DOC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129907 (SD WV, July 13, 2018), a West Virginia federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate's complaint that the chaplain refused to acknowledge his Zoroastrian religion.

Deacon's Suit Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

According to yesterday's News-Gazette, a Champaign, Illinois state trial court has dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a lawsuit by a former church deacon of the Jericho Missionary Baptist Church.  As described in the news report:

Formerly the chairman of the deacon board that hired Johnson as pastor in 2009, Halcrombe was seeking to fire Johnson some five years later after he and other former church leaders took another look at Johnson's credentials.

Johnson continues to be pastor of the church, but Halcrombe was dismissed as a deacon and removed from his post as registered agent of the church.

Halcrombe's lawsuit set out the details of what became a several-years-long conflict within the church over leadership, membership and money issues, and it sought a judgment to clarify who current church members are, the constitution and bylaws of the church and the authority and employment of Johnson.

Abortion Protesters Sue City For Violating Their Rights

A suit was filed yesterday in an Ohio federal district court by abortion protesters who claim that Toledo, Ohio police have violated their free speech, free exercise and equal protection rights by enforcing or threatening to enforce various provision of Ohio law against them.  The complaint (full text) in Zastrow v. City of Toledo, (ND OH, filed 8/1/2018), contends in part:

The City’s pattern of conduct, which includes arresting, citing, prosecuting and threatening to arrest, cite, and prosecute, pro-life demonstrators, including Plaintiffs, for engaging in expressive religious activity on the public fora adjacent to the Capital Care abortion center, has had, and continues to have, a chilling effect on Plaintiffs’ expressive religious activity, thereby causing irreparable harm.

Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

Catholic Church Catechism Changed To Reject Capital Punishment In All Cases

Vatican News reported yesterday that the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has made a change to the Catechism of the Catholic Church so that it now rejects capital punishment in all cases. Previously the Catechism allowed for capital punishment in "very rare" circumstances.  The new language, approved by Pope Francis, says:

Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes.  In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.  Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide”.

Qualified Immunity For Issuing Citation To Street Preaher

In Roy v. City of Monroe, (WD LA, Aug. 1 2018), a Louisiana federal district court granted defendant's motion for reconsideration and dismissed on qualified immunity grounds the damage portion of a claim by a street preacher against a police officer.  At issue was a claim that issuance of a citation and summons to the preacher for disturbing the peace violated his First Amendment rights. The court said in part:

Sergeant Booth issued a citation to Roy for disturbing the peace based upon Falcon’s complaint to him, in which she said Roy followed her across the street, called her names, and scared her. Falcon’s complaints were corroborated by Falcon appearing scared and by her direct identification of Roy. Sergeant Booth did not issue a citation to Roy for preaching in a public forum. Viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, Booth had probable cause, and is entitled to qualified immunity.

Plaintiff's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief and attorneys' fees were set for trial.

"Ministerial Exception" Applies To Church Organist

In Sterlinski v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, (ND IL, July 23, 2018), An Illinois federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine applies to an organist at a Catholic parish.  Plaintiff claims he was demoted from Director of Music to Organist because he is Polish and because of his age. The court previously held that the Director of Music position was within the ministerial exception doctrine.  It now rejected plaintiff's claim that his position no longer qualified as "ministerial" after his demotion. In the court's view:

the key dispute is the importance of music—and, more specifically, the importance of instrumentalists—to Catholic Worship at Mass.

The court went on to say:

the Catholic Bishop argues that the evidence indisputably proves that playing the organ in support of the Church’s religious services still qualifies as performing a ministerial function....

Based on the record evidence, the Court must agree. To start, there is only so much that a federal court may do in questioning a church’s view of its own religious doctrine. It is true that, although “a secular court may not take sides on issues of religious doctrine, it must be allowed to decide whether a party is correct in arguing that there is an authoritative church ruling on an issue, a ruling that removes the issue from the jurisdiction of that court.”... But “once the court has satisfied itself that the authorized religious body has resolved the issue, the court may not question the resolution.”

Cook County Record reports on the decision.

President Meets With Inner City Pastors

Yesterday afternoon, President Trump met at the White House with a group of inner city pastors.  The White House has posted a transcript of remarks by the President and a number of the pastors at the meeting.  They focused primarily on issues of economic development and prison reform.

Treasury Department Sanctions Turkish Officials Over Imprisoned American Pastor

The U.S. Department of Treasury announced yesterday that its Office of Foreign Assets Control has imposed sanctions on Turkey's Minister of Justice Abdulhamit Gul and its Minister of Interior Suleyman Soylu.  They are leaders of Turkish government organizations responsible for the arrest and detention of American pastor Andrew Brunson. Brunson has lived in Turkey for more than 20 years.  According to the Treasury Department:

Pastor Andrew Brunson has reportedly been a victim of unfair and unjust detention by the Government of Turkey.  He was arrested in Izmir, Turkey in October 2016, and with an absence of evidence to support the charges, he was accused of aiding armed terrorist organizations and obtaining confidential government information for political and military espionage. 

Vox, reporting on the Treasury Department's action, says that Brunson's case has become a personal issue for President Trump and Vice President Pence, and is important to many Christian evangelicals.  Turkey, however, apparently sees Brunson's case as tied to its attempt to get the U.S. to extradite Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen to Turkey.

Challenge To Settlement In Mosque Zoning Case Is Dismissed

In Youkhanna v. City of Sterling Heights, (ED MI, Aug. 1, 2018), a Michigan federal district court dismissed a lawsuit challenging a consent decree approved by the Sterling Heights City Council growing out of a dispute over zoning approval for a mosque. (See prior posting.) The consent decree settled two related lawsuits-- one by the Islamic Center and one by the Department of Justice-- that alleged violations of RLUIPA and of the Islamic Center's free exercise rights.  An overcrowded and contentious City Council meeting preceded approval of the consent decree.  Rejecting the challenge to approval of the consent decree the court said in part:

The crux of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is that the approval of the Consent Judgment should be invalidated because the Council purportedly failed to abide by the City’s Zoning Code by neglecting to consider the discretionary standards set forth in § 25.02. Plaintiffs’ further assert that the Consent Judgment should be invalidated because the City did not comply with the notice requirements under the MZEA [Michigan Zoning Enabling Act]. Both of Plaintiffs’ arguments are without merit.

The court also rejected claims that the Michigan Open Meetings Act had been violated and that defendants' 1st, 4th and 14th Amendment rights had been infringed. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs claim their speech was impermissibly chilled when they and other audience members were limited to a two-minute speaking time, prevented from speaking critically of the Islamic faith, and removed from the meeting for being disruptive. However, ... [w]hen the government designates a limited public forum for speech, as is the case of a city council meeting, it may apply restrictions to the time, place, and manner of speech so long as those restrictions “are content neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.”

The court had previously denied a preliminary injunction in the challenge.  Detroit News reports that defendants will appeal yesterday's ruling.

Meanwhile, according to AINA, another mosque controversy is on the horizon in Sterling Heights as a group of Pakistanis are moving ahead with plans to convert a former Lutheran church there into a mosque.

Gym's Failure To Disclose Transgender Policy Violates Michigan Consumer Protection Law

In Cormier v. PF Fitness-Midland, LLC, (MI App., July 26, 2018), a Michigan appellate court in a case on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court held that the gym Planet Fitness violated provisions of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act when it failed to inform plaintiff that it had a policy of allowing members to use whichever locker room and rest room corresponds to the gender with which that person self-identifies. The court concluded that Planet Fitness violated MCL 445.903(1)(s), (bb), and (cc) which prohibit:

(s) Failing to reveal a material fact, the omission of which tends to mislead or deceive the consumer, and which fact could not reasonably be known by the consumer.

(bb) Making a representation of fact or statement of fact material to the transaction such that a person reasonably believes the represented or suggested state of affairs to be other than it actually is.

(cc) Failing to reveal facts that are material to the transaction in light of representations of fact made in a positive manner.

In concluding that the failure to inform plaintiff of the policy was material, the court said:

After joining the gym, plaintiff saw an assigned male individual in the women’s locker room and then complained to an employee at the front desk and to defendants’ corporate office. Upon being informed of defendants’ unwritten policy on the matter, plaintiff verbally warned other women at the gym about it. Plaintiff’s actions indicate that she strongly preferred a locker room and a restroom in which individuals who are assigned biologically male are not present, and it is thus reasonable to infer that defendants’ failure to inform plaintiff of the unwritten policy affected her decision to join the gym.

A person who successfully sues under Michigan's Consumer Protection Act may recover actual damages or $250, whichever is greater, plus attorneys' fees. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

Museum Can Keep Biblical Paintings First Acquired By Nazis

In Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, (9th Cir., July 30, 2018), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a lengthy opinion applied the Act of State Doctrine to reject the attempt by plaintiff to recover two oil paintings of Biblical characters taken by the Nazis from her father-in-law in a forced sale. At issue are Renaissance masterworks painted by Cranach the Elder— "Adam" and "Eve".  The Forward reports on the decision.

Unification Church Sues Its Founder's Son For Trademark Infringement

The Unification Church (Family Federation for World Peace and Unification USA) has filed a suit alleging unauthorized use of a registered trademark against  The World Peace and Unification Sanctuary in Newfoundland, Pennsylvania ("Sanctuary Church").  According to a Unification Church press release:

In light of the recent media attention surrounding Sanctuary Church, public concern regarding the political views of this organization, and public brand confusion, Family Federation has made the difficult decision to pursue litigation to protect the legacy of its founders, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon and Dr. Hak Ja Han Moon.

As reported by The Blaze earlier this month, the founder of the Sanctuary Church is Hyung Jin Sean Moon, the son of the late Rev. Sun Myung Moon who founded the Unification Church in the 1950s. Hyung has been labeled an anti-LGBT cult leader by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Earlier this year, Sanctuary Church sponsored a service at which hundreds of members, some holding unloaded AR-15 rifles, exchanged wedding vows.  They see the AR-15 as symbolizing the "rod of iron" in the Book of Revelation.

Suit Challenges City Council Opening Meetings With Lord's Prayer

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit this week in a West Virginia federal district court to stop the Parkersburg, West Virginia City Council from regularly opening its meetings with the recitation of the Lord's Prayer.  The complaint (full text) in Cobranchi v. The City of Parkersburg, (D WV, filed 7/30/2018), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that the prayer practice violates plaintiffs' 1st and 14th Amendment rights. FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.