Episcopal Parish's Suit Against Its Rector Is Dismissed

In Parish of St. Paul's Episcopal Church v. Kovoor, 2019 Conn. Super. LEXIS 714 (CT Super. Ct., April 10, 2019), a Connecticut state trial court dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Darien, Connecticut parish which was seeking to remove its Rector, Rev. George Kovoor, on the ground that he made material misrepresentations of his credentials when he applied for employment.  Prior to the filing of the lawsuit, the parent church had stepped in and attempted to resolve the dispute between the parish and Kavoor, ordering that each party take certain steps. When the parish failed to take the steps called for, the parent church dissolved the parish and converted it into a Worshiping Community under direct supervision of the Bishop. The court held that it must defer to the decisions of the parent Episcopal Church:

Neutral principals of law can be applied to church disputes. Herein the plaintiffs claim common-law employment contract law is such a neutral principle of law that should be applied. Applying those provisions would relitigate the three decisions already issued by the Episcopal Church as to the St. Paul's/Kovoor Rector situation. In this court's opinion that would cause the Superior Court to examine the internal workings and polity of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut....

The court finds the March 2016 employment relationship... is religious in nature. The court finds that adjudicating the particular claims and defenses in this case will require the court to intervene into a religious institution's exclusive right to decide matters pertaining to doctrine and/or its internal governance or organization.... 

This court finds that the nature of a relief being sought in this case would entangle the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut into matters of religious hiring, religious practices and church polity. The court notes that there is no claim in this litigation concerning the title to the real property currently occupied by the Worshipping Community and formerly by St. Paul's Parish of Darien, Connecticut.

Reporting on the decision Virture Online says that St. Paul's is now operating as a state-chartered ecclesiastical society, unconnected to the Episcopal Church.

Brunei Places Moratorium On Death Penalty Under Sharia Code; Will Ratify Torture Convention

Earlier this year, the Sultan of Brunei announced further implementation of Sharia law in his southeast Asian country, including implementation of the provisions in Syariah Penal Code Order, 2013 (SPCO) on stoning for the offences of adultery and homosexual sex. (See prior posting.) Now, according to a Bloomberg News report on Sunday, the Sultan has announced a further moratorium on implementation of the death penalty. Borneo Bulletin has published portions of the Sultan's television address delivered over the weekend:

As evident for more than two decades, we have practised a de facto moratorium on the execution of death penalty for cases under the common law. This will also be applied to cases under the SPCO, which provides a wider scope for remission.

As we are all aware, Brunei Darussalam has begun to fully implement the SPCO on April 3, 2019. This is our religious obligation to Allah the Almighty as an Islamic country. The aim of implementing the law is to uphold the objectives of Syariah which are to protect religion, life, lineage, property and intellect....

In upholding our international commitments and obligations on human rights, Brunei Darussalam will be ratifying the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). Both the common law and the Syariah law are aimed to ensure peace and harmony of the country. They are also crucial in protecting the morality and decency of the public as well as respecting the privacy of individuals.

Ramadan Begins; President Sends Greetings

The Muslim holy month of Ramadan began in most countries, including the United States, yesterday (May 6).  As reported by the Khaleej Times, one country (Mali) began Ramadan on May 5, and ten countries began the holy month today (May 7). On Sunday (May 5) President Trump issued a Message (full text) sending greetings to all Muslims celebrating Ramadan, saying in part:

Throughout this month, we all have an opportunity to reflect on the blessings we have been given and to work toward greater fellowship with one another.  Together, in the spirit of Ramadan, we can achieve a more harmonious and respectful society.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Noa Ben-Asher & Margot J. Pollans, The Right Family, (Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, Forthcoming).
• Cathi Choi, Protection Against Good Intentions: The Catholic Role in the Campaign to Ban Proxy Adoption, 1956–1961, (Journal of Policy History, 31(2), 242-272 (2019).
• James J. Friedberg, Yitz and Ishmael: A Drama in One Very Long Act, (Minnesota Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, 2019).
• Khaled A. Beydoun & Cyra Akila Choudhury, Islamophobia and the Law: Introduction, (Cyra Akila Choudhury & Khaled A. Beydoun, Islamophobia and the Law (Cambridge University Press 2019), Forthcoming).
• Zehra Valencia, Breyon Williams & Robert Pettis, Pride and Prejudice: Same-Sex Marriage Legalization Announcements and LGBT Hate-Crimes, (March 26, 2019).
• Katherine Macfarlane, Procedural Animus, (Alabama Law Review, Vol. 71, Forthcoming).
• Siti Ibrahim, et. al., Commitment in Waqf Development Through Cross-Sector Collaboration between Islamic Financial Institutions and State Islamic Religious Councils: Innovative Strategy of Value-Based Intermediation for Sustainability, (J. Fin. Bank. Review 4 (1) 29–35 (2019)).

From SmartCILP:

• Wedding Cakes, Religion, and Sexual Orientation Discrimination. Foreword by Paul M. Secunda; contributions by William D. Araiza, Scott R. Bauries, Richard Carlson, Marcia L. McCormick, Elizabeth Sepper, Jessica L. Roberts, Kerri Lynn Stone. 19 Marquette Benefits & Social Welfare Law Review 109-264 (2018).

British Parliament Debates Sharia Councils

On May 2, Britain's House of Commons debated the operation of Sharia Councils in the United Kingdom. (full text of debate). MP John Howell said in part:

Sharia councils provide a form of alternative dispute resolution.... Members of the Muslim community voluntarily consent to accept the religious jurisdiction of sharia councils. Marital issues and the granting of Islamic marriage divorces account for about 90% of their work. They also advise in matters ​of law, including issues of inheritance, probate and wills and Islamic commercial law contracts, and they provide mediation, counselling and religious ruling services.

Sharia councils are not considered part of the British legal system. They are not courts and their decisions are not legally binding. However, despite having no judicial authority, some councils see themselves as authoritative on religious issues, and the power of sharia councils lies in how they are perceived by their communities.

A significant number of Muslims do not have a marriage recognised under British law.... [S]ome Muslim women therefore have no option of obtaining a civil divorce. Some women may have no other option but to obtain a religious divorce, for which the judgment of a sharia council is normally required.

Law & Religion UK has a more extensive summary of the debate.

New Report On Payment of Church Taxes In Europe

Last week, the Pew Research Center released a new Report (full text) on public attitudes in European nations on the payment of church taxes, saying in part:

There is evidence that some Europeans are leaving the church tax system, but there does not appear to be a mass exodus. The survey finds that between 8% of adults (in Switzerland) and 20% (in Finland) say they have left their church tax system.... At the same time, majorities still support the tradition of paying taxes to religious institutions.

District Court Says Challenge To Trump's Alleged Muslim Travel Ban May Proceed

In International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, (D MD, May 2, 2019), a Maryland federal district court, in a case on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court and the 4th Circuit, refused to dismiss Establishment Clause, due process and equal protection challenges to President Trump's third travel ban Proclamation. The Supreme Court's remand was ordered in light of its rejection of an Establishment Clause challenge in a parallel case (Hawaii II). In its latest decision, the district court said, however:

Notably, at no point in Hawaii II did the Supreme Court state that its conclusion that the Proclamation would satisfy rational basis review, based on the record before it and in the context of a motion for a preliminary injunction, required dismissal of the Establishment Clause claim in either that case or the present case. Indeed, two Justices, including one in the majority, identified the possibility that constitutional claims would proceed.

Setting out it reasons for allowing the constitutional challenges to now move ahead, the district court said in part:

Plaintiffs have provided detailed allegations for why the Proclamation is not rationally related to its stated national security interests and is instead grounded in the illegitimate and unconstitutional purpose of disadvantaging Muslims.

First, the Complaints provide detailed allegations of statements by the President exhibiting religious animus toward Muslims and articulating a desire to ban Muslims from entering the United States, including his statement as a presidential candidate that he planned to institute "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" and numerous later statements reaffirming this position... 

Contrary to the Government's claim during the hearing on the Motion, Hawaii II does not instruct courts to disregard these statements or any public pronouncements of a President, nor does it hold that the subjective intent of the President and his advisors in formulating and issuing the Proclamation is irrelevant. Rather, the Supreme Court specifically stated that this evidence "may be considered," so long as the "authority of the Presidency itself' is given its due....

Court Refuses To Dismiss Suit To Allow Christian Flag Outside Boston City Hall

In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, (D MA, May 3, 2019), a Massachusetts federal district court refused to dismiss a suit brought to enjoin the City from denying permission to a religious organization to display a Christian flag on a flagpole outside City Hall for an event marking Constitution Day and Citizenship Day event. The flag pole flies the city's flag except when it is used by outside groups for a flag to mark a special event. The court held that there are factual issues to be determined on plaintiffs' free speech claims-- whether this involves "government speech," and whether the city has imposed a reasonable, viewpoint neutral regulation in a limited public forum. Also factual issues remain on plaintiffs' Establishment Clause and Equal Protection claims.

HHS Adopts Final Rules On Conscience Protection In Health Care; Suit Filed Challenging New Rules

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights has submitted for publication in the Federal Register final rules on protecting the conscience rights of health care providers. The rules, set out in a 440-page release (full text), become effective in 60 days.  The Release summarizes the new rules:

This final rule revises existing regulations to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal conscience and anti‐discrimination laws applicable to the Department, its programs, and recipients of HHS funds, and to delegate overall enforcement and compliance responsibility to the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”). In addition, this final rule clarifies OCR’s authority to initiate compliance reviews, conduct investigations, supervise and coordinate compliance by the Department and its components, and use enforcement tools otherwise available in existing regulations to address violations and resolve complaints.

New York Times, reporting on the new rules, says in part:

some groups said they feared the provisions were overly broad and could imperil care for patients seeking reproductive health care. They also said it could lead to discrimination against gay or transgender patients and their children, and weaken public health efforts to expand childhood vaccinations.

Yesterday, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera announced that he has filed suit to invalidate the new rules. The complaint (full text) in City and County of San Francisco v. Azar, (ND CA, filed 5/2/2019), alleges in part:

The Final Rule requires the City and County of San Francisco (“City” or “San Francisco”)—in any and all circumstances—to prioritize providers’ religious beliefs over the health and lives of women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people, and other medically and socially vulnerable populations. If San Francisco refuses to comply, it risks losing nearly $1 billion in federal funds that support critical health care services and other vital functions.

The suit alleges that the new rules are in violation of federal statutes and various constitutional provisions including the Establishment Clause.

House of Representatives Moves To Intervene To Defend Federal FGM Ban

As previously reported, last month the Department of Justice dropped its appeal of the court's decision in United States v. Nagarwala. In the case, a Michigan federal district court held the federal ban on female genital mutilation (18 USC Sec. 116(a)) unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.  Yesterday, the House of Representatives filed a motion to intervene (full text) in the case to defend the constitutionality of the statute. The Detroit Free Press reports on this move by House leaders.

Today Is National Day of Prayer

Earlier this week, President Trump issued a Presidential Proclamation (full text) declaring today as a National Day of Prayer.  The Proclamation is called for by 36 USC §119 passed by Congress in 1988. The Proclamation states in part:

Our Nation acknowledges that religious liberty is a natural right, given to us by our Creator, not a courtesy that government extends to us.  The First Amendment recognizes the freedom of religion and safeguards this right against government infringement.  The United States’ steadfast commitment to upholding religious freedom has ensured that people of different faiths can pray together and live in peace as fellow American citizens.  We have no tolerance for those who disrupt this peace, and we condemn all hate and violence, particularly in our places of worship.

According to CBN News, last night the President hosted 100 religious leaders of a wide variety of faiths at a White House dinner.  In remarks, the President said in part:

All of us in this room send our love and prayers to the Jewish Americans wounded at the Chabad of Poway shooting in California. And our hearts break for the life of Laurie Gilbert-Kaye who was so wickedly taken from us."

We mourn for the Christians murdered in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday and grieve for the Muslims murdered at their mosques in New Zealand.  Here at home, we also remember the three historically black churches burned recently in Louisiana and the horrific shooting last year at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh.

The non-governmental National Day of Prayer Committee has scheduled an observance in Washington, D.C. for this evening.

UPDATE: Vice President Pence spoke at a White House Rose Garden ceremony marking the National Day of Prayer. (full text of remarks).

Georgia Institutes Investigation of Catholic Church Sex Abuse Claims

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that Georgia's Attorney General has announced an investigation into past sexual abuse claims in the Catholic Church. The investigation will be carried out by Georgia's Prosecuting Attorneys' Council. Atlanta Archbishop Wilton Gregory and Savannah Bishop Gregory Hartmayer both support the investigation. Other states have carried out similar investigations.

Survey of Antisemitism Worldwide Released

Yesterday, Tel Aviv University's Kantor Center released its report Antisemitism Worldwide 2018.  The 148-page report examines anti-Semitism around the world, surveying both the number of incidents and underlying causes and trends.  It says in part:

The most disturbing development, that keeps continuing and intensifying since 2016, is that Jews in some countries feel they live in a state of emergency, because of the continuing rise, most notably in Western Europe and North America, in antisemitic manifestations.

- As a result Jews started questioning and doubting their association with places and societies they have lived in for long, sometimes for centuries....

The normalization and mainstreaming of antisemitism in public forums, debates and discussions is manifested in all media channels, most notably the social networks. Antisemitism is no longer an issue confined to the activity of the far left, far right and radical Islamists triangle - it has mainstreamed and became an integral part of life.... 

Mainstreamed as well is the growing use of of antisemitic terms in anti-Zionist discourse, and the disproportionate hostility directed against the Jewish nation-state, which resumes Jewish characteristics.

Canadian Court Refuses To Enjoin Law Allowing Gay Student Associations

In PT v Alberta, (Alberta Ct. App., April 29, 2019), the Alberta (Canada) Court of Appeal in a 2-1 decision upheld a trial court's refusal to issue an interim injunction staying operation of challenged provisions of the School Act while its constitutionality is being litigated.  At issue are provisions which empower students to create voluntary student organizations that create a welcoming environment, especially for LGBTQ+ students. Parents, along with numerous Christian schools and organizations, sued claiming that the law infringed their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by depriving parents of choice in the education of their children and their ability to educate their children in accordance with their moral and religious values. Calgary Star reports on the decision.

USCIRF Issues 2019 International Religious Freedom Report

On April 29, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom released its 2019 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. The 234-page report recommends that 16 countries be designated as "countries of particular concern" because of their "systematic, ongoing, egregious violations" of religious freedom.  Ten of those are already designated as CPC's by the State Department-- Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan. The six recommended additions are Central African Republic, Nigeria, Russia, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. USCIRF also placed 12 countries on its "Tier 2" list for less serious violations of religious liberty. The report details the conditions in each of these 28 nations. 

Additionally the Report recommends five non-state entities be designated "entities of particular concern" because of their suppression of religious freedom. Also USCIRF makes various policy recommendations to the Administration and to Congress.

ADL Releases 2018 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents

Yesterday, the Anti-Defamation League released its annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents for 2018. The organization summarized its findings:

The U.S. Jewish community experienced near-historic levels of anti-Semitism in 2018, including a doubling of anti-Semitic assaults and the single deadliest attack against the Jewish community in American history... ADL’s annual Audit of Anti-Semitic incidents recorded a total of 1,879 attacks against Jews and Jewish institutions across the country in 2018, the third-highest year on record since ADL started tracking such data in the 1970s.

In a year marked by the white supremacist shooting spree at a Pittsburgh synagogue, which claimed 11 lives, and punctuated by a dramatic surge in white supremacist propaganda activity nationwide, ADL’s Audit identified 59 people who were victims of anti-Semitic assaults in 2018, up from 21 in 2017. While the overall number of incidents represents a 5 percent decline from 1,986 incidents reported in 2017, the number of incidents last year remained at near-historic levels – 48 percent higher than the total for 2016 and 99 percent higher than in 2015.

Defamation Suit Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In In re Alief Vietnamese Alliance Church and Phan Phung Hung, (TX App., April 30, 2019), a Texas state appellate court held that a defamation claim by a church's former interim pastor, Paul Nguyen, against the Church and its senior pastor Phan Phung Hung should be dismissed under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.  At issue were statements by Hung that Nguyen had committed adultery with a female church member. In a 2-1 decision, the majority said in part:

We conclude that Hung's allegedly defamatory statements are ... "inextricably intertwined" with matters relating to an internal struggle between a current and former leader of the Church over Church governance, the standard of morals required of leaders of the Church, and the reason for Nguyen's leaving or being expelled from the Church....

Even if there is a dispute over Hung's motivation in making the statements—either as part of a disciplinary procedure due to the alleged adultery or merely out of vindictiveness towards Nguyen, who had criticized Hung's pastoring decisions—these statements were made in the context of expelling a member and former leader of the Church, or, alternatively, the Church member's voluntarily quitting his leadership positions and quitting the Church—and then refusing to meet with Church leadership to resolve the dispute—either version of which is inherently an ecclesiastical concern as a matter of law.

Judge Landau filed a dissenting opinion.

Latest NYC Emergency Measles Order Upheld

In C.F. v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2019 NYLJ LEXIS 1419 (Kings Cty. Sup. Ct., April 3, 2019), a New York state trial court judge has upheld the latest version of New York City's declaration of a public health emergency to combat the measles outbreak.  The court said in part:

The pivotal question posed for this court's determination is whether Respondent Commissioner has a rational, non-pretextual basis for declaring a public health emergency and issuing the attendant orders challenged herein. The evidence in this regard is largely uncontroverted. The unvarnished truth is that these diagnoses represent the most significant spike in incidences of measles in the United States in many years and that the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn is at its epicenter. It has already begun to spread to remote locations....

The court went on to reject petitioner's scientific, religious and moral objections to the orders issued by the Department of Health:

Petitioners' medical experts opine, variously, that the MMR vaccine is ineffective, is of greater risk than non-vaccination and that the MMR vaccine itself propagates the very disease it was designed to prevent. These contentions are completely unsupported by studies, medical literature or other acceptable evidence....

The religious objection exemption contained in Public Health Law 2164(a) applies only to the certificate of immunization required to admit a child to school, not to remedies attendant upon declaration of a public health emergency. Even if it did apply, the affidavits ... are entirely unsupported by an affidavit of a religious official (priest, rabbi, etc.) or other doctrinal documentation tending to support their opinion....

Petitioners have raised various moral objections seemingly centered around a claim that the order(s) would compel forced vaccination. An examination of the orders indicates, and respondents concede that they do not require forcible vaccination. Accordingly, this court need not address the issue of forcible vaccination....

California Bishops Prevail In Part On Anti-SLAPP Defense To Abuse Concealment Claims

In Emens v. California Catholic Conference, (CA Super. Ct., April 17, 2019), a California state trial court granted a portion of an anti-SLAPP motion filed by the bishops of California's 11 dioceses seeking to strike a broad complaint filed against them charging that they have concealed clergy sex abuse. The complaint in the case (full text) filed last October charges that the concealment actions by the various bishops amount to a public nuisance, a private nuisance and civil conspiracy.  It asked for an order requiring release of the names of all clergy accused of child molestation and their history of abuse. California's anti-SLAPP law allows courts to strike a complaint that arises from acts in furtherance of free speech on a public issue unless plaintiff establishes there is a probability that he or she will prevail.

Finding that plaintiff has not established the probability of prevailing on the merits, the court struck portions of the complaint which allege actions in furtherance of free speech rights, but allowed plaintiff to move ahead on those claims that are not based on the exercise of free expression, saying in part:

Some of the conduct alleged does implicate the right of free speech, including the right not to speak. This would include the right not to publicly disclose the names of priests against whom allegations were made which were determined to be unfounded or lack credibility, and disclosing the names of priests against who allegations were made of conduct in the 1950’s where there was no investigation and where the priests have passed away.

The allegation that defendants attacked the credibility of victims does implicate free speech. Defendants may address the credibility of those making accusations against priests. 

Allowing child molesters to live in the community without notice to the community and transferring alleged molesters to new parishes without warning of the general public has First Amendment free speech implications. The actions are not permitting molesters to live in the community and transferring accused molesters, but doing this without notice to the affected communities. There are no allegations that the priests at issue had been convicted of any crime, or that notice was mandated. This would include accusations made against priests which were determined to lack credibility and to be without merit.

Concealing information regarding the actions of defendants and their agents from victims of past abuse also implicates free speech, as it is a general allegations as to all information regarding any reports of abuse, whether that information is connected to the abuse of a particular victim or there was any relation between the time of the abuse and the time of the information, and without regard to the credibility of the information. 

The remaining allegations do not involve the right to free speech or petition. There is no right to conceal sexual assaults from authorities. Protecting abusers from criminal prosecution is neither free speech nor petition. Making affirmative representations of the fitness of priests for assignments which included working with children while concealing information regarding the sexual misconduct of those priests is not an issue of free speech, but an issue of false speech.

Pacific Standard reports on the press conference held yesterday by the plaintiff and his attorneys who see the decision as a victory since it allows plaintiff to move ahead on some of his allegations.

Washington Catholic Hospitals Settle Suit Charging Them With Failure To Provide Charity Care

Washington state's attorney general yesterday announced the filing of a consent decree (full text) in State of Washington v. Franciscan Health System, (WA Super. Ct., April 29, 2019).  The settlement grows out of a lawsuit filed in 2017 against eight CHI Franciscan hospitals alleging that they violated the state's Consumer Protection Act by failing to make charity care available to tens of thousands of patients who were entitled to it under state law. As summarized by the AG's press release, the hospitals "will forgive as much as $20 million in debt, pay $2.22 million in refunds, pay the Attorney General’s Office $2.46 million, and rehabilitate the credit of thousands of patients who qualified for charity care between 2012 and 2017 but did not receive it."  The Consent Decree also requires detailed changes in the hospitals' procedures for providing financial assistance to patients.

Certiorari Denied In Church Trademark Dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in Universal Church, Inc. v. Toellner, (Docket No. 18-1159, certiorari denied 4/29/2019).  In the case, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim that the Universal Life Church had infringed the trademark of the Universal Church.  In Universal Church, Inc. v. Toellner, (2d Cir. Nov. 2, 2018), the court held that the term  "Universal Church" is generic in referring to religious counseling and evangelistic and ministerial services.

Satanic Temple Sues Over Withdrawal Of Permission To Erect Monument

Minneapolis Star Tribune reported yesterday that The Satanic Temple is suing Belle Plaine, Minnesota for its withdrawal of permission to erect a temporary memorial to fallen soldiers in Veterans' Memorial Park. The monument would have been the first Satanic monument on public property in the country. The paper reports on the sequence of events leading to the lawsuit:

... [I]n 2017 [the city approved a different organization's monument:] a steel silhouette known as “Joe” that depicted a soldier kneeling before a cross. Soon, someone complained that “Joe” violated constitutional separation of church and state.

City leaders, fearing a lawsuit, ordered its removal. That triggered weeks of vehement protests in the city.... So the council designated an area in the park as a “limited public forum,” open to temporary memorials to fallen veterans.

The Satanic Temple... applied to install its own monument.... The city granted a permit, and the temple designed a 23-inch black cube inscribed with inverted pentagrams and topped with an upturned helmet, which it planned to install in July 2017.

That plan prompted more protests. So exasperated city officials decided to shut down the limited public forum, ordering the removal of “Joe” and withdrawing permission for the temple’s monument.

[Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.] 

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Linda R. Meyer, Unreasonable Revelations: God Told Me to Kill, (Pace Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Philip Ostien, Ahmed Garba & Musa Abubakar, Nigeria's Sharia Courts,  (Chapter 2 of Sharia Implementation in Northern Nigeria Twenty Years On: Six Research Reports and an Overview, M. Tabiu, A.R. Mustapha and P. Ostien, eds., Forthcoming).
• Lisa Whitacre, Putting the Squeeze on Lemon: Lund, Bormuth, and the False Line Between Chaplain-Led and Legislator-Led Prayer, (March 17, 2019).
• Bridget J. Crawford & Emily Gold Waldman, Ministerial Magic: Tax-Free Housing and Religious Employers, (University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law Online, Forthcoming).
• Amanda Harmon Cooley, Justiciability and Judicial Fiat in Establishment Clause Cases Involving Religious Speech of Students, (March 30, 2019).
• Gautam Bhatia, Religious Speech, (The Oxford Handbook for Free Speech (Forthcoming)).
• Nicholas Aroney & Benjamin Saunders, Freedom of Religion in Australia, (in Matthew Groves, Daniel Meagher and Janina Boughey (eds), The Legal Protection of Rights in Australia (Hart Publishing, Forthcoming)).
• Kyle Velte, Straightwashing the Census, (March 22, 2019).

From SmartCILP:

• Helen Y. Chang, A Brief History of Anglo-Western Suicide: From Legal Wrong to Civil Right. 46 Southern University Law Review 150-194 (2018).

Texas "No Boycott of Israel" Law Held Unconstitutional

A Texas federal district court last week held unconstitutional the Texas statute requiring all state contracts for goods or services to include a written verification from the contracting company that it is not, and during the contract will not, boycott Israel. In Amawi v. Pflugerville Independent School District, (WD TX, April 25, 2019), a Texas federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the anti-BDS statute or enforcement of any clause in state contracts barring boycott of Israel.  The court, in a 56-page opinion, said in part:

Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims that H.B. 89 is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it (1) is an impermissible content- and viewpoint-based restriction on protected expression; (2) imposes unconstitutional conditions on public employment; (3) compels speech for an impermissible purpose; and (4) is void for vagueness.

The suit was brought by five individuals who wished to contract, or had contracted, to provide services such as speech therapy and early childhood evaluations for a school district; translation of an art essay for a state University museum; judging high school debate tournaments; and providing podcasts for a public radio station. The court concluded that all of these were contracts with sole proprietorships, and were thus covered by the statute. Washington Post reports on the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Catholic Agency Challenges Michigan's Child-Placement Anti-Discrimination Policy

Last week, a second lawsuit was filed challenging a settlement entered into by Michigan's Attorney General in which she agreed to enforce anti-discrimination provisions against adoption and foster care agencies contracting with the state which refuse to place children with same-sex couples or LGBTQ individuals who are otherwise qualified as foster care or adoptive parents. The first challenge was filed earlier this month in federal court. In last week's lawsuit, Catholic Charities West Michigan v. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, (MI Ct. Claims, filed 4/25/2019), filed in state court, the complaint (full text) cites protections for faith-based child placement agencies found in Michigan statutes such as MCL §722.124e and §722.124f, and alleges in part:

[T]he Michigan Legislature intended to-- and did-- protect the religious exercise of faith-based providers like Catholic Charities.... Defendants have adopted a new policy that forces Catholic charities to choose between violating its religious beliefs about same-sex marriage and shutting down its foster care and adoption ministry.  Defendants' new policy misinterprets state law, violates Catholic Charities' rights under the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions, and adopts the anti-religious views and policy preferences of Defendant Attorney General Dana Nessel-- who has previously criticized Michigan's statutory protections for faith-based foster care and adoption providers as "a victory for the hate mongers."

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

Defamation Suit Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In McRaney v. North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, (ND MS, April 22, 2019), a Mississippi federal district court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a defamation suit by a the former executive director of the Baptist Convention of Maryland and Delaware (BCMD).  Plaintiff contended that the North American Mission Board defamed him to BCMD and tortiously interfered with his employment contract.  The court said that resolution of plaintiff's claims would require it to determine whether the Mission Board had a valid religious reason for its actions-- and "That the court cannot do."  Baptist Press reports on the decision.

New York Archdiocese Releases Names of 120 Credibly Accused Clergy

On Friday, the Archdiocese of New York released a list of 120 clergy who have been credibly accused of sexually abusing a minor or possessing child pornography, or against whom a claim was found eligible for compensation by the Archdiocese's Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Program (IRCP).  Timothy Cardinal Dolan announced the release in a Pastoral Letter to members of the Archdiocese. Approximately 75% of the clergy on the list were ordained before 1970. Some 350 victims have been awarded compensation by the IRCP.  Only two cases have occurred since 2002. NPR reports on these developments.

Kansas Supreme Court Strikes Down D&E Abortion Ban

In Hodes & Nauser MDs, P.A. v. Schmidt, (KA Sip. Ct., April 26, 2019), the Kansas Supreme Court by a 6-1 vote upheld the trial court's injunction against the enforcement of S.B. 95 which bans, with limited exceptions, dilation and evacuation abortions in Kansas. The per curiam opinion of five justices said in part:

We hold today that section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protects all Kansans' natural right of personal autonomy, which includes the right to control one's own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination. This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life—decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy.

Under our strict scrutiny standard, the State is prohibited from restricting that right unless it can show it is doing so to further a compelling government interest and in a way that is narrowly tailored to that interest. The Doctors have shown they are substantially likely to prevail on their claim that S.B. 95 does not meet this standard. So the trial court's temporary injunction enjoining the enforcement of S.B. 95 is appropriate.

On remand to the trial court for a full resolution of the issues on the merits, the State is certainly free to assert any interests it believes compelling and show how S.B. 95 is narrowly tailored to those interests. We are aware that the evidentiary record is sparsely developed because of the narrow issue previously before that court: simply whether a temporary injunction should be granted. We, thus, decline the concurring opinion's invitation to guess at what the arguments and evidence might be in order to provide guidance on remand.

Justice Biles filed a concurring opinion and Justice Stegall filed a dissent. The 3 opinions span 199 pages. NPR reports on the decision.

IRS Recognizes Satanic Temple As A "Church"

The Satanic Temple announced yesterday that the Internal Revenue Service has recognized the organization as a "church" for federal income tax purposes. It says that among other things this will assure its standing in court to challenge religious discrimination and will allow it to apply for faith based government grants.  Rolling Stone reports on this, adding:

Although the Satanic Temple had previously rejected pursuing tax-exempt status, church president Lucien Greaves reversed this stance in 2017 after President Trump signed a “religious freedom” executive order. “As ‘the religious’ are increasingly gaining ground as a privileged class, we must ensure that this privilege is available to all, and that superstition doesn’t gain exclusive rights over non-theistic religions or non-belief,” Greaves wrote in the Satanic Temple newsletter....

Suit Against "Muslim-Free" Gun Range Dropped After Sign Is Removed

Religion News Service reports that the ACLU and CAIR have filed a motion to dismiss their lawsuit against Save Yourself Survival and Tactical Gun Range in Oktaha, Oklahoma after the Gun Range removed its sign that had declared the business a "Muslim-free establishment." The business' owners have affirmed that they will not repost the sign and will not exclude Muslim customers.

Ohio Probate Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Change Nationality of Moorish Science Adherent

In In re Easterling, (OH App., April 24, 2019), an Ohio state appeals court affirmed a probate court's decision in a case brought by a member of the Moorish Science Temple of America. The probate court granted Douglas Easterling's request to change his name to Raphael Kulika Bey. However it denied his request to change his race from "Black/African American" to "Moor/Aboriginal American national." The appeals court held that Ohio probate courts lack jurisdiction to change a person's race or nationality. While the probate court has jurisdiction to correct a birth record, here petitioner's birth certificate did not list his race or nationality, so there was nothing to correct.

Indian Court Says Hindu Marriage Act Covers Marriage Involving Transgender Woman

A trial court in India has held that a marriage between a man and a transgender woman, both of whom profess the Hindu religion, is valid under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Registrar of Marriages is required to register the marriage. In Arunkumar v. Inspector General of Registration, (Madras High Ct., April 22, 2019), the court said in part:

For too long, the transgender persons/intersex people have been languishing in the margins. The Constitution of India is an enabling document. It is inviting them to join the mainstream. Therefore, it would be absurd to deny the transgenders the benefit of the social institutions already in place in the mainstream....

When the right of the transgender persons to marry has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the very nature of things, they cannot be kept out of the purview of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Deccan Herald reports on the decision.

4th Circuit: Inmate Fails To Prove Causation In His RLUIPA And Free Exercise Claims

In Wright v. Lassiter, (4th Cir., April 17, 2019), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a Rastafarian inmate's claims that his rights under RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment were infringed when prison officials rejected his request to celebrate four annual religious holidays through communal feasts and three others that do not include feasts. The court, holding that "plaintiff must show that the prison's policies imposed a substantial burden on his exercise of sincerely held religious beliefs," concluded that plaintiff failed to show the required causation:

...Wright’s causation problem stems from the fact that he has requested communal gatherings and feasts. There is no such thing as a community of one, and Wright agreed at oral argument that he was not seeking a feast for himself alone. He therefore had to show that, but for the policies that allegedly prohibit the requested holiday gatherings, other inmates would join in the gatherings.... There was no testimony showing that any other Rastafarian at Central Prison or any other North Carolina prison had joined in his requests to celebrate in the manner he requested or would attend his gatherings if they were held....

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Title VII Case

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments (transcript of oral arguments) in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis. In the case, the 5th Circuit held that the the requirement a person exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a Title VII employment discrimination action is not jurisdictional.  This meant that the county's delay in raising the defense of exhaustion could result in its forfeiting its right to raise the defense. Charlotte Garden at SCOTUSblog reports on the oral arguments.

Condo's Sex Segregated Swim Hours Violate Fair Housing Act

In Curto v. A Country Place Condominium Association, (3d Cir., April 22, 2019), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that a condominium's mostly sex-segregated swimming hours, adopted in deference to a large number of Orthodox Jewish residents, violates the federal Fair Housing Act. Judge Ambro's opinion focused on the fact that the swim schedule discriminates against women. Weekday evening times were mostly allocated to men.  He concluded:

Women with regular-hour jobs thus have little access to the pool during the work week, and the schedule appears to reflect particular assumptions about the roles of men and women.

He concluded that defendant had waived any RFRA defense, and even if it had not, the condominium association lacks standing to assert the defense.  Judge Fuentes' concurring opinion added:

I write separately to express my skepticism that the pool’s sex-segregated schedule could be saved by a more even allocation of evening hours between men and women. Our jurisprudence makes clear that facial discrimination does not become lawful merely because its burdens are felt by members of both sexes. We would have no problem concluding, for example, that a pool schedule that allocates two-thirds of its hours to swimming segregated by race and one-third of its hours to “Integrated Swimming” would be intolerable under the FHA. And the FHA’s prohibition on discrimination does not distinguish between discrimination on the basis of sex and discrimination on the basis of race.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

Certiorari Denied In Priest's Libel Suit Against Diocese

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Gallagher v. Diocese of Palm Beach, Inc., (Docket No. 18-964, certiorari denied, 4/22/2019) (Order List).  In the case,  a Florida state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a defamation suit brought by a Catholic priest against the diocese in which he served. (See prior posting.) The Florida Supreme Court had denied review in the case.  South Florida Sun Sentinel reports on yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court's denial of certiorari.

Zoning Accommodation For Homeless Construction Is Upheld

In Ward v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, (TN App., April 17, 2019), a Tennessee state appeals court upheld a local zoning decision granting an accommodate to property owned by a church on which it would build 22 micro-homes to house the homeless. As summarized by the court:

Appellants argue that the development should be subject to the zoning laws and procedures because the development would be constructed, owned, and operated by a lessee of the property that was not a religious institution or assembly or otherwise exercising religion and, consequently, applying the zoning laws to the development would not adversely affect the church’s exercise of religion.

The court held, however:

Given the nature of the project, the lease arrangement between Open Table and GUMC [Glencliff United Methodist Church] does not negate the protection that the statutes provide to GUMC; the project is born out of a common, religiously motivated desire to help the homeless, a cause that is recognized by the church as part of its core mission. Thus, it is entirely appropriate for GUMC to apply for and receive the accommodation allowed by the statutes. 

Charitable Organization Avoids Dismissal of RLUIPA Claims

In Layman Lessons Church v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville/ Davidson County, (MD TN, April 18, 2019), a Tennessee federal district court allowed a religious charitable disaster relief organization to move ahead with many of its claims under RLUIPA and the comparable state statute.  Plaintiff alleges that the city of Nashville discriminated against it through arbitrary enforcement of zoning and building code provisions. The court said in part:

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged ... that the actions of Defendant—including, but not limited to, Defendant’s issuance of demolition orders, stop work orders, and storm water orders...; Defendant’s insisting that Plaintiff complete additional repair work and get additional permits than what was previously required; Defendant’s erroneously asserting that a protected stream existed on the property; and Defendant’s erroneously fining Plaintiff for “grading without a permit”—created a “substantial burden” on its free exercise of religion, in violation of RLUIPA.

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff based on its religion. Defendant does not mention this discrimination claim. Plaintiff has alleged that it was treated differently than other property owners because it is a religious organization.... Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged, for purposes of a motion to dismiss, that it was treated differently from non-religious property owners.... In addition, for the same reasons, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that it was treated on less than equal terms with a non-religious institution...

3rd Circuit: Philly May Require Its Foster Care Agencies To Accept Same-Sex Couples

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, (3d Cir., April 22, 2019), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld against 1st Amendment challenges the City of Philadelphia's policy of refusing to contract with foster care agencies, such as Catholic Social Services, that will not place children with same-sex married couples.  The court said in part:

The City’s nondiscrimination policy is a neutral, generally applicable law, and the religious views of CSS do not entitle it to an exception from that policy. 

[A]t the preliminary injunction stage CSS shows insufficient evidence that the City violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Fair Practices Ordinance has not been gerrymandered..., and there is no history of ignoring widespread secular violations ... or the kind of animosity against religion found in Masterpiece. Here the City has been working with CSS for many decades.... And the City has expressed a constant desire to renew its relationship with CSS as a foster care agency if it will comply with the City’s non-discrimination policies protecting same-sex couples.

Philadelphia Inquirer reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Title VII Protects Gays and Transgender Individuals

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review in three cases involving important questions of LGBT rights under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  First the Court granted certiorari in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, (Docket No. 17-1618) (SCOTUSblog Case Page) and consolidated it with Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda (Docket No.17-1623) (SCOTUSblog Case Page) (see prior posting) in which it also granted certiorari (Order List 4/22/2019). The cases raise the question of whether Title VII's prohibition on discrimination "because of ... sex" covers discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation.

Second, the Court granted review in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, (Docket No. 18-107, certiorari granted 4/22/2019 (SCOTUSblog Case Page) (See prior posting). The grant of certiorari was specifically on:

Whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on (1) their status as transgender or (2) sex stereotyping under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U. S. 228 (1989).

New York Times reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• John Vlahoplus, Foreign-Born Children of Disloyal Parents: Adam Muthana, Mary Arcedeckne and the Natural Born, (St. John's Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Eliza Bateman, 'His Garden a Wilderness' - The Balance between Equality and Freedom of Religion in Australia and Canada, (March 18, 2019).
• Scott D. Gerber, Law and Liberty of Conscience in Colonial Pennsylvania, (NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2019, Forthcoming).
• Martin Kwan, Human Gene Editing and Human Rights: An Uncertain Future, (Human Rights Series, 2019).
• Nitish Nawsagaray, Misuse of the Prevention of Atrocities Act: Scrutinising the Mahajan Judgment, 2018, (Economic & Political Weekly, June 2, 2018 vol. LIII no. 22).

From SmartCILP:

• The Question of Religious Freedom: From John Courtney Murray, SJ and Vatican II to the Present. Articles by Miguel H. Diaz, Robin W. Lovin, Barry Sullivan, Leslie C. Griffin, Hille Haker, Kathleen A. Brady, Carmen Nanko-Fernandez, Thomas C. Berg. 50 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 1-209 (2018).
• Kristina M. Campbell, Sanctuary, Temporary Protected Status, and Catholic Social Teaching, 96 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 25-53 (2018).

DC Circuit: House Can Exclude Secular Invocations

In Barker v. Conroy, (D Cir., April 19, 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the rule in the House of Representatives that limits invocations to those that are "religious" rather than secular.  At issue was the refusal by the House Chaplain's Office to allow a former Christian who had become an atheist to serve as guest chaplain and deliver a secular invocation.  The court found plaintiff had standing to bring the suit, but, citing Supreme Court precedent, held:

Marsh and Town of Greece leave no doubt that the Supreme Court understands our nation’s longstanding legislative-prayer tradition as one that, because of its “unique history,” can be both religious and consistent with the Establishment Clause. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 791. And although the Court has warned against discriminating among religions or tolerating a pattern of prayers that proselytize or disparage certain faiths or beliefs, it has never suggested that legislatures must allow secular as well as religious prayer. In the sui generis context of legislative prayer, then, the House does not violate the Establishment Clause by limiting its opening prayer to religious prayer.

Roll Call reports on the decision. [Thanks to Jeff Pasek for the lead.]

White House Announces Annual Easter Egg Roll

The White House today announced this year's Easter Egg Festivities, which will be held next Monday.  The press release, supplementing information elsewhere on the White House website, says in part:

First Lady Melania Trump and President Donald J. Trump invite this year’s Easter Egg Roll attendees to enjoy a variety of activities, including the time-honored Egg Roll and the Trump Administration’s Cards for Troops station.  New to the Egg Roll this year: musical eggs and Be Best hopscotch.  In recognition of the First Lady’s Be Best campaign, children will also have the opportunity to spread kindness by mailing postcards to anyone they choose – friends, family, members of the military – directly through a United States Postal Service mailbox that will be on the South grounds.

Pro-Life Pregnancy Center Challenges City's Required Disclosures

Suit was filed in a Connecticut federal district court yesterday challenging the constitutionality of a Hartford (CT) Ordinance that requires pregnancy resource centers to make required disclosures on signs, websites and when patients make appointments.  Facilities must make the disclosures if they do not have licensed medical providers on the premises to directly supervise all services.  The complaint (full text) in Caring Families Pregnancy Services, Inc. v. City of Hartford, (D CT. filed 4/18/2019), alleges that the Ordinance is drafted to cover only pro-life pregnancy resource centers, and requires statements that incorrectly imply that the facilities are not qualified to provide the services they offer. The complaint contends:

The practical result of enforcing the Ordinance’s Compelled Speech provision would be not only to inhibit a religious ministry from furthering its mission and message but also to force religious speakers to speak messages with misleading, confusing and negative implications....

Hartford is intent on interfering with certain views about life, pregnancy, and motherhood. Hartford has thus crafted a speaker-based, viewpoint-based law targeting the speech only of speakers espousing certain pro-life moral, religious, and philosophical beliefs.

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

Emergency Order Requiring Measels Vaccination Upheld

In C.F. v. New York City Department of Health, (Kings Cty. Sup. Ct., April 18, 2019), a New York state trial court judge rejected challenges to the recent emergency order by the New York City Health Department requiring everyone living or working in zip codes comprising the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn to be vaccinated against measles unless they already have immunity or are medically exempt. The court said in part:

The pivotal question posed for this court's determination is whether Respondent Commissioner has a rational, non-pretextual basis for declaring a public health emergency.... The unvamished truth is that these diagnoses represent the most significant spike in incidences of measles in the United States in many years and that the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn is at its epicenter....

The religious objection exemption contained in Public Health Law $2 164(a) applies only to the certificate of immunization required to admit a child to school, not to remedies attendant upon declaration of a public health emergency....

Petitioner raise the issue of informed consent.... A fireman need not obtain the informed consent of the owner before extinguishing a house fire. Vaccination is known to extinguish the fire of contagion.

Enforcement of Mahr Provision In Islamic Marriage Contract Upheld

In Seifeddine v. Jaber, (MI App., April 16, 2019), a Michigan state appellate court rejected a challenge to a trial court's enforcement in a divorce action of the mahr provisions of an Islamic marriage certificate. The provision required the husband to pay $50,000 to his wife. According to the court:

[T]he trial court expressly and repeatedly stated that it was not applying religious principles or doctrines but was instead applying Michigan common law regarding contracts.... Plaintiff makes no argument challenging any particular element for establishing the existence of a contract. Nor does plaintiff cite any authority for his contention that a neutral principle of law must be derived from a statute rather than from Michigan common law when examining a religious document.

NY Guidelines For Yeshiva Educational Requirements Are Struck Down

Yesterday a New York state trial court judge struck down the state's controversial Guidelines adopted last year aimed at  assuring that yeshivas, as well as other non-public religious and independent schools, comply with state law requiring them to offer an education substantially equivalent to that of public schools. (See prior related posting.) In Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools v. Rosa, (Albany Cty. Sup. Ct., April 17, 2019), the court held that the education commissioner did not comply with the notice and comment requirements of the State Administrative Procedure Act in adopting the Guidelines. Gothamist reports on the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

8th Circuit Hears Arguments Over Title VII's Applicability To Sexual Orientation

Yesterday, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Horton  v.  Midwest Geriatric Management (audio of full oral argument). As reported by the National Law Journal, at issue is whether Title VII's prohibition on discrimination "because of sex" covers discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In the case, a health care specialist sued after his offer of employment was rescinded, claiming the rescission came because his employer discovered he was gay.

Rockland County Issues New Orders To Combat Measles Spread

Rockland County, New York health authorities are taking new steps to combat the spread of measles in the county.  As previously reported, on April 5 a New York state trial court judge held that the health department's declaration of a state of emergency was invalid. That decision is being appealed. Yesterday the County announced two new Orders by the Commissioner of Health, relying on different legal authority than the basis of the Order that was struck down.

The first new Order (full text) provides that anyone diagnosed with measles, or exposed to someone diagnosed with measles, must be excluded as a public health nuisance from places of public assembly for up to 21 days. Places of public assembly are defined broadly and include the homes of other persons.

The second new order requires schools in two zip code areas to file a notarized statement identifying unvaccinated students who, as required, have been excluded from school. Orangetown Daily Voice reports on these developments.

Morocco Names Chief Rabbinical Court Master, Ending 100 Years of Vacancies In the Post

Arutz Sheva reports that the government of Morocco, on behalf of the country's King Mohammed VI, has appointed Rabbi Yoshiahu Pinto to the post of Supreme Chief Rabbinical Court Master. The post has been vacant for last 100 years. In his position, Pinto will head the Moroccan Jewish community's kosher food supervision and will adjudicate religious and customary issues for the country's 10,000 Jewish residents, as well as for the many Jewish visitors to the country.

DOJ Settles RLUIPA Zoning Claims With Texas City

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has reached an agreement with the City of Farmersville, Texas to resolve allegations that the city violated RLUIPA when in 2017 it denied a Muslim organization approval for construction of a cemetery:

The settlement agreement resolves a lawsuit the United States filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. After the City denied the Islamic Association’s application to build a religious cemetery, the United States opened an investigation of the City’s actions in September 2017. In August 2018, the United States notified the City that it had concluded that the City had violated RLUIPA and intended to file suit, and offered the City an opportunity to negotiate a resolution. In September 2018, the City and the Islamic Association entered into a separate agreement allowing for the approval of the cemetery and in December 2018, the City approved the Islamic Association’s application to develop the land as a cemetery.

Here is the complaint in United States v. City of Farmersville, Texas, (ED TX, filed 4/16/2019) filed yesterday as part of the negotiations.

Parents Sue Prominent DC Synagogue Over Child Abuse of Pre-Schoolers

Washington Post reports on a lawsuit filed Monday in D.C. Superior Court against a prominent Reform synagogue in D.C. Parents who brought the suit allege that at least seven children in the synagogue's preschool were sexually abused by a teacher for more than a year. The 239-page complaint filed against Washington Hebrew Congregation and Deborah Jensen, its director of early childhood education, does not include the teacher who is the alleged abuser as a defendant.  According to the Post:

The lawsuit states that the preschool teacher identified in the complaint was allowed to be alone with students despite city regulations requiring at least two adults to be present with toddlers in licensed child development centers. The school also did not properly train staff on ways to reduce the potential for child sexual abuse and to recognize signs that it may have happened, the lawsuit alleges....

Within a month of the man beginning work at Washington Hebrew, teachers and parents reported to Jensen incidents of inappropriate behavior, according to the lawsuit. The alleged behavior included being late returning students when he was alone with them and not responding to co-workers who were looking for him while he was with students.

The lawsuit states that when an adult reported potential abuse to Jensen, the director said that the person reporting the potential abuse had a “sick mind” and that the teacher would never abuse children. Jensen did not investigate the incidents further, did not restrict the teacher’s access to children and did not report the allegations to city officials, according to the lawsuit.

How Did Government Action On Gay Marriage Affect Attitudes?

Courthouse News Service reports on interesting research posted yesterday at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS):

Researchers compared trends before and after state-level legalization of gay marriage in each state.

The study found the local legislation reduced antigay bias, even though biases against lesbian and gay people were already decreasing. States which legalized same-sex marriage experienced decreases in homophobia at a sharper rate – declining at roughly double the previous rate – after legalization, according to the study.

For the 15 states that didn’t pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage before it became federal law, Hehman and his research team found a “backlash effect” where homophobia increased in those states in the immediate aftermath after the Supreme Court ruling – despite a decreasing trend in anti-gay bias prior to Obergefell.

PNAS, in assessing the significance of the research, says in part that it indicates "government legislation can inform attitudes even on religiously and politically entrenched positions."

New Report On Perceived Discrimination Against Various Groups

Yesterday the Pew Research Center released its 2019 report (full text) on the extent to which the American public perceives that there is discrimination against various discrete groups.  While surveying perceived discrimination against 9 different groups, the report headlines increasing discrimination against Jews:

Today, 64% of Americans say Jews face at least some discrimination – a 20-percentage-point increase from 2016; the share saying Jews face “a lot” of discrimination has nearly doubled, from 13% to 24%.

The report also finds that 82% believe that there is at least some discrimination against Muslims.  50% believe there is at least some discrimination against Evangelical Christians (a rise of 8% over 2016).

Parents Sue Over NY Vaccination Order; One Child Care Facility Ordered Closed

Yesterday five mothers of children who claim religious exemptions from vaccination requirements filed suit in a New York state trial court challenging last week's emergency order by the New York City Health Department requiring everyone living or working in zip codes comprising the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn to be vaccinated against measles unless they already have immunity or are medically exempt. (See prior posting.)  The complaint (full text) in C.F. v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, (Kings Cty. Sup. Ct., filed 4/15/2019) contends:

There is insufficient evidence of a measles epidemic or dangerous outbreak to justify the respondents’ extraordinary measures, including forced vaccination. The Orders are, therefore, arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law and in violation of petitioners’ rights under the United States Constitution and New York State law.

The complaint also contends that the Order ignores the risk of harm from compulsory vaccination.  Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

Meanwhile yesterday New York officials ordered a child care center in Williamsburg closed for failing to provide the Health Department access to medical and attendance records showing that the school is excluding unvaccinated children. (New York Times; Yeshiva World News).

SCOTUS Hears Arguments On Immoral Trademarks

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Iancu v. Brunetti (transcript of oral arguments). At issue is whether Sec. 2(a) of the Lanham Trademark Act that prohibits registration of a trademark that contains "immoral" matter is invalid under the free speech provisions of the 1st Amendment.  Here is the SCOTUSblog case page for the case linking to all the briefs and other pertinent material. Mark Walsh at SCOTUSblog describes the case as an introduction to his entertaining summary of oral arguments:

The first case for argument today involves the highly provocative trademark, “FUCT,” for a line of “streetwear” founded by Erik Brunetti in California in 1990.

Washington Post also reports on the oral arguments.

Catholic Agency Sues Michigan Over Adoption Agency Non-Discrimination Policy

As previously reported, last month Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced that the state has entered into a settlement agreement that calls for the state to enforce non-discrimination provisions in agreements with foster care and adoption agencies.  The settlement applies to any agency contracting with the state that discriminates against same-sex couples or LGBTQ individuals otherwise qualified as foster care or adoptive parents.  Yesterday suit was filed in a Michigan federal district court by a Catholic adoption and foster care agency, and by some of its clients, challenging Michigan's new policy.  The complaint (full text) in Buck v. Gordon, (WD MI, filed 4/15/2019), contends that the new policy violates plaintiffs' 1st and 14th Amendment rights as well as RFRA. The Federalist reports on the lawsuit.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Caroline Mala Corbin, Christian Legislative Prayers and Christian Nationalism, (Washington and Lee Law Review, Vol. 75, 2019).
• Christopher C. Lund, Martyrdom and Religious Freedom, (Connecticut Law Review, Vol. 50, p. 959, 2018 (symposium)).
• Levi Cooper, Polish Hasidism and Hungarian Orthodoxy in a Borderland: The Munkács Rabbinate, (Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry 31 (2019): 199-223 [pre-publication version]).
• Brendan Thomas Beery, Free Exercise Standing: Extra-Centrality As Injury In Fact, (St. John's Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Doug Magendanz, Church Power, Sovereignty and Freedom of Religion in Thomas Hobbes, (March 19, 2019).
• G. V. Mahesh Nath, Constitutional Morality - A Need for Consensus on the Concept, (March 16, 2019).
• Barton Beebe & Jeanne C. Fromer, Immoral or Scandalous Marks: An Empirical Analysis, (April 4, 2019).

From SmartCILP:

• Ann E. Blankenship-Knox & Brett A. Geier, Taking A Day Off to Pray: Closing Schools for Religious Observance in Increasingly Diverse Schools, 2018 BYU Education & Law Journal 89-139.
• Religious Exemptions and Harm to Others. Articles by Gary J. Simson, Carl H. Esbeck, Eric Segall, Arnold H. Loewy, Elizabeth Sepper, Christopher C. Lund, William P. Marshall, Kathleen A. Brady, Catherine A. Hardee, Micah Schwartzman, Nelson Tebbe, Richard Schragger. 106 Kentucky Law Journal 535-812 (2017-2018).
• John Eidsmoe, Those Ten Commandments: Why Won't They Just Go Away?, 31 Regent University Law Review 11-29 (2018-2019).
• Rodney W. Harrell, State Religious Free-Exercise Defenses to Non-Discriminatory Laws: Still Relevant fter Masterpiece Cakeshop, 87 UMKC Law Review 297-333 (2019).
• Stephen M. Feldman, Having Your Cake and Eating It Too? Religious Freedom and LGBTQ Rights, 9 Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy 35-62 (2018).

Transgender Bathroom Issue In High School Leads To Protest and Reaction

The ongoing issue in public schools of allowing transgender students to use bathrooms of their choice has now created issues of how to treat student protests, self-help, and reactions to them. AP reports that a group of some seven boys at Alaska's North Pole High School went into the girl's bathroom to protest the use of the boys' bathroom by a transgender student who is transitioning from female to male.  A girl who was blocked from leaving the girl's bathroom kneed one of the seven boys, injuring him enough that he was sent to a hospital.  The girl was suspended from school and the seven boys were also disciplined.

DOJ Drops Appeal In FGM Case; Proposes Amendments To Federal Statutory Ban

AP reports that the Department of Justice has dropped its appeal of the court's decision in United States v. Nagarwala. In the case, a Michigan federal district court held the federal ban on female genital mutilation (18 USC Sec. 116(a)) unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, saying it is not a commercial activity; it is a local criminal activity which should be left to the states to regulate. (See prior posting.) In a letter (full text) sent to Congress last Wednesday, Solicitor General Noel Francisco proposed amendments to the the federal law needed to assure its constitutionality:

[C]oncurrently with submitting this letter, the Department is submitting to Congress a legislative proposal that would amend Section 116(a) to provide that FGM is a federal crime when ( 1) the defendant or victim travels in or uses a channel or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in furtherance of the FGM; (2) the defendant uses a means, channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate commerce in connection with the FGM; (3) a payment is made in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce in furtherance of the FGM; (4) an offer or other communication is made in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce in furtherance of the FGM; (5) the conduct occurs within the United States' special maritime and territorial jurisdiction, or within the District of Columbia or a U.S. territory; or (6) the FGM otherwise occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce. In our view, adding these provisions would ensure that, in every prosecution under the statute, there is a nexus to interstate commerce.

The letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee was sent in compliance with 28 USC Sec. 530D which requires DOJ to report to Congress when it, among other things, decides not to appeal a decision affecting the constitutionality of a federal statute.

Retired Pope Benedict Weighs In On Clergy Sexual Abuse of Minors

This week, publications around the world published translations of an unusual essay from emeritus Pope Benedict XVI on the Church's clergy sex abuse crisis.  As reported by the Washington Post:

Breaking years of silence on major church affairs, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has written a lengthy letter devoted to clerical sex abuse in which he attributes the crisis to a breakdown of church and societal moral teaching and says he felt compelled to assist “in this difficult hour.”

The 6,000-word letter..., laments the secularization of the West, decries the 1960s sexual revolution and describes seminaries that became filled during that period with “homosexual cliques.”

The pope emeritus, in emphasizing the retreat of religious belief and firm church teaching, provides a markedly different explanation for the abuse crisis than that offered by Pope Francis, who has often said abuse results from the corrupted power of clergy.

Catholic News Agency has published the full text in English.

New York Legislature Passes Bill To Bar Employment Discrimination Based On Religious Attire

The New York State Legislature on Tuesday gave final passage to A4024 (full text) which adds to the state's anti-discrimination law a specific ban on employment discrimination because of a person's attire, clothing, or facial hair worn in accordance  with  the requirements  of  his  or her religion. The employer is excused from this obligation if reasonable accommodation is impossible. AP, reporting on the passage of the bill, says it was particularly supported by a coalition of Sikh houses of worship. [Thanks to Blog from the Capital or the lead.]

UPDATE: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the bill on Aug. 9.

EEOC 2018 Data Released

The EEOC yesterday released its 2018 Fiscal Year 2018 Enforcement and Litigation Data.  During the fiscal year, he EEOC resolved 90,558 charges of discrimination and retaliation. Of these, 2,859 (3.7%) involved charges of religious discrimination.

Judge Overrules Jury Saying No Religious Discrimination By Homeowners Association Was Shown

In Morris v. West Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Association, Inc., (D ID, April 4, 2019), an Idaho federal district judge enjoined a Christian couple from hosting an elaborate Christmas display that violates Homeowner Association Rules. As described by the Spokane Spokesman-Review's report on the decision:

On one side, a devoutly Christian couple throwing extravagant celebrations for thousands at a home decked to the halls with 200,000 light bulbs. At times, even featuring a camel and donkey to re-create the Nativity scene.

On the opposite side, a Hayden homeowners association with specific rules that prohibited such excessive celebrations – and the noise that follows – in favor of a more modest showing of holiday spirit.

Despite a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs, the court ruled as a matter of law that plaintiffs had not shown that the Homeowners Association discriminated against them on the basis of religion in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act.  Plaintiff had pointed to a letter from the Homeowners Association which described rule violations that would be involved in the Christmas display.  The letter added that some of the subdivision residents are non-Christians.  The court said in part:

While January 2015 Letter was not drafted with lawyerly precision and contained a boorish reference to “undesireables,” it cannot be read as evidence that the Homeowners Association intended to discriminate against Plaintiffs because they were Christian. On this score, the Court notes that several members of the Board were practicing Christians. Furthermore, Board President Jennifer Scott is both a practicing Christian and married to a Christian minister. The Court is not suggesting that Christians cannot, per se, discriminate against other Christians. But, the fact that the Board was at least partially composed of practicing Christians significantly decreases the probability that the Board intended to discriminate against Plaintiffs based on a faith shared by both Plaintiffs and several Board members.

The court concluded that the jury was likely prejudiced by testimony which they were instructed to ignore relating to threats received by plaintiffs from other homeowners who were not Association board members.  Because the decision is likely to be appealed, the court held that if its conclusion of law was reversed, defendants should be granted a new trial or alternatively the jury's award of $75,000 in damages should be reduced to $4.

Anti-Vax Movement Targets Ultra Orthodox Jews In New York

The New York Times in an article posted yesterday reports on the ways in which the anti-vaccination movement, particularly an organization known as Parents Educating and Advocating for Children's Health ("Peach"), is targeting ultra-Orthodox Jews in New York:

Peach’s handbook — with letters signed by rabbis and sections like “Halachic Points of Interest” — has become one of the main vehicles for misinformation among ultra-Orthodox groups, including Hasidim. Its message is being shared on hotlines and in group text messages.....

The majority of ultra-Orthodox rabbis said they ... urged vaccination, citing religious scripture about protecting one’s health and the health of others.

But all of that has not been enough to persuade vaccine skeptics....

Some Hasidim have said that longstanding tension between members of the ultra-Orthodox community and the government have made them wary of officials’ efforts to contain the outbreak.

The past persecution of the Jewish people is still a factor, they said. And more recently, quarrels with secular leaders over a circumcision ritual that has transmitted fatal herpes infections to infants and the government’s oversight of ultra-Orthodox Jewish private schools known as yeshivas have only soured relations.

In Settlement Airbnb Agrees To Allow Listing of West Bank Properties

In a press release yesterday, an Israeli civil rights group announced a settlement in  Sliber v. Airbnb, one of a number of suits challenging Airbnb's decision to delist rentals in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. (See prior posting). Apparently the policy was neverin fact implemented.  Under the Settlement Agreement (full text) Airbnb will modify it policies to allow listings of all properties in the area, subject to its Terms of Service.  Sidestepping conflicting claims over claims to the West Bank, the Settlement Agreement says in part:

Airbnb takes on position on the Host-Plaintiffs' claims, or others claims, to legal title to the properties on which the accommodations are located and its standard Terms of Service requires that every Host agree and warrant not to offer any accommodation on Airbnb's platform that the Host does not own or have permission to make available for booking.