Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Satmar Rivals Feud In Court and Outside It
Rosenwasser, who is up for re-election as judge next week, recently issued a temporary ruling in favor of one of Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum's followers, but warned that it should not be read as determining the broader question of who controls the Satmar's communal assets of more than $100 million. Earlier, a different Brooklyn judge had ruled that followers of Rabbi Zalmen Teitelbaum, the other brother, should control the group. The Forward reports that coincidentally, Rabbi Aaron's followers are an important voting bloc in Rosenwasser's district. The feud between the two factions has led to physical violence between them at the main Satmar synagogue in Brooklyn. On Oct. 27, the judge wrote to lawyers on both sides demanding an explanation of the fight that broke out at the synagogue two days earlier during Shemini Atzeret services.
Damage Claim By Muslim Woman Against Prison Officials Dismissed
Christian Group Protests Proposed Indian Law On Foreign Contributions
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
L.A. City Council Debates Tax-Exempt Financing For Parochial School
Today L.A. City Council is scheduled to vote on a plan to issue $30 million in tax-exempt bonds on behalf of Loyola High School, a Catholic parochial school. The bonds would save the high school $8 million in interest costs. The city's attorneys have recommended that the council move ahead with the transaction, saying Loyola's educational activities, and its willingness to admit students of all religious backgrounds, shows that it is not "pervasively sectarian." The bond proceeds will be used to build a new science facility. The ACLU of Southern California questions the proposed move, arguing that the school is pervasively sectarian. The city has already used tax-exempt bonds to assist three other parochial schools since 2001.
UPDATE: In its vote, the Los Angeles City Council approved the issuance of tax-exempt bonds for Loyola High School, prompting a promise from the ACLU to review the transaction to determine if it violates the state constitution's separation of church and state.
South Dakota Supreme Court Hears Case On Church Demolition
Oral Arguments Held In O Centro
This is Chief Justice Roberts first religious freedom case on the Court. Roberts questioned the government's argument that it must prohibit all use of hoasca to prevent diversion to non-religious uses. "Your approach is totally categorical.'' If a religious group used only one drop of the drug a year, "your position would still be the same", Roberts told government lawyer Edwin Kneedler during the one-hour argument.
The government argued that it has a compelling interest in "uniform enforcement'' of its drug laws. But Justice Antonin Scalia pointed to an exception that Congress has made for peyote in American Indian religious ceremonies. He said, "It's a demonstration you can make exceptions without the sky falling.'' Justice John Paul Stevens followed up by asking whether the exception for peyote indicated that "maybe [the government's interest is] not all that compelling.''
Religious Freedom Moves Forward In Geogian Republic
Candidate For Governor of Va. Talks About His Faith
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Alito Will Make Catholics A Majority On Court
Kitzmiller Trial Continues
Attempt To Vacate Mt. Soledad Cross Ruling Filed
UPDATE: The Oct. 31 San Diego Union Tribune reported that Judge Cowett refused to hold a hearing on the motion to vacate her earlier ruling. An appeal to the 4th District Court of Appeals is planned.
Coptic Churches In Egypt Attacked By Muslims
Does Excommunication Violate Ky. Civil Rights Act?
Alito's 3rd Circuit Religion Decisions
Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist., 386 F.3d 514 (October 15, 2004) OVERVIEW: Preliminary injunction properly ordered a school district to treat a child evangelism group like other community groups with regard to distribution of literature; group was likely to succeed on viewpoint discrimination claim under Free Speech Clause.
Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania, 381 F.3d 202 (August 20, 2004) OVERVIEW: Native American's free exercise rights were violated when he was denied a religious exemption from permit fees required because he owned two black bears. The fee regime's provisions were underinclusive and thus not generally applicable.
Fraise v. Terhune, 283 F.3d 506 (March 13, 2002) OVERVIEW: New Jersey prison policy that allowed correctional officials to designate "security threat groups" (STGs) did not violate equal protection in view of greater propensity for violence demonstrated by members of the STG.
Abramson v. William Paterson College, 260 F.3d 265, August 3, 2001, Concurrence by Alito, J. OVERVIEW: In religious discrimination suit, appellate court reversed summary judgment for the employer because the employee established a prima facie case for hostile work environment, religious discrimination, and retaliation.
ACLU-NJ v. Township of Wall, 246 F.3d 258 (April 3, 2001) OVERVIEW: Taxpayer plaintiffs failed to establish standing in their First Amendment holiday display claim where the record established that both the nativity display and the menorah at issue were donated to defendant Township.
Saxe v. State College Area Sch. Dist., 240 F.3d 200 (February 14, 2001) OVERVIEW: Public school district's student-on-student anti-harassment policy was unconstitutionally overbroad because it prohibited non-vulgar, non-sponsored student speech and did not satisfy the Tinker substantial disruption test.
C.H. v. Olivia, 226 F.3d 198 (August 28, 2000), cert. denied June 18, 2001. Dissent by Alito, J. OVERVIEW of majority opinion: Where it was not alleged that the removal of a student's poster occurred as a result of any school policy against the exhibition of religious material, judgment for school officials was remanded to allow plaintiff to amend her complaint.
FOP Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark, 170 F.3d 359 (March 3, 1999) cert. denied October 4, 1999. OVERVIEW: Police department's policy, which prohibited beards, was found to be in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because it refused to make exemptions for religious reasons, even though medical exemptions were made.
ACLU NJ v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (February 16, 1999) OVERVIEW: A city's display of predominantly religious symbols in holiday display was unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause; however, addition of secular and cultural symbols diluted the display's message of endorsement of religion.
Edwards v. California Univ. of Pa., 156 F.3d 488 (August 10, 1998). cert. denied February 22, 1999. OVERVIEW: University professor did not have First Amendment right to choose classroom materials and subjects in contravention of university's dictates, and his suspension with pay did not violate procedural due process where he was not deprived of employment.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Alito Will Be SCOTUS Nominee
Removal of Polygamous Judge Sought
O Centro Case Scheduled For Supreme Court Argument Tomorrow
An important question will be the scope of the issues the Court actually decides in its ultimate opinion. (See prior posting.) Also, the government's reply brief is now available online. [Thanks to SCOTUS blog for the link.]The case involves a religious sect of 130 members based in New Mexico. The group, adherents of the Brazil-based religion UDV, believes the use of sacramental tea in its ceremonies helps them connect with God. Consumption of the tea is the central ritual act of their faith.... The problem is that the tea, made from two sacred plants found in the Amazon region of Brazil, contains a hallucinogenic substance banned in the US. When US narcotics agents discovered this, they confiscated the group's supply of the sacramental tea... and barred them from importing any more from Brazil. The group sued, claiming the government was infringing on their religious rights.... A federal judge and federal appeals court agreed... and issued a preliminary injunction against the government. The court ordered the government to accommodate the UDV members by allowing them a religious exemption from the drug laws. The courts ruled that such actions were necessary under RFRA.