Supreme Court Will Review Release of Names of Referendum Petition Signers

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in John Doe #1 v. Reed (Docket No. 09-599, cert. granted 1/15/2010) (Order List.) In the case, the 9th Circuit allowed release under Washington state's Public Records Law of the names of those who signed petitions seeking a referendum on the state's domestic partnership law. The court concluded that release does not violate the signers' 1st Amendment right to anonymous political speech. (See prior posting.)SCOTUS Blog here discusses the case, and here has links to the opinion below and the petitions supporting and opposing a grant of cert. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

6th Circuit Upholds Courthouse Display Including 10 Commandments

In ACLU of Kentucky v. Grayson County, Kentucky, (6th Cir., Jan. 14, 2010), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to a "Foundations of American Law and Government" display in a county courthouse. The display consisted of nine historical documents, including the Ten Commandments, along with a document explaining the historical importance of each component. The court concluded that the challengers failed to show the county Fiscal Court had a primarily religious purpose in approving the display; nor would an objective observer see the display as a state endorsement of religion. The Court focused on a prior 6th Circuit decision, Mercer County v. ACLU, (see prior posting) that upheld an identical display in another Kentucky county.

Judge Moore, dissenting, said: "The County's asserted purpose here—that the Display was posted for educational or historical reasons—is a sham and should be rejected." She also concluded that the display sent an unmistakable message of endorsing religion.

Liberty Counsel, (which represented Grayson County) urged in its press release on the decision: "Pray that the Lord continues to bless Liberty Counsel as we continue to battle the ACLU in other cases." The Lexington Herald-Leader, reporting on the decision, said that plaintiffs in the case are reviewing the decision to decide whether to file an appeal.

UPDATE: The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that on Jan. 18, just days after the decision, the Ten Commandments were reposted on the Grayson County Courthouse walls. Rev. Charles Shartzer and 200 others joined county officials for the ceremony, at which Shartzer said: "We have Christian leadership. We have leadership that is not ashamed to stand up for God, not ashamed to have this display in our courthouse."

Scientology Sues Atlanta Suburb Over Zoning Denial

The Church of Scientology yesterday filed a federal lawsuit against Sandy Springs, Georgia, challenging zoning limits the city has imposed on the Church. According to AP, Scientology wanted to add a fourth floor to an office building in the Atlanta suburb, and move the Georgia state headquarters there. Sandy Springs City Council voted to allow the Church to move into the building, but rejected the request that it be able to add an additional floor.

Appeals Court Upholds Religious Objection To Autopsy On Executed Prisoner

In Johnson v. Levy, (TN Ct. App., Jan., 14, 2010), the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed a decision of the state Chancery Court (see prior posting) and rejected the request of the county Medical Examiner to conduct an autopsy on executed murderer Cecil Johnson. Johnson's wife objected to the procedure, arguing that it would violate her husband's religious beliefs.

The court held that under Tennessee's law on preservation of religious freedom (TN Code Ann. Sec. 4-1-407), the Medical Examiner is required to establish by clear and convincing evidence under the specific facts of the case that performing an autopsy is essential to further a compelling governmental interest. While there is a compelling interest to conduct some kind of investigation as to every inmate who is executed in order to assure against cruel and unusual punishment, where a religious objection is raised to an autopsy, that may be part of the investigation only if the compelling interest standard is met. Religious objections might be overruled when the execution was not without incident, the prisoner did not react to the drugs as expected, and there is a need to understand why. Even then, the autopsy needs to be limited to the procedures necessary to understand what happened. UPI reported on the decision yesterday.

County Assessed Large Attorneys' Fees and Costs In RLUIPA Case

Last April, the Rocky Mountain Christian Church in Boulder County, Colorado won its challenge to the county's denial of its special use application, convincing a jury and the court that the denial violated the substantial burden and unreasonable limitations provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. (See prior posting.) The church sought to expand the buildings on its campus. Yesterday's Longmont (CO) Times-Call reports that now the federal district court has ordered Boulder County to pay $1.25 million of the Church's legal fees, as well as $90,000 in costs. The county is now appealing the original decision, claiming that RLUIPA is unconstitutional. Oral argument to the 10th Circuit in that appeal is scheduled for March. All sides agree that the fees and costs do not have to be paid until after the appeal is concluded.

UPDATE: The text of the opinion awarding fees and costs is at Rocky Mt. Christian Church v. Bd. of County Comm'rs. of Boulder County, CO., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8273 (D CO, Jan. 11, 2010).

DC Court Upholds Election Board's Rejection of Initiative To Define Marriage

In Jackson v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, (DC Super. Ct., Jan. 14, 2010), the District of Columbia Superior Court agreed with the D.C. election board's rejection of an initiative petition seeking to amend the D.C. Code to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized in D.C. Last year, D.C. City Council passed a law recognizing same-sex marriages validly performed elsewhere. (See prior posting.) The court held that Council appropriately implemented the Charter Amendment Act when it prohibited initiatives that would authorize discrimination in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act. The proposed initiative would violate the Human Rights Act by authorizing discrimination based on sexual orientation. (See prior related posting.) Alliance Defense Fund (which filed the lawsuit on behalf of a local pastor and other voters) in a release yesterday says it will appeal the decision.

Pat Robertson's Remarks on Haiti Earthquake Draw Criticism

As both religious and secular groups scramble to provide aid for the earthquake victims in Haiti, evangelist Pat Robertson made comments on CBN's "700 Club" that are drawing criticism from White House advisor Valerie Jarrett as well as from many Christian leaders. ABC reports that Robertson harked back to a legend about Haiti's revolt against the French in 1803 to suggest that Haitians may have brought disaster on themselves. He said in part: "You know ... something happened a long time ago in Haiti. … They got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you get us free from the French.' True story." Robertson also said that the destruction there "may be a blessing in disguise" because it could lead to a massive rebuilding of the country. YouTube has a video of Robertson's full remarks.

UPDATE: At Thursday's White House press briefing (full text), Press Secretary Robert Gibbs also commented on Robertson's remarks:

Q: ...What did you think of Pat Robertson's comments yesterday that the Haitians brought this on themselves by making a pact with the devil?

MR. GIBBS: It never ceases to amaze that in times of amazing human suffering somebody says something that could be so utterly stupid, but it like clockwork happens with some regularity....

9th Circuit Uphold's UC's Rejection of Certain Christian School Courses

In Association of Christian Schools International v. Stearns, (9th Cir., Jan. 12, 2010), the 9th Circuit rejected constitutional challenges to the University of California's admissions policy that refuses to accept certain high school courses offered by Christian schools to qualify students for admission to UC. Rejecting both facial and as-applied challenges, the Court said the policy does not prevent high schools from teaching whatever and however they choose. It rejected the argument that UC's refusal to recognize religion and ethics courses that are limited to one denomination's viewpoint amounts to discrimination. The court also rejected establishment clause and equal protection challenges to UC's policy. (See prior related postings 1, 2 .)

In Malaysia, More Vandalism and Revelations of Broader Bans on Word Usage By Non-Muslim Papers

In Malaysia, vandalism against Christian churches continues in response to a High Court decision allowing the Catholic newspaper, The Herald, to use the term "Allah" in ints Malay-language edition to refer to God. Canadian Press today reports that a tenth church was vandalized this morning, with red paint splashed on it. Also the offices of the law firm representing The Herald were broken into and ransacked. Papers were strewn on the floor and a laptop computer was taken.

Malaysian Insider today and the New Straits Times yesterday say that in fact the ban on use of certain words by non-Muslim publications is broader than previously reported. Guidelines issued to the Herald in 2007 also barred it from using three other words: Kaabah (Islam's holiest shrine in Mecca), Solat (prayer) and Baitullah (House of God). Each state in Malaysia has enacted its own laws allowing certain words to be used only by Islamic publications. In the state of Pahang, Section 9 of the Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religions Enactment 1989 lists 25 words that cannot be used in writing or speeches to describe a religion other than Islam, as well as ten expressions with Islamic origins that may not be used by non-Muslims (except as a quotation or reference).

Supreme Court Blocks Broadcast of California Proposition 8 Trial

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, blocked the broadcast by a California federal district court of the non-jury trial challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8-- California's ban on same-sex marriage. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, (Sup. Ct., Jan. 13, 2010), the per curiam majority opinion concluded that the federal district court did not follow the proper procedures in amending its rules to permit broadcast of the trial. It did not give enough time for public comment on its proposal. The majority said:

The trial will involve various witnesses, including members of same-sex couples; academics, who apparently will discuss gender issues and gender equality, as well as family structures; and those who participated in the campaign leading to the adoption of Proposition 8. This Court has recognized that witness testimony may be chilled if broadcast.... Some of applicants' witnesses have already said that they will not testify if the trial is broadcast, and they have substantiated their concerns by citing incidents of past harassment....

The District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well.

Technically the court granted a stay of the district court's order pending filing of petitions for a writ of certiorari and mandamus. The decision only related to the proposal to broadcast the trial live to a number of other courthouses around the country. It did not relate to the proposal to post recordings of the trial on YouTube at the end of each day. The 9th Circuit never approved that portion of the district court's poposal because the district court's technical staff encountered difficulties in preparing video that was suitable for online posting. Justice Breyer dissenting, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor said:

The majority’s action today is unusual. It grants a stay in order to consider a mandamus petition, with a view to intervening in a matter of local court administration that it would not (and should not) consider. It cites no precedent for doing so. It identifies no real harm, let alone “irreparable harm,” to justify its issuance of this stay.

The New York Times reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Texas Board of Education Holds Hearings On Social Studies Curriculum

The Texas State Board of Education yesterday held hearings on proposed revisions to the state's social studies curriculum. A number of the 130 speakers at the hearing focused on issues of how the role of religion in American history will be taught. News 8 Austin and the Ft. Worth Star Telegram report on much of the testimony. Sue Tilis of the National Council of Jewish Women said the draft revisions do a good job of teaching the role of religion in history without advocating particular religious beliefs. Steve Green representing the Texas Freedom Network objected to increased emphasis on documents such as the Mayflower Compact of 1620 written by Christian Pilgrims. Other witnesses urged changes ranging from more emphasis on American "exceptionalism" to including discussion of Sikhism in the world history section of the curriculum standards.

Rhode Island Legislature Overrides Veto Of Limitations Extension for Civil Rights Claims

On Jan. 5, the Rhode Island legislature overrode Gov. Donald Carcieri's veto of SB 162 which extends from one year to three years the statute of limitations applicable to discrimination suits under the state's Civil Rights Act of 1990. That law prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, sex, age, national origin or disability in making or enforcing contracts, in buying, selling or leasing real property and in various other matters. A Jan. 7 article from Lexology says this means that employers who terminate or take other action against an employee may not know for three years whether the action will be challenged. Unlike the state's Fair Employment Practices Act, the law does not require filing first with the Human Rights Commission before suit is filed in court.

Wisconsin Board Rejects RLUIPA Argument In Zoning For Bible Camp

The Oneida County (Wisconsin) Board of Adjustment has rejected a RLUIPA claim and has upheld the denial of a conditional use permit for construction of a Bible camp on Squash Lake near Rhinelander (WI). Yesterday's Rhinelander Daily News reports that the zoning ordinance would allow a church or a school to be built on the site, but the Board ruled that a camp and conference center are not permitted even though the lodge would contain a chapel and classrooms. The Board concluded that denial of the permit did not impose a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of the two brothers who sought to build the recreational camp. Other sites in the county are available where the camp could be built.

Canadian FLDS Leader Sues BC Government For Illegal Prosecution

In Canada, FLDS leader Winston Blackmore has filed a claim for damages against British Columbia's provincial government charging that he was prosecuted illegally last year. As previously reported, polygamy charges against Blackmore were quashed when the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the province's attorney general lacked authority to appoint a second special prosecutor after a first one recommended against filing the charges. Yesterday's National Post reports that Blackmore's suit, filed in the B.C. Supreme Court, claims that the polygamy charges caused him to suffer business and other financial losses and that he and his family suffered stress and anxiety.

Suit Seeks To Prevent Further Searches of Missouri Church [Corrected]

In Independence, Missouri yesterday, the New Covenant Faith Center, along with its pastor, his wife and the church secretary filed suit to prevent the Jackson County Sheriff's Office from conducting further searches of the church or having contacts with its members. The Kansas City Star reports that in a series of searches last week, authorities took $130,000, computers and files containing personal information about church members. The church cannot meet its payroll or operate as a result of the seizures. The lawsuit, which alleges that church members' free exercise rights have been infringed, also seeks damages and return of the property that was taken. The church's pastor, Lloyd D. Sartain, was detained twice but no charges have been filed. The search warrant has been sealed and no one will comment on the charges that led to the searches. According to the Kansas City Pitch last week, authorities also found four guns during the searches. The church's attorney (who regained his law license in 2006 after serving federal prison time for bribery and bank fraud) criticized Sheriff Mike Sharp's performance. The attorney says a power struggle within the church led to the investigation, and rumors it operates as a cult are inaccurate. [Note: An earlier version of this posting incorrectly identified the location of Independence as Kansas instead of Missouri.]

Bankruptcy Judge Orders Trial On Whether Parish Assets Are Shielded From Diocese Creditors

A Delaware federal bankruptcy judge yesterday decided that the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington cannot develop a plan of reorganization and exit bankruptcy without first obtaining a determination of whether funds belonging to individual parishes and Catholic Charities are shielded from Diocese creditors (mostly abuse victims). Bloomberg News reports that Judge Christopher Sontchi ordered a trial to take place in June on the issue.

White House Faith-Based Task Force Debates Religious Symbols In Funded Programs

The White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships Task Force on reform of the faith-based office held a two-hour teleconference on Monday as it moved toward finalizing its draft report. According to the Washington Post's On Faith, one of the important debates on the phone conference was whether religious groups operating federally-funded programs out of their facilities need to cover up religious symbols during the times the funded services are being offered. The task force discussed two other alternatives: allowing the symbols if covering them is impractical and no religiously neutral rooms are available, or imposing no requirements but urging religious groups to be sensitive to the issue. No consensus emerged, as the group chose Wake Forest Center for Religion and Public Affairs Director Melissa Rogers to coordinate the drafting of the final report.

Trial Court Leaves Open Manslaughter Option In Trial of Tiller's Shooter

In Wichita, Kansas, a state trial court judge has left open the question of whether Scott Roeder who is on trial for killing abortion doctor George Tiller will be permitted to argue that he is guilty only of manslaughter. Roeder wants to argue that he was attempting to save the lives of the unborn. According to yesterday's New York Times, Judge Warren Wilbert denied the prosecution motion to exclude evidence that might support a manslaughter conviction. Instead, he said that he would decide on a witness-by-witness basis during trial what evidence he will admit. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

3rd Circuit Dismisses Challenge To Muslim Scientist's Security Clearance

In El-Ganayni v. U.S. Department of Energy, (3d Cir., Jan. 11, 2010), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the revocation of the security clearance of a Muslim physicist, Abdel El-Ganayni, who worked for Bettis Laboratory on the Navy's nuclear propulsion program. El-Ganayni also served as an imam for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. His problems apparently began after he distributed to Muslim prisoners a book about Islam titled The Miracle in the Ant, which includes a passage about an ant that has a defense mechanism that allows spraying of deadly secretions on attackers. He also spoke at a mosque criticizing the FBI for recruiting Muslims as informants.

El-Ganayni sued claiming the revocation was motivated by speeches he gave criticizing the FBI, US foreign policy and the war in Iraq, and that he was being discriminated against based on his religion and national origin. The court dismissed the claims concluding that El-Ganayni could prove retaliation or discrimination only by showing the government's primary motivation for revoking his clearance. This however would involve the courts in deciding on the merits of a security clearance revocation-- a matter over which courts lack jurisdiction. The court also concluded that DOE followed the applicable regulations and executive orders in revoking El-Ganayni's security clearance.

Rabbi Seeks Army Waiver of Beard Policy To Become Chaplain

Yesterday's New York Jewish Week reports on the efforts of Rabbi Menachem Stern to obtain a waiver of U.S. Army grooming rules so he can become a chaplain. Stern , a Chabad Lubavitch rabbi, wears a beard for religious reasons. Originally he was informed that the Accession Board had approved him, but then he received a phone call saying that the approval was an error because he could not enlist while wearing a beard. Apparently the chaplaincy branch is willing to have Stern wear a beard, but the Army's chief of personnel along with the chief of staff object. Rabbi Sandy Dresin, executive director of chaplains at the Aleph Institute, says that currently there is a shortage of Jewish chaplains in the military. He says that the 8 Jewish chaplains in the Army could be doubled if the Army relented on its policy on beards. [Thanks to Joel Katz (Relig. & State In Israel) for the lead.]