Two of the conspiracy’s more prominent members were Chief Juvenile Officers Michael Waddle (Waddle) and Cindy Ayers (Ayers).Waddle, the conspiracy’s ringleader, disliked HCA because (1) HCA was unlicensed (legally), (2) Waddle disagreed with HACC’s teachings, and (3) Waddle believed HCA had not acted "very Christ-like." Ayers complained HCA was "growing too fast," and expressed the view that "there [were] people everywhere at [HCA], including children from foreign countries," and Missouri should slow or "put a stop" to HCA.The court rejected defendants' claim that the trial court failed to look at each official's conduct individually when ruling on qualified immunity.
The charged conspiracy reached its nadir on October 30, 2001, when juvenile authorities and armed law enforcement officers, 30 total, arrived at HCA’s campus
and removed 115 of its students. The Officials did not provide any notice to Heartland of the removal until the last possible moment. Waddle and Ayers procured ex parte orders from local juvenile court judges to remove HCA’s students. Waddle
and Ayers used false misrepresentations to obtain the ex parte removal orders. The juvenile court judges issued the ex parte orders under the false impressions (1) all HCA students were in imminent danger of physical harm, (2) HCA was unwilling to
cooperate with the relevant juvenile authorities, and (3) no lesser alternative short of a mass removal was available to ensure the students’ safety.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
8th Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity To Officials Who Conspired Against Faith-Based School
Court Orders Cemetery Title Transferred To Allow O'Hare Airport Expansion
Human Rights Activists Charge Egypt Plans To Monitor Sermons In Mosques Through Cameras
Costa Rica's Constitutional Court Rejects Bishops Power To Select Religion Teachers
ACLU Say College Prof Teaches Religion and Anti-LGBT Views As Fact
Monday, February 08, 2010
White House Faith Based Council Posts Votes On Two Controversial Church-State Issues [UPDATED]
The first issue is whether faith-based social service providers should be allowed to provide services in rooms that contain religious symbols, artwork or messages. Two members voted to ban any religious symbols. Seven members voted to allow symbols when there is no space in the organization's offices without them and when removing or covering them would be infeasible, so long as objecting clients also have a choice of a different provider to which they do not object. Sixteen members voted not to require removal or covering of symbols, but to encourage providers to be sensitive and to attempt to accommodate those who object, and have alternative providers available if that is not sufficient.
The second issue is whether the government should require houses of worship to form separate corporations to receive direct federal social service funds. Thirteen voted yes; 12 voted no. (See prior related posting.)
Indian Court Strikes Down Quotas for Backward Classes of Muslims
Meanwhile according to today's Business Standard, the government of West Bengal announced a 10% set-aside of government jobs for Muslims there who are economically, socially and educationally backward.
Recent Articles of Interest
- Carissima Mathen, What Religious Freedom Jurisprudence Reveals About Equality, (Journal of Law and Equality, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2009).
- Dov Fox, Taking Sides on Genetic Modification, (American Journal of Bioethics - Neuroscience, Forthcoming).
- Alexander Tallchief Skibine, Culture Talk or Culture War in Federal Indian Law?, (Tulsa Law Review, Forthcoming).
- Susan J. Stabile, An Effort to Articulate a Catholic Realist Approach to Abortion, (U of St. Thomas Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-08, 2010).
- Mary Jean Dolan, Government Identity Messages and Religion: The Endorsement Test after Summum, (February 5, 2010).
- Robert K. Vischer, When is a Catholic Doing Legal Theory Doing "Catholic Legal Theory?", (Seton Hall Law Review, Forthcoming).
- Elizabeth Rose Schiltz, The Paradox of the Global and the Local in the Financial Crisis of 2008: Applying the Lessons of Caritas in Veritate to the Regulation of Consumer Credit in the United States and the European Union, (Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 26, 2010).
- Andrew M.M. Koppelman, No Respect: Brian Leiter on Religion, (Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 10-07, Jan. 5, 2010).
From SmartCILP:
- Bruce Ledewitz, Could Government Speech Endorsing a Higher Law Resolve the Establishment Clause Crisis?, 41 St. Mary's Law Journal 41-117 (2009).
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Activist Charges Conflicts In Some Illinois Capital Funding For Religious Groups
Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases
In Green v. Tudor, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7414 (WD MI, Jan. 29, 2010), a Michigan federal district court accepted a magistrate's recommendations (2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124246, Oct. 21, 2009) and dismissed various claims by an inmate over the lack of hot Ramadan meals and lack of notice of substitutions of items in Ramadan meals.
Rupe v. Cate, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7817 (ED CA, Feb. 1, 2010), was a challenge to alleged discrimination and repression by prison officials of prisoner's attempts to practice their Druid and other Pagan religions. While dismissing a number of plaintiff's claims, the court allowed him to proceed on his claim under the free exercise clause, his claim for retaliation and his equal protection claim.
In Cobb v. Mendoza-Powers, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8089 (CD CA, Jan. 25. 2010), a California federal district court adopted the findings of a magistrate (2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124379 , Oct. 20, 2009) and dismissed without prejudice an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when he was not excused for religious reasons from complying with prison grooming standards. The court held that this claim is not cognizable in a habeas corpus action.
In Valentine v. Poff, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8253 (WD VA, Feb. 1, 2010), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a frivolous an inmate's challenge to the type of food served to him in his religious diet.
In Blake v. Howland, 2009 Mass. Super. LEXIS 363 (MA Super. Ct., Dec. 2, 2009), a Massachusetts trial court rejected state and federal free exercise claims, claims under RLUIPA and other challenges by a Native American man who is civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person. Plaintiff complained he is denied access to smudging and pipe ceremonies, a purification lodge, various other items needed for Native American worship ceremonies and is also not furnished a Native American volunteer to work with members of his religious group.
In Jamal v. Smith, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5029 (CD IL, Jan. 22, 2010), an Illinois federal district court permitted a Muslim inmate to proceed with his claim that a pat down search of him was conducted by a female officer in violation of his religious objections, even though male officers were readily available. First Amendment Center reports on the case.
A release from the Rutherford Institute reports that it has filed suit in Virginia federal district court challenging a Virginia Department of Corrections directive that prohibits inmates from receiving CDs containing spoken words. The suit was filed on behalf of an inmate wishing to obtain a CD containing a Christian sermon. (Full text of complaint in Mabe v. Commonwealth of Virginia, (ED VA, filed Feb. 3, 2010).
Lawsuit Challenges Library's Meeting Room Policy
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Anglican Factions In Zimbabwe Struggle Over Control
Lenient Sentence Imposed on Muslim Man By Britain's Cherie Blair Brings Complaints
Street Preachers Challenge "Loud Noise" and Trespass Bans
Friday, February 05, 2010
Trial of Geert Wilders Proceeds With Pared Down Witness List
North Korea Says It Will Release U.S. Christian Activist
Slovakian Court Upholds Religion Law's Registration Requirement
Indonesia's Constitutional Court Hearing Challenge To Blasphemy Law
Groups Urge President To Beef Up Church-State Safeguards In Faith-Based Funding
On the one year anniversary of your Executive Order establishing the new White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, the undersigned religious, education, civil rights, labor, and health organizations write to urge that you take additional actions to prevent government-funded religious discrimination and protect social service beneficiaries from unwelcome proselytizing.The letter urged the White House to prohibit religious organizations from discriminating in hiring on the basis of religion within federally-funded social welfare projects. It also urged that the President amend existing Executive orders to ensure that:
Here are the releases on the letter issued by the ADL, Americans United and the Baptist Joint Committee, all of which were signatories.Program beneficiaries are not subject to unwanted proselytizing or religious activities.
Program providers give proper notice to beneficiaries of their religious liberty rights and access to alternative, secular providers.
Houses of worship and other religious institutions, in which religion is so integrally infused that it cannot be separated out, be required to create separate corporations for the purpose of providing secular, government-funded social services.....
Secular alternatives to social services provided by houses of worship and other religious institutions are readily available to beneficiaries.....
Uniform guidance and training materials be developed for all federal agencies to ensure that government-funded providers understand constitutionally-required religious liberty safeguards..... Furthermore, providers should be required to certify their adherence to the safeguards – and government agencies should engage in oversight to ensure compliance.