Two Religious Land Use Disputes In Northern New Jersey

In northern New Jersey, one land use dispute was settled while a lawsuit was filed in another. In Englewood (NJ), two lawsuits between the town and a neighborhood group over expansion of East Hill Synagogue and the synagogue's use of tents for events on its property have been settled. NorthJersey.com last week reported that neighbors objected to Planning Board decisions that allowed the synagogue to expand its seating for 123 to 225, and to put up tents in the parking lot 12 times per year. The neighborhood group argued, among other things, that some members of the Planning Board had conflicts of interest because they were members of a synagogue that was affiliated with East Hill. Under the settlement, tents can be put up six times per year, with various restrictions on timing and a ban on outdoor music.

Meanwhile, in Ridgefield Park (NJ), the owner of a 2-story building that houses a donut and an ice cream store have filed suit because the village Planning Board refuses to permit rental of a back office in the building to a church group, the Go Ahead Mission. According to NorthJersey.com yesterday, the building owner claims that the refusal to grant a variance is related to the fact that he is Korean.

Boiler Plate AG Endorsement of Church Property Sale Found Insufficient

A New York trial court has rejected the apparently routine method by which the state Attorney General's office gives its statutorily required consent to the sale of real property by non-profit religious corporations. The New York Religious Corporations Law, Sec. 12(a)(1), requires religious corporations to obtain court approval for sale, mortgage or lease of real property. The procedures for court approval, in Sec. 511 of the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law, call for the court to require at least 15 days notice to the attorney general. In Matter of The House of The Lord and Church On The Mount, Inc., (Sup. Ct. Kings Co., March 10, 2010), a church's ex parte petition to sell a property it owns for $595,000 was accompanied by a proposed order that included a rubber stamped and signed endorsement from the attorney general's office stating:

The Attorney General hereby appears herein, has no objection to the granting of judicial approval hereon, acknowledges receipt of statutory notice, and demands service of all papers submitted herein ... conditioned on submission of the matter to the court within 30 days hereafter....

An apparently puzzled court refused to grant the order, instead directing service on the Attorney General. The court explained that it "does not deem the pre-printed text and hand written entries to satisfy the notice requirements of N-PCL § 511(b). At the very least, the Court would require an affirmation or affidavit from someone with personal knowledge explaining the circumstance and the import of the text and signatures as it pertains to the notice requirements to the Attorney General."

Samoa To Look Into Freedom of Religion

Radio New Zealand reported yesterday that the government of Samoa has approved creating a Commission of Inquiry to review freedom of religion. The Cabinet set up the Commission because of concern that new religions advocating beliefs contrary to Christianity may arrive in the country.

Some Non-Muslims Use Britain's Muslim Arbitration Tribunal

Yesterday's London Times reports that 20 non-Muslims used Britain's Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) to resolve their legal disputes last year. This is a 15% increase over the prior year. The MAT operates under Britain's Arbitration Act. Meanwhile, the One Law for All Campaign has 22,000 signatures on a petition in opposition to religious tribunals of any sort operating in Britain.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Alice Ristroph & Melissa E. Murray, Disestablishing the Family, (Yale Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Noa Ben-Asher, Legal Holes, (Ubound, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2009).
• Olatunde C. Johnson, The Story of Bob Jones University v. United States: Race, Religion, and Congress’ Extraordinary Acquiescence, (February 12, 2010).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Anita S. Krishnakumar, The Hidden Legacy of Holy Trinity Church: The Unique National Institution Canon, 51 William & Mary Law Review 1053-1111 (2009).
• Ronan McCrea, Religion as a Basis of Law in the Public Order of the European Union, 16 Columbia Journal of European Law 81-119 (2009/2010).
• Alan C. Lazerow, Give and "Get"? Applying the Restatement of Contracts to Determine the Enforceability of "Get Settlement" Contracts, 39 Baltimore Law Review 103 (2009).

Religious Group Lacks Standing To Sue For-Profit Board For Breach of Duty

The Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard reported yesterday on a state trial court decision denying standing to the religious non-profit organization Sikh Dharma International in its lawsuit against the head of the for-profit natural foods company, Golden Temple, and three members of the Unto Infinity board. Unto Infinity was charged with overseeing the businesses operated by the Sikh spiritual community created by Yogi Bhajan. Golden Temple has 330 employees in Oregon, 100 in Europe, and annual revenues of $125 million. The lawsuit charges that defendants are breaching their fiduciary duties through enriching themselves at the expense of the community's assets. Still pending before the court is the question of whether individual Sikh ministers who are members of Sikh Dharma International have standing to pursue the claims separate from the organization. The court is expected to issue its preliminary views on that issue before a scheduled May hearing.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Redd v. Wright, (2d Cir., March 9, 2010), the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the granting of qualified immunity to prison officials who placed a "TB hold" (cell lock down) on an inmate after he refused on religious grounds to submit to a TB test.

In Aldin v. Brink, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20204 (SD IL, March 5, 2010), an Illinois federal district court permitted a Muslim prisoner to move ahead with his retaliation and free exercise claims. Plaintiff claimed he was not permitted to say his Friday prayers in the prison chapel and was threatened by other inmates when he attempted to pray elsewhere. He claims he was denied the opportunity to participate in Ramadan, and denied prayer rugs and a Qur'an. He also alleged retaliation for a prior complaint about religious accommodation.

In Candelaria v. Baker, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19870 (WD NY, March 5, 2010), a New York federal district court accepted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19981, Feb. 9, 2010), and rejected a free exercise claim by an inmate who, as a dialysis patient, was prescribed a special renal diet. The inmate insisted on fasting in fulfillment of a religious vow. Excessive fasting makes the diet ineffective, and officials insisted that he stop his fasting practices in order to receive the diet. The court also rejected a claim that a misbehavior report was a result of the inmate exercising his religious beliefs regard his hairstyle.

In Curry v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20798 (ND CA, Feb. 10, 2010), a California federal district court held that an inmate who practices the Shetaut Neter faith (an Ancient African Religion) could proceed with his RLUIPA, Free Exercise, Establishment Clause and Equal Protection claims. He alleged that authorities denied him a religiously required vegan diet and incense oils for religious rituals.

In Indreland v. Bell, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20618 (D MT, Jan. 12, 2010), a Montana federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal of an inmate's claims that he was denied his Satanist medallion, the detention center staff placed Christian greeting cards under his cell door, and he was held in maximum security due to his religious beliefs. The court reserved judgment pending further briefing on his claim that he was denied access to a Satanic Bible.

In Johnson v. DeRose, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21337 (MD PA, March 9, 2010), a Pennsylvania federal district court allowed an inmate to proceed on a claim that his free exercise rights were violated by denial of a Bible and denial of access to Mass.

In Black v. Camon, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21259 (MD GA, March 9, 2010), a Georgia federal district court adopted a federal magistrate's recommendation (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21258, Feb. 9, 2010) and dismissed an inmate's claim that he was forced to attend a Christmas ceremony that included Christian prayer and a religious sermon.

In Brown v. Vail, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20997 (ED WA, Feb. 19, 2010), a Washington federal magistrate judge refused to order a state prison to supply a Passover Seder box for an indigent Jewish prisoner. The prison allowed inmates to purchase Seder boxes or to have them donated by religious organizations.

In Comundoiwilla v. Evans, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21884 (ED CA, Feb. 22, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge permitted a Muslim inmate to proceed with a claim under RLUIPA challenging restrictions on his wearing a beard and long hair. Plaintiff was permitted to file an amended complaint alleging he was prevented from attending Jum'ah prayer services.

In Cranford v. Hammock, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22554 (ND FL, March 11, 2010), a Florida federal district court dismissed claims by a Muslim inmate who alleged that Jum'ah services were cancelled on one occasion, that when he complained the chaplain cancelled Taleem study classes and stopped making the chapel available for day prayers. Defendants say the changes were instituted because of a lack of staffing.

In Moro v. Winsor, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22611 (SD IL, March 10, 2010), an Illinois federal magistrate judge denied an inmate's motion for a new trial in a case that he lost challenging prison practices. Plaintiff, a practitioner of the Ordo Templi Orientis, claimed he was denied access to religious items and books, worship services and the ability to celebrate feasts. The court approved of jury instructions that required the jury to find plaintiff had a sincere religious belief and finding that defendants' wrongful conduct was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury.

In Rogers v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21918 (WD PA, March 10, 2010), a Pennsylvania federal district court accepted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22474, Feb. 9, 2010) and refused to dismiss plaintiff's free exercise and equal protection claims growing out of the alleged denial of Halal meat in celebration of Eid-ul-Adha in January 2006. A number of other claims were dismissed.

In Foster v. Berry, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22383 (CD CA, March 9, 2010), a California federal district court accepted the recommendations of a federal magistrate (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22388, Jan. 21, 2010), and dismissed an inmate's free exercise and RLUIPA claims when he merely alleged that defendants did not let him "go to his religion."

San Joaquin Episcopal Diocese Sues To Recover Property of Another Parish

The reorganized continuing Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, California, continues to file lawsuits to reclaim property of break-away parishes. Episcopal Life reported on Friday that the diocese has filed suit in state court against St. Columba's Church in Fresno, one of the 40 congregations that broke away to affiliate with the more conservative Province of the Southern Cone. The diocese has previously sued two other break-away parishes as well as former bishop, John-David Schofield. (See prior posting.).

D.C. Catholic Charities Requires New Hires To Support Church Tenets

Yesterday's Washington Post reports that Washington, D.C.'s Catholic Charities has begun to require newly hired employees to sign a letter promising that they will not "violate the principles or tenets" of the Catholic Church. A spokesman says this is consistent with the organization's past policies. Catholic Charities receives millions of dollars of government funding for its social service activities. Bush administration policy allowed religious organizations receiving federal funds to engage in faith-based hiring. (See prior posting.) The Obama administration, which has been urged by many to reverse that policy for employees within federally funded programs, is apparently reviewing the question on a case-by-case basis. (See prior posting.)

Anti-Semitic Handbills Attack Jewish Legislators Who Support Gun Control

Today's Baltimore Sun reports on anti-Semitic handbills available on the website of the organization Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). Three of the 39 handbills available from the website attack Jewish legislators-- state and federal-- for their support of firearms regulation. One attacks Maryland state Senator Brian Frosh and Marlyland state Assembly Delegate Samuel Rosenberg, proclaiming "Bagel Brain Jews Want Your Bullets and Your Guns." This flyer has been mailed by someone to homes in Frosh's district. A second flyer aimed at Maryland state Senator Michael Lenett is headlined "A Jew Should Not Support Racism!" and refers readers to a video titled "No Guns for Negroes." A third flyer portrays U.S. Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer and Lautenberg in Nazi uniforms. The executive director of JPFO is Aaron Zelman of Hartford, Wisconsin, who says he is Jewish.

EEOC Sues Company On Behalf of Fired Mennonite Baptist Employee

The EEOC announced on Thursday that it has filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against the Pollard Agency, an Alabama-based security company. The company fired Marian Lawson who had been assigned to a client in Monticello, Ga. Pollard refused to accommodate her request that she be permitted to cover her hair with a scarf in accordance with her Mennonite Baptist beliefs.

Argentine Court Invalidates Marriage of Same-Sex Couple

According to a CNA report this week, a federal judge in Argentina has nullified the same-sex marriage of two men that was performed at Buenos Aires' Civil Registry earlier this month. The court ruled that the marriage was invalid "because of the absence of the institution's structural elements." The court ordered the men to return their marriage license and ruled that any legal effects derived from the marriage ceremony are suspended. The marriage was originally performed after a City Court judge ordered the Civil Registry to provide the couple with a date for their ceremony. (Buenos Aires Herald.)

Court Says Non-Custodial Parent May Share Religion With Child

In D.R.S. v. L.E.K., (LA App., March 10, 2010), a Louisiana state appellate court held that a parent holding court-awarded custody of a child generally may not shield the child from exposure to the non-custodial parent's religious beliefs. The court said:

Though the custodial or domiciliary parent may raise the child in a legitimate religion of his/her own choosing, that parent may not force that religion or religious affiliation upon the noncustodial parent or preclude the noncustodial parent from pursuing his/her own religious affiliation and sharing same with the child provided doing so does not negatively affect the best interests of the child. There is no statutory nor jurisprudential authority to support the trial court's ruling that the custodial or domiciliary parent has the sole authority to mandate "what belief system is presented to the child in . . . any home in which the child visits or resides."

Oklahoma Senate Passes Bill Rejecting Cooperation With Feds On Intimidation Investigations

The Oklahoma state Senate earlier this week passed by a vote of 39-6 Senate Bill 1965 [Word doc.] which is designed to prevent Oklahoma law enforcement officials from cooperating with federal agencies that attempt to prosecute individuals under 18 USC Sec. 245 when the state has investigated the crime but has not prosecuted, or has not obtained a conviction under state's intimidation and harassment law. Sec. 245 outlaws intimidation of a person engaged in federally protected activities because of race, religion or national origin. Both a press release from Oklahoma state Sen. Steve Russell and an article Friday in The Edge says that the bill is designed to prevent cooperation with federal prosecutions under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. However that law is codified as 18 USC 249. The provisions passed by the state Senate and sent on the the House on March 10 provide:

law enforcement agencies shall deny access to law enforcement records to any federal agency when such request is made relating to a case handled and completed by a law enforcement agency of this state and the purpose is to attempt to investigate or prosecute the individual or individuals pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 245, except for records of any individuals convicted pursuant to Section 850 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes and for those records listed in subsection A of this section....

[State law enforcement officials] shall keep their litigation files and investigatory reports confidential upon request of any federal agency when such request is made for the purpose of an attempt to investigate or prosecute an individual or individuals pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 245, except for those records of any individuals convicted pursuant to Section 850 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes.

EEOC Says New York City Discriminated Against Arabic Language School Principal

According to today's New York Times, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has concluded that New York City's Department of Education (DOE) discriminated against the founding principal of a controversial Arabic-language public school when it fired her. The EEOC concluded that DOE discriminated on the basis of race, religion and national origin when it forced Debbie Almontaser, a Muslim of Yemeni descent, to resign as principal of the Khalil Gibran International Academy in Brooklyn. According to the EEOC's letter urging DOE to reach a just resolution of Almontaser's claims, opponents of the dual-language school succeeded in falsely painting Almontaser as a jihadist, instead of as the moderate Muslim that she was. Misleading characterization of remarks by Almontaser in a New York Post article triggered anti-Muslim bias that led to the Department of Education's action. (See prior related posting.) DOE says it did not discriminate against Almontaser, will not reinstate her and will defend against any litigation she brings.

Faith-Based Restriction Prevents Volunteer From Being Hired In Federally Funded Program

A Seattle Times article earlier this week personalizes the controversy over whether faith-based social service agencies may use religious criteria in hiring employees in federally funded programs. World Relief's U.S. activities, under contract with the State Department, resettle refugees from all cultural and religious backgrounds. The organization receives up to 70% of its funding from government sources. Saad Mohammad Ali worked for six months as a volunteer with World Relief in Seattle, Washington, helping resettle Iraqi refugees. However, when Ali, a Muslim who came to the U.S. from Iraq two years ago, applied for a job with Wold Relief as a case worker, he was told that the organization only hires Christians. While the agency's agreements with the State Department prohibit it from proselytizing, it says its hiring policy allows it to preserve its core identity and values. Also, employees say they often pray during staff meetings, and non-Christians might feel uncomfortable with that practice. Ali says he finds the policy to be in conflict with everything he has learned about the U.S.

Texas State Board Rejects Teaching About Establishment Clause

The Texas State Board of Education is meeting this week to debate the social studies standards for Texas schools. (Dallas Morning News.) In a surprise decision yesterday, the Board defeated by a 10-5 party line vote a proposal by Democratic member Mavis Knight that government classes teach about the Establishment Clause. Her proposal called for students to examine the reasons the Founding Fathers "protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others." Republicans on the Board said that Knight's proposal was based on an inaccurate interpretation of the Founder's intent and was a half-truth that would play down the importance of religion to the Founders. (Dallas Morning News.) Fox News reports that the final vote on this proposal and others will come in May after they are all posted for public comment.

UPDATE: On Friday, the Texas State Board of Education voted 11-4 to approve a new social studies curriculum which, according to the New York Times, "will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the role of Christianity in American history and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light." Among the numerous changes, Thomas Jefferson was dropped from the list of those who inspired revolutions in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Added to the list of those to be mentioned are St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. The curriculum standards will now be published in the state register for 30 days of public comment. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Indiana Valedictorian Sues To Stop Graduation Prayer

The valedictorian at Greenwood High School in suburban Indianapolis, Indiana has sued to enjoin a planned prayer at this year's graduation ceremonies. Because of his class rank, plaintiff Eric Workman will likely be speaking at commencement. The complaint (full text) in Workman v. Greenwood Community School Corporation, (SD IN, filed 3/11/2010), alleges that again this year the school followed its practice of scheduling graduation prayer after conducting a vote by students. A preprinted ballot handed out at a school assembly contained questions on this and other issues. Workman argues that the school has subjected religious practice to majority vote in violation of the First Amendment. Yesterday's Indianapolis Star reported on the lawsuit that was filed on the student's behalf by the ACLU of Indiana.

State Department's 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Released

The U.S. State Department yesterday released its 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, covering conditions in 194 countries around the world. Among the issues of religious freedom highlighted in the report's Introduction are China's tightening controls on independent Muslim religious leaders, sectarian attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt, religious discrimination in Saudi Arabia, increasing anti-Semitism in Europe and South America, and discrimination against Muslims in some European countries. Jurist reports on the release.

Divided 9th Circuit Upholds Pledge Against Establishment Clause Challenge

In a 2-1 decision in Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District, (9th Cir., March 11, 2010), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday upheld against an Establishment Clause challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, including its reference to God, and the statutorily authorized practice in the Rio Linda (CA) School District of teachers leading students in the pledge each day. Students are permitted to refrain from participating in the recitation. The majority, in a 60 -page opinion by Judge Bea (joined by Judge Nelson), said:

We hold that the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause because Congress' ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism and that the context of the Pledge—its wording as a whole, the preamble to the statute, and this nation’s history—demonstrate that it is a predominantly patriotic exercise. For these reasons, the phrase "one Nation under God" does not turn this patriotic exercise into a religious activity

Accordingly, we hold that California’s statute requiring school districts to begin the school day with an "appropriate patriotic exercise" does not violate the Establishment Clause even though it permits teachers to lead students in recitation of the Pledge.

In 2002, the 9th Circuit in another case invalidated on Establishment Clause grounds a different school's pledge-recitation policy. Ultimately that holding was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court on standing grounds. In reaction to the 9th Circuit's opinion, Congress reenacted the Pledge with findings detailing secular reasons for it. (P.L. 107-293). The majority pointed to this history to distinguish its earlier holding.

Judge Reinhardt filed a strongly-worded 133-page dissent. He said in part:

[N]o judge familiar with the history of the Pledge could in good conscience believe, as today’s majority purports to do, that the words "under God" were inserted into the Pledge for any purpose other than an explicitly and predominantly religious one.... Nor could any judge ... seriously deny that carrying out such an indoctrination in a public school classroom unconstitutionally forces many young children either to profess a religious belief antithetical to their personal views or to declare themselves through their silence or nonparticipation to be protesting nonbelievers, thereby subjecting themselves to hostility and ridicule.

It is equally clear that no judge ... could legitimately rely on a 2002 "reaffirmation" to justify the incorporation of the words "under God" into the Pledge ... as if the finite act in 1954 of transforming a purely secular patriotic pledge into a vehicle to promote religion, and to indoctrinate public schoolchildren with a belief in God, had never occurred.... In doing so [in 1954], we abandoned our historic principle that secular matters were for the state and matters of faith were for the church. The majority does so again today, sadly, by twisting, distorting, and misrepresenting the law, as well as the issues that are before us.

Today’s majority opinion will undoubtedly be celebrated, at least publicly, by almost all political figures, and by many citizens as well, without regard for the constitutional principles it violates and without regard for the judicial precedents it defies and distorts.... [T]o the joy or relief ... of the two members of the majority, this court’s willingness to abandon its constitutional responsibilities will be praised as patriotic and may even burnish the court's reputation among those who believe that it adheres too strictly to the dictates of the Constitution or that it values excessively the mandate of the Bill of Rights.

If a majority of the populace comes to believe in a patriotism that requires the abdication of judicial responsibility, if it comes to accept that we can only honor our nation by ignoring its basic values, if it comes to embrace a practice of bringing together the many by forfeiting the rights of the few, then we clearly will have imposed an untenable burden not only on our nation in general but on the judiciary in particular.... I do not doubt that many Americans feel bound together by their faith in God, but whatever beliefs may be shared by a majority of our citizens, it is respect for the rights of minorities and for the Constitution itself that must bind us all.

CNN reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]