Evangelical Leaders of Immigration Reform Say Same-Sex Provisions Will Kill Bill

Last month, a group of evangelical leaders made news by calling for a "Just Assimilation" immigration policy that would secure the borders, but also create a path to legalization for millions of undocumented residents. (See prior posting.) Now most of the same leaders say that they will oppose the immigration bill that has been drafted by New York's Sen. Chuck Schumer because it would allow same-sex partners of Americans the same rights as opposite-sex spouses to to obtain citizenship. Baptist Press yesterday reported on the June 4 Statement on Immigration from Liberty Counsel's Matt Staver and signed onto by leaders such as Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; Dr. Richard Land, President of The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; Kenneth Blackwell, Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations on Human Rights; and Lou Engle, Co-founder, The Call to Conscience. The Statement reads in part:

Despite the fact that homosexual groups estimate that the domestic partner provision will benefit only about 36,000 people, Sen. Schumer and President Obama still support the measure.

The undersigned question whether President Obama and Sen. Schumer are more interested in pandering to special interest groups than they are to the pressing needs of immigration. "Same-sex domestic partnerships will doom any effort for bipartisan support of immigration and will cause religious conservatives to withdraw their support," Staver warned.

Canadian Case Raises Issue of Defendant's Right To Have Accuser Remove Niqab

In Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeals today hears oral arguments in a case in which defendants facing sexual assault charges say that the right to face their accuser means that the victim should be required to remove her niqab when she is questioned. Today's Toronto Globe and Mail reports that the case attracted a number of intervenors on both sides. The Muslim Canadian Congress argued that women wearing the full-face veil often do not make the choice to do so freely, so the court should examine the woman's motives carefully before permitting her to testify with her face covered. The Criminal Lawyers Association argued that a cross-examiner needs to examine subtle body language and facial expressions. On the other side, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund argued that requiring removal of the veil will deter Muslim women from seeking protection of the justice system by humiliating and intimidating them. The Canadian Civil Liberties Union adds that this will also deter women from coming forward as witnesses.

New Florida Law, Responding To Santa Rosa Case, Limits School Officials

On Friday, Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed H.B. 31 (full text), a reaction to the settlement by the Santa Rosa County (FL) School District of litigation against it challenging religious practices in the schools. Since the settlement, elaborate litigation strategies have been developed to attempt to overturn the settlement. (See prior posting.) The new law provides:

District school boards, administrative personnel, and instructional personnel are prohibited from taking affirmative action, including, but not limited to, the entry into any agreement, that infringes or waives the rights or freedoms afforded to instructional personnel, school staff, or students by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in the absence of the express written consent of any individual whose constitutional rights would be impacted by such infringement or waiver.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release on the new law that becomes effective July 1.

Helen Thomas, Dean of White House Press Corps, Under Fire For Anti-Semitic Remarks

CNN reported yesterday that Helen Thomas, dean of the White House press corps, is under fire for anti-Semitic remarks she made in an interview (YouTube) with RabbiLIVE at the May 27 American Jewish Heritage Month reception at the White House. After saying that "Israel should get the hell out of Palestine," Thomas was asked where the Jews in Israel should go. She responded: "They should go home," which she elaborated meant to "Poland, Germany . . . and America and everywhere else." Thomas posted an apology on her website Friday saying she deeply regretted her comments. Ari Fleischer, press secretary to President George W. Bush, called on Hearst Corp. to fire Thomas for her comments. Lanny Davis former special counsel to President Bill Clinton called for removal of Thomas' White House press credentials, or at least her privileged seat at news conferences. Thomas' agent Nine Speakers, Inc. dropped her as a client on Sunday.

UPDATE: On June 7, Helen Thomas announced her retirement as a columnist for the Hearst News Service. (AP).

Police Department To Take Booking Photos With Religious Headgear On

Friday's Detroit Free Press reported that the Canton Township, Michigan police have changed their policy and will no longer require persons being booked for arrest to remove head coverings if they are worn for genuine religious reasons. Booking photos will be taken with the person's religious garb normally worn in public still on. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

250 Receive Payments In Covington Diocese Settlement

Yesterday's Kentucky Post carries an article titled Covington Diocese Sex Abuse Settlement-- 1 Year Later. While court records remain sealed, the article reports on a few of the victims who received payment form the 2009 settlement by the Diocese. 250 claims (out of 400 applcations)were found entitled to payment from of the $90 million victims' fund. Victims received amounts ranging from $5000 to $1 million.

Recent Articles Of Interest

From SSRN:

• J.P. Nichols, The Hidden Dichotomy in the Law of Morality, (Campbell Law Review, Vol 31, p. 591, 2009).
• Adam S. Hofri-Winogradow, A Plurality of Discontent: Legal Pluralism, Religious Adjudication and the State, (Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 101-133, 2010).
• John C. Jeffries Jr., What’s Wrong with Qualified Immunity?, (Florida Law Review, Vol. 62, 2010).

From SmartCILP:

• Margaret F. Brinig & Nicole Stelle Garnett, Catholic Schools, Urban Neighborhoods, and Education Reform, 85 Notre Dame Law Review 887-954 (2010).
• Leslie C. Griffin, Fighting the New Wars of Religion: The Need for a Tolerant First Amendment, 62 Maine Law Review 23-74 (2010).

Recent Prisoner Free Excercise Cases

In Busick v. Neal, (5th Cir., May 26, 2010), the 5th Circuit rejected an inmate's claim that that county policy requiring inmates to receive all magazines and books from a single publisher violated his rights to religious freedom because the publisher did not offer free bibles to inmates while other organizations did.

In Muhammad v. Williams-Hubble, (11th Cir., May 28, 2010), the 11th Circuit reversed the district court and permitted an inmate to proceed with his charges that in seeking prison employment his high school diploma was rejected because he is a Muslim.

In Ali v. Quarterman, (5th Cir., May 28, 2010), the 5th Circuit held that the Texas federal district court erred in denying a motion for a preliminary injunction from a Muslim inmate seeking to wear a beard and a kufi. The trial court failed to set out findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court also erred in its administrative closure of the case.

In Wright v. Hedgpeth, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54592 (ND CA, May 10, 2010), a California federal district court held that an inmate's complaint that he was denied a Halal diet and that various Muslim religious services were cancelled stated a cognizable free exercise claim. It dismissed his claim that officials placed his Qu'ran in a pile of dirt, and that he was searched by a female guard in violation of his religious principles.

In Sivori v. Sparkman, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54222 (ND MI, June 2, 2010), a Mississippi federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54227, May 13, 2010). and permitted an inmate who is a membe of the House of Yaweh to proceed with claims that he was denied a kosher diet and that the Postal Inspection Service blocked his receiving a kippah.

In Matlock-Bey v. Ringwood, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54418 (ED AR, June 1, 2010), a federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54302. May 10, 2010) and dismissed a complaint by a Muslim inmate over the serving of meat products containing pork additive on several occasions.

In Hernandez v. Arizona Department of Corrections, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53236 (D AZ, May 6, 2010), an Arizona federal district court concluded that an inmate failed to state a free exercise claim in his complaint that food items were missing from his trays.

In Cosco v. Lampert, (WY Sup. Ct., April 10, 2010), the Wyoming Supreme Court rejected an inmate's claim that his leather cover for his satanic bible with a satanic medallion, as well as a medallion of Baphomet, were destroyed or went missing after he was transferred to a Nevada prison which went the items back to Wyoming.

Armenian Church Sues Getty Museum For Return of Bible Pages

Peace FM Online and Courthouse News Service report that a lawsuit was filed last Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court by the Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America against the J. Paul Getty Museum. The suit seeks return of seven illustrated pages, known as the Canon Table, taken from an illuminated Armenian Bible created by Toros Roslin for Constantine I in 1256. The suit also asks for damages of $35 million which it seeks to have trebled. The rest of the Bible, known as the "Zeyt'un Gospels" is in the Mesrob Mashotots Madenataran museum in Yerevan, Armenia. The lawsuit alleges that the pages were stolen during the Armenian Genocide of 1915-18 and that the Getty Trust knew or should have known this. The Getty says it legally acquired the pages.

Saudi Plaintiffs Say Their Government Is Violating Islamic Law

In Saudi Arabia, two separate lawsuits have recently been filed by Islamic conservatives challenging actions by the Saudi government as being inconsistent with Shariah. Zawya reports today that a member of the public has filed a complaint with the Prosecution and Investigation Commission in Asir province claiming that TV channels and print media affiliated with the Ministry of Culture are advocating the mixing of genders and the unveiling of women, as well as mocking religious symbols. Under a 2005 Royal Decree, the Commission has discretion to accept or reject the complaint.

Meanwhile according to Arab News earlier this week, Sheikh Youssef Al-Ahmad, a lecturer at Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University, has filed a suit in the Court of Appeals in Riyadh challenging a decision by Noura Al-Faiz, deputy minister of education, to allow female teachers in private girls schools to teach boys in the first three grades. Al-Ahmed says this is forbidden "because this is a realization of the liberal scheme to gradually normalize the mixing of genders in schools."

Court Invalidates Arrangement With Jehovah's Witnesses On Orders For Blood Transfusions

In San Joaquin County Human Services Agency v. Marcus W., (CA App., June 2, 2010), a California appellate court essentially invalidated an arrangement that the County Human Services Agency had made over a decade ago with a Jehovah's Witnesses organization. Under the arrangement, doctors seeking court orders for blood transfusions for minor children of Jehovah's Witnesses could obtain a hearing and an order without the stigma of filing a dependency petition which implies parental abuse or neglect. According to the court, the arrangement, while well-intended, is illegal. California's Welfare and Institutions Code, Sec. 369, gives the juvenile court jurisdiction to order medical care for a minor only if the minor has been taken into temporary custody or is a dependent of the court or is named in a petition to be declared a dependent. The court concluded that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order requiring a 16-year old suffering from sickle cell anemia to undergo periodic blood transfusions in violation of his religious beliefs. Yesterday's Los Angeles Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports on the decision.

Joining Religious Commune Does Not Excuse Support Payments

In Shippen v. Shippen, (NC App., May 18, 2010), a North Carolina appellate court upheld a contempt finding against a husband who failed to pay child support and post-separation support to his wife. Shortly after the court ordered the support payments, husband John Lee Shippen joined the Twelve Tribes of Israel, a religious commune that prohibits its members from earning outside income. The court concluded that the fact the defendant's religious beliefs may be sincerely held is irrelevant to his obligation to pay alimony and support. Courthouse News Service today reports on the decision.

9th Circuit Re-Certifies Issues To California High Court In Boy Scout Case

In a case with a complicated procedural history, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has once again certified three questions of state constitutional law to the California Supreme Court in a case challenging leasing (at nominal or no rent) of camp ground and aquatic center space by the city of San Diego, California to the Boy Scouts. Plaintiffs object to the Scouts' exclusion of atheists, agnostics and homosexuals as volunteers or members. The 9th Circuit hopes that resolution of the state law issues will prevent its having to decide the federal Establishment Clause claim raised by plaintiffs. In Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America, (9th Cir., June 3, 2010), the court recounts this history:

We previously certified these questions to the California Supreme Court in an order that ... determined that the plaintiffs had standing to maintain this action.... We stayed our certification order pending disposition of a petition for rehearing en banc. That petition was denied ... and we directed the certification order to be delivered to the California Supreme Court.... The Boy Scout defendants filed a petition for certiorari, however, challenging our certification order's ruling that the plaintiffs had standing.... The Supreme Court of California then entered an order stating that our request for decision of certified questions was "denied without prejudice and may be re-filed after the issue of standing is finalized."

...[W]e stayed further proceedings in our court pending the decision of the Supreme Court on the Boy Scouts’ petition for certiorari, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Salazar v. Buono ... which raised a similar standing issue.

On April 28, 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided Salazar v. Buono, ... but a majority of the Court did not decide the relevant standing issue.... Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Boy Scouts v. Barnes-Wallace....

We conclude, therefore, that the issue of standing has become finalized within the meaning of the order of the California Supreme Court.... In accordance with that order, we take this opportunity to re-file our certification of issues and request for decision by the California Supreme Court.

The questions certified to the California Supreme Court are:

1. Do the leases interfere with the free exercise and enjoyment of religion by granting preference for a religious organization in violation of the No Preference Clause in article I, section 4 of the California Constitution?

2. Are the leases "aid" for purposes of the No Aid Clause of article XVI, section 5 of the California Constitution?

3. If the leases are aid, are they benefitting a “creed” or “sectarian purpose” in violation of the No Aid Clause?

Courthouse News Service reports on the 9th Circuit's action.

Judge Orders Observance of Religious Rules In Custody Decision

Yesterday's Jewish Chronicle reports on an unusual order in a bitter custody battle over their 7-year old son between Elina Margolina, an Orthodox Jew, and her former husband, Nelson Derbigney who is now remarried to an Hispanic Catholic woman. Elina complained that her former husband was ruining their son's religious upbringing. She alleged he fed him a non-kosher hot dog and mocked the kippah (skull cap) he wore. So a Chicago judge ordered Nelson and his new wife, Laura, to follow Sabbath rules by not to driving on Saturdays when they had visitation rights, and to cook the boy only kosher food. The judge also stipulated where the Derbigney's could shop for kosher food and required that they have the boy wear a kippah to school. Nelson claims that his ex-wife was a Reform Jew and only became religiously observant after they divorced three years ago.

Pakistan Ratifies Convention on Civil and Political Rights

Pakistan's president, Asif Ali Zardari has signed the Instrument of Ratification for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture, according to the Associated Press of Pakistan yesterday. The instruments of ratification will now be deposited with the United Nations. The ICCPR includes protections for freedom of religion, thought and conscience, including the right to adopt a religion of one's choice.

Summum's Establishment Clause Claim Is Rejected

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a freedom of expression claim brought by Summum that was refused permission to put up a Seven Aphorism's monument in a park in Pleasant Grove City, Utah. The park already contained a number of other monuments, including the Ten Commandments. (See prior posting.) Subsequently a Utah federal district court permitted Summum to amend its complaint to add an Establishment Clause claim. Now in Summum v. Pleasant Grove City, (D UT, June 3, 2010), the district court dismissed the Establishment Clause challenge finding no constitutional violation. It concluded that the Ten Commandments monument had been displayed for historical, not religious reasons. Also, the city has not shown a preference for one religion over another since, at the time it rejected the proposed Seven Aphorisms monument, government officials had no information about Summum's religious beliefs, practices or teachings. Having rejected the federal Establishment Clause challenge, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a similar state Constitutional claim. Yesterday's Salt Lake Tribune reported on the decision.

Challenge To Agreement For Church Tent City Dismissed As Untimely

In Mercer Island Citizens for Fair Process v. Tent City 4, (WA App., June 1, 2010), a Washington state appellate court dismissed as untimely challenges to a decision by the Mercer Island City Council to to enter a Temporary Use Agreement permitting the Mercer Island United Methodist Church to host a temporary encampment for the homeless in 2008. The court held that the Temporary Use Agreement was a land use decision. Under the state's Land Use Petition Act, any challenge to City Council's decision had to be appealed to the courts within 21 days after it was issued. That time limit also applies to due process challenges to the land use decision. (See prior related posting.)

Russian Taxi Company Caters To Orthodox Christians

In Russia, some are criticizing a new taxi cab company in Moscow that caters to Orthodox Christian believers. Today's Moscow Times reports that Moskovskaya Troika which began on Palm Sunday now operates 50 privately owned taxis driven by devout Russian Orthodox believers. The taxis carry pre-recorded services from the Orthodox Radonezh radio station and literature from the Russian Orthodox Church. The company distributes leaflets inside churches, and much of its business is from riders going to church. Even though Russia's Labor Code bars religious discrimination in hiring, the company requires drivers to be baptized Orthodox.

House Hearing Explores Impact of Money Laundering Rules On Legitimate Charities

On May 26, the U.S. House Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on "Anti-Money Laundering: Blocking Terrorist Financing and Its Impact on Lawful Charities." (Links to prepared testimony and webcast of hearing.) Daniel L. Glaser, Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary testified in part:

Terrorist organizations have abused and exploited charities of all backgrounds. And there is no doubt that terrorist organizations such as al Qaida, Hamas, and Hizbollah have abused and exploited Muslim charities. Though Treasury actions with respect Muslim charities have been relatively infrequent and none have occurred for almost three years, we understand that the important steps that we have taken to target charities that do support terrorist organizations, combined with other successful counter-terrorism efforts across our government, have had the unfortunate and unintended consequence of causing a chilling effect on well-intentioned donor activity within Muslim American communities.

Other witnesses were Kay Guinane, Program Manager, Charity and Security Network; Michael German, Policy Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union; and Matthew Levitt, Director, Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Supreme Court: Miranda Rights Waived In Answers About Religious Belief and Prayer

Earlier this week in Berghuis v. Thompkins, (Sup. Ct., June 1, 2010), the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision made it easier for police to obtain a waiver of Miranda rights by suspects being questioned. The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, held that police can continue questioning a suspect until he clearly invokes his right to remain silent. Furthermore, when questioning continues after a Miranda warning has been given and understood, the accused's later uncoerced statement implies a waiver of his right to remain silent. The uncoerced statement in this case was a response by the accused to questions about his belief in God. Here is Justice Kennedy's account:

About 2 hours and 45 minutes into the interrogation, [Police Detective] Helgert asked Thompkins, "Do you believe in God?" .... Thompkins made eye contact with Helgert and said "Yes," as his eyes "well[ed] up with tears." ... "Do you pray to God?" Thompkins said "Yes." ... Helgert asked, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" ... Thompkins answered "Yes" and looked away.... Thompkins refused to make a written confession, and the interrogation ended about 15 minutes later.

Yesterday's Detroit Free Press reported on the Court's decision.