Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• J. Thomas Oldham, Book Review: 'Almighty God Created the Races' by Fay Botham, (Journal of Law and Religion, Forthcoming).
• Intisar A. Rabb, Islamic Legal Maxims as Substantive Canons of Construction: Ḥudūd-Avoidance in Cases of Doubt, (Islamic Law and Society, Vol. 17, pp. 63-125, 2010).
  

From SmartCILP:

• Roberta Rosenthal Kwall, Intellectual Property Law and Jewish Law: A Comparative Perspective on Absolutism (Reviewing David L. Lange and H. Jefferson Powell, No Law: Intellectual Property in the Image of an Absolute First Amendment), 22 Yale Journal of Law & Humanities 143-170 (2010).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Sterr v. Baptista, (9th Cir., July 1, 2010), the 9th Circuit rejected an inmate's claim that prison officials placed substantial burdens on his religious exercise when they restricted vegetation for his Earth-based religion to "grass only" and set a new schedule for using the prison's religious grounds.

In Stevens v. Skolnick, (9th Cir., July 1, 2010), the 9th Circuit concluded that denial of a TRO to an inmate who was refused permission to conduct his daily Native American prayer practice is not an appealable final order.

In Forde v. Baird, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63375 (D CT, June 25, 2010), a Connecticut federal district court held that RFRA requires a federal prison to grant an exemption from non-emergency cross-gender pat down searches to a female Muslim inmate whose religion prohibits her from being touched by men outside of her close family.

In Porter v. Beard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63431 (WD PA. June 21, 2010), a Pennsylvania federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63413, May 12 2010) and allowed an inmate to proceed with claims that his free exercise rights were violated when authorities seized and destroyed his medicine bag.

In Putzer v. Donnelly, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63707 (D NV, June 16, 2010), a Nevada federal district court approved a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63708, May 11, 2010) and rejected challenges to prison policy that allows one Jewish inmate to light Sabbath candles for all Jews in the prison before Friday evening services that are open to all. Plaintiff claimed he had a right to attend the candle lighting service.

In Kole v. FCI Danbury, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63986 (D CT, June 25, 2010), a Connecticut federal district court allowed an inmate to proceed with her RFRA and free exercise challenges to a decision by prison officials to change vendors for Kosher for Passover food, creating a rise in commissary prices for inmate for the food. Plaintiff alleged that the price increase made the food "essentially unavailable" to inmates.

In Gauthier v. Anderson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64190 (WD LA, June 28, 2010), a Louisiana federal district court adopted the recommendations of a federal magistrate (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64236, April 21, 2010) and dismissed a frivolous an inmate's complaint that he was not allowed to attend regular church services while he was in lock-down for 2 1/2 months.

In Rouser v. Rutherford, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64856 (ED CA, June 28, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing for lack of evidence and failure to state a claim under RLUIPA and the Free Exercise clause a prisoner's charge that he was disciplined for rules violations solely because of his Wiccan religion. The disciplinary action grew out of a prison riot between several Wicca members and members of a Southern Hispanic gang.

In Holley v. Johnson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65356 (WD VA, June 30, 2010), a Virginia federal district court upheld a prison's ban on all Five Percenter publications, even if the particular publication does not advocate violence. The court also dismissed plaintiff's claim to entitlement to the Common Fare Diet, rejecting the magistrate's contrary recommendation.

In Hernandez v. Arizona Department of Corrections, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65250 (D AZ, June 11, 2010), an Arizona federal district court permitted an inmate to move ahead against certain defendants on his claim that he is regularly provided kosher food trays that are missing food items and he is not provided with a nutritionally equivalent substitution.

In Belatedly Released Opinion, Judge Says Religion Is Not Basis for Recusal

Last week, a New York federal judge belatedly docketed an opinion that had been prepared in 1998 but not previously released, in which he rejected a motion that he recuse himself because of his religion in a civil rights case against the murderer of an Orthodox Jewish student in the 1991 Crown Height Riot. Defendant in the case based his motion in part on the fact that federal district judge David Trager who was presiding in his trial is an Orthodox Jew. In United States v. Nelson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63814 (ED NY, June 28, 2010), Judge Trager held that religion is an impermissible basis on which to challenge a judge, saying "defendant's argument stands on the same infirm footing as motions that have been made to recuse my African-American and female colleagues in civil rights cases where the victim of the alleged discrimination was black or female." The motion, he said, also implicates Art. VI, clause 3 of the Constitution that bars any religious test for holding public office.

Schools' Released Time Program Challenged

A lawsuit was filed earlier this week in an Indiana federal district court challenging the religious released time program of the Fort Wayne (IN) Community Schools. The complaint (full text) in C.S. v. Fort Wayne Community Schools, (ND IN, filed 6/29/2010), claims that the program violates the Establishment Clause because trailers used for the programs are on school property and apparently obtain electricity from school power sources, and because elementary school students are permitted to attend the religious educational programs without explicit written permission from their parents. Courthouse News Service reports on the case, as does today's Chicago Tribune.

Principals Have No Qualified Immunity For Limiting Student Distribution of Religious Materials

In Morgan v. Swanson, (5th Cir., July 1, 2010), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant qualified immunity to two Plano, Texas elementary school principals who were sued for refusing to allow elementary school students to hand out religious-themed items during school parties and at other non-curricular times. The court held that it is clearly established that the First Amendment applies to student-to-student distribution of non-curricular materials in elementary schools, and that the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint discrimination against religious speech in elementary schools. (See prior related posting.)

UPDATE: An amended opinion was filed on Nov. 29, 2010 adding that nothing in the opinion prevents the district court from granting qualified immunity if the facts show this was something other than non-disruptive student-to-student speech.

Pennsylvania Ban on Blasphemous Business Names Struck Down

In Kalman v. Cortez, (ED PA, June 30, 2010), a Pennsylvania federal district court struck down a Pennsylvania statute (15 Pa. Consol. Stat. 1303(c)(2)(ii)) that prohibits corporate names from containing "[w]ords that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord's name." The Pennsylvania Corporation Bureau rejected plaintiff's certificate of organization for an LLC that would operate under the name "I Choose Hell Productions LLC". Subsequently the Bureau permitted him to instead use the name "ICH Productions LLC". The court concluded that Pennsylvania's blasphemy statute violates the Establishment Clause, failing all three prongs of the Lemon test. It also held that the law infringes free speech rights as a viewpoint-based restriction, and is invalid under the Central Hudson case even if corporate names are considered commercial speech. Yesterday's Legal Intelligencer reported on the decision. [Thanks to James Maule via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Suit Challenges School's Refusal To Permit Distribution of Bibles

A lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Florida yesterday by a group known as World Changers that was refused permission to hand out Bibles in Collier County, Florida high schools. The complaint (full text) in World Changers of Florida, Inc. v. District School Board of Collier County, Florida, (MC FL, filed 7/1/2010), alleged that in the 2006-07 and 2007-08 school years it was permitted to set up a table on Religious Freedom Day to make Bibles available to students who wished to take them, and 1000 to 2000 students did. However, under a new policy, permission was refused for the 2008-09 school year. The new policy required a determination by a committee of administrators that distribution of literature by outside groups "promote student interests." The suit seeks an injunction, and a declaratory judgement that the school policy is an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech, that it delegates standardless discretion to the Superintendent, that it is a content and viewpoint based restriction that violates plaintiff's free exercise and equal protection rights. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Overly Broad Zoning Ordinance Is Prior Restraint On Expressive Religious Use of Land

Adhi Parasakthi Charitable, Medical, Educational and Cultural Society of North America v. Township of West Pikeland, (ED PA, June 23, 2010), involves various challenges to actions of a zoning board in a Chester County, Pennsylvania township effectively denying zoning approval to a Hindu group for construction of a temple and auxiliary building. A Pennsylvania federal district court held that "in granting an overly broad amount of discretion to its Zoning Board in deciding whether to allow expressive religious use of land within the Township, Defendant has created a prior restraint on speech in violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights."

On plaintiff's free exercise and RLUIPA claims, the court held that there are factual disputes which a jury must decide as to whether the Township's zoning law was applied discriminatorily. The court rejected equal protection and due process claims brought by plaintiffs. Some of plaintiffs' proposed construction violated a restrictive covenant on the property. The court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a RLUIPA challenge to the Zoning Board's enforcement of the restrictive covenant, since any burden on plaintiff's free exercise of religion is caused by the restrictive covenant and not by Zoning Board action.

NY City Council Saves Concerts As Court Enjoins Them For Being Too Close To Synagogues

The New York Post and the Brooklyn Eagle report that a Brooklyn court yesterday issued a temporary injunction against the long-running summer concert series in Coney Island's Asser Levy Park. Two synagogues sued, claiming that the concerts violate a city ban against amplified sound within 500 feet of religious institutions, schools, courthouses and other gathering places when they are in session. The suit is part of a broader effort to stop development of a $64 million amphitheater project for the park. (See prior posting.) However City Council this week took action to save the summer concert series. It passed a law, which the mayor intends to sign, creating a 90-day pilot program under which amphitheaters, open air band shells and stadiums the right to get permits for concerts even if they are in violation of the 500-foot rule. The bill expires in 90 days, but drafters hope that a permanent solution will be worked out by then.

Appeal Filed In Delaware School Board Invocation Case

Today's Delaware Online reports that an appeal has been filed with the Third Circuit in Doe v. Indian River School District. In the case, a Delaware federal district court upheld against an Establishment Clause attack the policy of the Indian River School Board to open its meetings with a prayer delivered by members of the school board on a rotating basis, or if the board member prefers, a moment of silence. The district court applied precedent relating to prayers opening sessions of legislative bodies. (See prior posting.)

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Bar Negligent Supervision Claim Against Church

In Erdman v. Chapel Hill Presbyterian Church, (WA Ct. App., June 29, 2010), a Washington state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not bar a church employee's claim for negligent supervision and retention claims against a church based on alleged physical intimidation and verbal abuse by its pastor. Plaintiff, a Church elder employed as the Church's Executive for Stewardship, was in a dispute with the pastor over whether tours of religious and historical sites led by him jeopardized the church's tax exempt status. Nor are plaintiff's Title VII claims for sexual harassment. However the court dismissed various other claims by plaintiff.

Appeal In Italian Crucifix Case Heard By European Court's Grand Chamber

Yesterday, the 19-judge Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights heard an appeal from a November ruling by a 7-judge panel that held crucifixes in public school classrooms in Italy violate protections in the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR panel found that crucifixes in classrooms infringe protections of thought, conscience and religion and the right of parents to educate their children according to their convictions. (See prior posting.) Both the European Centre for Law and Justice and AP report on yesterday's appeal in the case of Lautsi v. Italy . Joining Italy in the appeal were Armenia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, Romania and Russia. Italian courts had held that the crucifix is part of the Italian national identity, and not an attempt to convert students. An amicus brief supporting Italy's position was filed in the case by a group of over 50 law professors from across Europe. The amicus effort was coordinated by Notre Dame law professor Paolo Carozza and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. (Notre Dame News, 6/7).

Kagan Gets Some Questions on Religion Clauses

On Day 3 of her confirmation hearings, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was asked questions about the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, and about standing to raise Establishment Clause issues. Blog from the Capital has an unofficial transcript of the exchanges between Kagan and Senators Feinstein, Cardin and Coburn. Kagan explained her understanding of the religion clauses in part as follows:

In general, I think, what both First Amendment clauses are designed to do - and this is the way in which they work hand in hand with each other - what they're both designed to do is to ensure that you have full rights as an American citizen. You are a part of this country, no matter what your religion is, and to ensure that religion just never functions as a way to put people because of their religious belief or because of their religious practice at some disadvantage with respect to any of the rights of American citizenship. So, I think that that's the sort of overall purpose of both parts of the amendment.

The full transcripts are worth reading.

Supreme Court Refuses Review Of School Rules On Distributing Materials

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Morgan v. Plano Independent School District, (Docket No. 09-1131). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that rules adopted in 2005 by a Texas school district restricting the times and places at which students can distribute written materials are constitutional, at least on their face. At issue were students who wished to distribute religious-themed candy canes and tickets to church musical and drama programs. (See prior posting.) Dallas Morning News on Monday reported on the court's action.

Groups Urge Congressional Hearings on Faith Based Initiative

On June 18, thirty national organizations comprising the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination, sent a letter (full text) to the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee urging it to hold hearings on the current status of the Faith-Based Initiative. The letter reads in part:

As a candidate, President Obama promised to reinstate constitutionally required religious liberty protections and end federally funded religious discrimination in the Faith-Based Initiative. Yet, eighteen months after President Obama’s inauguration, the White House and all the federal agencies are still operating under the same inadequate safeguards against proselytizing and insufficient constitutional protections imposed by the previous Administration.

[Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]

Court Says Pooled Investment Funds Are Part of Delaware Diocese Bankruptcy Estate

In In re Catholic Diocese of Wilmington, Inc., (DE Bankr., June 28, 2010), a Delaware federal bankruptcy court held that funds in a pooled investment program operated by the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington are part of the bankruptcy estate. Individual parishes have over $2.3 million of their funds invested in the pool, while various Catholic charitable and educational organizations have over $25.8 million and the Catholic Diocese Foundation has $45 million there. These 31 participants in the pooled investment program claimed that a trust relationship existed so that their invested funds belong to them and are not property of the diocese. The court held that a trust exists, but that their funds are comingled with funds of the diocese that are also part of the pooled investment vehicle, and that these participants (with the exception of one parish) have not carried their burden of identifying and tracing the funds that belong to them. So these funds become part of the total pool that will be divided among some 140 sexual abuse victims who have sued the diocese. The parishes and institutions with funds in the pool will also have claims and will share pro rata with abuse claimants and other creditors. Bloomberg Businessweek, reporting on the decision, quotes an attorney for sex abuse victims who have sued the diocese who calls the result "a great victory for all the survivors of sexual abuse in the diocese."

Prop 8 Opponents Say CLS v. Martinez Supports Them

Earlier this month, lawyers made their closing argument in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a federal constitutional challenge to California's Proposition 8 that bans same-sex marriage. A decision has not yet been handed down in the case. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs, who claim that gays and lesbians are a protected class for constitutional purposes, say language in Monday's Supreme Court decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez supports their position. The Recorder yesterday reported that lawyers for those challenging Proposition 8 wrote a letter (full text) to U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, bringing the Supreme Court's language to his attention. The letter reads in part:

In Christian Legal Society, the Supreme Court definitively held that sexual orientation is not merely behavioral, but rather, that gay and lesbian individuals are an identifiable class. Writing for the Court, Justice Ginsburg explained: "Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context."

Kagan's Religion Comes Up In Unusual Contexts At Confirmation Hearings

JTA reports that at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings yesterday on the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan, the nominee referenced her religion in two unusual contexts. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) questioned Kagan on remarks she made at Harvard Law School welcoming Israeli Supreme Court Judge Aharon Barak in which she called the activist jurist her "judicial hero." (See prior posting.) Responding to Grassley's concerns, Kagan said that her admiration does not mean she wants to adopt Barak's views in the United States. Instead, she said, she admired his role in creating an independent judiciary for Israel and assuring that it "would become a very strong rule of law nation." Then she added: "As you know, I don't think it's a secret I am Jewish. The State of Israel has meant a lot to me and my family. And – and I admire Justice Barak for what he's done for the State of Israel and ensuring an independent judiciary."

At another point in the hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) began to question Kagan about terrorism issues, focusing on the arrest in Detroit last Christmas Day of an attempted airline bomber. Graham asked: "Where were you on Christmas Day?" Kagan responded humorously: "Like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant."

Don Byrd is live blogging from the hearings on church-state issues that arise.

En Banc Rehearing Denied In Challenge To Inauguration Prayer and Oath

Yesterday the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a panel rehearing and also denied an en banc rehearing in Newdow v. Roberts. The case is an Establishment Clause challenge to prayer and use of "so help me God" in the oath at Presidential inauguration ceremonies. In May's panel decision dismissing the case, two judges held that it was moot and that plaintiffs lacked standing, while the third judge would have dismissed on the merits. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to Bob Ritter for the lead.]

Reasons For Belgian Raid On Church Headquarters Disclosed

Today's New York Times reports new information explaining the raids by Belgian police last week on church offices and a cathedral in the Archdiocese of Malines-Brussels. The Pope criticized police tactics. (See prior posting.) The Times reports that the raids stemmed from a formal accusation by Godelieve Halsberghe, former head of an internal church commission handling sexual abuse cases, that the Church was hiding information. Investigators seized two truckloads of files, many relating to 475 complaints filed since April when Bishop Roger Vangheluwe resigned after admitting to sexually abusing a young man decades ago. (Background.) Investigators are comparing records to see if some complaints were kept from the church's commission. Prosecutors are also considering whether to move against those who knew children were being abused and took no action to protect them.