Religion Clause

Saturday, October 02, 2010

Challenge To Pledge and National Motto In Capitol Visitor Center Dismissed On Standing Grounds

In Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Ayers, (WD WI, Sept. 29, 2010), a Wisconsin federal district court held that neither the Freedom from Religion Foundation, nor any of its members, have standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to a Congressional joint resolution calling for the Architect of the Capital to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Motto, “In God We Trust”, in the Capitol Visitors Center. The court held:

Plaintiffs fail to establish standing because they cannot point to any specific congressional appropriation for the allegedly unconstitutional concurrent resolution. Plaintiffs allege that performing the engraving as required by the concurrent resolution cost between $100,000 and $150,000 “funded from U.S. taxpayer appropriations made by Congress[.]” … This allegation … does not provide the necessary link between taxpayer status and the expenditure. “[U]se of funds for [an] allegedly unconstitutional program, without more, is not sufficient to meet the nexus required by Flast”; the appropriation of those funds for such a purpose is what provides the necessary link between taxpayer and expenditure to create standing.

The American Center for Law & Justice issued a press release calling the decision "an encouraging victory." Huffington Post reported on the decision.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

European Human Rights Court Rules on Right of Churches To Dismiss Employees for Private Behavior

In a press release last week, the European Court of Human Rights announced two Chamber Judgments, ruling for the first time on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights application to the dismissal of church employees for conduct in the sphere of their private lives. Article 8 of the ECHR protects the right to respect for family and private life.

In Obst v. Germany, the court upheld action by the German courts in permitting the Mormon Church to dismiss Michael Obst, the Church's director of public relations for Europe, for having an affair with another woman while he was married. As described by the press release, the European Court held that:

the German labour courts had taken account of all the relevant factors and undertaken a careful and thorough balancing exercise regarding the interests involved. They had pointed out that the Mormon Church had only been able to base Mr Obst’s dismissal on his adultery because he had informed the Church of it by his own initiative. According to the German courts’ findings, his dismissal amounted to a necessary measure aimed at preserving the Church’s credibility, having regard in particular to the nature of his post.

However, in the second case, Schuth v. Germany, the European Court held that the German courts had violated Art. 8 of the ECHR in permitting a Catholic parish to dismiss Bernhard Schuth, its organist and choirmaster, for living with a new partner after he separated from his wife. The press release describes the views of the European Court:

the [German] labour court of appeal had confined itself to stating that ... [Schuth's] functions were ... so closely connected to the Catholic Church’s proclamatory mission that the parish could not continue employing him without losing all credibility. That court had not examined this argument any further but appeared to have simply reproduced the opinion of the Church employer on this point.

The labour courts had moreover made no mention of Mr Schüth’s de facto family life or of the legal protection afforded to it. The interests of the Church employer had thus not been balanced against Mr Schüth’s right to respect for his private and family life, but only against his interest in keeping his post. A more detailed examination would have been required when weighing the competing rights and interests at stake.

The full text of each of the decisions are available in French: Affaire Obst c. Allemagne, (ECHR, Sept. 23, 2010) and Affaire Schuth c. Allemange, (ECHR, Sept. 23, 2010). These Chamber Judgments can still be appealed to the Grand Chamber. [Thanks to Pew Sitter for the lead.]

Judge Refuses To Recuse Himself Over Charge of Religious Bias

Palmer v. City of Prescott, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101136 (D AZ, Sept. 7, 2010), is a suit against the city of Prescott, Arizona and various of its officials alleging violations of plaintiff's 4th and 5th Amendment rights. Plaintiff moved to disqualify federal district court Judge David Campbell from hearing the case because Campbell is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Plaintiff, Peter Palmer, is an evangelical Christian who proselytizes Mormons. He alleges that Judge Campbell's religious beliefs will bias him against plaintiff. The judge refused to disqualify himself, saying that plaintiff's proselytizing activities have nothing to do with the claims in this case, and citing federal precedent holding that church membership does not create a sufficient appearance of bias to require disqualification.

EEOC Sues AutoZone On Behalf of Sikh Employee

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Massachusetts against AutoZone, Inc. on behalf of a Sikh employee. The suit alleges that AutoZone refused to allow employee Frank Mahoney-Burroughs wear a turban and kara (religious bracelet). The suit also alleges a hostile work environment in which Mahoney-Burroughs' manager asked him if he was a terrorist and had joined al-Qaeda, and in which Auto Zone failed to intervene when customers made terrorist jokes and referred to Mahoney-Burroughs as Bin-Laden. The suit alleges that Mahoney-Burroughs was fired because of his religion and in retaliation for complaining about discrimination.

DC Circuit Stays Preliminary Injunction Against Stem Cell Guidelines

Yesterday the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Sherley v. Sebelius granted a stay of a preliminary injunction during the appeal of a federal district court's order enjoining application of the Obama Administration's guidelines expanding grants for stem cell research. (Full text of order.) The court also ordered that argument of the appeal be expedited. According to a Reuters report, government lawyers argued to the D.C. Circuit that dozens of research projects would be ruined if their grant funding was cut off, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars.

AU Asks IRS To Investigate Church's Political Endorsement On Pulpit Sunday

Reaction is now beginning to activities of churches which last Sunday participated in Alliance Defense Fund's Pulpit Sunday challenging tax code restrictions on non-profits, including churches. (See prior posting.) Americans United announced yesterday that it has sent a letter (full text) to the Internal Revenue Service asking it to investigate Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Oklahoma. The church's pastor, Paul Blair, endorsed Rep. Mary Fallin for Oklahoma governor from the pulpit during Sunday services.

Lehi, Utah Police Investigate TV Reality Show Polygamous Family

The TLC Channel on Sunday premiered a new reality TV show titled "Sister Wives." The network describes the program as" "Meet husband Kody-- along with his three wives: Meri, Janelle and Christine and their combined 13 children-- and see how they attempt to navigate life as a 'normal' family in a society that shuns their lifestyle." Yesterday's Rexburg, Idaho Standard Journal reports that Lehi, Utah police have launched an investigation of the Kody Brown family which is featured on the program. (It says Brown has four wives, 13 children and 3 stepchildren.) Evidence gathered in the investigation will be turned over to the Utah County attorney's office for possible prosecution. The policy of the Utah attorney general's office has been not to pursue cases of bigamy involving consenting adults.Utah's polygamist community has been working over the last ten years to educate law enforcement agencies about its culture, and the Browns had hoped that this show would broaden public understanding of plural families.

New York Town Wants Sufi Cemetery Shut Down

AP reported yesterday that in the rural upstate New York town of Sidney Center, the town board voted in August to pursue legal action to shut down the town's small Sufi cemetery. Town Supervisor Bob McCarthy says the cemetery is illegal and that the two bodies already buried should be removed. He fears that the town may be saddled with the cost of the cemetery some day if it is abandoned. A Sufi spokesman says that the town zoning board approved the cemetery in 2005 and that burial permits were filed with the town for the burials that took place. Hans Hass of the 30-member Osmanli Naksibendi Hakkani community charges that the town board's action was motivated by the controversy over the proposed Islamic center at Ground Zero in New York City. The leader of the group proposing that mosque is a Sufi, but is not affiliated with the Sufi group in Sidney Center.

MRFF Charges New Religious Freedom Problems At Air Force Academy

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation announced yesterday that it has sent a letter (full text), co-signed by the heads of nine other groups, to the Secretary of Defense making three demands for changes to deal with the allegedly worsening situation involving Christian proselytizing at the Air Force Academy. The letter asks that the Air Force release its most recent Climate Survey of cadets and staff at the Air Force academy. The voluntary survey asks about the religious environment at the Academy. Second, the letter asks that the Defense Department begin an investigation of "Cadets for Christ" and other proselytizing organizations. Third, the letter demands that the Defense Department investigate the Air Force Academy's "incontrovertible and unconstitutional establishment of a fundamentalist Christian culture/ meme amongst its cadet and staff populations." The letter claims that there is an "underground" group of over 100 cadets at the Academy who are pretending to be fundamentalist Christians merely in order to remain in good standing with their peers and superiors. (See prior related posting.)

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Obama Tells Audience Why He Is A Christian

As reported by the New York Times, President Obama continues his series of stops in back yards in various parts of the country in the run up to the mid-term elections. Today, in New Mexico, he was asked by one questioner : "Why are you a Christian?" Here is the CBN News transcript of his answer (the article also includes a video of the Q&A and a transcript of his response in the Q&A to a question about abortion rights):

I’m a Christian by choice. My family didn’t ... frankly, they weren’t folks who went to church every week. My mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew, but she didn’t raise me into church. I came to my Christian faith later in life. ... It was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life I would want to lead. Being by brother’s keepers ... treating others as they would treat me ... also understanding that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings. ... We’re sinful, and we’re flawed, and we make mistakes, and we achieve salvation through the grace of God. ... We can still see God in other people and do our best to help them find their own grace. So that’s what I strive to do and pray to do every day. ... I think my public service is a part of that effort to express my Christian faith.

But the one thing I want to emphasize ... as President of the United States, I’m also someone who deeply believes part of the bedrock strength of this country is that it embraces people of many faiths and of no faiths. This is a country that is still predominantly Christian, but we have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own, and that’s part of what makes our country what it is.

Egypt's Coptic Leader Apologizes For Bishop's Questioning of Qur'anic Verses

The leader of Egypt's Coptic Christian Church, Pope Shenouda III, in an interview aired on Egypt's state-run television Sunday apologized to Muslims for remarks made recently by the church's top bishop. Al-Azhar criticized Bishop Bishoy for provoking sectarian tension after Egyptian media quoted him as suggesting that verses in the Qur'an disputing the divine nature of Jesus were inserted after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. Daily News Egypt reports that Egypt's ambassador in Cyprus also raised the issue directly with Bishoy. The bishop has also contributed to rising tensions between Muslims and Copts by telling a newspaper last week that Muslims are only guests in Egypt. Egypt was majority Christian before the 7th century. Pope Shenouda said in his interview that it is now Christians who are guests since Muslims are the majority. Thousands of Muslims demonstrated Friday against Bishoy's statements and Al-Ahzar's Islamic Research Center held an emergency meeting to condemn the statements.

Pew Survey On Religious Knowledge Shows Confusion Over Religion In Schools

The Pew Forum yesterday released the results of a survey on U.S. Religious Knowledge (Executive Summary, Full Report). The survey of 3,412 Americans asked questions about the Bible, Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, world religions, religion in public life and atheism. The groups scoring highest on the survey were atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons. Here is the Report's summary of knowledge on church-state issues:

The survey also finds widespread confusion over the line between teaching and preaching in public schools.... [T]he single question that respondents most frequently get right is whether U.S. Supreme Court rulings allow teachers to lead public school classes in prayer. Nine-in-ten (89%) correctly say this is not allowed. But among the questions most often answered incorrectly is whether public school teachers are permitted to read from the Bible as an example of literature. Fully two-thirds of people surveyed (67%) also say "no" to this question, even though the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the Bible may be taught for its "literary and historic" qualities, as long as it is part of a secular curriculum. On a third question along these lines, just 36% of the public knows that comparative religion classes may be taught in public schools. Together, this block of questions suggests that many Americans think the constitutional restrictions on religion in public schools are tighter than they really are.

The question on which respondents scored worst was identifying the religion of Maimonides. Only 8% knew he was Jewish. Today's New York Times reports on the survey.

Property Tax Exempt As Parsonage, But Not As Property Use Exclusively For Religious Purposes

In Rockland Hebrew Educational Center, Inc. v. The Village of Spring Valley, (NY Sup Ct, Sept. 8, 2010), a Jewish religious educational organization challenged a village's refusal to renew the tax exemption for its property. A New York trial court held that the village carried its burden of showing that the property was not entitled to a tax exemption as real property owned by a religious or educational institution and used exclusively for those purposes. The exemption was unavailable because the organization was also using the property in violation of the zoning code by conducting religious services there. However the property is entitled to an exemption for property owned by a religious organization and used as a parsonage by its clergy.

Cert Filed In Challenge To Inauguration Oath and Prayers

Yesterday a Petition for Certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to review the D.C. Circuit's decision in Newdow v. Roberts. In the case, the majority of a 3-judge appeals court panel held that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to prayer and use of "so help me God" in the oath at Presidential inauguration ceremonies. The panel also held that the challenge was now moot. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to Bob Ritter for the lead.]

Monday, September 27, 2010

More Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In James v. Hayden, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99205 (SD NY, Sept. 21, 2010), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that a group strip search violated his free exercise rights and his rights under RLUIPA, finding insufficient evidence of a substantial burden on plaintiff's religious beliefs.

In Garcia v. Clark, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98973 (ED CA, Sept. 20, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge permitted a Jewish inmate to move ahead with his claim against most of the defendants alleging that his free exercise rights and his rights under RLUIPA were violated when authorities took away accommodations that permitted him to take his kosher meal back to his cell to eat to avoid harassment.

In Leonard v. Louisiana, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99182 (WD LA, Sept. 20, 2010), a Louisiana federal district court followed up on its earlier determination that denying plaintiff access to Nation of Islam's newspaper "The Final Call" violated the 1st Amendment and RLUIPA. In this decision, the court awarded nominal damages, denied punitive damages and awarded attorneys fees of over $100,000.

In Roberts v. Cox, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98780 (D NV, Aug. 31, 2010), a Nevada federal magistrate judge permitted plaintiff to proceed with most of his free exercise and RLUIPA claims alleging that prison policies made it more difficult for blacks who purported to follow the Jewish faith to practice their religion than it did for white Jews. Among the policies were a requirement that a person be recognized a Jewish by an outside Jewish organization before the individual can receive kosher meals. Plaintiff also claimed that authorities cancelled Jewish services during Ramadan to accommodate Muslim prisoners.

In Mack v. Danforth, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99094 (MD GA, Sept. 21, 2010), a Georgia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99095, July 13, 2010) and permitted plaintiff to proceed against against two of the named defendants on his claim that he was denied a religiously mandated vegan diet.

In Burkes v. Hamilton County, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99830 (SD IL, Sept. 23, 2010), an Illinois federal district court dismissed a claim by an inmate who objected to being required to remain in his 8-person jail cell during Christian religious services that are held in the cell as requested by one or more other prisoners in his cell.

In Collins v. Bruno, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99337 (D CT, Sept. 15, 2010), a Connecticut federal district court rejected an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights and rights under RLUIPA were violated when authorities rejected his request for halal meat for meals on two Muslim holidays.

In Muhammad v. Sisto, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99842 (ED CA, Sept. 10, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge rejected a Muslim inmate's motion for a temporary injunction to transfer him from state to federal custody because state officials allegedly interfered with his ability to fast for Ramadan in 2008.

In Serna v. Wells, 2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 99433 (SD GA, Sept. 21, 2010), a Georgia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99375, Aug. 31, 2010), and dismissed plaintiff's claims seeking to have the Bureau of Prisons make kosher meals available, holding that a habeas corpus proceeding is not the correct form of action to use to challenge conditions of confinement.

Church Loses RLUIPA Claim On Special Use Permit

In Grace Church of Roaring Fork Valley v. Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99950 (D CO, Sept. 20, 2010), a Colorado federal district court rejected RLUIPA and 1st Amendment challenges to the denial of an application for special review use of a church's property. Several years after the denial and on the eve of trial, the county reversed its decision and permitted construction of the church facilities. The church claimed it was still entitled to damages. The court concluded that no reasonable juror could find that the Commissioners' statements and questions at the hearings on the permit demonstrated a hostility toward religious use. Also, the permit denial imposed only an incidental burden on religion.

Court Dismisses 1st Amendment, But Not Statutory, Challenge To Vaccination Requirement

In Caviezel v. Great Neck Public Schools, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100451 (ED NY, Sept. 24, 2010), a New York federal district court held that the First Amendment does not give religious objectors the right to an exemption from New York's mandatory vaccination law for school children. The court however refused defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim that New York's Public Health Law entitles parents with a sincere religious objection to have their children exempted from vaccination requirements. (See prior related posting.)

Bill Would Amend Title VI To Include Ban On Religious Discrimination In Schools Receiving Federal Funds

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act currently prohibits denying participation in any program receiving federal financial assistance based on "race, color or national origin." Senator Arlen Specter and Rep. Brad Sherman announced on Friday that they were introducing bills to amend Title VI to also ban discrimination on the basis of religion in order to protect Jewish, Muslim and Sikh students from harassment at schools and colleges receiving federal funds. The House version is HR 6216. The bill is a reaction to the position taken by the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights that Title VI does not apply to anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish students, and by implication members of other groups that have both religious and ethnic characteristics. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Joel Katz (Relig. & State in Israel) for the lead.]

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Lee v. Johnson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97703 (WD VA, Sept. 17, 2010), a Virginia federal district court permitted an inmate to move ahead with several claims alleging that House of Yahweh inmates were not given the opportunity to meet together for religious services and practice their religion in other ways. However claims against the prison chaplain were dismissed because it was not shown that he was a state employee.

In Watson-El v. Wilson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97481 (ND IL, Sept. 15, 2010), an Illinois federal district court rejected an inmate's claim that prison rules that prevented transfer of funds between inmates violated his free exercise rights by preventing him from purchasing certain religious items.

In Rider v. Yates, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97528 (ED CA, Sept. 3, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed, with leave to amend, an inmate's complaint that prison authorities had wrongfully seized religious artifacts sent as a donation to the prison's Left-Hand Path Pagan Group.

In East v. California Department of Corrections, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97616 (ED CA, Sept. 1, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed, with leave to amend, an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were infringed when a correctional officer failed to deliver him his personal property, which included a Bible.

In Blanco v. Bralower, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97436 (D NV, Aug. 24, 2010), a Nevada federal magistrate judge concluded that an inmate failed to state a free exercise claim when he complained that correctional officers interrupted his prayers by making noise when they passed his cell.

In Countryman v. Nevada, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98033 (D NV, Aug. 26, 2010), a Nevada federal magistrate judge permitted an inmate to proceed with a claim that his rights under the 1st Amendment and RLUIPA were infringed when he was prevented from attending church services while in protective segregation.

In Pilgrim v. Artus, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97971 (ND NY, Sept. 17, 2010), a New York federal district court adopted the recommendations of a magistrate judge (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97978, March 17, 2010) and allowed an inmate who was a member of Nation of Islam to proceed with his challenge to prison grooming rules that did not permit him to wear his hair in dreadlocks. Plaintiff's desire to wear his hair in dreadlocks flowed from his personal religious faith and not from tenets of Nation of Islam. The court limited plaintiff to non-monetary remedies.