City Council Opts To End Exploration of Opening Sessions With Prayer

The Canandaigua, New York City Council's Planning Committee yesterday rejected a proposal by one Council member to explore opening of Council meetings with a prayer.  According to the Canandaigua Messenger Post, Councilwoman Trudy White-Hamilton proposed the idea last month, saying that "prayer would benefit our community."  However Mayor Ellen Polimeni said that instituting a prayer policy would invite a lawsuit, and Councilman Matt Smythe complained that using city staff to investigate the issues involved would divert them from addressing other matters. A motion to continue research on the issue of legislative prayer was defeated by the Committee by a vote of 2-1.

Suit Challenges Jail's Policy Allowing Inmates To Receive Bibles But No Other Publications

The ACLU announced yesterday that it has filed a federal lawsuit in South Carolina challenging the policy at the Berkeley County (SC) Detention Center which bars sending of any books, magazines or newspapers to inmates, except for copies of the Bible.  The complaint (full text) in Prison Legal News v. Berkeley County Sheriff H. Wayne Dewitt, (D SC, filed 10/6/2010), alleges that the censorship policy, which includes barring letters sent by magazine publishers, infringes the right of the publisher of a  monthly journal on prison law to communicate with detainees. The suit also claims that the policy violates the Establishment Clause because allowing Bibles, but no other books, to be sent discriminates on the basis of religion. AP reports on the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Funeral Picketing Case

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning heard oral arguments in Snyder v. Phelps. In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Westboro Baptist Church and its leaders that a $5 million judgment against them growing out of their picketing of the funeral of Iraq veteran Matthew Snyder and a related Internet posting violated their free speech rights. (See prior posting.)  The full transcript of today's oral arguments is available from the Supreme Court's website. Scotus blog has extensive links to briefs in the case and material relating to the oral arguments. The New York Times describes today's arguments as "featur[ing] disputes about the facts and a parade of hypothetical alternative scenarios."  Interestingly, oral arguments for Westboro Baptist Church were made by Margie J. Phelps, a daughter of Westboro's pastor, Fred W. Phelps, Jr. Before the arguments, another of Phelps daughters picketed outside the Supreme Court carrying a sign reading "America Is Doomed."

UPDATE: An audio recording of the full oral arguments is now also available from the Supreme Court's website.

Court Says Confidentiality Agreements Will Not Prevent Discovery In Establishment Clause Suit

Last year a Minnesota federal district court held that the ACLU has taxpayer standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to state funding of a charter school-- the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy. The suit claims that the school advances the Muslim religion and fosters entanglement between government and religion. (See prior posting.) Now in ACLU of Minnesota v. Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104961 (D MN, Oct. 1, 2010), the district court has upheld a federal magistrate's grant of a protective order to prevent enforcement by TiZA of non-disclosure/ confidentiality provisions in its employee handbook against current and former employees in connection with disclosures the employees may make to the ACLU. The ACLU is attempting to interview employees as part of its informal discovery process, and at least one has expressed concern that talking will subject him to a civil suit by TiZA. The court concluded that these confidentiality agreements may well be contrary to public policy when invoked by a public employer such as a charter school.

More Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Green v. Werholtz, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102867 (D KA, Sept. 28, 2010), a Kansas federal district court  rejected plaintiffs' complaints about the manner in which prison kosher meals were prepared, finding that their preparation was approved by a rabbi.


In Delgado v. Ballard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102552 (SD WV, Sept. 24, 2010), a West Virginia federal district court adopted most of a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102532, Aug. 19, 2010) and allowed an inmate who is a Taino Indian from Puerto Rico to move ahead with his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff claimed that his religious rights were infringed by denial of his needs to smoke tobacco daily, grow some of his hair long, listen to certain music full time and correspond with Latino or Taino religious groups.


In Zuege v. Geffers, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102406 (ED WI, Sept. 28, 2010), an inmate complained that in the earned release program he was singled out because of his non-religious beliefs and was told to write a report on a book titled Ethics of Religion. He alleged this violates the Establishment Clause. The ERP group leader denied the allegations. The court held that because of factual disputes, neither side was entitled to summary judgment.


In Miller v. Wilkinson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103364 (SD OH, Sept. 30, 2010), an Ohio federal district court rejected free exercise and RLUIPA challenges by Asatru prisoners seeking exemptions from the prison's grooming code and seeking recognition of their Asatru religious names.

In Sosa v. Lantz, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103535 (D CT, Sept. 30, 2010), a Connecticut federal district court rejected an inmate's complaint that he was being forced to participate in a religion when he was housed with a Muslim cell mate who used the cell for prayer and religious practices.  The court held that double-celling plaintiff with a Muslim cell mate did not amount to state action in violation of 1st Amendment rights.


In Johnson v. Jabe, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103483 (WD VA, Sept. 30, 2010), a Virginia federal district judge remanded an inmate's free exercise, RLUIPA and equal protection claims to the magistrate for further fact finding on whether The Nations of Gods and Earth (sometimes called the Five Percenters) is properly classified as a Security Threat Group. Prison officials classify NGE as a gang and refuse to recognize it as a religion. The magistrate's original recommendations are at 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103486, Aug. 23, 2010.


In Abdul-Matiyn v. Allen, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102825 (ND NY, Sept. 28, 2010), a New York federal district court adopted most of the recommendations of a magistrate (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102972, March 4, 2010) and permitted plaintiff (who was civilly committed after the expiration of his prison term based on psychological issues and sexual misconduct convictions) to move ahead with his claim that his free exercise rights were infringed when authorities prohibited him from engaging in Jum'ah prayers. However the court rejected his complaint that he was not provided with halal meals.

Irish Court Refuses To Assert Universal Jurisdiction Over Alleged Chinese Persecutor of Falun Gong

Ireland's Central Criminal Court last week held that it lacked jurisdiction to issue an arrest warrant for Li Changchun, a high ranking Chinese Communist Party official who was visiting Ireland for two days on his way to Iran. Yesterday's Epoch Times reported that a criminal complaint was filed in Ireland against Li by several Falun Gong practitioners who charged that Li, as Secretary General of the Party of Guangdong Province and the Politburo Standing Committee Propaganda and Media Officer, played a key role in the persecution of Falun Gong in China. Petitioners attempted to assert universal jurisdiction, charging that Li was linked to crimes of torture, extra-judicial killing, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and genocide.

PBS To Air Series On "God In America"

On Oct. 11-12-13, PBS will air a 6-hour series titled "God In America." Jointly presented by American Experience and Frontline, the series will explore the historical role of religion in American public life. Here is PBS' description of the series:

God in America examines the potent and complex interaction between religion and democracy, the origins of the American concept of religious liberty, and the controversial evolution of that ideal in the nation's courts and political arena. The series considers the role religious ideas and institutions have played in social reform movements from abolition to civil rights, examining the impact of religious faith on conflicts from the American Revolution to the Cold War, and how guarantees of religious freedom created a competitive American religious marketplace. It also explores the intersection of political struggle and spiritual experience in the lives of key American historical figures....

Boston Phoenix yesterday had an advance review of the series.

DC Circuit: Federal Employee Need Not Relitigate Religious Discrimination Victory To Appeal Retaliation Holding

In Payne v. Salazar, (DC Cir., Sept. 7, 2010), the D.C. Circuit gave a substantial victory to federal employees asserting Title VII employment discrimination claims.  In the case, Department of Interior employee Cassandra Payne won her religious discrimination clam at the administrative level.  An EEOC administrative judge found that the Interior Department had violated Title VII by refusing Payne's requests for weekends off so she could attend church and Bible study.  However the administrative judge rejected her claim that her supervisor had retaliated against her for filing the EEO claim.  Payne appealed the retaliation ruling by filing suit in federal district court. However the district court accepted the government's contention that in order to sue on the retaliation claim, Payne must also relitigate the religious discrimination claim on which she had been successful at the administrative level. The Court of Appeals reversed, rejecting the government's interpretation of the statutory language. It held that a federal employee does not have to re-prove in court a claim on which she has already been successful in order to sue on other Title VII claims which were rejected at the agency level. [Thanks to FedSmith for the lead.]

Algerian Court Dismisses Prosecution of Two Christians For Eating During Ramadan

In Algeria yesterday, a court in the town of Ain El-Hammam dismissed a prosecution that had been brought against two Christian construction workers charged with eating during daylight hours during Ramadan. Prosecutors demanded that the two be punished for insulting Islam.  The defendants argued that they were not eating in a "public place", and that their prosecution violated constitutional protections and provisions of international conventions protecting freedom of religion.  According to Times Live and the Christian Post, the court ruled that no law provided for bringing charges against the two non-Muslims.

Christian Wrestling Coach Settles Religious Discrimination Claim Against Dearborn, MI School

Dearborn, Michigan's Fordson High School has settled a religious discrimination lawsuit filed against it by its former wrestling coach who claimed he was fired because the school's principal, a Muslim, is weeding out Christian teachers, coaches and staff. (See prior posting.) AP reported yesterday that Dearborn Public Schools paid 65-year old wrestling coach Gerald Marszalek $24,500 to settle the religious discrimination claims. Earlier this year it paid him $500 to drop his age discrimination claims.

Court Refuses To Dismiss Justice Department's Title VII Case Against NYC Transit Authority

In United States v. New York City Transit Authority, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102704 (ED NY, Sept. 24, 2010), the Department of Justice sued the New York City Transit Authority claiming that it violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act through polices and practices that discriminate against employees whose religious beliefs require them to wear certain head coverings, such as turbans or khimars, without logos on them. The complaint alleged selective enforcement of the Transit Authority's uniform policies and failure to reasonably accommodate Sikh and Muslim employees. The court rejected three arguments for dismissal put forward by the Transit Authority. The court held that the suit can be maintained as a "pattern or practice" claim, that in such a claim the government does not have to show that each person for whom it will ultimately seek relief was a victim of the employer's discriminatory policy, and that such claims are not subject to the same rules regarding shifts of burden of proof as in individual Title VII actions. The court also held that whether the Transit Authority offered reasonable accommodation of employees' beliefs could not be determined as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage.

Prosecutor's Biblical References Not A Basis For Overturning Death Sentences

Jackson v. Epps, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102562 (ND MI, Sept. 28, 2010) is a habeas corpus action by a prisoner challenging his capital murder convictions and the resulting four death sentences imposed on him.  Among other claims, petitioner asserted that the prosecutor's Biblical references during closing arguments at the sentencing phase of his trial violated the Establishment Clause and urged jurors to rely on impermissible factors in reaching their decision. The court disagreed, pointing out that the prosecutor:

asked the jury to apply the secular law given to them, and she used a familiar reference to argue that point. The reign of King Herod and his death from a painful disease, are historical fact, and her comments concerning the slaughter of children referenced a story in a book. That the comments have a religious connotation does not render the argument inherently religious....

Moreover, [the prosecutor's] reference to "God's law" was responsive to Petitioner's own arguments..... [Her] statements were not an endorsement of extrajudicial authority for imposing a sentence of death. Her statements were more akin to familiar Proverbs and parables that are used to support arguments outside of a religious context.... [T]here was no prosecutorial suggestion that personal responsibility for the sentence did not ultimately rest with the jury, and the comments did not suggest that religious principles, rather than the law, applied.

Trial of Geert Wilders For Anti-Muslim Incitement Opens In Netherlands

In Amsterdam, Netherlands yesterday, the trial of Geert Wilders, an anti-Muslim right wing member of parliament, opened. Hurriyet Daily News reports that Wilders is charged with giving religious offense to Muslims and inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims.  In his opening statement, Wilders defended freedom of speech, and then refused to answer any questions from judges. This led presiding judge Jan Moors to observe that Wilders appeared to be avoiding discussion. Wilders attorney said that this statement shows that Judge Moors is biased, and moved to have him disqualified. (See prior related posting.) Support by Wilders' Freedom Party is critical to the coalition government that will shortly take office in the Netherlands. (See prior related posting.)

Husband In Contempt For Teaching Child Christian Faith In Violation of Divorce Settlement

In Greene v. Greene, (GA Ct. App., Oct. 1, 2010), a Georgia appellate court upheld a trial court's finding that a divorced husband was in contempt for violating a Settlement Agreement that gave his former wife final decision-making authority over matters related to their daughter's religious upbringing.  The wife was Jewish and the husband was Christian. The husband had agreed that the child would be raised in the Jewish faith.  However, according to the court:

Husband admitted that he had taken the child to numerous Christian churches ...[;] that he told the child that she was Jewish on the outside and Christian on the inside; that he shared Christian prayers with the child; that he and his mother read the Bible to the child; that his mother taught the child the Christian faith from the Bible...; and that the child told him that she was conflicted about the two different faiths. Husband also admitted that he gave the child a children's Bible, as well as DVDs of Christian stories and movies; that he taught her Christian songs and played them while riding in the car with the child; and that he had referred to Wife's parents by numbers but denied that he was referencing the Holocaust.

The appeals court also concluded that the trial court's instructions to the Husband on how to purge himself of contempt were sufficiently clear.

Muslims Get Mixed Messages On Their Integration In Germany

Deutsche Welle reported yesterday that Muslims in Germany are getting mixed messages from top government leaders.  On Sunday, Germany's President Christian Wulff, in a speech marking the 20th anniversary of German reunification, called for the integration of Muslims in Germany. In his speech, Wulff said: "Christianity doubtless belongs in Germany. Judaism belongs doubtless in Germany. That is our Judeo-Christian history. But now, Islam also belongs in Germany." A day later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, endorsed Wulff's views but added that Muslims living in Germany must conform to "fundamental German values." She said there was no leeway on this demand. Meanwhile Norbert Geis, a member of parliament from a Bavarian party allied with Merkel's Christian Democrats said that Wulff's statement should not be interpreted to mean that Islam and Christianity have an equal footing in Germany.

Cert. Denied In Challenge To School Ban On Religious Music In Holiday Concerts

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Stratechuk v. Board of Education, (Docket No. 09-1184) (Order List.) In the case, the 3rd Circuit upheld a New Jersey school district's policy banning celebratory religious holiday music at school-sponsored holiday concerts. (See prior posting.) The policy was challenged on Establishment Clause grounds and on the ground that the school was unconstitutionally restricting students' access to ideas. Yesterday's Newark (NJ) Star Ledger reports on the Supreme Court's refusal to grant review.

England's Charity Commission Says Druids Are A Religion

The Charity Commission for England and Wales last Saturday, for the first time, recognized Druidry as a religion. The action gives the Druid Network charitable status for tax purposes in Britain.  CNN reports the Commission found that in Druidry: "There is a sufficient belief in a supreme being or entity to constitute a religion for the purposes of charity law." The Druids are generally seen as a neo-Pagan religion.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Susanna Mancini & Michel Rosenfeld, Unveiling the Limits of Tolerance: Comparing the Treatment of Majority and Minority Religious Symbols in the Public Sphere, (Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 309, Sept. 28, 2010).
• Paul Schiff Berman, Towards a Jurisprudence of Hybridity, (Utah Law Review, No. 1, 2010).

From SmartCILP:

• Scott W. Gaylord, Licensing Facially Religious Government Speech: Summum's Impact on the Free Speech and Establishment Clauses, 8 First Amendment Law Review 315-413 (2010).
• David L. Gregory & Stephen Martir, The Catholicity of the Middle Class: Reflections on Caritas in Veritate, 24 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 379-398 (2010).
• Guy Haarscher, Secularism, the Veil and "Reasonable Interlocutors": Why France Is Not All That Wrong, 28 Penn State International Law Review 367-382 (2010).
• Susan Pace Hamill, A Moral Perspective on the Role of Education in Sustaining the Middle Class, 24 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 309-325 (2010).
• R. Ashby Pate, Blood Libel: Radical Islam's Conscription of the Law of Defamation into a Legal Jihad Against the West--and How to Stop It, 8 First Amendment Law Review 414-451 (2010).
• Robert E. Rains, Marriage in the Time of Internet Ministers: I Now Pronounce You Married, but Who Am I To Do So?, 64 University of Miami Law Review 809-877 (2010).
• Mehmet Cengiz Uzun, The Protection of Laicism in Turkey and the Turkish Constitutional Court: the Example of Prohibition on the Use of the Islamic Veil in Higher Education, 28 Penn State International Law Review 383-426 (2010).

New Books:

• John Witte, Jr. & Joel Nichols, Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment, Third Edition, (Westview Press, July 2010).
• Jeff Sharlet, C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy, (Little Brown, Sept. 27, 2010), excerpted in The Takeaway.

Red Mass Marks Beginning of Supreme Court's October Term

The U.S. Supreme Court opens its new term today.  Yesterday, according to CNN, the traditional Red Mass was held at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington to mark the new term.  Among those in attendance was Vice President Joe Biden, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer.  Breyer was the only Justice attending who is not Catholic. He is Jewish.  The Court now is made up of six Catholics and three Jews. The homily at the Mass was given by Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia.  During the current term, the Court will decide at least two cases involving the intersection of law and religion.  Arizona School Tuition Organization v. Winn involves a church-state challenge to Arizona's tuition tax credits (background), while Snyder v. Phelps involves a challenge by members of the anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church to a damage award against them for emotional distress caused by their picketing of a veteran's funeral (background).

Lawyer in Mosque Zoning Case Argues Islam Is A Political Movement, Not A Religion

Last week, court hearings began in the Rutherford County (TN) Chancery Court in a lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order to halt construction of a controversial Islamic center being built in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. (See prior related posting.) Normally RLUIPA gives religious institutions special protections in zoning matters. The Tennessean reported yesterday, however, that challengers argued in court that Islam should be classified as a political movement, not a religion, and that the proposed mosque is not a house of worship.  In his opening statement, Smyrna (TN) attorney Joe Brandon, Jr. argued: "Shariah law is pure sedition." Local officials disagree and say the mosque should be treated like any other house of worship.