U.S. Summarizes and Responds To U.N. Universal Periodic Review Of Human Rights Conditions

Politico reports that last week in Geneva more than 30 U.S. officials went through a respectful, but challenging, interactive dialog with members of the United Nations Human Rights Council as part of the Council's Universal Periodic Review each four years of every country's human rights record. State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh presented the U.S. response (full text) which summarized the recommendations that came out of the session. Here is Koh's response to issues raised regarding religious freedom:

The eighth set of recommendations concern freedom of expression and religion: The United States is committed to vigilance in the continued protection of fundamental freedoms of expression and religion for all, including laws and policies to protect Muslim, Arab, and other Americans from discrimination and to secure their freedom to practice their religion.

Another FLDS Conviction: 6 Years In Prison

A state court jury in San Angelo, Texas has sentenced 25-year old Kieth Dutson, a member of the FLDS church, to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine on on charges of sexual assault of a child.  Dutson was the seventh, and youngest, person to be tried on charges growing out of evidence seized during a 2008 raid on the FLDS Yearning for Zion Ranch. (See prior posting.) Yesterday's San Angelo (TX) Standard Times reports that Dutson, when he was 20, went through a wedding ceremony with the victim who was 15 years old. Prosecutor Eric Nichols said the trial demonstrated how the FLDS culturally conditioned girls to be married while they are still underage.

Vatican Official Speaks At INTERPOL Conference

Zenit reports on an address Monday by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, secretary of the Governorate of Vatican City State, to the 79th General Assembly of Interpol meeting in Doha, Qatar. (Full text of remarks.)  Apparently the Archbishop chose to address the forum of police chiefs and law enforcement officers from around the world because of the Vatican's growing concern over violence against Christians in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East. Vatican security forces joined Interpol in 2008.  The Archbishop said in part:

Criminal behavior is an intrinsic part of the human experience, just as the conflict of good and evil is part of the world’s history, and, for Christians, a part of God’s saving plan. It is precisely this realization that inspires the Holy See to participate, either as a member or an observer, in the meetings and conferences promoted by international organizations to discuss issues which ultimately deal with man himself, the human being viewed holistically and with respect for all his complexity....

We are here today to renew, in one specific area, our commitment to cooperate in eliminating evil from the world. This is a enormous commitment if we think of the forces at play, yet we must remain undaunted. Indeed, we should be committed to even fuller cooperation.

Opinion Released In TRO Against Oklahoma Anti-Shariah Amendment

As previously reported, earlier this week an Oklahoma federal district court issued a temporary restraining order barring Oklahoma's State Board of Elections from certifying last week's election results reflecting approval of a proposed amendment to the Oklahoma constitution that bars state courts from considering international law or Shariah law in deciding cases.  Now the court's opinion supporting the TRO has been released.  In Awad v. Ziriax, (WD OK, Nov. 9, 2010), the court found that plaintiff has standing to assert that the amendment violates the Establishment Clause.  Plaintiff asserted three kinds of injuries: the amendment reflects official condemnation of his religious faith, it invalidates his will because the will incorporates various Muslim teachings, and the amendment will require state courts to unconstitutionally determine what is and is not encompassed in Shariah law. The court also concluded that plaintiff had made a preliminary showing of likelihood of success on the merits because the amendment does not have a secular purpose and fosters excessive entanglement of government with religion. Politico yesterday reported on the decision.

New Museum of American Jewish History Opens In Philadelphia This Month

RNS reports that the National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia will open to the public on November 26, after grand opening ceremonies on the weekend of Nov. 12-14. Covering 350 years of the history of Jews in the United States, the museum is described by Prof. Jonathan Sarna, the Museum's lead historian, as "the first major Jewish history museum that isn't about death and destruction."

Proposed Bill In India Threatens 1000-Year Old Religious Festival

India's Pune Mirror today reports that the government of the Indian state of Maharashtra is set to enact the Prevention of Human Sacrifice, Sexual Harassment and Inhuman Acts Bill this winter. However warkaris complain that the proposed law may end up banning the Palkhi Festival during which for 1000 years adherents walk barefoot some 150 miles, singing and dancing, to the holy town of Pandharpur.  Confusingly worded Section 13 of the proposed Act is seen as banning any kind of physical pressure, torture or exertion in the name of religion.

Annual "Friend or Foe Christmas" Campaign Launched

Liberty Counsel yesterday announced that it is launching its "Eighth Annual Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign. The annual promotion takes aim at attempts to rename Christmas events as "holiday" activities and at decisions that have banned a range of items, from nativity scenes to wearing of red and green Christmas colors, from various public venues. A resource page on Liberty Counsel's website links to legal memos on public Christmas celebrations and on Christmas in the workplace.  The website offers buttons, bumper stickers and ads promoting Christmas. It also links to a "Naughty or Nice" list of retailers, based on whether they specifically promote "Christmas" in their advertising and displays ("nice") or merely use "holiday" or other generic seasonal depictions and language ("naughty").

Cert. Filed In Seventh Day Adventist Case: Does RFRA Apply To Suits Between Private Parties?

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in McGill v. General Conference Corporation of Seventh Day Adventists. In the case, the court refused to dismiss trademark infringement and related claims brought by two Seventh Day Adventist religious organizations against a break-away church that used a similar name. The court refused to carve out a special exception for religious intellectual property. The petition for review filed with the Supreme Court focuses on a second part of the 6th Circuit's decision that rejected a claim that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to the case. The 6th Circuit held that RFRA applies only suits in which the government is a party. (See prior posting.) The cert. petition points out that the 5th and 7th Circuits agree with the 6th Circuit in this regard, while the 7th, 8th and D.C. Circuits have applied RFRA to suits brought under federal law involving only private parties. [Thanks to Seth Galanter for the lead.]

Federal Court Issues TRO Barring Certification of Oklahoma Anti-Shariah Amendment

AP reports that an Oklahoma federal district court today issued a temporary restraining order barring Oklahoma's State Board of Elections from certifying the results of last week's vote on an amendment to the Oklahoma constitution that bars state courts from considering international law or Shariah law in deciding cases. The lawsuit leading to the TRO was filed last week by CAIR, asserting that the amendment violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) The court's TRO remains in effect until Nov. 22 when the court will hold a hearing on a temporary injunction.

Mixed Reactions To Pope's Visit To Spain

London's Independent yesterday reported on Pope Benedict XVI's just-completed visit to Spain (Pope's itinerary). The paper says:

the visit has touched a sensitive nerve in Spanish society, divided between traditional Catholics and a growing movement to eliminate Church influence in state affairs.

The Socialist Prime Minister, who figured this was a good weekend to surprise Spain's 1,500 troops in Afghanistan, is on the secular side. He has stopped short of scrapping the teaching of Catholic doctrine in state-supported schools, but during his six-year tenure he has infuriated the Church hierarchy by legalising gay marriage, simplifying divorce proceedings and, most recently, allowing first-trimester abortion on demand.

As the Pope's motorcade moved through Barcelona, a hundred gay and lesbian couples greeted him with a "collective kiss" to protest the Vatican's views on sexual freedom, divorce and condom use.

Obama In India Responds To Question About Jihad

President Obama is on a trip to Asia, and yesterday he and Michelle Obama spoke with students at a Town Hall at St. Xavier College, in Mumbai, India. (Full text of remarks and Q&A). In the first question to the President in the Q&A, a college student asked Obama's "opinion about jihad."  Here is the President's response:

    Well, the phrase jihad has a lot of meanings within Islam and is subject to a lot of different interpretations.  But I will say that, first, Islam is one of the world’s great religions.  And more than a billion people who practice Islam, the overwhelming majority view their obligations to their religion as ones that reaffirm peace and justice and fairness and tolerance.  I think all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence towards innocent people that is never justified.

     And so I think one of the challenges that we face is how do we isolate those who have these distorted notions of religious war and reaffirm those who see faiths of all sorts -- whether you are a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew or any other religion, or your don't practice a religion -- that we can all treat each other with respect and mutual dignity, and that some of the universal principles that Gandhi referred to -- that those are what we’re living up to, as we live in a nation or nations that have very diverse religious beliefs. 

     And that's a major challenge.  It’s a major here in India, but it’s a challenge obviously around the world.  And young people like yourselves can make a huge impact in reaffirming that you can be a stronger observer of your faith without putting somebody else down or visiting violence on somebody else.

     I think a lot of these ideas form very early.  And how you respond to each other is going to be probably as important as any speech that a President makes in encouraging the kinds of religious tolerance that I think is so necessary in a world that's getting smaller and smaller, where more and more people of different backgrounds, different races, different ethnicities are interacting and working and learning from each other. 

     And those circumstances -- I think all of us have to fundamentally reject the notion that violence is a way to mediate our differences.   

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Marc O. DeGirolami, Book Review: The Handmaid of Politics, (Journal of Law and Religion, Forthcoming).
• Thomas Venzor, Protecting the Unborn Child: The Current State of International Law Concerning the So-Called Right to Abortion and Intervention by the Holy See, (Nebraska Law Review, Vol. 89, 2011).
• Christopher C. Lund, Legislative Prayer and the Secret Costs of Religious Endorsements, (Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 94, p. 972, 2010).
• Jeremy Waldron, Toleration and Calumny: Bayle, Locke, Montesquie and Voltaire on Religious Hate Speech,  (October 29, 2010).

From SmartCILP:

• Adam Candeub, Shall Those Who Live By FCC Indecency Complaints Die By FCC Indecency Complaints?, 22 Regent University Law Review 307-321 (2009-2010).
• Sarah J. Conroy, Birth Control and the Citizen-Catholic in One-Child China, 25 Connecticut Journal of International Law 431-458 (2010).
• Michelle McKinley, Fractional Freedoms: Slavery, Legal Activism, and Ecclesiastical Courts in Colonial Lima, 1593-1689, 28 Law & History Review 749-790 (2010).
• Mark A. Noll, The Election Sermon: Situating Religion and the Constitution in the Eighteenth Century, 59 DePaul Law Review 1223-1248 (2010).

Court Rejects Establishment Clause Challenge To Waldorf Schools

Yesterday's Sacramento Bee reports that on Friday, a California federal district court dismissed a lawsuit that had been in the courts for 13 years challenging two California school districts for using the Waldorf teaching method in two of their schools. The suit alleged that the school districts violated the federal Establishment Clause and the church-state separation provisions of the California constitution. People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools argued that the teaching method, based on the philosophy of Rudolph Steiner, is religious. (See prior posting). At the non-jury trial, plaintiffs presented only a single witness and four admissible exhibits. The court held that plaintiffs had failed to establish that Steiner's philosophy of anthroposophy is a system of belief and worship.

UPDATE: The full opinion in the case is now available on LEXIS: PLANS, Inc. v. Sacramento Unified School District, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117711 (ED CA, Nov. 4, 2010).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Fabricius v. Maricopa County, (9th Cir., Nov. 1, 2010), the 9th Circuit upheld dismissal of a pre-trial detainee's complaint that a jalil's playing of holiday music violated the Establishment Clause.

In Freeman v. Julious, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115367 (ED CA, Oct. 21, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed, with leave to amend, an inmate's claim that prison authorities failed to comply with his request to receive a Satanic bible and consult with a Satanic clergyman.

In Sylvian v. Florida Department of Corrections, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115183 (ND FL, Oct. 29, 2010), a Florida federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115189, Sept. 28, 2010) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's claim that prison rules requiring him to be clean shaven violate his free exercise rights.

In Hammer v. Johnson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115483 (WD VA, Oct. 29, 2010), a Virginia federal district court refused to grant an inmate a temporary restraining order he sought so he could received the prison's Common Fare religious diet.

In Planker v. Ricci, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116083 ( NJ, Oct. 29, 2010), a New Jersey federal district court denied an Odinist inmate a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff claimed that Odinist religious services were scheduled to conflict with his lunch time and his outdoor recreation time, in violation of his rights under RLUIPA and the equal protection clause.

In Prentice v. Nevada Department of Corrections, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116248 (D NV, Oct. 19, 2010), a Nevada federal district court relied on a decision last year by a California federal district court (see prior posting) and held that the White supremacist Church of Creativity is not a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment. It also found that authorities had sufficient reason to bar racist materials for security purposes.

In Soria v. Nevada Department of Corrections, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116866 (D NV, Oct. 19, 2010), a Nevada federal district court permitted a Jewish inmate to proceed with his complaint that prison officials refused his request for outdoor space and for materials that would permit him to put up a sukkah for the holiday of Sukkot.

In McCarroll v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117414 (ND NY, Nov. 4, 2010), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117418, Sept. 30, 2010), and dismissed on qualified immunity grounds a prisoner's complaint that he should have been permitted for religious reasons to submit a hair or saliva sample, instead of a blood sample, to be tested for tuberculosis.

Court Says Avoiding High Cost Alone Not A Compelling Government Interest Under RLUIPA

An Indiana federal district court has decided an important prisoner religious rights case brought as a class action by the ACLU, holding that RLUIPA was violated when an Indiana prison stopped serving kosher meals for cost reasons.  In Willis v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Corrections, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116280 (SD IN, Nov. 1, 2010), the facts showed that Indiana prisons had provided both pre-packaged kosher meals and pre-packaged Halal meals (after for a time using higher-cost kosher meals to satisfy requests of both Muslim and Jewish inmates). Costs of pre-packaged meals in total spiraled as the number of Muslim inmates requesting Halal meals increased. In response, the prison system stopped providing any pre-packaged religious meals and instead offered vegan meals prepared on site. But those did not meet strict kosher requirements.  The court held that the Department of Corrections (DOC) had "cited absolutely no relevant authority to support the conclusion that spiraling cost alone is a compelling government interest." The court also concluded that DOC had failed to consider other possible alternatives for serving kosher meals that might be less expensive.

Finally the court held that the lead plaintiff's individual free exercise rights had been violated. While pre-packaged kosher meals were still being served, the prison had a policy of removing from the kosher diet plan any inmate who did not eat 75% of his kosher meals.  Plaintiff did not meet that requirement because breakfasts-- which the prison claimed were kosher-- were not pre-packaged and plaintiff did not eat them because he disagreed that they met kosher standards The court set a hearing for Nov. 30 on the scope of the injunction that should issue.  Chicago Tribune reported on the decision. [Thanks to Joel Katz (Relig. & State in Israel) for the lead.]

1st Circuit Hears Arguments On Whether FMLA Covers Accompanying Spouse For Faith Healing

Corporate Counsel reports that on Thursday the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Tayag v. Lahey Clinic Hospital, Inc.  One of the issues in the case is whether the federal Family and Medical Leave Act provides leave for caregivers accompanying sick family members who are seeking spiritual healing.  Plaintiff was terminated by her employer for taking unauthorized leave when she accompanied her ill husband to their native Philippines for a seven-week trip. The couple spent 3 and a half weeks at a healing program at a Catholic church and then made religious pilgrimages to other churches in the Philippines as well. They also saw friends and family while in the Philippines. The decision under appeal was handed down by a Massachusetts federal district court in January. (Full text of decision.) The trial court held that

It is far from clear that caring for a seriously ill spouse on a trip for non-medical religious purposes is a protected activity under the FMLA.  Even if caring for a sick spouse on a trip for faith-healing were protected because of its potential psychological benefits, it is undisputed that nearly half of the Tayags’ trip was spent visiting friends, family, and local churches.  The FMLA does not permit employees to take time off to take a vacation with a seriously ill spouse, even if caring for the spouse is an “incidental consequence” of taking him on vacation. 

Malaysian Politicians Condemn Teacher's Caning of Student For Bringing Non-Halal Food to School

In the Malaysian state of Sarawak, politicians from the governing Barisan Nasional party, as well as from opposition parties, have condemned the actions of a public school teacher who caned a boy for bringing non-Halal food to school.  According to Saturday's Free Malaysia Today, the senior teacher of St. Thomas Primary School took the action against Basil anak Beginda for bringing fried rice with pork sausages to eat during school recess. Spokespersons for various political parties emphasized the tradition of tolerance in Sarawak, freedom of religion and their belief that the boy's infraction was not serious.

Police Officer's Claim of Religious Discrimination In Investigation Dismissed

Longmire v. City of Oakland, (ND CA, Nov. 2, 2010), is a lawsuit by an Oakland,California police officer who believed that racial and religious discrimination impacted an investigation that concluded he interfered with the police department's criminal investigation of a Black Muslim Bakery. Members of the bakery were suspected of being involved in two homicides, a kidnapping, a robbery and more. Plaintiff Derwin Longmire claims he was targeted because he was suspected of being a member of the Black Muslim religion while in fact he is a Christian African-American.  In this opinion, a California federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, Longmire's free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and privacy claims. In dismissing plaintiff's free exercise claim, the court concluded:

Plaintiff ... has failed to provide support for the legal contention that a state may infringe an individual’s free practice of religion based on discrimination on a (mis)perceived religious affiliation.

In dismissing his claim for infringement of associational rights, the court said:

There can be no inference from the allegations made in the current complaint that his rights to associate with the Black Muslim Bakery were infringed if he did not actually associate, or wish to associate, with the group.

The court permitted plaintiff to proceed with his claim that the investigation against him was tainted with race-based discrimination. Yesterday's Contra Costa (CA) Times reports on the decision.

Fair Housing Charges Dismissed In Case of Church Posting For Female Christian Roommate

The U.S. Region V Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity has found no reasonable cause to believe there was a violation of the Fair Housing Act in the case of a woman who posted an ad for a "female Christian roommate" on her church bulletin board.  The Fair Housing Center of West Michigan filed a complaint against a 31-year old Grand Rapids (MI) woman who posted the notice after someone in her congregation complained about the ad. (See prior posting.) While the complaint was filed with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, that agency, in a statement, said that it coordinates with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to assure uniform application of the law, and HUD decided that the legal and Constitutional issues posed by the case were ones it wanted to address.

In its Oct. 28 Determination of No Reasonable Cause, HUD said:

The advertisement contains statements that indicate a preference or limitation based on religion and gender. In general, 42 U.S.C. 3604(c) prohibits such statements whether made verbally or in writing. However, in light of the facts provided and after assessing the unique context of the advertisement and the roommate relationship involved in this particular situation potentially involving the sharing of personal religious beliefs, the Department defers to Constitutional considerations in reaching its conclusion.

The statement issued by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights emphasized that it had never implied during its investigation that there was a violation of law. It went on to say:

We do not comment on the specifics of an open investigation until we have reached an official determination, and we do not reach a determination until after an investigation is complete and it can be based on all of (and only) the facts. In this instance, we sincerely wish everyone would have done the same.

Because some chose to ignore the difference between conducting a legally-required investigation and the decision to bring a charge of discrimination based upon that investigation when appropriate, this office and specifically a member of our staff was subjected to a barrage of phone calls, emails, comments, posts and blog entries. Although these communications were premature in that they falsely accused us of having made a determination, they were mostly valid expressions of personal opinion, which the Department is always interested in receiving. However, many also included threats or other inappropriate personal attacks. The Department of Civil Rights will not tolerate such conduct, which it believes is never appropriate. All threatening communications have been and will be forwarded to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.

Under the Fair Housing Act (background), HUD's determination does not preclude filing of a federal lawsuit by a victim of discrimination at that person's own expense. (42 USC Sec. 3613.) Today's Grand Rapids Press reports on the case.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Church Zoning Case

On Wednesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in International Church of the Foursquare Gospel v. City of  San Leandro. An audio recording of the oral arguments is available from the court's website. In the case, a California federal district court rejected RLUIPA, First Amendment, due process and equal protection challenges to a California city's refusal to rezone for "assembly" use industrial property a church had agreed to purchase. (See prior posting.)