Paper Profiles Christian Religious Liberty Lawyer

The Tennessean today profiles Brentwood (TN) lawyer Larry Crain, who often represents clients for the conservative Christian advocacy group American Center for Law and Justice. The article describes Crain as "one of the leading religious liberty lawyers in the United States." Crain's law firm operates as an independent contractor for ACLJ, receiving over $387,000 in fees from it during the past three years.ACLJ has an annual budget of nearly $60 million. According to the article:

Crain’s legal resume reads like a history of the culture wars. Over the past 30 years, he’s represented abortion protesters from Operation Rescue, home-schooling parents, churches in zoning disputes and students who want to pray at graduation.

Israeli Rabbinic Court Sees Stray Dog As Spirit of Cursed Lawyer

Israel's YNet News last Thursday carried the rather strange story of a rabbinical court in Jerusalem, near the ultra-Orthodox Mea Shearim neighborhood, whose judges enlisted neighborhood children to throw stones at a dog. The incident took place several weeks ago in the rabbinic Monetary Affairs Court when a large dog wandered into the courtroom and refused to leave.  One of the judges then recalled that 20 years ago a panel of judges of the court cursed a famous secular lawyer who had insulted the court-- condemning his spirit to move into the body of a dog.  The judge was convinced that this was the dog  carrying that lawyer's spirit, and the court saw stoning as a way of retaliating. The dog managed to escape.  A member of Jerusalem's city council has complained to the Attorney General about the incident and an animal welfare organization has filed a complaint with the police.

UPDATE: According to a June 20 BBC report: "The head of the court, Yehoshua Levin, was quoted by Maariv as saying: 'There is no basis for abuse of animals from the side of Jewish Halacha [law].' In a statement, the court denied that a dog had been condemned. A dog had entered the court and been removed, it said."

UPDATE2: The London Telegraph yesterday reported the full statement by a Jerusalem rabbinical court denying original accounts of the incident:

There is no basis for stoning dogs or any other animal in the Jewish religion, not since the days of the Temple or Abraham.

The female dog found a seat in the corner of the court. And the children were delighted by it; there were hundreds outside the court. They are used to seeing stray cats but most have never seen a dog before. The only action we took was to dial the number of the Jerusalem Municipality to get the people in charge to take it away.

There was no talk of reincarnation, a lawyer has never been mentioned, either now or 20 years ago, and there was no stoning. Such inventions are a kind of blood libel, and we wonder why the inventor of the story did not continue to describe how we collected the blood of the dog to make our matzah.

US Catholic Bishops Revise Child Protection Policies To Comply With Latest Vatican Standards

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops announced yesterday that at its Spring General Assembly, by a vote of 187-5, with 4 abstentions, the bishops approved revisions to its Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.  According to the press release:

The revisions bring the Charter into line with the most recent Vatican instructions in this area, including specifically mentioning child pornography as a crime against church law and holding that abuse of someone who habitually lacks reason, for example, someone with mental retardation, is equivalent to child abuse.

According to CNN, critics say the changes do not go far enough.

Al-Qaida Announces New Leader In Statement Filled With Religious Affirmations

Al-Quaida announced yesterday on an Islamic website that Ayman al-Zawahri has assumed leadership of the organization now that Osama bin-Laden has been killed. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that al-Zawahari, an Egyptian doctor, is believed to be hiding in Pakistan. McClatchy Newspapers has published a full translation of the group's statement, which is filled with Islamic religious references. The statement reads in part:

Jihad will continue until Judgment Day, and ... has become an obligation in this era against the invading infidels, the occupiers of Muslim homes, and against the backsliding leaders who've changed Islamic law agreed upon by Muslim scholars....

... Al-Qaeda Jihad Organization seeks the implementation of Allah’s book and the Sunna and calls for all Muslims to follow the ways of the Prophet Mohammad and those of his noble companions and his successors, may Allah accept them all. We call for the pursuit of the ways agreed to by the followers of the prophet and their followers ... such as the four Imams and the Imams of Jurisprudence and Hadith.... We abide by what they set out and we do not disobey their commandments. We seek, with Allah's help, to be followers, not fabricators, learners and never creators.

NY Assembly Passes Marriage Equality Bill Including Religious Protections

The New York state Assembly yesterday passed and sent to the state Senate a marriage equality bill, A8354.  The Advocate reports that the bipartisan 80-63 vote in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage followed an impassioned but civil debate that included remarks by various members on whether their religious faith should be an issue in their vote:

I wish it wasn't in the book," said Dov Hikind, who waved a copy of the Torah on the assembly floor. "The Torah's so clear on this subject," he said. "There is no choice for me. And I am open-minded."...

Deborah Glick, the first openly gay member of the state legislature, later addressed the separation of church and state head on, saying, "You do not put your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The bill provides that no religious organization will be required to  provide accommodations or facilities for same-sex marriages, and no clergy shall be required to perform same-sex marriages.

According to the New York Times yesterday, the state Senate is still apparently one vote short of the 32 needed for passage.   Final passage may depend on the decision on how to vote by Republican Sen. Stephen Saland from Poughkeepsie who, along with a small group of other Republicans, may vote for the bill if the protections for religious organizations that object to gay marriage are strong enough. (See prior related posting.)

Israel Interior Ministry Changes Procedures On Recognition of Conversions From Abroad

In the convoluted politics of religious identity in Israel, the Israeli Interior Ministry has declared that the Jewish Agency will decide on whether particular Orthodox Jewish conversions abroad will be recognized for purposes of permitting an individual to immigrate under the Law of Return.  The Jerusalem Post reported this week that under the new arrangement the country's Chief Rabbinate will be consulted only in "isolated cases" where questions arise.  The problem arises from a decision by the Chief Rabbinate several years ago to limit which Orthodox Jewish conversions from the United States it would recognize.  Under a High Court decision, anyone converted by a recognized Jewish community abroad qualifies for entry under the Law of Return. However the Interior Ministry never formulated a policy on how to define a recognized community, and instead deferred to the Chief Rabbinate. This has led to a growing number of applications by U.S. and Canadian converts for immigration under the Law of Return being rejected. The change in policy, which will lead to recognition of a broader group of conversions, presumably moots a lawsuit filed in May on behalf of a Canadian who was refused citizenship under the Law of Return. [Thanks to Joel Katz (Relig. & State in Israel) for the lead.]

Judge Sanctioned In Part For Ordering Defendant To Attend Church As Condition of Bail

In Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Dearman, (MS Sup. Ct., June 16, 2011), the Mississippi Supreme Court ordered a public reprimand and a 30-day suspension without pay of a trial court judge who was charged with various instances of improper judicial conduct. One of the charges was that as a condition of bail for a defendant charged with possession of cocaine the judge required that the defendant attend church at least once a week. Justice Kitchens dissenting argued that the imposition of this condition may have been only an incorrect legal interpretation by the judge. If it was, that is not a basis for sanctions. [Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

Borough Settles Lawsuit Challenging Its Use of Sectarian Invocations

Subject to a final Borough Council vote next week that is expected to pass, Point Beach, New Jersey has agreed to settle a lawsuit filed against it by the ACLU challenging its practice of opening meetings with a prayer that was generally Christian in nature. (See prior posting.) At one time, the borough opened meetings with the Lord's Prayer. After an initial lawsuit was filed, it moved to prayers by individual council members reflecting their own beliefs.  But that still resulted in Christian prayer and a new suit was brought. The settlement of that suit follows a decision by Council now to open its meetings only with prayers that do not use language specific to any religion. Point Pleasant Patch reports on these developments.

Suit Claims In-House Lawyer Fired Because He was Not An Orthodox Jew

An unusual religious discrimination lawsuit will come to trial June 27 in federal district court in the Southern District of New York. According to The Real Deal, Les Kramsky who was employed as in-house general counsel, is suing his former employer, the prominent real estate developer Joseph Chetrit.  Kramsky claims that Chetrit, an Orthodox Jew, hired Kramsky only because he believed that Kramsky was also an Orthodox Jew. The suit alleges that Chetrit began to treat Kramsky differently, and ultimately fired him, when he discovered Kramsky, though Jewish, was not Orthodox. The suit also claims that an Orthodox rabbi who regularly came to the office pressured Kramsky to pray and put on tefillin. Plaintiff asks for $500,000 in lost wages and benefits, as well as punitive damages. In court documents, Chetrit denies that Kramsky's religion played any role in his hiring, probation or firing, contending that he was terminated because it did not make economic sense to have a full-time in-house lawyer. [Thanks to Joel Katz (Relig. & State In Israel) for the lead.]


UPDATE:  Real Deal reports on June 24 that the lawsuit was settled out of court just a few days before it was set to go to trial.

5th Circuit Interprets "Equal Terms" Clause of RLUIPA

In The Elijah Group, Inc. v. City of Leon Valley, Texas, (5th Cir., June 10, 2011), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in on an issue that has split various circuits-- what test to use to determine whether a zoning decision violates RLUIPA's "equal terms" clause. At issue was the city's zoning law that prohibits churches from operating in areas zoned B-2 (business).  Plaintiff argued that it was being treated on less than equal terms because it could not apply for a special use permit to operate in B-2 areas. The court held that the equal terms clause:

does require the Church to show more than simply that its religious use is forbidden and some other nonreligious use is permitted. The “less than equal terms” must be measured by the ordinance itself and the criteria by which it treats institutions differently. When we analyze the City’s ordinance within this framework, we are convinced that it is invalid because it prohibits the Church from even applying for a SUP when, e.g., a nonreligious private club may apply for a SUP.... 

The court added in a footnote: "This analysis should not be interpreted as necessarily adopting any of the tests heretofore adopted by the other circuits." Becket Fund issued a press release on the decision. The release contains links to the briefs that were filed in the case.

Two Cases Decide On Tax Exempt Status of Property Owned By Religious Groups

Two recent unrelated cases involve disputes over whether certain property is used for religious purposes so that it is exempt from property taxes.  In First Korean Church of New York, Inc. v. Montgomery County Board of Assessment Appeals, (PA Commonwealth Ct., June 14, 2011), a Pennsylvania appellate court upheld the denial of tax exempt status for property of a former seminary that was acquired at a sheriff's sale by a church, but which appeared to be largely unused and in disrepair.

In Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Town of Ramapo, (NY Ct. App., June 14, 2011), New York's highest court held that Ramapo tax authorities improperly revoked the tax exemption for property that was being used for a religious summer camp. While a contractor was operating the camp on behalf of the rabbinical college that owned the land, the rabbinical college "retained general supervision and control over the camp's operation, including the right to approve the hiring of camp personnel, the purveyors of kosher food for camp lunches, and the religious curriculum." (See prior related posting.)

House Committee Opens Hearings On Radicalization of Muslims In U.S. Prisons

Yesterday, the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security began two days of hearings on "The Threat of Muslim-American Radicalization in U.S. Prisons." The full text of the opening statement by Committee Chairman Peter King, as well as of statements by yesterday's four witnesses is available from the Committee's website. Rep. King also announced three witnesses who will appear at the continuation of the hearings today. The Los Angeles Times yesterday reported that the hearing "erupted in bipartisan anger Wednesday, with Democrats charging Muslims were being unfairly targeted and the Republican committee chairman vowing to continue investigating what he views as threats to national security."

Bankruptcy Court Says DOMA Is Unconstitutional; Same-Sex Couple Can File Joint Petition

A California federal bankruptcy court has declared the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional insofar as it would preclude a same-sex married couple from filing a joint bankruptcy petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 USC 302 permits joint petitions by a debtor and the debtor's spouse. The couple involved in the case was one of 18,000 same-sex couples legally married in California before the passage of Proposition 8. In In re Balas and Morales, (CD CA, June 13, 2011), the court held that DOMA violates  the couple's equal protection rights afforded by the 5th Amendment, whether the court applies heightened scrutiny or rational basis review.  The court explained:

Although individual members of Congress have every right to express their views and the views of their constituents with respect to their religious beliefs and principles and their personal standards of who may marry whom, this court cannot conclude that Congress is entitled to solemnize such views in the laws of this nation in disregard of the views, legal status and living arrangements of a significant segment of our citizenry that includes the Debtors in this case. To do so violates the Debtors’ right to equal protection of those laws embodied in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

This court cannot conclude from the evidence or the record in this case that any valid governmental interest is advanced by DOMA as applied to the Debtors. Debtors have urged that recent governmental defenses of the statute assert that DOMA also serves such interests as “preserving the status quo,” “eliminating inconsistencies and easing administrative burdens” of the government. None of these post hoc defenses of DOMA withstands heightened scrutiny..... In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law.... 

In an unusual move, all 20 judges of the bankruptcy court signed the opinion in the case. Wall Street Journal reports on the decision.

U.S. Congressman Will Introduce Bill To Bar San Francisco's Attempt To Outlaw Circumcision

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) announced yesterday that he plans to introduce a bill into Congress that would prevent San Francisco and other cities from banning male circumcision of minors.  Currently, San Francico voters are scheduled to vote on a ban in November. (See prior posting.) Sherman said: "The Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011ensures that Jewish and Muslim families will continue to be able to enjoy the free exercise of their religious beliefs." According to the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, Sherman's bill takes an approach similar to that taken by RLUIPA in protecting religious freedom in prisoner and zoning cases. [Thanks to Jonah Lowenfeld for the lead.]

Federal Court Says Judge Did Not Need To Recuse Himself In Proposition 8 Case

Yesterday, California federal district judge James Ware held, in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, (ND CA, June 14, 2011), that now-retired federal judge Vaughn Walker did not act improperly in failing to recuse or disqualify himself from deciding a challenge to California's Proposition 8. That state constitutional amendment barred same-sex marriage in the state, and Judge Walker's decision found Proposition 8 to be inconsistent with the federal constitution. (See prior posting.) Judge Walker was involved in a same-sex relationship at the time he heard and decided the case. However in yesterday's decision, Judge Ware held:

The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification.

The New York Times reports on yesterday's decision.

Also yesterday in a separate opinion in the case (full text), Judge Ware found no reason to require the parties in the case to return to the court video copies of the trial proceedings that had been given to them. He also set an August 29 hearing date on a motion to lift the protective order that bars public disclosure of the trial videos.

UPDATE: AP reports that backers of Proposition 8 will appeal Judge Ware's decision that refused to disqualify Judge Walker.

UEP Trust Fiduciary Wants Utah To Pay Administrative Costs That Are Owed

In the latest twist in the convoluted litigation attempting to reform the polygamous FLDS Church's United Effort Plan Trust, Bruce Wisan, the special fiduciary for the trust appointed by a Utah judge, is now asking that the court order the state to pay the $4.6 million in administration costs that have accumulated for the trust.  The Deseret News reported Monday that fees owed to lawyers and to Wisan's own accounting firm remain unpaid, as do amounts owed to an engineering firm, a surveying firm and a public relations firm.  Also some $2 million in property taxes is owed.  These costs were supposed to have been paid from proceeds of the sale of property and from court-imposed monthly occupancy fees that were assessed on those living on trust property.  However most FLDS members have refused to pay the occupancy fees, and litigation challenging the trust reformation has prevented property sales from being completed. The Utah Attorney General's office, however, argues that Wisan's request violates court orders freezing everything but the most necessary administrative work pending the outcome of challenges to jurisdiction of the Utah state courts over the trust. (See prior posting.)

Push In New York For Same-Sex Marriage, Opposed By Catholic Church

In the closing days of the legislative session in New York state, efforts are again under way by Gov. Andrew Cuomo to obtain passage of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.  The state Senate defeated a same-sex marriage bill in 2009, but now, according to the Wall Street Journal yesterday, several senators have shifted their positions and the measure-- which has apparently not yet been formally introduced-- is only two votes shy of passage. So far only one Republican Senator has publicly pledged to vote in favor of the bill, but (according to AP) others Republican votes would follow if  the legislation contained exemptions so that churches, religious organizations and individuals opposed to gay marriage could not be required to perform or host them. New York's Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan has strongly opposed the measure.  In a posting yesterday on the Archdiocese's website, he said:

Last time I consulted an atlas, it is clear we are living in New York, in the United States of America – not in China or North Korea. In those countries, government presumes daily to “redefine” rights, relationships, values, and natural law. There, communiqués from the government can dictate the size of families, who lives and who dies, and what the very definition of “family” and “marriage” means.

But, please, not here! Our country’s founding principles speak of rights given by God, not invented by government, and certain noble values – life, home, family, marriage, children, faith – that are protected, not re-defined, by a state presuming omnipotence.

Please, not here! We cherish true freedom, not as the license to do whatever we want, but the liberty to do what we ought; we acknowledge that not every desire, urge, want, or chic cause is automatically a “right.” And, what about other rights, like that of a child to be raised in a family with a mom and a dad?
Our beliefs should not be viewed as discrimination against homosexual people. The Church affirms the basic human rights of gay men and women, and the state has rightly changed many laws to offer these men and women hospital visitation rights, bereavement leave, death benefits, insurance benefits, and the like. This is not about denying rights. It is about upholding a truth about the human condition.

U.S. Religious Freedom Ambassador Calls On Political Leaders To Condemn Religious Intolerance

The United States' new Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, Suzan Johnson Cook, spoke yesterday in Geneva, Switzerland at a panel on "Combating Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief" arranged by the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. (Full text of remarks.) She said in part:

States have tools at their disposal to combat religious intolerance; in many cases what is needed is the political will to use them. Governments need to develop robust legal protections to address acts of discrimination against individuals and bias-inspired violent crimes. Each country should determine if it has laws on the books that allow it to prosecute individuals who discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring, access to public accommodation and other aspects of public life, or who commit violence on that basis. Each country should determine if it has a capable and dedicated band of investigators and prosecutors to enforce such laws. Even more importantly, leaders in government, politics, religion, business and the rest of society must stand ready to condemn hateful ideology; and to vigorously defend the rights of individuals to practice their religion freely and exercise their freedom of expression. Leaders who remain silent are contributing to the problem and should be held politically accountable.....

Rather than seek prohibitions on offensive expression, the United States advocates for other measures such as urging political, religious, and societal leaders to speak out and condemn offensive expression; creating a mechanism to identify areas of tension between communities; training government officials on outreach strategies; and encouraging leaders to discuss causes of discrimination and potential solutions with their communities. Indeed, we believe that laws seeking to limit freedom of expression in the name of protecting against offensive speech are actually counterproductive. The suppression of speech often actually raises the profile of that speech, sometimes giving even greater voice to speech that others might find offensive. In some countries, politicians will not condemn offensive speech, but instead will defer to the courts to judge if it is legally prohibited. In our view it is far more effective if political leaders know that they cannot point to the law as an excuse for doing little to nothing. They have a moral and political obligation to use their own freedom of expression to lead a strong counter effort, and should be held to account politically.

Cert. Petition Filed In Courtroom 10 Commandments Poster Case

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in DeWeese v. ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Inc.  In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a display posted in a courtroom by a state common pleas court judge violates the Establishment Clause. Next to a poster of the Bill of Rights, the judge hung another poster that compared the "Moral Absolutes" of the Ten Commandments with ten parallel principles of "Moral Relatives: Humanist Principles." (See prior posting.) ACLJ issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

Spanish Parliamentarian Is Sworn In Using Crucifix

In Spain, a Catholic member of Parliament, Juan Cotino, provoked some criticism when he insisted on taking his oath of office using a crucifix.  CNA yesterday reported that Cotino placed a crucifix next to a copy of the Constitution and the Bible as he was sworn in on June 9. Father Jose Maria Gil Tamayo, a member of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, however, praised Cotino, saying that his act was "an eloquent and courageous public gesture."