Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases-- Second Weekly Installment

In Theron v. County of York, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16377 (MD PA, Feb. 9, 2012), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed claims by an immigration detainee that while housed at a state prison he was not provided an Imam for Jumah services or Halal food during Ramadan, and that one of the defendants destroyed a Quran during a cell search.

In Blankenship v. Reginald, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16481 (SD OH, Feb. 9, 2012), an Ohio federal district court refused to appoint counsel and ordered an Asatru inmate to file an amended complaint in a damage claim which was severed from a class action for injunctive relief on behalf of Asatru inmates that was previously resolved. Damage claims under RLUIPA were dismissed.

In Wilson v. Sabatka-Rine, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15844 (D NE, Feb. 9, 2012), a Nebraska federal district court dismissed, with leave to file an amended complaint, claims by a Wiccan inmate that he was not allowed to attend group rituals, was denied possession of his religious medallion for 30 days, while in segregation was denied hardcover books and several religious items, and that authorities failed to recruit Wiccan clergy.

In Alexander v. California Department of Corrections, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16019 (ED CA, Feb. 8, 2012), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate's challenge to a California prison regulation that prohibits inmates from possessing non-obscene, "sexually explicit material."  Among the challenges rejected was the claim that the provision promotes religious belief in violation of the Establishment Clause.

In Nassar v. Butler County Jail, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16421 (SD OH, Feb. 9, 2012), an Ohio federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153057, Sept. 1, 2011) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that authorities did not provide him adequate Ramadan meals and wrongfully removed him from the Ramadan observance list while he was a pretrial detainee.

In Snyder v. Swarthout, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16300 (ED CA, Feb. 7, 2012), a California federal magistrate judge recommended denying an inmate's habeas corpus petition, rejecting the claim that the Board of Parole Hearings conditioned his release on parole on his participating in a religious 12-step program of NA or AA.

Saudi Writer Deported Home To Face Blasphemy Charges

The New York Times reported yesterday that Saudi journalist Hamza Kashgari was stopped by Malaysian authorities at Kuala Lumpur airport on Thursday and was deported back to Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudi king where the journalist will face blasphemy charges. The journalist has angered Saudis by writing in a series of tweets on Twitter about an imaginary meeting with the Prophet Muhammad. The Daily Beast quotes some of the tweets. Human Rights Watch says that Kashgari will face a possible death sentence in Saudi Arabia. Kashgari was attempting to fly on to New Zealand when he was detained.  A lawyer hired by Kashgari's family obtained an order from a Malaysian court on Sunday that would stop Kashgari's deportation, but the lawyer discovered that Kashgari had by then already been returned to the Saudis on a private Saudi jet.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Frederick Mark Gedicks, Establishment Clause Incorporation: A Logical, Textual, and Historical Defense, (January 31, 2012).
• Nima Mersadi Tabari, The Sharia’h Dimension of the Persian Gulf's Hydrocarbon Resources, (February 1, 2012).
• Munir Ahmad Mughal, Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, (January 31, 2012).
• Jeffrey L. Callen and Xiaohua Fang, Religion and Stock Price Crash Risk, (January 31, 2012).

From SmartCILP:

• Joshua Dubler, Religion and the Practices of Popular Constitutionalism: Sarah Gordon's The Spirit of the Law. (Reviewing Sarah Barringer Gordon, The Spirit of the Law: Religious Voices and the Constitution in Modern America), [Abstract], 36 Law & Social Inquiry 1062-1088 (2011).
• Richard H. Hiers, Ancient Laws, Yet Strangely Modern: Biblical Contract and Tort Jurisprudence, 88 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 473-496 (2011).
• Victor N. Metallo, PROCEDAMUS IN PACE Serving Justice: RLUIPA Resonates the Teachings of Dignitatis Humanae, and the Third Circuit’s “Substantial Burden” Test Provides a Thorough, Fair Inquiry into a Prisoner’s Religious Exercise, 88 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 498-526 (2011).
• Douglas Laycock, McElroy Lecture. Sex, Atheism, and the Free Exercise of Religion, 88 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 407-432 (2011).

Lawsuit Challenges Limits On Keeping Animals As Impairment of Religious Freedom

Cecil Daily reported last Friday on a federal lawsuit field by a Chesapeake, Maryland man who has been ordered by Cecil County (MD) officials to get rid of his pet goat.  Under the county zoning code, a homeowner can keep animals, other than dogs and cats, only on property that is at least an acre in size.  However homeowner Craig Balunsat says that he needs his goat, as well as his six chickens and two ducks in order to practice his Native American religious beliefs. His lawsuit alleges that his "native American religious beliefs require the keeping of his pets as a balance of symbiosis and harmony between animals and humans, and his Messianic Judaism Christian beliefs coincide with this."

British Court Acquits Street Preacher Who Condemned Gay Couple

The London Mail reports that lay Christian street preacher, Michael Overd, was acquitted last Thursday by Taunton Deane Magistrates court of charges of directing threatening or abusive language at Craig Manning and Craig Nichol, a gay couple. Apparently Overd had a previous altercation with the couple in 2010. When he saw them again in July 2011, he said: "I have already told these two sinners over here that they are going to burn in hell." Nichol asked who he was to judge him. Overd replied that it is God's words. Overd's attorney argued that Overd was merely reciting a passage from 1 Corinthians that reads: "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Scientology Church Withdraws Temporary Injunction Request To Avoid More Damaging Testimony [Corrected]

According to the San Antonio Express-News, the Church of Scientology last Friday decided to withdraw its request for a temporary injunction in a suit against a former church official and her husband after testimony by defendant in a Texas state court in the case described physical abuse and detention of Scientology adherents who fell out of favor with church leadership.  Debbie Cook, who spent 29 years with the church, including 17 as an official at its spiritual headquarters in Clearwater, Florida, left the church in 2007. In exchange for a payment of $100,000, she and her husband signed a nondisclosure agreement. However last December she sent out an e-mail to other Scientologists charging that the church had strayed from the teachings of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard. In January, the Church sued charging breach of the nondisclosure agreement. But in court, Cook's attorney argued that the agreement was signed under extreme duress. The Express-News described Cook's testimony supporting this defense as "lurid and highly damaging" to the church. In moving for dismissal of its case, attorney for the Church of Scientology said that withdrawal  will "prevent the defendant from using the court as a pulpit for false statements." [An earlier version of this posting incorrectly reported that the entire lawsuit, rather than just the request for a temporary injunction, had been withdrawn.]

Victim Withdraws Suit Against Vatican In Favor of Bankruptcy Proceedings

Now that sex abuse victim claims have all been filed (see prior posting) in the bankruptcy proceedings of the the Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee, the Archdiocese reports that in bankruptcy court proceedings on Feb. 9:

The judge ruled that the claimants could no longer bring a negligence claim against the archdiocese.  It also found that the claimant seeking to upset a prior settlement failed to meet the high standard under Wisconsin law to upset the settlement and disallowed the claim.  The judge determined that the question of whether the fraud claims should be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds needed to be considered in further proceedings that would determine the factual issues.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported yesterday that in response to the court's allowing the fraud claims to proceed to trial, a lawsuit filed in 2010 (see prior posting) against the Holy See, the Pope, and two Vatican cardinals has been withdrawn.  The suit sought damages because of sexual abuse plaintiff suffered in the early 1960's at the hands of Rev. Lawrence Murphy who taught at St. John's School for the Deaf in suburban Milwaukee. Jeffrey Anderson, attorney for the plaintiff, who also represents victims in the bankruptcy proceedings, said that his client "felt that his energies would be best spent working alongside fellow survivors toward justice and healing at the archdiocese level." Presumably the plaintiff has filed a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings.

British Court Rules On Opening Town Council Meetings With Prayer

The dispute over opening city council sessions with prayer which has surfaced in many U.S. cities has now, according to the Telegraph, also become the subject of legal dispute in Britain.  A trial court has ruled in a challenge to the practice brought by the National Secular Society and a secular member of Council in the town of Bideford.  In National Secular Society v. Bideford Town Council, (EWHC, Feb. 10, 2012), the London High Court held that under the Local Government Act 1972, there is no statutory authority for a town council to have prayers or a period of quiet reflection as a part of the Council's business. It went on to hold, however, that if prayer were permitted, it would not violate the religious discrimination provisions of the Equality Act 2006 (now replaced by the Equality Act 2010). The court, referring to claims by the secular member of Council, said in part:

I do not see that the feelings of discomfort or exclusion which he has, and which he says are shared by a number of other actual or possible Councillors in the minority on this issue, should be regarded as a discriminatory disadvantage when its elimination would prevent the degree of comfort or composure which the majority seek being achieved, merely substituting one set of uncomfortable feelings for another.

However, according to today's Telegraph, Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles says that Britain's new Localism Act 2011 which will become effective in the next few weeks gives Councils a new “power of competence” to determine their own procedures.  According to Pickles, this new power should be broad enough to allow Councils to include prayers to open their meetings.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Sharp v. Johnson, (3d Cir., Feb. 9, 2012), inmates who were members of the Habashi sect of Sunni Islam sought, and were refused, separate religious services from the existing Sunni services. In affirming the district court's judgment for defendants, the 3rd Circuit held that RLUIPA does not impose liability for damages in suits against defendants in their individual capacities. It also held that prison officials, in defending against a 1st Amendment free exercise claim, have the burden to show a connection between a restriction and penological interests, but the trial court error in that regard did not matter because here defendants had qualified immunity.

In Davis v. Castelloe, (4th Cir., Feb. 2, 2012), the 4th Circuit, reversing the district court, held that an inmate's free exercise claim survives frivolity review. The district court (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152786, ED NC, April 15, 2011) had dismissed plaintiff's claim that religious property belonging to him, including a prayer book, other books, a rosary and a crucifix were destroyed by the chaplain who was "anti-Catholic" and who denied the Catholic community equal time as other religious groups.

In Damron v. Jackson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13359 (SD OH, Feb. 3, 2012), an Ohio federal district court denied a motion to amend its earlier decision that rejected a complaint over a prison's refusal to permit separate congregate worship services for Christian Separatist adherents.

In Lindh v. Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Terre Haute, Indiana, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13121 (SD IN, Feb. 3, 2012), an Indiana federal district court, in a lawsuit by convicted enemy combatant John Walker Lindh, held that recitation of the 5 daily Muslim group prayers is a religious exercise based on Lindh's sincerely held religious beliefs. But genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether a restriction on group prayer substantially burdened Lindh's free exercise and, if it did, whether the government showed a compelling interest and least restrictive means.

In Thaxton v. Simmons, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12841 (ND NY, Feb. 2, 2012), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13555, Jan. 5, 2012) and dismissed an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when his kosher food tray was contaminated on two occasions.

In Lister v. Coleman, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15016 (ND OH, Feb. 6,2012), an Ohio federal district court held that an inmate had not sufficiently alleged a free exercise claim through a general allegation that he was denied the right to purchase religious items to practice his Native American Indian religion.

In Martz v. SCI-Coal Township Therapeutic Community, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15821 (MD PA, Feb. 8, 2012), a Pennsylvania federal district court permitted an inmate to proceed against certain defendants on his complaint that he was required, in order to receive favorable parole consideration, to complete a substance abuse program that violated his religious beliefs.

In Porter v. Van Tatenhove, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15396 (WD MI, Feb. 8, 2012), a Michigan federal district court rejected claims by an inmate that he had the right to have his religious name, which he legally adopted after his commitment, appear on his prison pass.

In Johnson v. Alvarez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14253 (D NV, Feb. 7, 2012), a Nevada federal district court denied an inmate a preliminary injunction, rejecting his claim that he was disciplined for disobedience solely because he was a Muslim practicing his religious beliefs.

In North v. Clarke, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15204 (ED VA, Feb. 7, 2012), a Virginia federal district court  granted an inmate summary judgment, holding that a Department of Corrections policy that allows inmates to receive music and religious CD's, but not secular spoken-word CD's, violates the 1st and 14th Amendments. However, the court denied an award of damages on qualified immunity grounds.

In Cottier v. Schaeffer, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14062 (D SD, Feb. 6, 2012), a South Dakota federal district court held that plaintiff failed to plead facts to support his claim that, while in prison, he has not been permitted to "worship through ceremonials and traditional rites of the Lakota Nation."

In Turner v. Gibson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16065 (ED CA, Feb. 9, 2012), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed, with leave to amend, an inmate's complaint that Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist and Jewish prisoners in administrative segregation are not provided spiritual counseling or services.

In Colvin v. Caruso, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16151 (WD MI, Feb. 9, 2012), a Michigan federal district court, in a case on remand from the 6th Circuit, issued declaratory relief finding that a Department of Corrections policy that provides a prisoner's religious menu is to be revoked for mere possession of "any food item that violates a tenet of his or her designated religion" violates prisoners' free exercise rights. Here plaintiff was taken off a kosher diet after a non-kosher powder protein supplement was found in his cell.

7th Circuit: Appeal of Orders In Land Transfer To Catholic School Is Moot and Untimely

In Wirtz v. City of South Bend, (7th Cir., Feb. 7, 2012), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed as untimely and moot an appeal by the city of South Bend, Indiana of two orders by the trial court in litigation over the city's transfer of property to a Catholic high school for an athletic complex.  A district court rejected two plans for the transfer, on Establishment Clause grounds (see prior posting), but ultimately approved the transfer under an arrangement where the Catholic school was the highest bidder. In an appeal from the district court's approval of the transfer, the city seeks to challenge the two previous orders that disapproved earlier plans, arguing that they create precedent that will prevent the city from transferring land to religious institutions in the future. The court said that the city should instead have filed a timely appeal from the first denials.WSBT-TV reports on the decision.

Christian Evangelists May Continue Suit Against Dearborn Over Arrests

In Acts 17 Apologetics v. City of Dearborn, (ED MI, Feb. 7, 2012), a Michigan federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to the City of Dearborn in a suit against it by three Christian evangelists who sued over their arrest and subsequent breach of the peace trial for proselytizing Muslims at Dearborn's Arab International Festival. Plaintiffs assert 12 causes of action growing out of their treatment. The court held that on the facts of this case, a state court's finding that authorities had probable cause to arrest defendants does not preclude the federal court from reexamining that issue. The Dearborn Press & Guide reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

British Appeals Court Upholds Damages For Religious Refusal To Rent Hotel Room To Same-Sex Couple

In Bull v. Hall & Preddy, (EWCA, Feb. 10, 2012), the Court of Appeal of England and Wales upheld a damage award against a Christian couple who operated a hotel for refusing, on religious grounds, to rent a double-bedded room to a same-sex couple that had reserved it.  The court held that the refusal amounted to direct discrimination in violation of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. Appellants argued that applying the Regulations to them violated their right of thought, conscience and religion protected by Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court rejected the argument. Lady Justice Rafferty in her opinion wrote:

Whilst the Appellants’ beliefs about sexual practice may not find the acceptance that once they did, nevertheless a democratic society must ensure that their espousal and expression remain open to those who hold them. It would be unfortunate to replace legal oppression of one community (homosexual couples) with legal oppression of another (those sharing the Appellants’ beliefs); rather there should be achieved respect for the broad protection granted to religious freedom.... Any interference with religious rights.... must satisfy the test of `anxious scrutiny’. However, in a pluralist society it is inevitable that from time to time, as here, views, beliefs and rights of some are not compatible with those of others. ...I do not consider that the Appellants face any difficulty in manifesting their religious beliefs, they are merely prohibited from so doing in the commercial context they have chosen.

The Telegraph reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Supreme Court Review Sought In Mt. Soledad Cross Case

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday in City of San Diego v. Trunk, (cert. filed 2/9/2012). In the case, a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit held that the now federally-owned Mt. Soledad Memorial featuring a 43-foot high cross conveys a government message of endorsement of religion that violates the Establishment Clause. Subsequently the full 9th Circuit refused an en banc rehearing. However 5 judges, joined an opinion dissenting from the denial of en banc review. (See prior posting.) Liberty Institute issued a press release on the filing of the petition for review with the Supreme Court. AP reports that a rally by 75 supporters to mark the filing of the petition also drew three dozen opponents.

Obama Adopts New Compromise On Contraceptive Coverage; Opponents Say It Is Insufficient

As reported by CNN, President Obama today announced a compromise in the dispute over whether health insurance policies offered to employees by religiously affiliated institutions will need to cover contraceptive services. (See prior related posting.)  According to a Fact Sheet released by the White House, "if a woman works for religious employers with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to offer contraceptive care free of charge." The Becket Fund quickly issued a press release calling the White House's new policy a "false compromise," explaining:

First, hundreds if not thousands of religious organizations self insure, meaning that they will still be forced to pay for these services in violation of their religious beliefs. Second, it is unclear which religious organizations are permitted to claim the new exemption, and whether it will extend to for-profit organizations, individuals, or non-denominational organizations. Third, money is fungible, and many religious organizations may still object to being forced to pay money to an insurance company which will turn around and provide contraception to its employees for free.

UPDATE: The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also issued a statement on Friday (full text) saying that while the new policy requires careful moral analysis, the "only complete solution" is is for HHS to rescind the coverage mandate.

Texas Graduation Prayer Litigation Settled

Apparently bowing to the trial court judge's pressure to settle the case (see prior posting), the parties yesterday  entered a settlement agreement (full text) in Schultz v. Medina Valley Independent School District, (WD TX, Feb. 9, 2012). The suit, filed by Americans United, challenged the school district's plan to include student-led prayers in its graduation ceremony.  The settlement covers not only graduation prayer, but a range of issues relating to religion in the public schools. (AU press release). Under the settlement, the valedictorian or class president can deliver remarks at graduation. The school may not suggest, revise or edit the content of the remarks, and must deliver an oral and written disclaimer stating that students' remarks reflect their personal views and are not endorsed by the school. In this context, a prayer by a graduation speaker is permitted, but school district personnel on stage may not stand during the student prayer. The settlement also bars school teachers and administrators during school or school-sponsored activities from proselytizing, initiating prayers or joining students in prayer. Officials will not display religious symbols or quotations in school. No prayer will be included at football games, scholarship ceremonies or award banquets. The District will disclaim sponsorship of student speeches at games and activities. The school district will offer annual training for personnel as to student rights and will include information in the student handbook on the issue of religion in schools.

The court's Order approving the settlement (full text) reflected Judge Biery's idiosyncratic style.  The judge not only added an Appendix captioned An Ironic Venue for Separation of Church and State Litigation, but also added a "Personal Statement" to the Order. The Statement reads:

During the course of this litigation, many have played a part:

To the United States Marshal Service and local police who have provided heightened security: Thank you.

To those Christians who have venomously and vomitously cursed the Court family and threatened bodily harm and assassination: In His name, I forgive you.

To those who have prayed for my death: Your prayers will someday be answered, as inevitably trumps probability.

To those in the executive and legislative branches of government who have demagogued this case for their own political goals: You should be ashamed of yourselves.

To the lawyers who have advocated professionally and respectfully for their clients' respective positions: Bless you.

The San Antonio Express-News reports on these developments.

Suit Filed Challenging Forest Service Approval of Jesus Statue

On Wednesday, the Freedom From Religion Foundation announced that it filed a federal lawsuit challenging the U.S. Forest Service's recent renewal of a permit for the Knights of Columbus to continue to display of a statue of Jesus near the top of a ski lift at the Whitefish Mountain Resort in Montana's Flathead National Forest. (See prior posting.) The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Weber, (D MT, filed 2/7/2012), alleges that the continued authorization of the statue violates the Establishment Clause. It claims that the actions of the Forest Service "in perpetuating a religious shrine on federal property, give the public appearance of government endorsement of religion, including an unmistakable symbolic link between the government and religion." The suit asks the court to order withdrawal of the permit and removal of the statue from Forest Service property. The American Center for Law and Justice quickly announced that it would file an amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of the statue. The Flathead (MT) Beacon reports on the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges 10 Commandments Monument At A New Mexico City Hall

The ACLU of New Mexico announced yesterday that it has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of two Bloomfield, NM citizens seeking removal of a large Ten Commandments monument erected last year on the lawn of city hall. The complaint (full text) in Felix v. City of Bloomfield, New Mexico, (D NM, filed 2/8/2012), asserts that the monument violates the Establishment Clause. The complaint chronicles the various resolutions adopted by city council, largely at the urging of then council-member Kevin Mauzy, that led to the authorization of the monument. Among other things, the complaint contends that the city's religious purpose in authorizing the monument is demonstrated by the close working relationship that Mauzy had with the Alliance Defense Fund in obtaining city authorization. The Farmington (NM) Daily Times reports on the lawsuit.

Catholic News Organization Sues Over Contraception Coverage Mandate

The Becket Fund announced yesterday that it has filed a federal lawsuit in Alabama on behalf of a non-profit Catholic news organization challenging the application to it of the federal Mandate under the Affordable Care Act requiring health insurance policies (with limited exceptions) to cover contraceptive services for women.  The complaint (full text) in Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v. Sebelius, (ND AL, filed 2/9/2012), alleges that EWTN, founded in 1981 by a cloistered nun, has grown to now become the largest Catholic media network in the world with 340 employees. The complaint asserts:

28. As part of its commitment to Catholic social teaching, EWTN promotes the well-being and health of its employees. In furtherance of these beliefs, EWTN has striven over the years to provide employee health coverage superior to coverage generally available in the Alabama market.

29. Moreover, as part of its religious commitment to the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church, EWTN ensures that its insurance policies do not cover drugs, devices, services or procedures inconsistent with its faith. In particular, EWTN has taken great pains through the years to ensure that its insurance plans do not cover sterilization, contraception, or abortion.

The complaint claims that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Free Exercise, free expression and Establishment clauses of the 1st Amendment, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.

EWTN also issued a statement announcing the lawsuit, saying in part:

"We are taking this action to defend not only ourselves but also to protect other institutions – Catholic and non-Catholic, religious and secular – from having this mandate imposed upon them".... "The government is forcing EWTN, first, to inform its employees about how to get contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs, a concept known as forced speech. To make the matter worse, the government then will force EWTN to use its donors' funds to pay for these same morally objectionable procedures or to pay for the huge fines it will levy against us if we fail to provide health care insurance.

Becket Fund had previously filed two similar lawsuits (see prior posting 1, 2) on behalf of religiously-affiliated universities. Discussion of the Mandate in the media has generally focused on Catholic universities and hospitals. This appears to be the first significant challenge brought by an organization outside those two categories. ABC News reports on the new lawsuit.

UPDATE: According to Friday's Detroit Free Press, Michigan state attorney general Bill Schuette say he will take the lead in assembling states to file an amicus brief supporting the Becket Fund's position in the three cases.

University May Fire Human Resources VP For Expressing Her Religiously-Based Views On Gays

In Dixon v. University of Toledo, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14934 (ND OH, Feb. 6, 2012), an Ohio federal district court upheld action by the University of Toledo in dismissing the Associate Vice President for Human Resources who, based on her religious views, published (without identifying her position with the University) a response to an op-ed in a local newspaper in which she objected to the idea that homosexuals are "civil rights victims" and said that homosexuality is purely a choice. In her suit challenging her dismissal, plaintiff alleged free speech and equal protection violations, repeatedly citing her religious views. The court held that plaintiff's free speech rights were not infringed because the nature of her position with the University meant that her statement could disrupt the Human Resources Department and cause prospective employees who are gay or lesbian to reconsider or withdraw their applications. Her statement could also lead to challenges to her employment decisions. The court also rejected plaintiff's equal protection claim.

Alleged West Point Establishment Clause Violation Would Not Support Relief Sought By Plaintiff

In Spadone v. McHugh, (D DC, Feb. 8, 2012), plaintiff was any Army recruit who had been expelled from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point after he plagiarized an essay in an Advanced Composition class. In suing to seek reinstatement, he claimed, among other things, that West Point violated the Establishment Clause when a panel investigating charges against him concluded he had not properly shown contrition or accepted responsibility and ordered him to stand with his body rigid in a military posture and to read aloud the "Cadet’s Prayer." The court concluded that even if plaintiff was correct, the violation would yield an order barring forced religious prayer, and not the preliminary injunction plaintiff sought ordering him re-enrolled in West Point.