Suit Challenging Harm From Imprecatory Prayers Dismissed

In 2009, Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, filed suit in state court against former Navy chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, Jim Ammerman (now deceased) and Ammerman's Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches contending that they were conspiring to encourage violence against him through use of "imprecatory prayers." (See prior posting.) Now, according to the Dallas Morning News, on Monday the court issued an oral ruling granting summary judgment to the defendants in the case-- Weinstein v. Ammerman, (Dallas Co. TX Dist. Ct., April 2, 2012). Judge Martin Hoffman did not reach the constitutional question of whether prayers that incite others to violence can be outlawed. Instead he ruled that plaintiffs had shown no connection between the prayers and the threats and vandalism suffered by Weinstein's family. Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt's reaction to the ruling was: "I praise God for religious freedom because the judge declared it’s OK to pray imprecatory prayers and quote Psalm 109."

Kiryas Joel's RLUIPA Case Goes Back To State Court

In November 2011, the town of Kiryas Joel, New York, (a Orthodox Jewish Hasidic enclave) and various other plaintiffs sued the nearby village of Woodbury, New York, challenging Woodbury's zoning laws under the state and federal constitutions and RLUIPA.  The Hudson Valley Times Herald-Record reported on the suit at the time it was filed. The population of Kiryas Joel is increasing, and residents are looking to surrounding areas for expansion.  They claim that two zoning laws adopted in 2011 by Woodbury discriminate against Hasidic Jews by limiting housing density in areas into which the Hasidic community wishes to expand. Shortly after Kiryas Joel filed its lawsuit in state court, the Village of Woodbury filed a motion to remove the case to federal court. Now, in Village of Kiryas Joel, New York v. Village of Woodbury, New York, (SDNY, March 29, 2012), the federal district court has sent the case back to state court on a technicality.  For a case to be removed, all defendants must consent to removal within 30 days after the defendants receive copies of the pleadings. (28 USC Sec. 1446). Here only two of the five defendants joined in the Notice of Removal. Mid-Hudson News Network reports on the decision.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases-- Installment #2 For the Week

In Blount v. Tate, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41350 (WD VA, March 26, 2012), a Virginia federal district court  rejected a Muslim inmate's complaint that officers tore his Qur'an and destroyed his prayer necklace in searching his cell while he was out; his special Eid meal was not served on a Common Fare tray; and he was not allowed to order a Pocket Salat.

In Walker v. Fischer, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40842 (ND NY, March 26, 2012), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40846, Feb. 27, 2012) and rejected a Muslim inmates complaint that authorities refused to provide him with a Kosher Diet in lieu of the prescribed Controlled "A" High Fiber Diet he was receiving. It also rejected his complaint about the Ramadan feast menu he received in the Special Housing Unit. However the court permitted him to proceed with a claim that prison officials refused to broadcast Jumuah sermons to his SHU cell.

In Crump v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40542 (ED MI, March 26, 2012), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154344, Nov. 14, 2011) and dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies a Muslim inmate's complaint that prison authorities have endorsed an anti-Shi'a, Wahhabi Islamic sect in the prison and thereby have created an environment in which it is impossible for him to safely practice his Shi'a faith.

In Epps v. Grannis, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41889 (SD CA, March 26, 2012), a California federal district court adopted in part and rejected in part a magistrate's report (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154398, Dec. 1, 2011) and permitted a Muslim inmate to proceed with several claims under RLUIPA relating to Ramadan observance, religious diet and confiscation of photocopies of a book. The court dismissed most of the 1st Amendment challenges to the same practices.

In Earls v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41806 (WD MI, March 27, 2012), a Michigan federal district court adopted in part a magistrate's recommendation (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41805, Feb. 17, 2012) and dismissed claims by a former inmate now on parole that prison officials "refuse to acknowledge the Methodist religion as a sect of Protestant Christianity."

In Crump v. Winn, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41535 (ED MI, March 27, 2012), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41539, March 5, 2012) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's claim that the deputy warden changed the Muslim prayer time in a way that placed a substantial burden on his free exercise of religion.

In Christen v. Washington Department of Corrections, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42201 (WD WA, March 27, 2012), a Washington federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42202, Feb. 16, 2012) and dismissed the complaint of an inmate regarding the signature he used on grievances. He claims he is a Restoration Druid and when "forced to interact with foreign jurisdictions" he must use a "signature-in-dishonor" demonstrating his mark accompanied by "UCC 1-207 and "all rights reserved/without prejudiced, abbreviated as ARR/WOP."

In Holt v. Hobbs, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39752 (ED AR, March 23, 2012), an Arkansas federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40942, Jan. 27, 2012) and dismissed a preliminary injunction request, upholding the requirement that a Muslim inmate shave his beard in compliance with the prison's grooming policy.

In Ruley v. Stovall, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41948 (ED KY, March 27, 2012), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed an inmate's 1st Amendment and RLUIPA challenges to the confiscation of his Satanic Bible.

In Robinson v. Jimenez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43095 (ED NY, March 26, 2012), a New York federal district court adopted a portion of a magistrate's recommendations (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43097, March 6, 2012), and dismissed a 1st Amendment challenge to an incident in which Jewish prisoners' use of the religious purpose room for Rosh Hashanah services was interrupted and they were required to leave because of an erroneous scheduling conflict by which Muslim inmates had reserved the room for Ramadan services at the same time.

In Dobson v. Vail, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42939 (WD WA, March 28, 2012), a Washington federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42937, Feb. 16, 2012), and dismissed an Asatru inmate's free exercise, RLUIPA and establishment clause challenges, as well as 8th and 14th Amendment challenges, to a requirement that he participate in a program known as the Right Living Model. Plaintiff claimed that the program "favors secular humanistic doctrines," clearly endorses The Four Agreements, a "Toltec Wisdom book", and that his involuntary participation was in conflict with his religious values.

Appeals Court Agrees: 1st Amendment Precludes Suit For Injuries During Healing Service

In Kubala v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., (CT App., March 27, 2012), a Connecticut appeals court adopted the trial court's opinion (see prior posting) and dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a suit brought against a Catholic priest, his church and the Hartford Diocese seeking damages for injuries plaintiff received when, during a Catholic Charismatic Renewal healing service, she was physically injured. The appeals court held that deciding the case would involve an impermissible interference with the defendants' free exercise of religion. The trial court had held: "[S]ince the plaintiff's claims are inextricably intertwined with the religious context in which the incident occurred, the court cannot apply neutral principles of secular law to this case."

Firefighter's Religious Objections To Foul Language Dismissed

In Trussell v. City of Decherd, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40086  (ED TN, March 23, 2012), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed free exercise claims brought by a former member of the Decherd, Tennessee fire department. Plaintiff complained that other firefighters engaged in cursing and foul language, and that as "a devout Christian" his religious beliefs "included a prohibition on the use of foul language." The court said that his free exercise allegations were unclear and he had not alleged a connection between his religion and any employment action against him.

Challenge To North Carolina Marriage Laws Dismissed

According to the Greensboro (NC) News & Record, a North Carolina state trial court judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed last year by 11 clergy challenging the state's requirement that marriages be solemnized by clergy or a magistrate.  The complaint claimed that (1) it violates the Establishment Clause for the state to make a member of the clergy an agent of the state to perform a marriage ceremony and submit a state granted license; (2) it violates state and federal free exercise protections for the state to require individuals entering into marriage to participate in a state-prescribed ceremony and licensing of the marriage; and (3) it is unconstitutional for the state to prohibit members of the clergy from solemnizing the marriage of same-sex couples. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs say they will appeal the decision.

Copts Withdraw From Egypt's Constitution Drafting Panel

The Financial Times reported yesterday that in Egypt, the Coptic Orthodox Church has decided to withdraw its representatives from the constitutional assembly that was appointed to draft a new constitution for the country. The Church General Council said that it had become pointless for the church to be represented. The decision by the Copts follows a similar withdrawal a few days earlier by al-Azhar, the highest Sunni religious authority, which also claimed it was being sidelined. The Copts are concerned that Islamists will dominate the constitution-drafting process and give religion a more central role in public life.  The fears of Islamist control were exacerbated last week end when the Muslim Brotherhood went back on its pledge not to run a candidate for president. (AP).

Military Hosts "Rock Beyond Belief" Event For Nonbelievers

At Fort Bragg, North Carolina on Saturday, the military for the first time ever hosted an event specifically for military members who do not believe in God.  AP and the Fort Stewart Patch both report on the Rock Beyond Belief event that drew several hundred attendees to the Fort Bragg parade field. Among the featured speakers was Richard Dawkins. The event was organized after the Army provided funding in  2010 for the "Rock the Fort" concert held at Fort Bragg under the auspices of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. (See prior posting.)  The crowd at Saturday's event, in part because of rainy weather, was substantially smaller that organizers had hoped for. They wanted Christian soldiers to attend as well.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Charles J. Reid, Tales Legal Fictions Tell, (Northwestern Interdisciplinary Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Joel A. Nichols, Religion, Marriage, and Pluralism, (25 Emory International Law Review 967, 2012).
• Tamir Moustafa, Islamic Law, Women's Rights, and Popular Legal Consciousness in Malaysia, (Law and Social Inquiry, Forthcoming).
• Danny O' Connell, A Brief Analysis of Current Issues in Church-State Relations in Ireland, (March 28, 2012).
• Roberta Rosenthal Kwall, The Cultural Analysis Paradigm: Women and Synagogue Ritual as a Case Study, (Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 34, Forthcoming).
• Swati Sharma, Islamic Finance, (February 24, 2012).
• Helen L. Norton, The Equal Protection Implications of Government's Hateful Speech, (54 William and Mary Law Review, forthcoming 2012).

From SmartCILP:

• Mark Cammack, Islamic Finance: Prospects and Significance, 18 Southwestern Journal of International Law 113-123 (2011).
• Richard E. Flint, Consumer Bankruptcy Policy: Ability to Pay and Catholic Social Teaching, 43 St. Mary's Law Journal 333-412 (2012).
• Frank Pasquale, Joining or Changing the Conversation? Catholic Social Thought and Intellectual Property, 29 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 681-727 (2011).
• Symposium: Religious Legal Theory. Introduction by Mark L. Movsesian; articles by Steven D. Smith, Keisuke Mark Abe, Ian Bartrum, Zachary R. Calo, Nathan S. Chapman, Simeon O. Ilesanmi, Samuel J. Levine, Joel A. Nichols, James W. McCarty III, Andrea Pin and Rene Reyes. 85 St. John's Law Review 397-681 (2011). 

Turkey Passes Controversial, Pro-Islamic Education Reform

Reuters reports that Turkey's ruling AK Party on Friday pushed a controversial school reform bill through Parliament that critics say furthers an Islamic agenda and lowers education standards. Among the changes are ones that allow public schools to offer optional classes in Qur'anic studies and the life of the Prophet Muhammad.  The bill also allows imam hatip schools-- ones that combine religious studies with modern secular subjects-- to admit students at age 11 instead of the current age 15. Today's Zaman has additional details on the bill which must still be approved by President Abdullah Gül.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Curry v. California Department of Corrections, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38464 (ND CA, March 21, 2012), a California federal district court rejected an inmate's claim that his rights were infringed when he was not permitted to obtain scented oil for the practice of his Shetaut Neter religion. The court called for additional evidence and argument on plaintiff's request for a religious Kemetic diet.

In Contreraz v. Adams, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38512 (ED CA, March 21, 2012), a California federal district court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies claims by a Native American inmate who observes the Olin Pyramid religion who sought a religious diet and chapel access to perform full moon rituals. The court allowed plaintiff to move ahead with his challenge to a denial of a religious exemption from grooming standards.

In Garraway v. Lappin, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38712 (MD PA, March 21, 2012), a Pennsylvania federal district court in a lengthy opinion dismissed a series of challenges to prison practices brought by a Muslim inmate serving a life sentence as a military prisoner. At issue were chapel scheduling for group prayer, lack of a full time Sunni Muslim chaplain, alleged delay in delivery of Islamic books sent through the mail, religious diet claims, clothing and dress issues, withholding or limiting access to Islamic tapes, magazines and books, withholding of prayer oil and ceremonial items, distribution of Bible quotes by Christian inmates, the method in which funds are allocated among religious groups, denial of chapel use for teaching Arabic, and allowing non-Muslims to participate in Muslim observances.

In Diggs v. Marikah, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38483 (SD NY, March 20, 2012), a New York federal district court permitted a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his free exercise challenge to the refusal to allow him to attend weekly congregate Jumu'ah services.

In Cole v. Jones, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37960 (MD AL, March 21, 2012), an Alabama federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38448, March 1, 2012) and dismissed, among other claims, an inmate's contention that his free exercise rights were infringed by restrictions on him while he was in a restricted privilege dorm that prevented him from attending church services. It reached a similar conclusion as to any RLUIPA claim.

In Hamilton v. Fisher, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39116 (ND NY, March 22, 2012), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39118, Feb. 29, 2012) and dismissed, with leave to amend, an inmate's allegations  that authorities refused to acknowledge his claim that he is Jewish and furnish him a kosher diet. Plaintiff failed to allege enough facts to permit the court to evaluate whether he had a valid free exercise or RLUIPA claim.

In Hall v. Skolnik, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39684 (D NV, March 23, 2012), a Nevada federal district court rejected an inmate's claim that his rights were violated when he was denied kosher meals. The court found that plaintiff had not shown a sincere religious belief, nor did he show that the kosher meal policy was implemented with an intent to discriminate against the prison's African-American Jewish population.

In Jamison v. Davue, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40266 (ED CA, March 23, 2012), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed, with leave to amend, an inmate's conclusory allegations that he has had difficulty obtaining kosher meals.

The March 28 Las Vegas Review Journal reports that a settlement has been reached in a class action suit brought against the Nevada Department of Corrections by an Orthodox Jewish inmate over kosher food.  Under the agreement, prison authorities will obtain rabbinic kosher certification for the prison's "common fare" diet. The parties agreed to a 6-month stay of the pending litigation while the agreement is implemented.

In Green v. Sneath, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41199 (MD PA, March 26, 2012), a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected a Muslim inmate's free exercise and RLUIPA claims growing out of his Qur'an being left behind and accidentally thrown out when he was transferred to a different cell.  He was quickly provided with a new Qur'an, but it was not the translation he preferred.  The correct translation was eventually ordered and furnished to him several months later.

Court Rejects Religious Defense To Failure To Have Auto Insurance

In State of Wisconsin v. Gotthardt, (WI App., March 22, 2012), defendant appealed a penalty of $200 that was imposed on her for driving a motor vehicle without insurance. She claimed that the requirement to maintain automobile insurance conflicted with her sincerely held religious beliefs. The court held that defendant's 1st Amendment defense was untimely, and that in any event she had not shown that the insurance requirement was unconstitutional.

Appeals Court Says Divorced Parents' Dispute Over Baptism of Children May Be Adjudicated

In Jarrell v. Jarrell, (TN Ct. App., March 28, 2012), a father asked the court to hold his former wife in contempt for violating the Parenting Plan entered by the court in their divorce under which major decisions regarding their children's religious upbringing were to be made jointly.  The mother, Lauren Jarrell, had their two children baptized without the knowledge or consent of their father, Emmett Jarrell. During their marriage, Lauren and Emmett disagreed on whether their children should be baptized at an early age, or only when they are older. The court rejected Lauren's argument that in granting Emmett's petition, the trial court gave preference to the father's religious views over those of the mother. The court said:

Mother is correct that courts “must maintain strict neutrality in cases involving religious disputes between divorced parents[,]” and they may not “prefer the religious views of one parent over another unless one parent’s religious beliefs and practices threaten the health and well-being of the child.”.... However, simply put, this is not a “religious dispute.” In this case, the trial court was asked only to determine whether Mother’s conduct in failing to abide by the terms of the Parenting Plan warranted a finding of contempt; it was not called upon to resolve a religious dispute between the parties.

The appeals court reversed the trial court's civil contempt order, though, finding that the trial court was attempting to punish the mother rather than obtain compliance which is the function of civil contempt. But at the same time it also concluded that the trial court erred in holding that Lauren was not given adequate notice to support a criminal contempt finding. AP reports on the decision.

Ballot Language On Missouri Free Exercise Constitutional Amendment Upheld

Last year the Missouri legislature approved placing on the November 2012 ballot a proposal that would add a laundry list of religious freedom protections to the state constitution. (See prior posting.) Earlier this week, according to AP, a state trial court judge rejected a challenge to this ballot summary language for the proposal that was prescribed by the legislature:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure: • That the right of Missouri citizens to express their religious beliefs shall not be infringed; • That school children have the right to pray and acknowledge God voluntarily in their schools; and • That all public schools shall display the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

The suit argued that the summary fails to mention that under the proposal students could refuse homework and prisoners could lose some religious rights.

Fortune 500 Company Settles EEOC Religious Accommodation Lawsuit

EEOC reports that AutoZone, Inc. has settled a religious discrimination lawsuit brought against it by the EEOC in a Massachusetts federal district court.  The suit was brought on behalf of a former Sikh employee who was harassed  by mangers and customers and who was not permitted to wear a turban or a kara (religious bracelet). The employee, Frank Mahoney, was fired allegedly because of his religion and in retaliation for seeking an accommodation and complaining about discrimination. In the settlement, the Fortune 500 auto parts distributor will pay damages of $75,000, attorneys fees, and will adopt new policies and training procedures on religious discrimination.

Suit Challenges Exclusion of Religious College From Florida Tuition Grant Program

Earlier this month, Florida Christian College and 5 of its student brought suit challenging the school's exclusion from the Florida Resident Access Grant Program that provides students at eligible private colleges $2000 per year tuition assistance. The complaint (full text) in Florida Christian College v. Shanahan, (ND FL, filed 3/8/2012) alleges that exclusion of FCC students from the program violates plaintiffs' free exercise, establishment clause, free speech and equal protection rights. The statute creating the program (FL Stat Sec. 1009.89) requires that eligible schools must have a secular purpose, and receipt of state aid by students at the institution may not have the primary effect of advancing or impeding religion or result in an excessive entanglement between the state and any religious sect. The Florida Department of Education argued that FCC does not meet the secular purpose requirement. Speak Up blog reported on the case earlier this month.

Bald Eagle Permit Was "Catch-22"; Amended Complaint Filed

Earlier this month, the issuance by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of a permit to allow the Northern Arapaho Indian tribe to kill up to two bald eagles for religious purposes was widely seen as an important vindication of Native American religious freedom. (See prior posting.) However, according to an AP report today, once the tribe's attorneys read the fine print, they concluded that the permit was a "sham." The federal permit  specifically bars the tribe from killing eagles within the Wind River Indian Reservation, and also requires adherence to state law in killing the eagles. Wyoming state law prohibits all killing of eagles and applies everywhere in the state except on the Wind River Reservation.  So the permit precludes taking of eagles at the only location where state law allows it. All of this has led the tribe on behalf of its members to file an amended complaint in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Ashe, (D WY, filed 3/30/2012) (full text of complaint) claiming that their rights under the Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act have been infringed, and that the government's action violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit seeks an injunction ordering the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a permit without improper restrictions in it.

Mexico's Congress Approves Constitutional Changes On Public Display of Religion

AP reports that Mexico's Senate on Wednesday, by a vote of 72-35, approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow religious events to be celebrated in public as long as they do not involve electoral politics. The changes, already approved by the Chamber of Deputies of Mexico's Congress (Today's Catholic, 12/19/11), come three days after the conclusion of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Mexico. At least 16 of Mexico's state legislatures must still approve the changes for them to take effect.

Priest's Embezzlement Conviction Not Barred By First Amendment

In Rodis v. Attorney General of Virginia, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42650 (WD VA, March 28, 2012), a Virginia federal district court held that the 1st Amendment does not preclude civil courts from convicting a Catholic priest of embezzlement of funds contributed by parishioners.  Rejecting Rodney Rodis' petition for habeas corpus, the court held:  "Petitioner's criminal acts, even if performed under the guise of ecclesiastical duties, are not shielded by the First Amendment because petitioner's prosecution did not relate to any ecclesiastical dispute, faith, or doctrine."

Catholic School Teacher May Challenge Her Firing For Using Artificial Insemination

In Dias v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43240 (SD OH, March 29, 2012), an Ohio federal district court refused to dismiss a pregnancy discrimination and breach of contract suit brought by a former technology coordinator at two Catholic schools. Plaintiff, a non-Catholic, oversaw the schools' computer systems and instructed students on computer usage. As a non-Catholic, she was not permitted to teach religion classes. When plaintiff became pregnant, she was fired. Initially she was told her dismissal was because she became pregnant while she was unmarried, but subsequently she was informed that it was because she had used artificial insemination, which violates Catholic teachings.

The court held that the ministerial exception does not apply because plaintiff is not a ministerial employee. While plaintiff's contract stated that she would comply with the teachings of the Catholic Church, the court concluded that there is a question of fact as to whether a non-Catholic would know that artificial insemination is against Church teachings. Finally it held that plaintiff had stated a plausible claim that she was terminated because of her   pregnancy, and not because of a policy against extramarital sex enforced equally against men and women.