9th Circuit: Sovereign Immunity Protects U.S. In FISA Suit By Islamic Charity

In a decision handed down on Tuesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a claim by an Islamic Foundation for damages from alleged warrantless electronic surveillance in 2004 in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  In Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama,  (9th Cir., Aug. 7, 2012), the court held that  the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for suits under 18 USC Sec. 1810 for wrongful collection of information, even though it has done so as to suits under other portions of FISA for wrongful use and disclosure of the information.  The court also held that plaintiffs had made insufficient allegations against FBI director Robert Mueller to find personal liability on his part for the surveillance.  The result of the court's holding was the reversal of the trial court' award of $2.5 million in attorneys' fees, as well as its award of comparatively small amounts in statutory damages. The Recorder reports on the decision.

Official May Testify On Santa Muerte Connection To Drug Trade

In United States v. Goxcon-Chagal, (D NM, Aug. 5, 2012), a New Mexico federal district court rejected challenges to proposed testimony by a U.S. Marshall that Santa Muerte materials are tools of the trade of drug traffickers. In addition to finding that the testimony is admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court found no First Amendment problem with the proposed testimony. In a 67-page opinion, the court concluded:

Almonte’s testimony about the tools of the trade of drug organizations as they relate to individuals who worship Santa Muerte would be helpful to the jury.  Almonte’s proposed expert testimony is sufficiently reliable for the Court to permit him to testify before a jury.  Almonte’s proposed testimony is not improper profile evidence. Neither the Establishment Clause nor the Free Exercise Clause require exclusion of this evidence. Because the risk of unfair prejudice does not substantially outweigh the probative value of Almonte’s testimony, the Court will not exclude his testimony under rule 403....

While the religion associated with Santa Muerte is the only one that is at issue, the introduction of the evidence does not seek to punish Medina-Copete for worshiping Santa Muerte, but only for having drugs in her possession.  While worshipers of Santa Muerte are at a disadvantage because they may be suspected of and successfully prosecuted for drug activity more than nonworshipers of Santa Muerte, the presence of prayers and statutes is not a necessary or sufficient condition for a criminal conviction.  The Court has difficulty saying that the evidence violates the non-preferential principle of the Establishment Clause if the religion is neither a necessary or sufficient reason for a criminal conviction.

Federal Court Upholds Hawaii's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

In Jackson v. Abercrombie, (D HI, Aug. 8, 2012), an Hawaii federal district court, in a 120-page opinion, upheld as constitutional Hawaii's laws that bar same-sex marriage.  The court held that rational basis review applies in the federal equal protection and due process challenges to the state constitutional and statutory provisions involved.  The court explained:

The right to marry someone of the samesex, is not "objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition" and thus it is not a fundamental right..... Hawaii’s marriage laws do not treat males and females differently as a class; consequently, the laws do not discriminate on the basis of gender.  The United States Supreme Court has never held that heightened scrutiny applies to classifications based on sexual orientation....

[T]he legislature could rationally conclude that defining marriage as a union between a man and woman provides an inducement for opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby decreasing the percentage of children accidently [sic.] conceived outside of a stable, long-term relationship.... The legislature could also rationally conclude that other things being equal, it is best for children to be raised by a parent of each sex.

Hawaii has enacted a law providing for civil unions that give partners all the same state legal rights as married couples. AP reports on the decision. Alliance Defending Freedom links to the pleadings in the case.

American Muslims and Copts Urge Egypt To Adopt Religious Equality and Secular Legal System In New Constitution

RNS reports on a letter released Tuesday from Muslim and Coptic Christian leaders in the United States calling on Egypt's new government that is drafting a constitution for the country to "recognize the equality of all Egyptians and to reject any language that would discriminate against any citizen of Egypt on the basis of that citizen's religion or gender." The letter also urged Egyptians to reject language that would describe Shariah as the source of the country's laws. Among those signing the letter were U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison;  Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America; and Rev. Hegomen Moises Bogdady and the Rev. Michael Sorial, priests with the Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America. The joint letter was sponsored by the Arab American Institute.

Suit Challenges Portion of Newly Approved Missouri Constitutional Amendment

Only one day after Missouri voters approved a state constitutional amendment providing extensive protections for religious expression (see prior posting), the ACLU announced the filing of a class action in federal district court challenging on federal constitutional grounds one aspect of the amendment.  A portion of the amendment provides that  the religious freedom rights of prisoners in state or local custody will be limited to the rights granted by federal law.  More extensive religious liberty protections under the state constitution will not apply to prisoners.  The class action complaint (full text) in Qandah v. Lombardi, (WD MO, filed 8/8/2012) contends that  this withdraws existing state protections of religious liberty from prisoners in violation of the federal Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause. It alleges: "The challenged provision has the principal or primary effect of inhibiting religion among prisoners in Missouri."

8th Circuit Rejects Narrow Challenge To Hate Crimes Law

In United States v. Maybee, (8th Cir., Aug. 6, 2012), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld against a narrow constitutional attack the constitutionality of 18 USC 249(a)(1), one of the provisions of the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The section prohibits causing bodily injury to a person because of the person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin. The case involved an assault motivated by race and national origin.  According to the court, both parties agreed that the constitutionality of the section depends on whether it is a proper exercise of Congress power under Section 2 of the 13th Amendment to ban "badges and incidents of slavery."  The court rejected the claim that to be constitutional the section needed to not only require racial motivation, but also require that the assault be motivated by the victim’s enjoyment of a public benefit. AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]

Missouri Voters Overwhelmingly Approve Religious Expression Amendment

Missouri voters yesterday approved state Constitutional Amendment 2 by a vote of 82.8% in favor and 17.2% against. (Official results.) The measure was described briefly on the ballot:

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 actual language added by the constitutional amendment is extensive. Here it is, slightly edited, and broken down by subject matter headings that I have inserted:

Anti-Establishment and Free Exercise Provisions:

• neither the state nor any of its political subdivisions shall establish any official religion, nor shall a citizen's right to pray or express his or her religious beliefs be infringed;
• the state shall not coerce any person to participate in any prayer or other religious activity, but shall ensure that any person shall have the right to pray individually or corporately in a private or public setting so long as such prayer does not result in disturbance of the peace or disruption of a public meeting or assembly;

Prayer On Public Property and Legislative Invocations:

• citizens as well as elected officials and employees of the state of Missouri and its political subdivisions shall have the right to pray on government premises and public property so long as such prayers abide within the same parameters placed upon any other free speech under similar circumstances;
• the General Assembly and the governing bodies of political subdivisions may extend to ministers, clergypersons, and other individuals the privilege to offer invocations or other prayers at meetings or sessions of the General Assembly or governing bodies;

Protection of Students' Religious Expression:

• students may express their beliefs about religion in written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their work;
• no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs;
• the state shall ensure public school students their right to free exercise of religious expression without interference, as long as such prayer or other expression is private and voluntary, whether individually or corporately, and in a manner that is not disruptive and as long as such prayers or expressions abide within the same parameters placed upon any other free speech under similar circumstances;

School Display of Bill of Rights:

• to emphasize the right to free exercise of religious expression, all free public schools receiving state appropriations shall display, in a conspicuous and legible manner, the text of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States;

Prisoners Get No Additional Religious Rights:

• this section shall not be construed to expand the rights of prisoners in state or local custody beyond those afforded by the laws of the United States.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports on the results.

Norwegian Children's Ombudsman Urges End To Ritual Circumcision of Boys

JTA reported Monday that Norway's ombudsman for children has proposed that Jews and Muslims replace circumcision of boys with a symbolic non-surgical ritual. Saying that "Muslim and Jewish children are entitled to the same protection as all other children," Dr. Anne Lindboe told a Norwegian paper last month that circumcision in boys is a violation of their right to make decisions about their own body. The president of Oslo's Jewish community responded that the mandate of Norway’s children’s ombudsman does not extend to devising Jewish rituals.

Lawsuit Challenges Proposed Eruv As Establishment Clause Violation

Last week, a group opposed to the creation of an eruv by Orthodox Jewish residents of the Village of Westhampton, New York filed suit in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that use of public property, including utility poles, to create a symbolic religious boundary violates the Establishment Clause. The suit also seeks an injunction against construction of the eruv, which is comprised largely of plastic strips running up utility poles to intersect with existing wires that create the symbolic boundary. The complaint (full text) in Jewish People for the Betterment of Westhampton Beach v. Village of Westhampton Beach, (ED NY, filed 7/30/2012), alleges that:

The eruv ... will mark certain wholly public spaces within the Village with religious significance. Indeed, it will invest a large portion of the Village with a narrow and parochial religious function.... [I]t will be a constant ... reminder to the community at large, that the secular public spaces of the Village have been transformed for religious use and identity; to the non-Jewish residents, that the Village and LIPA have given preferred status to the Jewish religion as the only faith to be permitted to permanently affix religious symbols to utility poles ... or to physically demarcate certain public spaces with particular religious significance; and to large portions of the Jewish community... that one particular form of Judaism has been preferred and endorsed by the Village over another.

Newsday on Sunday reported on the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to Pew Forum for the lead.]

American Bar Association Condemns Religious Profiling

At its annual meeting yesterday, the American Bar Association House of Delegates voted to expand its policy against racial and ethnic profiling by police to also condemn profiling on the basis of actual or perceived religious affiliation. (ABA Press Release). Resolution 116 (full text) still permits police to make mention of traditional religious dress when issuing a description of a suspect. A report (full text Word.doc) accompanying the text of the resolution says that, since 9/11, the FBI, customs and immigration enforcement, and local police are all profiling Muslims.

Murfreesboro Mosque Finally Gets Occupancy Permit

In Rutherford County, Tennessee yesterday, county officials finally issued a temporary 30-day occupancy permit to the controversial Murfreesboro Islamic Center on which construction has just been completed.  Landscaping must be finished before a permanent permit is issued. The county's action comes after a federal court last month ordered officials to expedite issuance of the permit. (See prior posting.) As reported by CNN, the permit comes in the wake of 2 years of litigation, anti-Muslim vandalism and an arson attack. This will allow the new mosque to hold its first service before the end of the holy month of Ramadan.

Rabbi Sues Over Pennsylvania Funeral Requirements

A Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania rabbi has filed a federal lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Board of Funeral Directors and two other state officials seeking an injunction against interpreting Pennsylvania's funeral-director law as requiring licensed funeral director when a funeral is supervised by a religious authority and there is no embalming or fee-for-service. According to yesterday's Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Rabbi Daniel Wasserman charges that rabbis, funeral homes and grieving families are being pressured by the state funeral board.  The complaint in the lawsuit alleges:

Plaintiff -- unlike some clergy from other religions -- is now being threatened with civil action and criminal prosecution, including stiff fines and even imprisonment, for conducting religious funerals in place of licensed funeral directors who, under color of state law, interfere in purely religious observances for no other justification than personal profit.

Obama Signs New Law That Includes Ban On Disruptive Picketing of Military Funerals

In a ceremony at the White House (President's remarks), President Obama yesterday signed HR 1627, the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act.  Section 601 of the Act prohibits demonstrations (including picketing, speeches and handbilling) within 300 feet of a military funeral or at the residence of the deceased service member or veteran's family during the period from 2 hours before to 2 hours after the funeral. It also prohibits activities within 500 feet of a military funeral that willfully impede access to it. The section was presumably in response to widely publicized picketing of military funerals by members of the Westboro Baptist Church who carried signs, which among other things, protested U.S. acceptance of homosexuality.  In a case last year (see prior posting), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Westboro's activity as protected by the 1st Amendment. The Act signed by the President limits its demonstration ban to individuals who willfully make noise or diversion that intentionally disturbs (or tends to disturb) the peace and good order of the funeral.  In its Westboro decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that the demonstration at issue in that case did not disrupt the funeral.

Court Rejects Diplomatic Immunity And 1st Amendment Claims As To Church's Auto Registration

In Living In Jesus Truth Ministry v. Wise, (D NV, Aug. 3, 2012), Tod Brenbarger, a minister for Living In Jesus Truth Ministry, sued challenging an administrative fine that had been imposed by Nevada for registering two vehicles to the church at a fictitious address. He used post office boxes instead of a physical address as required by Nevada law. In the state proceedings, Brenbarger claimed immunity as a public minister of World Prayers Answered, which he asserted is a foreign ecclesiastical state. The state court judge delayed ruling on the claim and Brenbarger failed to appear for the next hearing. So the fine against him was upheld. At that point Brenbarger filed this suit in a Nevada federal district court, asking for a total of $60 million in damages and interest against the administrative law judge and the state attorney general and her staff. The court dismissed these claims on 11th Amendment and quasi-judicial immunity grounds. As to Brenbarger's claim for injunctive relief against the Department of Motor Vehicles, the court held that Brenbarger "failed to plausibly allege that World Prayers Answered is a sovereign ecclesiastical state." It also rejected his claim that  DMV violated his and his church's "First Amendment right for a church to not have a fixed address."  It held that as a pro se litigant, Brenbarger cannot represent the church in court.  Corporations must be represented by counsel. It also found no free exercise or Establishment Clause violations as to Brenbarger personally in the vehicle registration requirement.

USCIRF Issues New Report On Constitutions Of Muslim Countries

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom last Friday released a new report titled The Religion-State Relationship & the Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief: A Comparative Textual Analysis of the Constitutions of Majority Muslim Countries and Other OIC Members.  It surveys the constitutions of 46 Muslim-majority countries and 10 others that are OIC members. According to USIRF's summary of the report:

Approximately 44% of the world’s Muslim population live in 23 majority Muslim countries that have declared Islam to be the state religion; the remaining 56% live in countries that either proclaim the state to be secular or make no pronouncements concerning an official state religion.

Approximately 39% of the world’s Muslims live in 22 countries whose constitutions provide that Islamic law, principles, or jurisprudence should serve as a source of, or limitation on, general legislation or certain select matters.  This is the case in 18 of the 23 countries where Islam is the religion of the state, as well as four majority Muslim countries where Islam is not the declared state religion.

Only 6 of the countries surveyed, in all of which Islam is the declared state religion, provide no constitutional provision at all concerning religious freedom specifically.  Other countries, including ones in which Islam is the declared state religion, provide constitutional guarantees of the right to freedom of religion or belief, which comply in varying degrees to international human rights norms.  

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Diana Ginn and David Blaikie, Judges and Religious-Based Reasoning, (Constitutional Forum, Vol. 19, No. 2, p. 53, 2011).
• Bruce Ledewitz, Toward a Meaning-Full Establishment Clause Neutrality, (Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 87, No. 3, 2012).
• Shahar Lifshitz, The Pluralistic Vision of Marriage, (Marriage at Crossroads, Elizabeth Scott, Marsha Garrison, eds., Cambridge publishing, 2012).
• Sylvie Courtine-Denamy, The 'Chosen People' and the Universal Commonwealth: From Bergson to Voegelin, (July 26, 2012).
• Susan C. Hascall, Restorative Justice in Islam: Should Qisas Be Considered a Form of Restorative Justice, (Berkeley Journal of Middle Eastern & Islamic Law, Forthcoming).
• Mohamed Abdelaal, Taqlīd v. Ijtihād: The Rise of Taqlīd as the Secondary Judicial Approach in Islamic Jurisprudence, (Journal of Jurisprudence 151, 2012).
• Muhammad Munir, The Islamicity of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 in Pakistan, (July 30, 2012).

From SmartCILP:

• Shirley Darby Howell, Religious Treatment Exemption Statutes: Betrayest Thou Me With a Statute?, 14 Scholar 945-985 (2012).
• Benjamin Shmeuli and Yuval Sinai, Liability Under Uncertain Causation? Four Talmudic Answers To a Contemporary Tort Dilemma, 30 Boston University International Law Journal 449-495 (2012).

Estonia Plans To Tighten Regulation of Kosher Slaughtering

JTA reports today that in Estonia, Sirje Jalakas, the head of the country's Animal Welfare Bureau, says that Estonia plans to change its laws governing kosher slaughter of animals in light of the 2010 DialRel report that says kosher slaughter causes higher risk of pain in animals than methods that involve stunning the animals before slaughter. However, Jalakas says that Estonia will not ban kosher slaughter, and the country's chief rabbi says that authorities are consulting him on the proposed changes. Estonia already has strict regulation of kosher slaughter.  Authorities must be notified at least 10 days in advance of each slaughter, and the procedure is overseen by a government inspector.  Animals are stunned immediately after their throats are cut-- a procedure known as post-cut stunning and which is not approved by all rabbis.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Dunn v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, (3rd Cir., July 30, 2012), the 3rd Circuit affirmed a  Pennsylvania federal district court's opinion dismissing an inmate's complaint that he was denied access to plants, herbs, crystals, tarot cards, runes, spices, and an altar cloth in his cell to practice his Wiccan religion, and that he was not permitted to grow his hair or beard and was denied a religious adviser.

In United States v. White, (10th Cir., July 31, 2012), the 10th Circuit agreed with a decision of the Kansas federal district court refusing to change defendant's judgment of conviction to reflect his new Muslim name that he took legally on the same day he was sentenced. The court also refused to order the Bureau of Prisons to change their database records to recognize defendant's Muslim name.

In Garraway v. Lappin, (3rd Cir., July 31, 2012), the 3rd Circuit rejected claims by a Muslim inmate that his rights under the 1st Amendment and RFRA were violated by prison policies limiting group prayer, lack of a full-time Sunni Muslim chaplain, alleged commissary markup of the price of Muslim religious items, prison policies as to Halal food and as to the number of books he could keep in his cell.

In Selah v. Fischer, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104931 (ND NY, July 27, 2012), a New York federal district court adopted a federal magistrate's recommendation (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105388, July 3, 2012) and permitted an inmate who practices the Ethiopian Orthodox Christian faith to proceed against several individual defendants on his free exercise, RLUIPA and equal protection claims that authorities failed to recognize and accommodate his religious beliefs in numerous ways.

In Hodgson v. Roy, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104665 (D MN, July 27, 2012), a Minnesota federal district court, adopting a magistrate's recommendations as to this part of the case (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105082, May 2, 2012), dismissed on standing grounds an inmate's Establishment Clause challenge to the prison system's Christian-based InnerChange Freedom Initiative.

In Marin v. Corrections Corporation of America, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105547 (ND OH, July 29, 2012), an Ohio federal district court dismissed a complaint by an inmate that the prison chaplain has not purchased various divination tools and other items needed by him for the practice of his Santeria religion.

In Macedo v. Zeyer, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106327 (ND OH, July 31, 2012), an Ohio federal district court dismissed as moot Jewish inmate's claim seeking and injunction to order that the prison's kosher food be prepared in compliance with Bureau of Prison standards. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that his free exercise rights were violated by communal, rather than individual, serving of grape juice for Shabbat services.

In Deleon v. Hamilton County Sheriff's Department, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106653 (ED TN, July 31, 2012), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that his free exercise rights were infringed when a correctional officer did not allow him to sign up for Sunday Religious Service some other unidentified programs for a period of time.

In Ramrattan v. New York City Department of Corrections, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108603 (SD NY, Aug. 2, 2012), a New York federal district court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies an inmate's complaint that at Riker's Island his religion was listed incorrectly as "Other," there was no Hindu chaplain, his religious diet was not accommodated and he was prevented from observing several holy days.

Street Preachers Can Proceed Against Police For Interference With Their Activities

In two related decisions, Muniz v. City of San Antonio I, (WD TX, July 30, 2012), and  Muniz v. City of San Antonio II, (WD TX, July 30, 2012), a Texas federal district court permitted two Christian street preachers to proceed with several of their claims against the city of San Antonio and police officers for interfering with their preaching and handing out religious literature on public sidewalks at 10:00 and 10:30 at night. The cases involve two separate incidents, one of which resulted in one of the plaintiffs being arrested and held overnight.

More Settlements In ACLU's Suit Against Charter School For Promoting Islam

The ACLU of Minnesota announced yesterday that a Minnesota federal district court has approved settlement agreements reached with 3 leaders of the former public charter school, Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy, in a lawsuit filed in 2009 by the ACLU charging the school with unconstitutionally promoting Islam. (See prior posting.) In the agreements, TiZA's former executive director Asad Zaman agreed to pay $17,500 back to the State of Minnesota and to drop $360,000 of claims he filed in bankruptcy court. Zaman, along with two other former TiZA leaders, Mahrous Kandil and Asif Rahman, also agreed to not serve as an officer, director or board member of any Minnesota public charter school for a period of three years, and Zaman agreed not to serve in other educational leadership capacities in charter schools as well. The ACLU's announcement contains links to the full text of the settlement agreements and court order dismissing the ACLU's claims against Zaman. The ACLU has previously reached settlements with other defendants in the action. MPR News reports on the settlement.