Religion Clause

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Women File Administrative Complaint Over NY Farm's Religious Objections To Hosting Same-Sex Wedding

In New York this month, two Albany women, Jennie McCarthy and Melissa Erwin, have filed a discrimination complaint with the New York Division of Human Rights after Liberty Ridge Farm, a Shcaghticoke (NY) tourist attraction, refused to host the women's same-sex wedding. According to yesterday's Lichtfield County (CT) Register Citizen, Robert and Cynthia Gifford, the farm's owners, have religious objections to same-sex marriage. Their spokesman argued that "they ought to have the opportunity to say that this is a behavior that they just don’t agree with and they just don’t condone on their privately owned property." The New York Human Rights Law bars places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Vatican Releases Full Text Of Sentencing Decision Of Pope's Former Butler

News.va reports that today the Vatican made public the full text (in Italian) of the 18-month aggravated theft sentence issued by the Tribunal of Vatican City State on October 6 against the Pope's former butler, Paolo Gabriele. (See prior posting.) At a press conference, Holy See Press Office Director Fr. Federico Lombardi said that the sentence focused on the stealing of originals of documents, and did not involve a nugget of gold, a check in the Pope's name and a 16th century copy of The Aeneid, because of doubts about Gabriele's guilt in taking them and doubts about the way in which the search that located them was carried out. Lombardi also said that a psychiatric exam had not found any mental condition that made Gabriele unaware of his responsibility for his actions. Presently Gabriele remains under house arrest since an appeal by the Tribunal's promoter of justice who wanted a stronger sentence was not possible until the full text of the sentence was published. If no appeal is filed and the Pope does not pardon him, Gabriele will serve his sentence in a prison in the Vatican, since there is no relevant treaty with Italy that would allow him to be sent to an Italian prison. Vatican Radio reports that the trial of IT expert Carlo Sciarpeletti for aiding and abetting Gabriele will open November 5th.

President Obama's Brand of Christianity Is Analyzed

CNN's Belief blog on Sunday carried a lengthy analysis of President Obama's Christian faith, titling the article The Gospel According to Obama. This excerpt gives a flavor of the article:

Historians may remember Obama as the nation’s first black president, but he’s also a religious pioneer. He’s not only changed people’s perception of who can be president, some scholars and pastors say, but he’s also expanding the definition of who can be a Christian by challenging the religious right’s domination of the national stage.

When Obama invoked Jesus to support same-sex marriage, framed health care as a moral imperative to care for “the least of these,’’ and once urged people to read their Bible but just not literally, he was invoking another Christian tradition that once dominated American public life so much that it gave the nation its first megachurches, historians say....

Some Christians, however, still see Obama as the “other.” He doesn’t act or talk like other Christians, says the Rev. Gary Cass, a conservative Christian president of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission..... Cass says he’s never heard Obama say he’s “born-again.” There’s no emotional conversion story to hang onto.

European Court Rejects Restitution Claim By Serbian Orthodox Church

In Budimljansko-Niksicka v. Montenegro, (ECHR, Oct. 19, 2012), the European Court of Human Rights, in a Chamber judgment, rejected claims by a diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro that it was entitled to restitution for property formerly belonging to its churches and monasteries that was expropriated after World War II. As summarized in the Court's press release on the decision:

The Court held in particular that the applicants had no legitimate expectation, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, that they would be restituted, since the key provisions of the law on which they relied had been declared unconstitutional before they filed their request.

California Jury Awards Catholic School $1.1M In RLUIPA Case

In San Diego, California last Friday, a federal court jury awarded damages in excess of $1.1 million to a Catholic school that was denied permits by the city to build a new science classroom building and parking structure. According to the San Diego Union Tribune, the decision came in a lawsuit filed under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act against the city by the Academy of Our Lady of Peace after City Council overruled its Planning Commission's approval of the project. The jury found that the city's actions imposed a substantial burden on the school's religious exercise. The court will hear arguments next month on whether it should also order the city to now issue the permits. The jury trial came after, in an earlier decision (see prior posting), the court refused to grant summary judgment to plaintiffs. [Thanks to Daniel Dalton for the lead.]

Monday, October 22, 2012

Presidential Delegation Attends Canonization of 2 Americans, 5 Others

Yesterday in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI celebrated a special mass to canonize 7 individuals, including two Americans. (Full text of Pope's homily.) As reported by CNN, the Americans are the first Native American saint, 17th century Mohawk Kateri Tekakwitha; and German-born Marianne Cope, who came to the U.S. as a child, became a nun and devoted 30 years to helping lepers in Hawaii. Last week, President Obama announced a Presidential delegation to attend the canonization mass: the U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, Miguel Humberto Diaz; Sister Agnelle Ching, an official with the Saint Francis Healthcare System of Hawaii; and Sister Kateri Mitchell, director of the Tekakwitha Conference whose patroness is the newly named saint.

Bible Club's Equal Protection Claim Dismissed For Lack of Standing

In Youth Alive v. Hauppauge School District, (ED NY, Oct. 12, 2012), a New York federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a claim by a high school after-school Bible club that the school board violated the Equal Protection clause when, in order to comply with the federal Equal Access Act, it refused to furnish the club a paid advisor. Instead the board required the club to have a volunteer advisor. In finding no injury-in-fact and dismissing the claim, the court said:

The use of an unpaid supervisor to monitor Youth Alive meetings has had no discernible effect on Plaintiffs' ability to exercise their First Amendment rights..... Plaintiffs speculate that a paid advisor would be less likely to cancel meetings than an unpaid advisor, which, in theory, could affect their rights to free speech and exercise of religion.... But the parties stipulated that, unlike all other clubs, if Youth Alive's unpaid supervisor cannot attend a meeting, Defendants provide a substitute volunteer to supervise the students.... Youth Alive, then, very well may be able to conduct more meetings than non-religious clubs. In any event, the evidence shows at most three cancelled meetings..., which is comparable to clubs with paid advisors.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Peterson v. Lampert, (10th Cir., Oct. 15, 2012), the 10th Circuit dismissed an inmate's due process, free exercise and RLUIPA complaints growing out of the loss of religious personal property, including a crystal wand, tarot cards, feathers, incense, a prayer cloth, and a satanic Bible, after a transfer from one facility to another.

In White v. Lindermen, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150107 (D AZ, Oct. 18, 2012), an Arizona federal district court denied a Messianic Jewish inmate a preliminary injunction he sought to allow his family members to purchase religious items, including incense, scented oils, candles, a kippah, a talit, and herbs, for him from a vendor.

In McDaniel v. Fizer, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147900 (D AZ, Oct. 15, 2012), an Arizona federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, a Muslim inmate's complaint that his lacto-vegetarian diet was replaced by a vegan diet, and that he was being denied a kosher diet.

In Coulter v. Studeny, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147230 (WD PA, Oct. 12, 2012), a Pennsylvania federal district court largely adopted a magistrate' recommendations (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150473, Sept. 21, 2012) and, among other things, rejected plaintiff's claim that her free exercise rights were violated by a special condition of her probation. She claimed that a 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew prevented her from attending unspecified religious services.

In Rice v. Curry, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134284 (ND CA, Sept. 18, 2012), a California federal district court dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies a claim by an inmate who was a member of the Muslim Ansar El Mohammad faith that AEM Muslims were not provided a Suhoor meal during Ramadan. The court dismissed on the merits plaintiff's complaint that AEM Muslims were not granted separate access to the interfaith chapel and that the prison refused to hire an AEM imam.

In Palermo v. Libby, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148577 (D NH, Sept. 12, 2012), a New Hampshire federal magistrate judge recommended that an inmate be permitted to proceed with his free exercise and RLUIPA claims that he was denied a religious diet, religious reading materials, and ritual items, and an equal protection claim that he was denied religious reading materials and ritual items.

House of Lords Debates Placing Restrictions On Sharia Arbitration Panels

As reported today by The Telegraph, in Britain on Friday the House of Lords debated a bill to place restrictions on Sharia arbitration tribunals. (Full text of Lords' debate.) The proposed Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill would add several provisions to British law. The Equality Act would be amended to prohibit anyone providing arbitration services from doing anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimization on grounds of sex. The Arbitration Act would be amended to bar any arbitration agreement or process that gives more weight to the testimony of men than women, or which gives women fewer inheritance or property rights. The amendments would also exclude from arbitration anything within the jurisdiction of the criminal or family courts. The Family Law Act would be amended to allow a court to set aside any negotiated or mediated agreement if it concludes that one party's consent was not genuine. The proposed bill also takes aim at informal Sharia councils that deal with divorce and child custody. It prohibits anyone from purporting to determine family law or criminal maters in arbitration, and from falsely purporting to exercise the power of a court to make legally binding rulings.

Miami Archdiocese Sues Over Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

On Friday, the Catholic Archdiocese of Miami announced that, along with its Catholic Health Services and Catholic Hospice, it has filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services challenging the contraceptive coverage mandate imposed under the Affordable Care Act. It says that because the Archdiocese is self-insured, the Obama administration's compromise announced in February to have insurance companies pay for objectionable services is not a solution. In remarks (full text), Archbishop Thomas Wenski said that the suit joins nearly 50 other across the country filed by Catholic dioceses, charities, hospitals and schools, in coordination with the Jones Day law firm that is providing its services pro bono. At a news conference, the Archbishop said that the Catholic Church supports universal health care, but a plan "should kill no one and it should cover everyone." He added that the Affordable Care Act fails this test by requirmg employers to provide drugs and services that result in the killing of unborn children, and,on the other hand, excluding "millions of immigrants." Catholic News Agency reports on the lawsuit.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

School Quickly Ends Pastor's Access To Cafeteria After Suit Is Filed

Within minutes after a lawsuit was filed by the ACLU yesterday, a Fort Wayne, Indiana middle school agreed to stop its practice of allowing a local youth pastor to regularly visit the school's cafeteria during lunch, where he stands in a prominent place, hands out materials and talks with students who are required to eat in the cafeteria. The Fort Wayne News-Sentinel reports that the suit was filed by parents of an 11-year old who attends Summit Middle School in the Southwest Allen County school district who say no other outsider is given this kind of access to the cafeteria. The ACLU says the lawsuit will be dropped once it receives formal notice from the school district that it is changing its practices.

IRS Has Suspended Church Audits Until Rule Changes Are Finalized

BNA Daily Report for Executives dated 10/22/2012 (subscription required) reports that the Internal Revenue Service has temporarily suspended tax audits of churches pending final adoption of IRS rule changes to clarify which high level Treasury official has authority to make a determination under IRC Sec. 7611 that there are reasonable grounds to begin a church tax inquiry. (See prior posting.) At an American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education conference, IRS speaker Russell Renwicks, area group manager from the Mid-Atlantic region of the Tax-Exempt and Government Entities division, said the IRS has been bombarded with complaints about churches becoming involved in the elections, but it has been unable to respond even to potentially egregious cases. The rule changes are necessitated by a 2009 Minnesota federal district court ruling. (See prior posting.)

Another Suit Challenges Contraceptive Coverage Mandate of ACA

Yesterday, yet another federal lawsuit was filed challenging on RFRA, 1st Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act grounds the contraception coverage mandate under the Affordable Care Act. The complaint (full text) in Griesedieck v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (WD MO, filed 10/19/2012), alleges that the two individual plaintiffs, who are Evangelical Christians, own a controlling interest in four industrial companies that employ a total of 175 people. Citing the requirement that the companies' policies cover drugs that have a post-fertilization mechanism of action (such as Plan B and Ella), plaintiffs assert that:

As evangelical Christians, Plaintiffs believe in the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. They believe it would be sinful to for them to pay for services that have a significant risk of causing the death of embryonic human lives.

American Center for Law and Justice issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Friday, October 19, 2012

In Mali, Islamists Destroy Historic Tombs They Consider Idolatrous

According to CNN, in northern Mali, for the fourth time this year al-Qeda linked Ansar Dine rebels have destroyed historic tombs. Some 30 armed fighters arrived in Timbuktu yesterday to reinforce local Islamists and destroyed three mausolea that have been designated by the United Nations as World Heritage Sites. The Islamists consider these Sufi shrines to be idolatrous and thus religiously prohibited.

Appeals Court: Accused Ft. Hood Shooter Can Be Forcibly Shaved

Accused Fort Hood shooter, Maj. Nadal Hasan, who has been seeking the right to wear a beard for religious reasons at his court martial trial, lost yesterday in the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals. In Hasan v. United States, (Army Ct. Cr. App., Oct. 18, 2012), an opinion of 5 judges held that Hasan's petition for a writ of prohibition should be denied. Hasan sought to prevent the government from forcibly shaving him after the military judge at his court martial ordered Hasan to be clean shaven for all subsequent pretrial proceedings and for his trial. (See prior posting.) The majority concluded that the trial judge did not commit clear error in concluding that Hasan was not necessarily growing his beard for religious reasons. The majority went on to hold that even if Hasan demonstrated that he was wearing a beard out of sincere religious conviction, the Army has compelling interests in requiring him to shave, and no less restrictive means are available to accomplish these interests:

The Army has a compelling interest to ensure uniformity, good order and discipline.... The Army has a further interest in the fair and proper administration of military justice. We agree with the military judge's conclusion that petitioner's wearing of the beard denigrates the dignity, order and decorum of the court martial and is disruptive under the current posture of the case. Furthermore, in front of a military panel, it is undeniable that petitioner's failure to comply with Army grooming regulations without explanation of a suitable exception would cast him in a negative light. In this respect, the military judge has the authority ... to safeguard petitioner against the injection of prejudice into the court-martial process as a result, even where petitioner consents to that prejudice.

Two judges joined in an opinion dissenting in part, arguing that the court-martial judge should have merely ordered the government to ensure that the defendant was in proper uniform for the trial, leaving decisions about forced shaving or granting an exception to grooming regulations to the chain of command. The dissenters would not only grant the writ of prohibition invalidating the military judge's order, but would also disqualify the judge from further participation in the case because his action reasonably put into question his impartiality. Stars and Stripes reports on the decision.

Court Issues Temporary Injunction Approving Cheerleaders' Bible Banners

Just a day after Texas attorney general filed a petition to intervene on behalf of high school cheerleaders who wish to continue to display their own banners and run-throughs featuring Bible verses (see prior posting), a Texas state trial judge issued a temporary injunction granting the cheerleaders' request. In Matthews v. Kountze Independent School District, (TX Dist. Ct., Oct. 18, 2012), the court concluded that the school district was prohibiting private religious expression. It ordered the district to cease and desist from preventing the cheerleaders from displaying banners or run-throughs at sporting events, or censoring the sentiments displayed on them. In a press release applauding the decision, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said:

Students' ability to express their religious views adds to the diversity of thought that has made this country so strong. Texas law supports students' right to freely express their religious beliefs without discrimination. We will not allow groups or individuals to wage a war on religion by trying to intimidate students into embracing a secular mindset.

According to a New York Times report on the decision, an Anti-Defamation League spokesman called the decision misguided, arguing that the banners are a school-sponsored religious message.

British Court Rejects Conscience Defense In B&B Owner's Refusal To Rent Room To Gay Couple

A trial court in Britain yesterday held that a gay couple suffered unlawful discrimination when the Christian owner of a bed and breakfast, Susanne Wilkinson, refused to allow them to stay in a double room because of the her religious views. The Reading Crown Court awarded each man damages of £1800 according to the London Telegraph. The court, in finding that defendant had violated regulation 4 of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, said in part:

The business is conducted from her home but it is still a business with a significant number of guests. I do not agree with the submission that if the restriction is unlawful the defendant would have to remove herself from public life.

My conclusion is that the application of the regulations to the defendant bed and breakfast establishment and the finding that the refusal of the double room constituted direct discrimination, are not in breach of her [ECHR] Article 9 Rights [freedom of conscience and religion].

Thursday, October 18, 2012

2nd Circuit in 2-1 Decision Finds DOMA Unconstitutional

In Windsor v. United States, (2d Cir., Oct. 18, 2012), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (1 USC Sec. 7) is unconstitutional under the equal protection component of the 5th Amendment. In a suit by the surviving spouse of a lesbian couple who was denied the spousal deduction under the federal estate tax law, the majority held that it must apply heightened (intermediate level) scrutiny because homosexuals are a quasi-suspect classification:

A) homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination; B) homosexuality has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society; C) homosexuals are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter same-sex marriages; and D) the class remains a politically weakened minority.

None of the justifications offered for DOMA-- maintaining a uniform definition of marriage; protecting the fisc; preserving a traditional understanding of marriage; or encouraging responsible procreation-- are strong enough to justify the discrimination involved. In concluding, Chief Judge Jacobs, writing for the majority said:

Our straightforward legal analysis sidesteps the fair point that same-sex marriage is unknown to history and tradition. But law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status--however fundamental--and New York has elected to extend that status to same-sex couples. A state may enforce and dissolve a couple’s marriage, but it cannot sanctify or bless it. For that, the pair must go next door.

Judge Straub dissented, arguing first that the issue is controlled by the Supreme Court's summary dismissal of a similar challenge in 1972 in Baker v. Nelson. He concluded further that DOMA should be subject only to rational basis review, and that several of the rationales advanced for the law satisfy that level of scrutiny.

AP reports on the decision. In May, the 1st Circuit also found DOMA unconstitutional. (See prior posting.)

Venice Commission Opinion Criticizes Azerbaijan Law On Religion; Government Responds

On Oct. 15, the European Union's Venice Commission along with the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights issued a Joint Opinion (Opinion 681 / 2012) finding numerous problems with Azerbaijan's 2011 Law on Freedom of Religious Belief. The Opinion concludes that the Law "sets a legal framework which is in several aspects contrary to international standards and would benefit from additional revisions in order to meet these standards." The Opinion sets out 15 key recommendations for change, along with 9 additional recommendations. The key recommendations include items such as expanding the law to include "belief" as well as religion, eliminating the ban on proselytism by foreigners, providing for alternative service for conscientious objectors and liberalizing restrictions on religious organizations. The government of Azerbaijan delivered its response to the Joint Opinion on Oct. 16 (full text). According to a report published in Turkish Weekly, the Head of Azerbaijani Presidential Administration Social and Political Department says he thinks that the Venice Commission now believes that the law fully meets the European standards.