Catholic Soup Kitchen Files RLUIPA Challenge To Denial of Permit To Operate

The Day reports that on Friday, the Catholic Diocese of Norwich, Connecticut filed suit in federal district court challenging the decision by the Norwich city planning commission not to extend a temporary permit allowing the St. Vincent de Paul Place soup kitchen to continue to operate in a former Catholic school building. Neighbors had complained of trespassing, foul language and litter by soup kitchen patrons.  The Diocese invokes the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, saying that it has been treated differently than other similar facilities, both religious and non-religious.

S.C. Episcopal Diocese Sues To Claim Property Owneship and Identity

In a Jan. 4 press release and a letter to parishioners from the Bishop, the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina announced that it, along with 17 parishes, have filed suit against The Episcopal Church to establish the Diocese's right to the real and personal property of the Diocese and its parishes. As explained by Bishop Lawrence:

The Episcopal Church (TEC) has begun the effort to claim the Diocese of South Carolina’s identity by calling for a convention to identify new leadership for the diocese, creating a website using the Diocesan seal and producing material that invokes the name and identity of the Diocese of South Carolina. 

Our suit asks the court to prevent TEC from infringing on the protected marks of the Diocese, including its seal and its historical names, and to prevent it from assuming the Diocese’s identity, which was established long before TEC was formed.  It also asks the court to protect our parish and Diocesan property, including church buildings and rectories, which our forefathers built and even shed blood over, and you have maintained without any investment of any kind from the national church.

The underlying point is that the Diocese disassociated from TEC in October 2012, after TEC attempted to remove me as your bishop.

The Myrtle Beach Sun News reports on the lawsuit.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Avery v. Elia, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182789 (ED CA, Dec. 27, 2012), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies an inmate's complaint that his kosher diet card was wrongly revoked.

In Robertson v. Biby, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75 (D KS, Jan. 2, 2013), a Kansas federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that his religious belief that he must hear the Bible read aloud by another person at least every seven years was infringed when his assignment to segregated housing unit kept him from attending congregate services and he was unable to obtain audio equipment as an alternative. The court held that RLUIPA did not support his claim for damages, and his claim for injunctive relief was moot.

In Hernandez v. Pugh, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 445 (ND OH, Jan. 2, 2013), an Ohio federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that when he was observing a Jewish fast, prison officials would not allow him to both get meals during the day to take back to his cell for later and also get an extra meal after sundown,

In Harmon v. Jones, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 794 (WD OK, Jan. 3, 2013), an Oklahoma federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183461, Nov. 15, 2012) and held that prison officials had not violated the terms of an injunction previously issued by the court when they   temporarily suspended an inmate from the kosher diet program because he had purchased a jar of strawberry jam, not on the kosher food list, from the prison canteen.

In Cryer v. Clarke, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183568 (D MA, Sept. 7, 2012), a Massachusetts federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing plaintiff's complaint that he was denied a daily smudging ceremony, access to Native American ceremonial items, a separate indoor room for Native American worship, access to a sweat lodge for Native American ceremonies, ceremonial tobacco, and a contracted Native American spiritual adviser.

Mandate Challenges By Peoria Diocese, Notre Dame University, Dismissed On Ripeness Grounds

Two courts have handed down decisions dismissing as nonjusticiable suits by non-profit Catholic insitutions challenging the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate.  In University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, (ND IN, Dec. 31, 2012), an Inidiana federal district court dismissed a challenge brought by the University of Notre Dame, saying:

Notre Dame’s claims aren’t ripe, and they don’t have standing to bring them. Both conclusions flow from the government’s creation of a safe harbor for certain employers (including Notre Dame) while it re-works the regulation. As a result, Notre Dame faces no penalty or restriction based on the existing regulatory requirement.

LifeNews reports on the decision.

In Catholic Diocese of Peoria v. Sebelius, (CD IL, Jan. 4, 2012), an Illinois federal district court similarly dismissed a challenge by the Catholic Diocese of Peoria, saying:

The Government has stated that it will not enforce the preventive services provisions in their current form and will issue a new rule that addresses concerns like those of the Diocese prior to August 2013. This Court joins other district courts and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in taking these representations to be a binding commitment. The Court therefore finds that as the Government is in the process of amending the preventive service regulations, those regulations are not fit for judicial review at this time.

House Adopts Rules For New Session Authorizing Continued House Defense of DOMA In Courts

Among the first business of the new 113th Congress was he House of Representatives adoption of H. Res. 5 setting out the Rules of the House for this Congress. Section 4(a)(1) of the House Resolution gives the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group continued authority to intervene in court cases to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.  The House originally intervened when the Obama administration decided to no longer defend DOMA's constitutionality. (See prior posting.)  H. Res. 5 provides:

(A) The House authorizes the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress— 

(i) to act as successor in interest to the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the One Hundred Twelfth Congress with respect to civil actions in which it intervened in the One Hundred Twelfth Congress to defend the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (1 U.S.C. 7) or related provisions of titles 10, 31, and 38, United States Code, including in the case of Windsor v. United States...;

(ii) to take such steps as may be appropriate to ensure continuation of such civil actions; and 

(iii) to intervene in other cases that involve a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act or related provisions of titles 10, 31, and 38, United States Code.

(B) Pursuant to clause 8 of rule II, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group continues to speak for, and articulate the institutional position of, the House in all litigation matters in which it appears, including in Windsor v. United States.

As reported by AP, in adopting this provision the House majority ignored openly gay Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., who objected that Republicans "are seeking to authorize lawyer fees for a costly Federal takeover of marriage that would single out legally married couples for discriminatory treatment under Federal law." [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Obama's Signing Statement Criticizes Conscience Provisions In Defense Bill

Yesterday the President signed H.R. 4310, the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.  As previously reported, Section 533 of the Act added protections for conscience rights of military members and chaplains. In his signing statement (full text), the President criticized those provisions, apparently concerned that they will be invoked to limit the rights of gay and lesbian members of the armed forces.  The President said:

Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision, as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members. The Secretary of Defense will ensure that the implementing regulations do not permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good order and discipline or otherwise violate military codes of conduct. My Administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that.

The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, an organization of chaplain endorsers, responded with a press release which said in part:

The purpose of these provisions is simply to protect the religious liberties of military chaplains who hold to Biblical views concerning sexuality. Several chaplains have already been faced with requests from same-sex couples to have ceremonies in military chapels. Every member of our armed forces should be able to serve without surrendering their beliefs.

[Thanks to Blog from the Capital for the lead.]

Egyptian Official Invites Egyptian Jews In Israel To Return To Egypt

As reported by the Jerusalem Post last week, in Egypt high-ranking Muslim Brotherhood official Essam el-Erian called in a television interview for Egyptian Jews living in Israel to return to Egypt and leave Israel to the Palestinians.  In an interview last month on Dream TV, el-Erian said: "Egyptian Jews should refuse to live under a brutal, bloody and racist occupation stained with war crimes against humanity." Israel's Channel 10, reporting on el-Erian's remarks had a sardonic comment: "After thousands of years since Egyptian Jews left Egypt, finally someone has called for their return." However Al Arabiya characterized Channel 10's comment as expressing "content" over the invitation. Yesterday, AP reported on the spectrum of reactions in Egypt to el-Erian's comments. President Morsi's office dissociated Morsi from the remarks. Some in Egypt saw the invitation as an attempt to create an appearance of tolerance while other minorities, particularly Coptic Christians, are increasingly worried about persecution. Some feared Morsi's statement that every Egyptian has a right to live in Egypt could open the door to claims for compensation by Egyptian Jews in Israel for property taken from them or left behind. Others saw this as part of the attempt by the Muslim Brotherhood to reconcile its historic anti-Israel and anti-Jewish pronouncements with its new responsibilities to govern Egypt. A few in Egypt called for a more serious look at Egypt's past treatment of its Jewish community.

Illinois Federal District Court, Bound By 7th Circuit Precedent, Grants Preliminary Injunction In Contraceptive Mandate Challenge

In Triune Health Group, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ND IL, Jan. 3, 2012), an Illinois federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate against a for-profit company that that facilitates re-entry of injured workers into the workforce. The company's Catholic owners believe that providing their employees with insurance coverage that facilitate abortion, contraception and sterilization constitutes "cooperation with evil that violates the laws of God."  The court concluded that it was bound by the 7th Circuit's decision in Korte v. Sebelius which granted a for-profit employer a preliminary injunction pending appeal in a similar challenge. (See prior posting.) The granting of the preliminary injunction follows the court's denial of a temporary restraining order on Dec. 26. LifeNews reports on the granting of the injunction.

Civil Court May Enforce Pre-Nup Penalizing Husband For Failing To Grant Wife A Jewish Divorce

In Light v. Light, 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2967 (CT Super, Dec. 6, 2012), a Connecticut trial court held that it has jurisdiction to enforce a pre-nuptial agreement requiring a husband, in case of a separation, to pay his wife $100 per day until the husband grants the wife a Jewish religious divorce (get). Rejecting the husband's contention that the prenuptial agreement was a religious document that is not enforceable by a secular court, the court held that it can adjudicate the claim using neutral principles of law:

a determination as to whether the prenuptial agreement is enforceable would not require the court to delve into religious issues. Determining whether the defendant owes the plaintiff the specified sum of money does not require the court to evaluate the proprieties of religious teachings. Rather, the relief sought by the plaintiff is simply to compel the defendant to perform a secular obligation, i.e., spousal support payments, to which he contractually bound himself.

Michigan Federal District Court Rejects Company's Contraceptive Mandate Challenge; 6th Circuit Refuses Stay Pending Appeal

In Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, (WD MI, Dec. 24, 2012), a Michigan federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to two affiliated manufacturing companies (one a corporation and one an LLC) or their owners who object that the contraception coverage mandate under the Affordable Care Act violates their religious liberty. The court rejected plaintiffs' 1st Amendment free exercise claim, finding that the mandate is a neutral rule of general applicability.  Moving to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the court concluded that plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their claim that the mandate imposes a substantial burden on their free exercise rights, in part because the company already contributes up to $1500 to each employee for a health savings account whose funds can be used for contraception. The court added:

Plaintiffs argue, in essence, that the Court cannot look beyond their sincerely held  assertion  of  a religiously based objection to the mandate to  assess whether it actually functions as a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. But if accepted, this theory would mean that every government regulation could be subject to the compelling interest and narrowest possible means test of RFRA based simply on an asserted religious basis for objection. This would subject virtually every government action to a potential private veto based on a person’s ability to articulate a sincerely held objection tied in some rational way to a particular religious belief.  Such a rule would paralyze the normal process of governing, and threaten to replace a generally uniform pattern of economic and social regulation with a patchwork array of theocratic fiefdoms.

The court also rejected plaintiffs' free speech claim. Finally the court concluded that plaintiffs had not show the likelihood of irreparable harm for purposes of obtaining a preliminary injunction, since they can continue to refuse to offer contraception coverage while the case is pending. The tax penalty they will incur if they ultimately lose will likely not be assessed or paid until after the case is decided.

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision to the 6th Circuit and sought an injunction pending completion of the appeal. In a 2-1 decision,the 6th Circuit denied the injunction request but agreed to expedite the appeal of the district court's decision. In Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, (6th Cir., Dec. 28, 2012), the majority concluded that plaintiffs had not shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits.  Judge Rogers, dissenting, disagreed, saying:

Plaintiffs assert that it would violate their sincere religious beliefs to direct the company that they control to cut checks to pay directly for contraceptive services. They are okay, however, with giving discretionary healthcare money to their employees, who may then choose to buy such services.  If walking this fine line is sincerely accepted as a condition for salvation, it is not up to the government to say that the line is too fine.  Lots of religious lines are fine.  Of course government is not bound by every religious fine line.  But RFRA requires that the government interest be strong before forcing people to cross the line.

On Dec. 31, the  6th Circuit denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Melissa Rogers for the lead.]

Fiscal Cliff Bill Phases Out High Earners' Itemized Deductions Including Charitable Deductions

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, the legislation to avert the fiscal cliff passed by Congress on Tuesday  (full text of H.R. 8) restores the phase out of itemized deductions for high income individuals. Section 101 of the bill amends current Internal Revenue Code Sec. 68 to accomplish this result. Under the new law, the total of itemized deductions that may be taken by individuals earning over $250,000 and married couples earning over $300,000 will be reduced by 3% of the amount their adjusted gross income exceeds the $250,000 or $300,000 threshold until 80% of the itemized deductions are lost. The itemized deductions impacted include charitable deductions to non-profits, including churches and other religious organizations.  Some worry that the new provision will reduce the amount of charitable giving.

Belgian Court Orders 2 Boys Admitted To Orthodox Jewish Girls' School

YNet News and JTA have both reported recently on an unusual Dec. 21 ruling by a court in Antwerp, Belgium ordering an Orthodox Jewish school for girls affiliated with the Belz Hasidic movement to admit two boys to study there. No Jewish school wanted to admit the students because their father, Moshe Friedman, was formerly a member of the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta, an ultra-Orthodox Jewish group that believes Jews are to have their own state only when the messiah comes. In 2006, Friedman attended a Holocaust denial conference in Iran and was photographed kissing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  So Friedman latched onto a recent Belgian court decision barring gender discrimination in schools that receive government funding, as most Jewish schools in Belgium do. The court ordered his sons, age 7 and 11, admitted to Bnos Yerushalayim school even though the school claimed that Orthodox Judaism requires separation between boys and girls in schools and argued that there are no male students, teachers or boy's bathrooms in the school. Under the court ruling, which is temporary until a determination is made as to where the boys will attend next school year, the school must pay a fine equivalent to $2600 (US) for each day the boys are not admitted. The school will likely appeal the decision.

Hawaiian Church Can Pursue RFRA Claim To Permit Use of Cannabis

In Oklevueha Native American Church of Hawaii v. Holder, (D HI, Dec.31, 2012), an Hawaii federal district court, in a case on remand from the 9th Circuit (see prior posting), permitted a church's Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim to proceed to challenge enforcement of the federal drug laws. The suit was brought by a church that uses cannabis in its religious ceremonies and by a spiritual leader who founded the church. The court however dismissed plaintiffs' claims under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the equal protection clause and the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause. Turtle Talk blog has links to the pleadings in the case.

New Russian Law Mandates Religion Course In Schools

The Moscow Times reported Monday that Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a new education law passed by the Russian Parliament that, among other things, makes mandatory in all schools a course in fundamentals of religion. The law takes effect on Sept. 1, 2013.

Three Federal Lawsuits Focus On Ownership Of Rhode Island Synagogue's Historic Torah Ornaments

AP reported Monday on three interrelated lawsuits over a proposed sale of Torah finial bells by Newport, Rhode Island's historic Touro Synagogue.  The Torah adornments (known in Hebrew as rimonim) were made in the 1760's or 1770's by a Colonial silversmith.  In 2010, leaders of Touro Synagogue decided to try to sell the rimonim to endow a trust for maintenance of the historic synagogue and keeping a rabbi in residence, while assuring that the rimonim could be viewed by the public.  The rimonim are currently on loan to Boston's Museum of Fine Arts which offered to purchase them for $7.4 million. However, New York City's Congregation Shearith Israel claims that it owns Touro Synagogue, and it opposes the sale. In the mid-1800's Touro Synagogue fell into disrepair and Shearith Israel claims it took ownership of the synagogue, its cemetery and ritual objects.  Leaders of Touro Synagogue say that Shearith Israel merely become trustee for Touro.  In 1903, Touro signed a lease to rent its building from Shearith Israel for $1 per year. Now each side has filed suit in Rhode Island federal district court and Shearith Israel has also filed suit in federal district court in New York.  Shearith Israel wants the congregation removed from the Newport building because it says the congregation is violating the terms of the $1 per year lease by attempting to make the sale.  Touro wants the Massachusetts attorney general, as administrator of charitable trusts, to intervene. Meanwhile, the Museum of Fine Arts has withdrawn its offer to purchase the rimonim until the ownership issue is settled. A Rhode Island federal judge has scheduled a settlement conference in the litigation for tomorrow. Apparently a long-term lease of the rimonim to the museum is a possible compromise.

Montana High Court Upholds Extending Workers Comp Law To Hutterites

In Big Sky Colony, Inc. v. Montana Department of Labor and Industry, (MT Sup. Ct., Dec. 31, 2012), the Montana Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision upheld against constitutional attack amendments to the state's workers compensation law that brings Hutterite Colonies within the definition of those covered when their members perform agricultural, manufacturing or construction services even though members do not receive wages. Instead Hutterites receive food, shelter, clothing and medical care from the Colony.  The new law applies so long as the Colony receives remuneration from outsiders for member services. The majority rejected free exercise, establishment clause and equal protection challenges to the law, finding that the law is neutral in its application and does not single out religious beliefs.

Justice Rice, joined by Justices Cotter and Nelson, dissented arguing that the legislature "created a clear religious gerrymander" in response to complaints about Hutterite colonies competing with other Montana businesses without have to provide workers' compensation insurance. Justice Nelson also filed a separate dissent.  AP reported on the court's decision.

Student Can Move Ahead On Anti-Semitic Harassment Claims

In G.D.S. v. Northport-East Northport Union Free School District, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182976 (ED NY, Dec. 22, 2012), a New York federal district court held that a 16-year old plaintiff had adequately stated a federal Equal Protection claim based on deliberate indifference in his suit against the school district in which he had formerly attended high school. Plaintiff alleged that he had been subjected to anti-Semitic harassment and bullying in person and on Facebook by classmates, and that school officials did nothing about the situation even though plaintiff furnished them detailed information about the problem and the names of the harassers. The harassment included numerous instances of mocking use of Holocaust references.  The court held plaintiff had also stated a claim for discrimination on the basis of "creed" under the New York Civil Rights Law.  However the court held that plaintiff's claim under the New York constitution should be dismissed, as should his claim for damages under the state's Human Rights Law.

Missouri Federal Court Issues TRO In Contraceptive Mandate Case, Invoking 1st Amendment As Well As RFRA

In Sharpe Holdings, Inc. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, (ED MO, Dec. 31, 2012), a Missouri federal magistrate judge issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate to require a for-profit dairy farming and cheese making business to cover abortifacient devices ( Plan B, Ella and copper IUDs) and related counseling.  In addition to the company, plaintiffs in the case were Charles Sharpe, the founder-owner and CEO of the company, and two employees who "pay a portion of the required premiums and enjoy the benefits of the self-insured program."  In addition to concluding that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act the mandate and its penalties would substantially burden plaintiffs' free exercise rights, the court held that for 1st Amendment purposes, the mandate is not a neutral law of general applicability:

Plaintiffs have shown to the court’s satisfaction for the purposes of these initial proceedings, that the ACA mandate is not generally applicable because it does not apply to grandfathered health plans, religious employers, or employers with fewer than fifty employees.  Specifically, plaintiffs argue that the ACA mandate’s exemptions clearly prefer secular purposes over religious purposes and some religious purposes over other religious purposes.  Burdens cannot be selectively imposed only on conduct motivated by religious belief.

Suit Seeks CIA's Report On CIA-NYPD Spying On U.S. Muslims

A federal lawsuit was filed last month by the Electronic Privacy Information Center seeking release under the Freedom of Information Act of a report (and related documents) by the CIA's Inspector General on CIA involvement in spying by the New York Police Department on American Muslims. The complaint (full text) in Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Central Intelligence Agency, (D DC, filed 12/20/2012) indicates that the CIA report grew out of investigative articles by Associated Press on NYPD collaboration with the CIA in photographing members of the Muslim community entering mosques, infiltrating Muslim student groups and conducting surveillance of Muslim stores and businesses. Huffington Post yesterday reported on the lawsuit. (See prior related posting.)

District Court Grants Domino's Pizza Founder Preliminary Injunction Against Contraceptive Mandate Enforcement

Another court has granted a preliminary injunction to a for-profit business and its owner, preventing enforcement against them of the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate.  In Monaghan v. Sebelius, (ED MI, Dec. 30, 2012), a Michigan federal district court held that the property management company, Domino's Farms Corp., and its owner Thomas Monaghan (founder of Domino's Pizza) had adequately alleged that the mandate imposes a substantial burden on Monaghan's Catholic religious beliefs:

Monaghan contends that his compliance with the mandate would require him to violate his religious beliefs because the mandate forces him, and/or the corporation he controls, to pay for, provide, facilitate, or otherwise support contraception, sterilization and to some extent, abortion....

The Supreme Court has held that "putting substantial pressure  on an adherent  to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs" substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion.... [T]he Court is in no position to decide whether and to what extent Monaghan would violate his religious beliefs by complying with the mandate....  Other courts have assumed that a law substantially burdens a person’s free exercise of religion based on that person’s assertions.

The court went on to hold that at this point the government had not carried its burden under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of showing that it had a compelling interest or used the least restrictive means in burdening plaintiff's free exercise. MLive reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)