5th Circuit: Factual Issues Require Trial In Bus Driver's Religious Accommodation Claim

In Antoine v. First Student Inc., (5th Cir., April 10, 2013), the U,S, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that disputed issues of fact require that a Title VII religious accommodation claim brought by a Seventh Day Adventist be remanded for trial to the Louisiana federal district court.  At issue is the attempt by plaintiff, a school bus driver, to adjust his work shift to avoid working after sunset on Friday afternoons when his Sabbath began. The court held that factual issues remain as to whether the bus company, First Student, Inc., reasonably accommodated driver Robert Antoine's religious needs:

First Student asserts that it was solely Antoine’s responsibility to find a replacement driver, while Antoine asserts that First Student offered to find a substitute driver and then failed to follow through on this offer. As to the second issue, First Student contends that the CBA [collective bargaining agreement] generally prohibits voluntary shift swaps, but that it intended to circumvent this general prohibition if Antoine first found someone to take his shift. On the other hand, Antoine asserts that First Student never pursued a preliminary agreement from the union to consider any alterations to the CBA in order to accommodate him. 

Adventist News Network reports on the decision.

9th Circuit Oral Arguments Available In Challenge To California Teen Reparative Therapy Ban

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in two cases challenging California's ban on mental health care professionals providing so-called reparative therapy to teens.  California last year enacted the Sexual Orientation Change Efforts provision (full text) that bars mental health care providers from engaging in efforts to change the sexual orientation of anyone under 18 years of age. Separate federal district court judges took opposing positions on whether the law violates free expression protections. (See prior posting.) Appeals in both cases were heard yesterday. The audio of the arguments in Pickup v. Brown and in Welch v Brown is available from the 9th Circuit's website. AP reports on the oral arguments.

McDonald's Settles Class Action Over Misrepresenting Chicken As Halal

According to the Detroit Free Press, a Michigan trial court on Wednesday approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit brought against McDonald's for sometimes selling non-Halal chicken products to customers as Halal meat. Two McDonald's restaurants in Dearborn, Michigan are the only two U,S. outlets of the restaurant chain that serve Halal chicken. Under the settlement, McDonald's will pay $700,000. Of that only $25,000 goes to the lead plaintiff in the case. $275,000 goes to a Muslim health center in Detroit; $150,000 goes to the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn; and $250,000 goes for attorneys' fees. Critics of the settlement argue that more of it should have gone to individual Muslims impacted by the restaurants' actions.  For two months, an injunction had effectively shut down a Facebook page critical of the settlement.

Supreme Court Says Alien Tort Statute Does Not Apply Extraterritorially

The U.S. Supreme Court today substantially narrowed the ability of foreigners to use U.S. courts to sue over human rights abuses-- presumably including religious persecution-- that occurred abroad.  In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., (Sup. Ct., April 17, 2013), Justice Roberts, speaking for a majority of the Court, held that the Alien Tort Statute, 28 USC 1350, does not apply extraterritorially. The statute gives federal district courts jurisdiction over suits by aliens committed in violation of the law of nations.  However, Justice Roberts held that this does not generally apply to conduct that took place outside the United States:

even where the claims touch and concern the territory of the United States, they must do so with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application.

In the case before the Court, plaintiffs alleged that various multi-national corporations aided the Nigerian government in its human rights abuses in Nigeria in the early 1990's. The case also produced three concurring opinions, each taking a somewhat different approach to the scope of the Alien Tort Statute, but all agreeing it does not apply in the case before the Court. The Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.

Renowned Turkish Pianist Given Suspended Sentence For Blasphemous Tweets

Bloomberg News and Reuters report that on Monday a criminal court in Istanbul, Turkey convicted classical pianist and composer Fazil Say-- Turkey's most internationally renowned artist-- of insulting religious values through Twitter postings. Among the six or so Tweets mentioned in the indictment is one, for example,  that makes fun of a muezzin for taking merely 22 seconds to chant the call to prayer, asking if he has a mistress or some raki waiting for him. Another is a retweet of a verse by Persian poet Omar Khayyam: "You say rivers of wine flow in heaven, is heaven a tavern to you? You say two houris await each believer there, is heaven a brothel to you?"

The court imposed a 10 month suspended sentence on Say, indicating that he would be imprisoned only if he commits a similar crime again within the next 5 years. There were also suggestions from a plaintiff in the case that the sentence might be dropped if it is shown, as has been suggested, that Say suffers from autism. The European Commission issued a statement criticizing the blasphemy conviction, emphasizing the importance for Turkey to fully respect freedom of expression as protected in the European Convention on Human Rights. Turkey's application to join the European Union has been delayed, in part because of its civil liberties record.

South Dakota City Opts For No Formal Prayer Policy In Face Of Challenge

The Rapid City (SD) Journal reports on the response of Rapid City Council to objections that have been raised to its invocation policy. In January, the Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote to Council asking it to end its tradition of opening Council meetings with an invocation. Council responded at its Feb. 4 meeting by voting to continue to have an invocation and asking the city attorney to draft a formal written policy on the issue. On Feb. 15, FFRF wrote another letter (full text) setting out its legal position. In a Memo to the Mayor and Council dated April 3 (full text), city attorney Joel Landeen suggested elements of a policy that would strengthen the city's legal position: Move the invocation before the meeting formally starts and limit the time of those delivering it; formalize an inclusive process for selecting those who will deliver the invocation; state that the invocation should be non-sectarian and that it should not be used to proselytize or disparage other religions. By a unanimous vote, however, City Council last Monday chose instead to adopt no policy and remain in the position of defending its traditional informal invocation policy. It also agreed in an 8-2 vote that in June it will consider offers by outside organizations that have volunteered to help it with its legal defense if FFRF files suit.

Religion Clause Blog Is 8 Years old Today!

Religion Clause is 8 years old today! To long-time readers, as well as to those who have discovered the blog more recently, thank you for your interest and loyalty.  My Site Meter has recorded over 1.4 million visits since the blog began in 2005-- long ago in the world of social media.

Religion Clause is intentionally a niche blog-- with special appeal to those teaching Religion and Law or 1st Amendment courses, to those working professionally for advocacy organizations, to those litigating in the area or advising organizational clients, to journalists and other bloggers reporting on church-state and religious liberty developments, and to the intelligent citizen who is curious about law and policy in these areas. Religion Clause has often been ahead of many mainstream media in covering important and interesting stories.

In today's highly-politicized world of information, Religion Clause is committed to religiously and ideologically neutral reporting, with extensive links particularly to primary source material. I welcome your e-mails on leads for blog posts. I also urge you to e-mail me with any corrections that are called for in postings-- accuracy is an important goal on Religion Clause and readers' input is invaluable. You can reach me at religionclause@gmail.com. I also welcome Comments to this post with any suggestions for changes or improvements for the coming year. I hope you will all remain loyal readers and will continue to recommend Religion Clause to your colleagues and friends.

Another Contraceptive Coverage Mandate Challenge Dismissed On Ripeness Grounds

In Priests for Life v. Sebelius, (ED NY, April 12, 2013), a New York federal district court dismissed on ripeness grounds a challenge by a non-profit Catholic organization to the contraceptive coverage mandate under the Affordable Care Act. The court concluded: "The current regulations, which are not being enforced against Priests for Life and are being altered, are not truly final." LifeNews reports on the decision.  Numerous other courts have reached a similar conclusion. (See prior related posting.)

Leading Rabbi-Law Prof's False Online Persona Revealed In Investigative Report

The Jewish Channel, in a lengthy investigative report published last week, reveals that Emory Law Professor and leading Orthodox rabbi Michael Broyde has for 20 years used the pseudonym Rabbi  Hershel Goldwasser to publish in numerous scholarly journals, take part in online dialogues and even join a rival rabbinical organization:

The Goldwasser character became a member of an upstart Orthodox rabbinical group, the International Rabbinical Fellowship, or IRF, which was founded in 2008 as a more-liberal rival to the group of which Broyde is a member, the 90-year-old Rabbinical Council of America, or RCA. With that membership, the Goldwasser character gained access to a members-only e-mail listserv with which he could remain apprised of members’ plans and ideological arguments...

The Goldwasser character would also engage in ideological arguments on the e-mail listserv — often using the seemingly fake identity to cite or tout Broyde’s own work.

As the investigative report appeared, Broyde issued an apology, saying that he and a colleague began using the pseudonym 20 years ago for joint writings. He added: "Recently, someone else who I don’t know has started posting using this pen name which has encouraged a journalist to investigate my pseudonymous activity." Tablet Magazine reports that in response to all of this, the Rabbinical Council of America has granted Broyde an indefinite leave of absence as a judge on its rabbinical court, the Bet Din of America. In a statement issued yesterday, Rabbinical Council of America called Broyde's behvior "deeply troubling," and said that Broyde has also requested a leave of absence from his membership in the RCA. It added: "We will continue to investigate this matter in order to determine further appropriate action."

Does White House Fitness Council's Encouragement of Yoga Violate Establishment Clause?

The President's Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition promotes the White House's efforts to get American's to adopt healthy lifestyles. One of the Council's efforts is PALA+, part of the President's Challenge, which includes the Yoga PALA Challenge. Encouraging participation, the Yoga PALA Challenge website says:

Yoga has become a universal language of spiritual exercise in the United States, crossing many lines of religion and cultures. Everyday millions of people practice yoga to improve their health and overall well-being. That’s why we’re encouraging everyone to take part in PALA+, so show your support for yoga and answer the challenge!

However, according to an article from the Wall Street Journal yesterday, some argue that this promotion of yoga crosses the line of permissible church-state relationships. An attorney representing families who are challenging the teaching of yoga in the Encintas California Union School District (see prior posting) says that use of government funds to promote yoga violates the Establishment Clause.  He argues that yoga poses are worshipful acknowledgements of Hindu deities. He adds: "because yoga is based in Eastern mysticism, which is not well understood, many tend to try to disingenuously downplay its religious aspects."

Hawaii Court Says Conscience Refusal of B&B To Rent To Lesbian Couple Violates State Civil Rights Law

A Hawaii Circuit Court judge yesterday held that a bed-and-breakfast violated Hawaii's public accommodation civil rights law when its owner, apparently for reasons of religious belief, refused to provide lodging to a lesbian couple. Lambda Legal reports on the court's decision in Cervelli & Bufford v. Aloha Bed & Breakfast. During a Hawaii Civil Rights Commission investigation, the bed-and-breakfast owner said she turned the lesbian couple away because she believes that same-sex relationships are "detestable" and that they "defile our land." AP reports on the decision.

Satmar Hasidic Town Constructs First Ever Sex-Segregated Playground In U.S. To Meet Religious Standards

The Forward reported last week that in the largely Satmar Hasidic village of Kiryas Joel, New York, the first-ever sex-segregated public playground in the United States has been constructed. The 283-acre playground has widely separated areas: one for fathers with their sons; one for mothers with their daughters; one for boys, and one for girls. There are also separate walking trails for males and females. Apparently non-Jews, and non-Haredi (non-strictly Orthodox) Jews will not be permitted to enter the playground at all.  The playground design is seen by community residents as meeting the strict legal requirements of "Torah-true Jews." According to YourJewishNews.com, the playground received special financing from Kiryas Joel mayor Rabbi Abraham Wieder, though the exact source of the funds he made available is unclear. According to Gestetner Updates yesterday, the town previously refused a grant from New York state for the project. The playground is strictly supervised by the Kiryas Joel Committee of Modesty. Behadrey Haredim has photos of the playground.

4th Circuit Dismisses Free Exercise and Other Challenges To Offender Registry Law

In Doe v. Virginia Department of State Police, (4th Cir., April 12, 2013), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed, largely on standing and ripeness grounds, a woman's challenge to changes in Virginia statutes that resulted in her being classified as a sexually violent offender and precluded her from entering the grounds of a school or daycare without first gaining permission from a Virginia court and the school board or the owner of the daycare. One of plaintiff's claims was that her free exercise rights were violated because all the churches of her faith in the area have Sunday Schools. Thus she is precluded from worshiping there without going through a procedure for permission that will disclose her status as a sexual offender to the school community and have dire social consequences for her children.

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

In Garner v. Kennedy, (5th Cir., April 2, 2013), the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the state of Texas had failed to adequately justify under RLUIPA its policy of prohibiting prisoners from wearing beards for religious reasons.

In United States v. Lepp, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51262 (ND CA, April 9, 2013), a California federal district court rejected a post-conviction attack on the sentence for possession and manufacture of marijuana imposed on defendant who had claimed that he was a practicing Rastafarian and that marijuana use was a necessary component of his religious practices.

In Neal v. McKune, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50769 (D KA, April 9, 2013), a Kansas federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that on several occasions during two Ramadan periods prison officials failed to serve him breakfast early enough, so that he either missed breakfast or was very hurried in being able to eat before dawn.

In Gillis v. Skinner, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51112 (WD LA, April 7, 2013), a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51131, Feb. 24, 2913) and dismissed an inmate's claim that a corrections officer asked him to leave church services because of his sexual orientation. The court found he was asked to leave because of disruptive behavior.

In Barstad v. Washington State Department of Corrections, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51805 (WD WA, April 10, 2013), a Washington federal district court adopted almost all of a magistrate's recommendations (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51808, March 5, 2013) and dismissed complaints of an inmate, a follower of the Rosicrucian Fellowship, that prison officials violated his rights by eliminating the ovo-lacto vegetarian diet and replacing it with a strict vegan diet. The court also dismissed an added complaints that scanning his identification card in order to get his meal amounted to imposing "the Mark of the Beast," and that eggs and milk were expensive at the prison commissary.

In Sims v. Cabrera, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51849 (ED CA, April 9, 2013), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed, with leave to amend, an inmate's claim that prison officials' refusal to remove his former gang affiliation from his bed card and central file prevents him from freely practicing his religion.

In two related cases, Maynard v. Wamble-Fisher, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52317 (D ID, April 8, 2013) and Austin v. Wamble-Fisher, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52318 (D ID, Apri 8, 2013), an Idaho federal district court permitted two inmates to proceed with their claims that terminating them from their volunteer positions aiding seriously ill inmates and otherwise reducing Christian religious activities violated their free exercise, RLUIPA and equal protection rights.

In Jabbar v. Contingency Work Force Solutions, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46661 (D MN, April 1, 2013), a Minnesota federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51299, March 4, 2013) and dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies a Muslim inmate's claims that the contract food-service provider failed to provide food that complied with Muslim dietary restrictions by using itemswith alcohol and pork ingredients.

In Smith v. Washington Department of Corrections, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52547 (WD WA, April 11, 2013), a Washington federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52625, March 6, 2013) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's objections to the food provided during Ramadan in 2010.

Free Exercise and Other Claims Over Arrest Made In Church Will Proceed To Trial

Family Worship Center Pentecostal Church of Holiness, Inc. v. See, (ED WI, April 12, 2013), is an unusual case in which a church and two of its members filed suit against the city of Milwaukee and two police officers challenging the action of the police in pursuing a mentally disturbed man into the church and arresting him in the pulpit area.  The court dismissed plaintiffs' equal protection claim, holding:

That someone believes that the officers "probably" would have treated a white congregation differently does not constitute direct proof of purposeful discrimination by the officers present on the evening of December 10, 2006.

The court also dismissed various state tort law claims. However, the court concluded that there are 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendment, as well as other state law, claims that must go to trial. The court summarized plaintiffs' 1st Amendment free exercise allegations:

Here, plaintiffs have produced evidence that [Officers] See and Humitz stayed for some time after Jones's arrest ignoring church members' requests to leave so that they could continue their worship. In addition, See ordered the music to stop and ordered a child—speaking in tongues—to "shut up."

Anti-Abortion Protester Denied Attorneys' Fees Award Despite Successful Lawsuit

As previously reported, the U.S. Supreme Court last November in  Lefemine v. Wideman held that a member of Columbia Christians for Life who obtained a permanent injunction but no monetary damages was a "prevailing party" and entitled to an award of attorneys' fees, unless on remand the lower courts find special circumstances that should preclude an award. The suit grew out of a 2005 anti-abortion demonstration at which police officers threatened to charge picketers with breach of the peace if they did not get rid of signs picturing aborted fetuses. Now in Lefemine v. Wideman, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51407 (D SC, April 9, 2013), a South Carolina federal district court held that "the special circumstances in this case render an award of attorney's fees to the Plaintiff unjust."  In reaching its conclusion, the court pointed to: "(1) the Defendants' qualified immunity, (2) the absence of a policy or custom of discrimination against abortion protesters by the Greenwood County Sheriff's Office, and (3) the limited nature of the injunctive relief."

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Roger Cotterrell, Jack Balkin’s Constitutional Faith, (Public Law [2013] pp. 443-9).
• Brian Michael McCall, Decorating the Structure: the Art of Making Human Law, (Catholic Lawyer, Forthcoming).
• Jeremy Grunert, How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sharia? Awad v. Ziriax and the Question of Sharia Law in America, (Pepperdine Law Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2013).
• Roger Colinvaux, Rationale and Changing the Charitable Deduction, (Tax Notes, Vol. 138, No. 1453, 2013).
• Michael A. Helfand, What is a 'Church'?: Implied Consent and the Contraception Mandate, (Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, 2013).

From SmartCILP:

• Kinch Hoekstra, Early Modern Absolutism and Constitutionalism, (34 Cardozo Law Review 1079-1098 (2013)).
• Arthur J. Jacobson, Job's Justice, (34 Cardozo Law Review 983-997 (2013)).
• David N. Wagner, The Obligation of Government Toward Humanity: The Role of the State In the Common Good, (35 Campbell Law Review 1-58 (2012)).
• Alex E. Wallin, John Finnis's Natural Law Theory and a Critique of the Incommensurable Nature of Basic Goods, (35 Campbell Law Review 59-81 (2012)).
• Poverty, Islamist Extremism, and the Debacle of Doha Round Counter-Terrorism: Part One of a Trilogy--Agricultural Tariffs and Subsidies. Foreword by Joel A. Nichols; article by Raj Bhala; reply by Robert J. Delahunty; response by Frank J. Garcia. 9 University of St. Thomas Law Journal 1-213 (2011).

New Books:

• Tahir Mahmood, Religion Law & Society - Across the Globe, (Universal Law Publishing Co., April 2013), reviewed by News4Education.
• Michael D'Antonio, Mortal Sins: Sex, Crime, and the Era of Catholic Scandal, (Thomas Dunne Books, April 2013).

Court Upholds Unemployment Benefit Denial To Employee Who Refused To Wear Company's Religious Mission Statement

In Mathis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, (PA Commonwth. Ct., April 9, 2013), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that a former employee who left because he objected to wearing the religious message on his employer's identification badge voluntarily resigned without a compelling reason and so is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. The claimant, Paul Mathis, who was a sheet metal installer, objected to this mission statement of Christian Heating & Air Conditioning Co. on the reverse side of the badge:

This company is not only a business, it is a ministry. It is set on standards that are higher than man's own. Our goal is to run this company in a way most pleasing to the Lord. Treating employees and customers as we would want to be treated along with running a business as if we are all part of one big family is our plan.

The court concluded that Mathis had not offered evidence of any contrary sincerely held religious beliefs, nor did he attempt  to describe any actual conflict between a religious belief and the badge requirement.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Sanders v. Cain, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47634 (MD LA, March 29, 2013), a Louisiana federal district court permitted an inmate to proceed with his complaint that Mormon inmates were not allowed to hold worship services on Sundays at the main prison complex interfaith chapel. However the court dismissed various other claims, including complaints of lack of office space and fund-raisers to purchase religious material for the Mormon community, as well as retaliation and defamation claims.

In Catanzaro v. Harry, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46671 (WD MI, Feb. 19, 2013), a Michigan federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal of an inmate's claim that he was not allowed to attend church services while he was on parole to a Residential Sex Offender Program.

In Johnson v. Bailey, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46473 (SD IL, March 30, 2013), an Illinois federal magistrate judge found no free exercise or RLUIPA violations at present in the time given a Buddhist inmate to eat his meals. The court said however that if, as was the case two yeas ago, the inmate had only 2 to 5 minutes to eat his religious diet, this would be a substantial burden on his religious practice.

In Rippy v. North Carolina, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45666 (WD NC, March 29, 2013), an inmate claimed his free exercise rights were infringed when he was denied access to a yoga class and a 12-step program and was told to behave during an Islamic service. A North Carolina federal district court dismissed the in forma pauperis action pursuant to the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act because the inmate had previously filed 3 other suits dismissed as frivolous.

In Dickerson v. Gusman, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47592 (ED LA, April 2, 2013), a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47595, March 7, 2013) and dismissed for lack of prosecution an inmate's complaint that he is not allowed to attend Jumah and other Islamic services.

In Taylor v. Godinez, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48596 (SD IL, April 3, 2013), an Illinois federal district court rejected the free exercise and RLUIPA claims by an inmate who was an ordained Baptist minister who attempted to satisfy his tithing obligations by giving away 10% of his commissary purchases to other inmates. He was disciplined for violating prison rules against trading and trafficking.

In Watkins v. Haynes, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43881 (SD GA, March 27, 2013), a Georgia federal district court rejected in part a magistrate's recommendations (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187476, Aug. 23, 2012) and dismissed on qualified immunity grounds a claim by a Rastafarian inmate for a non-flesh food diet cooked and served with separate vessels and utensils from meat items.

In Prall v. Supreme Court, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48788 (D NJ, April 4, 2013), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed complaints about disapproval and rejection in earlier state court proceedings of an inmate's conscientious objection (based on his Nation of Gods and Earth's beliefs) to participation in the criminal justice system.

In Gowers v. Haleen, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49709 (D UT, April 4, 2013), a Utah federal district court rejected a Mormon inmate's complaints that his free exercise rights were infringed when he was denied participation in auxiliary religious activities such as choir, piano or organ practice; he was randomly excluded from worship services; and he was suspended from all activities including worship services for disciplinary reasons.

In Heim v. York County Prison, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50074 (MD PA, April 8, 2013), a Jewish inmate complained about delays in responding to his kosher diet request and retaliation, including anti-Semitic caricatures, because of his insistence on a kosher diet. A Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed his suit against institutional and supervisory defendants, but permitted him to proceed against the chaplain, the complaint supervisor and the correctional officers that allegedly harassed him.

In People v. Osman, 2013 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2487 (CA App., April 8, 2013), a California state appellate court rejected free exercise and equal protection challenges to a risk factor analysis for sex offenders used by the probation department which treated as added risk the fact that an individual had not lived with a lover for at least 2 years. Defendant argued that his Muslim religion bars cohabitation before marriage.

In Abpikar v. Martin, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50433 (ED CA, April 6, 2013), a California federal magistrate judge permitted a federal inmate to proceed on his complaint that he was not permitted to participate in group worship with other Muslim inmates.

Court Approves Recovery For Chicago's Meritless Lawsuit Against Religious Group

In World Outreach Conference Center v. City of Chicago, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46943 (ND IL, April 1, 2013), on remand from the 7th Circuit (see prior posting), an Illinois federal district court resolved the remaining issues in a challenge to the City of Chicago's rezoning of a former YMCA building.  World Outreach Center, a religious organization, was delayed for two years while it obtained required licenses and permits from housing Hurricane Katrina evacuees there and from operating it as a community center.  The court rejected most of World Outreach's equal protection and religious discrimination claims. However the court held that the City had imposed a substantial burden on World Outreach by filing and maintaining a meritless lawsuit against it, and that World Outreach is entitled to recover the attorneys' fees it incurred in defending the lawsuit. It concluded that an inference of hostility to religion could be drawn from the filing of the suit.

UPDATE: An Amended Opinion was issued on June 10, 2013.