Church Denied Relief On Denial of Property Tax Exemption

In Church of the Isaiah 58 Project of Arizona, Inc. v. La Paz County, Arizona, (AZ App., Sept. 12, 2013), an Arizona state appellate court affirmed the state tax court's dismissal of a church's suit for injunctive and declaratory relief after the church was wrongly denied a property tax exemption.  The county tax assessor had claimed that the only acceptable evidence for granting an exemption was an Internal Revenue Service Letter of Determination. For a subsequent year, however, the county accepted a letter from the Arizona Department of Revenue instead. The court held that the state's anti-injunction statute bars injunctive relief because taxing authorities acted under a "semblance of authority."  Also, declaratory relief was properly denied because the church did not pay the assessed taxes before filing suit.

Cert. Petitions Filed In Two Contraceptive Coverage Mandate Cases

Scotus blog reports that on Thursday, petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court were filed in two separate cases challenging the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate. One petition (full text) seeks review of the Third Circuit's decision in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius. In a 2-1 decision in the case, the majority held that "for-profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise," and the conscience rights of the owners of a corporation do not pass through to the corporation. (See prior posting.) The second petition (full text) seeks review of Tenth Circuit's decision in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.  In the case in an en banc decision, a majority held that that corporations have free exercise rights and that the contraceptive coverage mandate substantially burdens those rights without a compelling governmental interest. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to James Oleske via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Judge Reverses Magistrate,Says Child Can Be Named "Messiah"

In Newport, Tennessee yesterday, a Cocke County Chancery Court judge reversed a widely publicized decision handed down last month by a Child Support Magistrate who ruled that parents could not name their 7-month old child "Messiah". Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew said: "The word Messiah is a title and it's a title that has only been earned by one person and that one person is Jesus Christ." (See prior posting.) According to USA Today:

Chancellor Telford E. Forgety Jr. overturned Ballew's decision, ruling that the lower court acted unconstitutionally. He said the lower court violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, and added that the court's purpose was to determine the last name of the child, not his first name.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.] 

Can Navy Yard Shooter's Interest In Buddhism Shed Light On His Mental State?

In the aftermath of yesterday's mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, the Washington Post explores the question of whether shooter Aaron Alexis' interest in Buddhism can help in understanding Alexis' mental state:

Buddhism can seem particularly appealing to "mentally unbalanced people seeking to right the ship of their lives, to self-medicate, to curb their impulses, or to give them a firmer grip on reality," Clark Strand, a contributing editor to the Buddhist publication Tricycle magazine and a former Zen monk, said in an interview.... 

[Buddhist blogger Justin] Whitaker posed this: Are there particular issues for people who delve deeply into meditation, but disconnected from Buddhism’s history and theology?

Religious Freedom Agency Loses Attempt To Dismiss Former Employee's Discrimination Suit

In Ghori-Ahmad v. U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, (D DC, Sept. 17, 2013), the DC federal district court refused to dismiss claims of religious and national origin discrimination, and of retaliation, bought by a former employee of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.  Ghori-Ahmad, a lawyer and expert on South Asian affairs, is a Muslim of Indian descent who in 2009 was originally offered a full-time job with USCIRF, but then had the offer rescinded and ended up with only a 90-day position that the agency refused to extend. Her lawsuit claims that her original offer was withdrawn, and her temporary position was not extended, because of anti-Muslim bias of two of the USCIRF commissioners. (See prior posting.)  The court first rejected USCIRF's claim that as a matter of law Ghori-Ahmad was an independent contractor with the agency, not an employee covered by the anti-discrimination provisions of the Congressional Accountability Act when her position was not extended. It held that factual issues remain as to her status.  The court also rejected USCIRF's claim that no materially adverse action had been taken against Ghori-Ahmad. The court, however, did dismiss plaintiff's detrimental reliance claim, refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear it.

Yemeni Court Imposes Sharia Punishment of Amputation; Rights Group Objects

AFP reports that for the first time in over ten years, a court in Yemen has sentenced a defendant convicted of robbery to the punishment of amputation, as prescribed by shariah law.  Earlier this week, a court in Sanaa ordered amputation of the right hand and left foot of defendant who attacked his victim and robbed him of cash he was carrying in a vehicle belonging to a money exchange firm. Amnesty International has called on Yemen to commute the sentence, saying it amounts to torture in violation of international law.

6th Circuit Rejects Closely-Held Business Challenge To Contraceptive Mandate

In Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, (6th Cir., Sept. 17, 2013), the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals denied  a preliminary injunction in an Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate challenge.  The suit was brought by two related closely-held businesses (a corporation and an LLC) and by their Catholic owners.  The shareholder-owners describe the companies as "the business form through which [they] endeavor to live their vocation as Christians in the world." The court held, however, that the coverage mandate falls on the corporations, not their owners, so owners cannot bring a free exercise claim in their individual capacities. As to the claim by the businesses themselves, the court held that a for-profit secular corporation "is not a 'person' capable of 'religious exercise' as intended by RFRA." Christian Science Monitor reports on the decision.

Bahrain Government Sues To Dissolve Islamic Scholars' Council

GulfNews reports that yesterday Bahrain's Ministry of Justice, Islamic Affairs and Endowments filed suit to dissolve the Islamic Scholars’ Council, seeking to shut it down and liquidate its financial assets.  The government says that the Scholars' Council has refused to become a member of the new Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs and instead is operating illegally as a cover for political activity.

British Judge Says Muslim Woman Must Remove Full-Face Veil For Her Testimony, But With Accommodations

In a widely followed case in Britain, a trial court judge who allowed a Muslim woman charged with witness intimidation to keep her face fully covered by her niqab at her arraignment (see prior posting) has now ruled that she must uncover her face when giving evidence during her trial.  The Guardian reported yesterday that under a compromise arrangement, the woman will be able to testify behind a screen or by live video link where only the judge, counsel and jurors can see her face, but court spectators will not. This will allow jurors to assess her demeanor.  The court also ordered that there be no artist's sketch of the woman with her face uncovered, and ruled that the woman, who will be identified only by her initial, can keep her face covered during the rest of the trial.

Complex Settlement Reached In Maryland Church Zoning Dispute

The Gaithersburg (MD) Gazette reports that a complicated settlement has been reached in Bethel World Outreach Ministries of Montgomery County v. Montgomery County Council. The suit, currently on remand from the 4th Circuit (see prior posting), involves a zoning denial that barred a congregation from building an 800-seat church in an area zoned as an agricultural preserve.  Under the settlement, the county will pay the church $1.25 million which it will use in part to purchase an agricultural easement for the property it sought to rezone.  It will still be allowed to subdivide the land into 4 residential lots. Then it will develop property that it has located elsewhere in the county to build a 1,200-seat church.  The county will make water and sewer changes to accommodate this, and the church will consider shuttle service for overflow parking as well as the purchase of additional land for use as a school and for services.

Court Upholds Zoning Conditions Imposed On Residential Synagogue

In a decision handed down last month, a New Jersey state trial court upheld 14 challenged conditions imposed by the Teaneck Board of Adjustment on use of a house as a residential Orthodox synagogue in an area zoned for single family dwellings.  For example, the Board required that there be no outdoor celebratory activity.  In 554 Queen Anne Road, Inc. v. Teaneck Board of Adjustment, (NJ Super. Ct., Aug. 23, 2013), the court held:

Each of the conditions ... bears a rational and reasonable relationship to the foreseen consequences of granting the requested variances.

(See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Thomas Rockland for the lead.]

Islamic Center Sues Illinois City Over Zoning Change Denial

A federal court lawsuit was filed yesterday by an Islamic Center against Des Plaines, Illinois, alleging that the city and members of its city council violated the 1st and 14th Amendments and RLUIPA when they denied zoning changes so land and buildings the Center wanted to acquire could be used for religious worship and education.  The complaint (full text) in American Islamic Center v. City of Des Plaines, (D IL, filed 9/16/2013), alleges that the Islamic Center, most of whose 160 members are Bosnian Muslim refugees, obtained Plan Commission approval for its proposal for use of the now-vacant property, but that city council denied the changes by a vote of 5-3. The Daily Herald reports on the lawsuit.

TSA Says Passengers May Carry Sukkot Items Through Security Checkpoints

The Jewish holiday of Sukkot begins Wednesday night.  Last week, the Transportation Security Administration issued an advisory (full text) stating:

TSA’s screening procedures do not prohibit the carrying of the four plants used during Sukkot - a palm branch, myrtle twigs, willow twigs, and a citron - in airports, through or security checkpoints, or on airplanes. These plants or agricultural items are not on TSA’s Prohibited Items List. However, all persons and property will undergo security screening at the checkpoint.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Zoe Robinson, What is a 'Religious Institution'?, (Boston College Law Review, Vol. 55, 2014, Forthcoming).
• Ethan Zadoff, Zadoff on Kwall: A Historians Critique, (Cardozo Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Jennifer Anglim Kreder, Lessons for Religious Liberty Litigation from Kentucky, (19 Wash. & Lee J. of Civ. Rts. & Soc. Justice, 2013).
• Shiva Falsafi, Religion, Women, and the Holy Grail of Legal Pluralism, (Cardozo Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Peter O'Brien, Islam and the Politics of Secularism in Europe, (APSA 2013 Annual Meeting Paper).
• Jeremy M. Christiansen, 'The Word Person...Includes Corporations': Why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Protects Both For- and Nonprofit Corporations, (Utah Law Review, Forthcoming).

From elsewhere:

• Patrick E. Tolan, Jr., Compromising the Safety Net: How Limiting Tax Deductions for High-Income Donors Could Undermine Charitable Organizations, 46 Suffolk U.L. Rev. 329 (2013).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Washington v. Gonyea, (2d Cir., Sep. 10, 2013), the 2nd Circuit held that RLUIPA does not provide a cause of action for damages against state officials in their individual capacities because the legislation was enacted pursuant to Congress’ spending power that allows the imposition of conditions, such as individual liability, only on those actually receiving the state funds. In a second summary opinion in the case issued the same day, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's due process claim and reversed dismissal of his First Amendment claim of retaliation for giving a copy of a Qur'an to a prison employee.

In Lofton v. St. Clair County Jail, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127975 (SD IL, Sept. 9, 2013), an Illinois federal district court dismissed, with leave to file an amended complaint, an inmate's allegation that his ree exercise rights were infringed when he was allowed to attend only one religious service during his two-month confinement in jail.

In Carr v. Noble, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128163 (SD OH, Sept. 9, 2013), an Ohio federal magistrate judge permitted an inmate to proceed with his claims against certain defendants alleging denial of his requests that the Christian Separatist religion be recognized and that Christian Separatist literature be made available to inmates in the chapel library, and complaining that Christian Separatist CDs were withheld and he was not permitted to donate them to the chapel library.

In Wilson v. Wetzel, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128423 (MD PA, Sept. 9, 2013), a Pennsylvania federal district court allowed a Hebrew Israelite inmate to proceed against two correctional officers with his complaint that the disciplinary food loaf sanction imposed on him should have been suspended for the holy fast day of Gedaliah and he should have been  provided with a Kosher food bag for that day.

In Bogard v. Perkins, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128892 (ND MI, Sept. 9, 2013), a Mississippi federal district court held that an inmate claiming to be a member of the Nazarite religious faith has no right under the 1st Amendment or RLUIPA to wear his hear in dreadlocks in violation of the Department of Corrections grooming policy.

In Diggs v. Volpe, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111365 (SD NY, Aug. 7, 2013), a New York federal district court dismissed a suit by a Muslim inmate who complained that he could not attend Friday Jumu'ah services while he was in disciplinary confinement.

In Cox v. Stephens, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129513 (SD TX, Sept. 11, 2013), a Texas federal district court modified a magistrate's recommendations (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129806, July 15, 2013) and permitted a Native American inmate to proceed on various claims against a prison official who violated departmental policy by denying adequate personnel to preside over religious pipe ceremonies, and to proceed with challenges to prison grooming policies and rules regarding possession of his medicine bag.

In Coleman v. Ryan, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129774 (D AZ, Sept. 11, 2013), an Arizona federal district court permitted an inmate to proceed with his complaint that corrections officers wrongfully confiscated his rosary.

In Frost v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130278 (D SC, Sept. 12, 2013), a South Carolina federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2103 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130487, Aug. 9, 2013) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaints regarding the number of Shia imams, confiscation of a Qur'an, prohibition of Muslim inmates using empty cells for daily prayers and requiring inmates to arrive at a certain time to attend the Jumu'ah service.

In Brooks v. State of Hawaii, 2013 U.S. Dist LEXIS 130635 (D AZ, Sept. 8, 2013), an Arizona federal district court dismissed without prejudice a free exercise claim by an inmate who studied both Christianity and Islam, and who was removed from a voluntary Christian-based housing unit.   However he was allowed to proceed with a retaliation claim.

In Mauwee v. Nevada Department of Corrections, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131250 (D NV, Sept. 13, 2013), a Nevada federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131378, June 26, 2013) and dismissed a complaint by a Native American inmate that the Department of Corrections had ended a prior policy permitting access to raw foods for preparation of a ceremonial meal during the sweat lodge ceremony.

Court Denies Preliminary Injunction In Contraceptive Coverage Mandate Case

In M.K. Chambers Co. v. Department of Health and Human Services, (ED MI, Sept. 13, 2013), a Michigan federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate against a a closely-held machinery components company and its two Catholic owners.  The court held that plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their 1st Amendment, RFRA and Administrative Procedure Act arguments, saying in part:

The Court takes as true, Plaintiffs’ deeply held religious beliefs. However, courts have held that the Mandate in question applies only to the corporate entity, not to its officers or owners, and that as to the individual owners, any burden imposed on them individually by the contraception mandate is remote and too attenuated to be considered substantial for purposes of the RFRA.

The court previously denied a temporary restraining order in the case. (See prior posting.)

Pentecostal Employee Loses Retaliation Claim As 5th Circuit Applies Recent Supreme Court Precedent

As previously reported, in a decision last January a Mississippi federal district court held that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not require a Mississippi county to allow a female juvenile detention officer who had converted to the Pentecostal faith to wear a skirt rather than pants at work.  However the court allowed plaintiff to proceed with her claim that her dismissal was in retaliation for her filing an EEOC complaint.  Now, on appeal, the 5th Circuit in Finnie v. Lee County, Mississippi, (5th Cir., Sept. 12, 2013), dismissed the retaliation claim.  The 5th Circuit applied the U.S. Supreme Court's decision from last year in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar holding that in Title VII retaliation claims, plaintiff must show but-for causation, not merely a mixed motive. (See prior posting.) The 5th Circuit held that plaintiff failed to show that she would not have been terminated for violating the uniform requirement, if she had not filed an EEOC complaint.

Court Orders Pennsylvania County Clerk To Stop Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Health v. Hanes, (Comnw. Ct., Sept. 12, 2013) a Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court judge granted a writ of mandamus ordering Montgomery County court clerk D. Bruce Hanes to comply with all the provisions of Pennsylvania's Marriage Law.  The order stops Hanes from issuing marriage licenses to and accepting marriage certificates from same-sex couples. Hanes began to issue licenses to same-sex couples in July after the U.S. Supreme Court's Windsor decision. (See prior posting.) In ordering Hanes to comply with the state's ban on same-sex marriage, the court said:

Because only the General Assembly may suspend its own statutes and because only courts have the authority to determine the constitutionality of a statute, and because all statutes are presumptively constitutional, a public official “[i]s without power or authority, even though he is of the opinion that a statute is unconstitutional, to implement his opinion in such a manner as to effectively abrogate or suspend such statute which is presumptively constitutional until declared otherwise by the Judiciary.”... Based on the foregoing, it is clear that Hanes does not have standing to assert the purported unconstitutionality of the Marriage Law as a defense to the instant Petition.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports on the decision.

British Judge Allows Niquab At Arraignment Under Compromise Arrangement

The Guardian reports that in Britain yesterday, a London trial court judge allowed a Muslim woman to plead not guilty in a witness intimidation case while wearing a niqab that covered her face. The judge backed off of his August order requiring her to uncover her face in court, instead accepting a compromise under which a female police officer who saw the defendant's face when her custody photograph was taken now viewed her in a private room with her veil removed. The officer then testified under oath that the correct person was in court. The judge also heard arguments on whether the woman should also be allowed to wear the niqab during her full jury trial.

8th Circuit: Pride Festival's Limits On Bible Distributions Outside Festival Booths Are Invalid

In Johnson v. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, (8th Cir., Sept. 11, 2013), the U.S. 8th circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that the district court should have granted a preliminary injunction to allow an Evangelical Christian to distribute Bibles at the Twin Cities Pride Festival in a downtown Minneapolis park.  The majority concluded that a regulation which limits distribution of literature to those with booths at the Festival or elsewhere in the park (or else through a materials drop area) was not narrowly tailored to further a significant governmental interest in safety or in preventing congestion, particularly since Festival sponsors were allowed to solicit contributions outside booths and near entrances to the Festival. Judge Bye dissented, arguing that "the Board's regulation was a content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction and was narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest which also provided ample alternative channels of communication." [Thanks to Blog From the Capital for the lead.]