UPS Settles Religious Accommodation Charges Brought By EEOC

The EEOC announced on Monday that United Parcel Service has agreed to pay damages of $70,000 in settlement of a lawsuit charging the company with refusing to provide a Jehovah's Witness employee with a schedule accommodation so he could attend an annual religious service. (See prior posting.) The employee was terminated from his job a few days after his request was denied, and was placed on a company-wide"do not re-hire" list.  Under the settlement with the EEOC, UPS is also enjoined from engaging in future religious discrimination or retaliating against employees for opposing such discrimination.  It will also post its religious accommodation policy and conduct anti-discrimination training.

Town of Greece Case Argued Before Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Town of Greece v. Galloway.  At issue is the constitutionality of opening city council meetings with sectarian prayers. The full transcript of the oral arguments is now available. SCOTUSblog has a recap of the oral arguments.  ABA Preview has a detailed analysis of the case.

Contraceptive Mandate Challenge Transferred From D.C. to Michigan Federal Court

In M&N Plastics, Inc. v. Sebelius, (D DC, Nov. 5, 2013), the federal district court for the District of Columbia granted the government's motion to transfer a suit by a Michigan small business and its owners challenging the contraceptive coverage mandate to federal court in the plaintiff's home district-- the Eastern District of Michigan. The government argued that plaintiffs' decision to file in D.C. was motivated by a desire to take advantage of favorable precedent in that district. The 6th Circuit (which includes Michigan) has unfavorable precedent for plaintiffs. (See prior posting.)

Paper Reports On Jews In State Prisons

The Forward yesterday carried a lengthy report on how Jews in state prisons deal with anti-Semitism, finding that "In some states Jewish prisoners face as much or more anti-Semitism from staff as from fellow inmates."  The report also quotes an expert who concludes:  "Those who are the most out front about being Jewish get the least hassle [from fellow-inmates]. We have inmates wearing yarmulkes and tzitzit in the most dangerous prisons in the country, and no one touches them." The report goes on:

Perhaps the most noticeably different thing about Jewish prisoners is their access to kosher food, which is almost universally considered superior to regular prison fare.... “You wouldn’t believe the politics around the kosher food on the yard,” said J.D. Rollins, a since-freed Muslim prisoner who befriended numerous Jews while behind bars in California. Inmates and staff both resented the special treatment they thought the diet represented. Kosher food would often be tampered with or stolen by inmates in the kitchens, both to punish those on the diet and to barter the valuable goods.

...[K]osher food is so desirable that five-sixths of prisoners on the diet are non-Jews. They can do this by exploiting the vagueness of the law, which grants the right to a religious diet to those with a loosely-defined “sincerely held” religious belief.

Illinois Legislature Gives Final Approval To Same-Sex Marriages

As reported by the Chicago Sun-Times and the New York Times, the Illinois General Assembly yesterday gave final approval to SB10 legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.  The state Senate had originally passed the bill in February, but the crucial House vote did not come until yesterday, delayed by opposition form black clergy and the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago.  The House vote, after  adding one amendment to the Senate bill, was 61-54 with 2 abstentions. The Senate then quickly approved the bill as amended by a vote of 32-21. Gov. Pat Quinn has said he will sign the bill.

The bill contains protections for objecting clergy and religious institutions:

Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious denomination or Indian Nation....

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require any religious denomination or Indian Nation ... or any minister, clergy, or officiant acting as a representative of a religious denomination or Indian Nation ... to solemnize any marriage. Instead [it is] ... free to choose which marriages it  will solemnize. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, a refusal by a religious denomination or Indian Nation..., or any minister, clergy, or officiant ... to solemnize any marriage under this Act shall not create or be the basis for any civil, administrative, or criminal penalty, claim, or cause of action.

No church, mosque, synagogue, temple, nondenominational ministry, interdenominational or ecumenical organization, mission organization, or other organization whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion is required to provide religious facilities for the solemnization ceremony or celebration associated with the solemnization ceremony of a marriage if the ... ceremony or celebration ... is in violation of its religious beliefs. [Such] entity ... shall be immune from any civil, administrative, criminal penalty, claim, or cause of action based on its refusal to provide religious facilities .... As used in this subsection..., "religious facilities" means sanctuaries, parish halls, fellowship halls, and similar facilities. "Religious facilities" does not include facilities such as businesses, health care facilities, educational facilities, or social service agencies.

Town Council Prayer Case To Be Argued In Supreme Court Tomorrow

Tomorrow the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a major church-state case-- Town of Greece v. Galloway.  At issue is the practice in the town of Greece, New York of opening its Town Board meetings with a prayer, most of which have been overtly Christian. In the case, the 2nd Circuit held that the town's prayer policy violates the Establishment Clause because "an objective, reasonable person would believe that the town’s prayer practice had the effect of affiliating the town with Christianity." (See prior posting.) The briefs in the case, including the numerous amicus briefs that have been filed, are available from ScotusBlog, and Lyle Denniston has an Argument Preview.

Another Non-Profit Contraceptive Coverage Mandate Challenge

Yesterday saw another lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate.  MLive reports that Right to Life of Michigan filed suit in federal district court in Michigan on Nov. 4. Its complaint alleges in part:

Plaintiff employs 33 full-time employees and 10 part-time employees, and is forced under the mandate to conduct business in a manner that violates their religious faith by providing and funding abortifacient drugs and devices, which violates deeply held religious beliefs and the sole reason they work for [Right to Life].

Suit Challenges New Jersey Ban On Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy

AP reports on a federal lawsuit filed last Friday challenging New Jersey's ban on sexual orientation conversion therapy for minors. Alleging 1st and 14th Amendment violations, the suit, filed by parents of a 15-year old boy, claims that the ban:

den[ies] minors the opportunity to pursue a particular course of action that can help them address the conflicts between their religious and moral values and same-sex attractions, behaviors or identity.

A similar challenge was filed in August by different plaintiffs. (See prior posting.)

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the complaint in Doe v. Christie, (D NJ, filed 11/1/2013).

California City Sued Over Sectarian Prayers and City Chaplain

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has announced that it filed a state court lawsuit last week against the city of Pismo Beach, California challenging on state constitutional grounds sectarian prayers at city council meetings and the appointment of a City Chaplain. The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. City of Pismo Beach, (CA Super. Ct., filed 11/1/2013) alleges that over a nearly 5-year period, all but one of the 126 prayers were addressed to the Christian God, with 112 of those prayers being delivered by the city chaplain, a Pentecostal clergyman. The complaint continues:

The prayers advance and proselytize for Christianity. They distort and fabricate American history to further the appearance that our government endorses and supports Christianity, and they disparage non-Christians by claiming that not living in accordance with the Christian god’s rule of law is sinful and wrong.

... The City established a Christian Chaplaincy and appointed Defendant Paul Jones ... to that position eight years ago.... This chaplaincy is a government office with solely religious functions, and this City Chaplain receives benefits at public expense...

Irish Constitutional Convention Recommends Replacing Blasphemy Offense With Ban On Inciting Religious Hatred

Ireland is in the midst of an unusual constitution revision process.  A Convention on the Constitution made up of 66 randomly selected citizens who are broadly representative of Irish society, and 33 parliamentarians nominated by their respective political parties, are making recommendations to the Oireachtas for amendments that will ultimately be put to the people for a vote. According to a news release by the Convention, on Sunday the Convention voted 53% to 38% to replace the current constitutional provision on blasphemy with a general provision banning incitement to religious hatred. Irish Times reports on the vote. [Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy via Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

New NYC Mayor-- Whoever Wins-- Will Be More Accommodating To Religion

In a report yesterday on the upcoming mayoral election, the New York Times says that either of the top two candidates-- Bill de Blasio or Joseph Lhota-- will be more accommodating of religious practices than Mayor Bloomberg has been:

They [both] say they would accommodate two of the most important Muslim holy days [on school calendars], allow church services on school property, and work with Jewish leaders to ease the city’s supervision of circumcision rituals.

New York Court Confirms Part of Beth Din's Rulings In Dispute Over Kosher Certification In Crown Heights

Matter of Va'Ad Hakohol Deschunas Crown Heights v. Va'Ad Hakashrus of Crown Heights Corp., (Kings Co. NY Sup. Ct., Oct. 17, 2013), is the latest installment in a complicated and long-running dispute that began in 2006 between three local Jewish organizations in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn over control of the kosher certification process and the funds generated from it.  The feuding organizations are the Crown Heights Beth Din that serves as religious consultant that certifies food as kosher; Hakashrus that provides butchers and inspectors to implement kosher certification; and Hakohol which is not part of the certification process.

Four lawsuits filed in the matter were eventually referred for voluntary arbitration to a 5-member panel of rabbinical judges (the Rosenberg Beth Din) which in 2010 issued four rulings, one of which ordered an election to fill a vacancy on the 3-person Crown Heights Beth Din.  In 2011, the Rosenberg Beth Din issued two supplemental rulings, one of which rejected challenges to the qualifications of Rabbi Joseph Shaya Braun who was elected to the Crown Heights Beth Din in the ordered election.

The New York trial court was then petitioned to confirm the arbitration awards of the Rosenberg Beth Din.  In June 2012 it refused to do so, but subsequently allowed re-argument on the issue.  In this decision it confirmed parts of the awards entered by the Rosenberg Beth Din, including its holding that Rabbi Braun was properly elected to the Crown Heights Beth Din, saying:

Turning to the Jan. 3, 2011 supplemental award, the Court finds that its unambiguous pronouncement that Rabbi Braun was elected in accordance with religious law is adequate for the Court to confirm this award. "The path of analysis, proof and persuasion by which an arbitrator reaches a conclusion is beyond judicial scrutiny".... The Rosenberg Beth Din's endorsement of Rabbi Braun's credentials to qualify as a member of Crown Heights Beth Din, therefore, is controlling. The Court is proscribed from evaluating Rabbi Braun's credentials, as doing so would infringe "upon a religious community's independence from secular control or manipulation"

The New York court however remanded to the Rosenberg Beth Din the question of control, operation and ownership of the assets of Hakashrus.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Juan Carlos Riofrio Martinez Villalba, Lecturas Jurídicas De La Obra De Santo Tomás De Aquino (Legal Interpretations of the Works of St. Thomas Aquinas), Díkaion, XXVII, v. 22, n. 1, pp.55-81 (2013).
• Michal Gilad, In God's Shadow: Unveiling the Hidden World of Domestic Violence Victims in Religious Communities, (Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy (forthcoming 2014).
• Lyman Johnson, Michael Naughton, & William Stanley Bojan, Jr., Rethinking How Business Purpose is Taught in Catholic Business Education, (October 31, 2013).
• Charles J. Reid, The Priesthood and the Sacrament of Marriage, (Priesthood and the Seven Sacraments, E.J. Brill & Gregory Peters, ed., Forthcoming).
• Todd J. Schmid, The Real Shariah Risk: Why the United States Cannot Afford to Miss the Islamic Finance Moment, (University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2013, No. 3, 2013).
• Davi S. Miller, Reforming the Taxation of Exempt Organizations and Their Patrons, (October 21, 2013).
• Máiréad Enright, The Beginning of the Sharpness: Loyalty, Citizenship and Muslim Divorce Practice, (International Journal of Law in Context, 9,3 pp. 1–23 (2013)).

From SmartCILP:

• Gabriel O. Aitsebaomo, Challenges to Federal Income Tax Exemption of the Clergy and Government Support of Sectarian Schools Through Tax Credits Device and the Unresolved Questions after Arizona v. Winn: Is the U.S. Supreme Court Standing in the Way of Taxpayer Standing to Seek Meritorious Redress?, 28 Akron Tax Journal 1-39 (2013).
• Dallas Dean, A Little Rule That Goes a Long Way: A Simplified Rule Enforcing the 501(c)(3) Ban on Church Campaign Intervention, [Abstract], 28 Journal of Law and Politics 307-333 (2013).

President Sends Diwali Greetings

Today was the festival of Diwali. On Friday, the White House released a statement (full text) from President Obama sending good wishes to those celebrating the holiday, saying in part:

For the Hindus, Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists celebrating Diwali this weekend, the Festival of Lights reaffirms the things in life that matter most.  Dancing, celebration, and good food remind us that life’s greatest joys are the simple pleasures that come from spending time with people we love.  Contemplation and prayer remind us that that people of all faiths have an obligation to perform seva, or service to others.  And the flame of the diya, or lamp, reminds us that light will ultimately triumph over darkness.  Here in the United States, Diwali also reminds us that our nation is home to many faiths and traditions, and that our diversity makes us stronger, which is why I’m proud that this year Democrats and Republicans in Congress joined together for the first-ever celebration of Diwali on Capitol Hill....

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Fulbright v. Jones, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154414 (WD OK, Aug. 29, 2013), an Oklahoma federal magistrate judge, recommending rejection of a contempt petition, found that authorities had reasonably complied with a previous injunction requiring them to provide a Jewish inmate with a kosher diet.

In Perrilla v. Fischer, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154449 (WD NY, Oct. 24, 2013), a New York federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was not permitted to attend congregate religious services while in the Special Housing Unit, and that he was denied or given ill-prepared Halal meals during Ramadan.

In McDaniel v. Fizer, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154965 (D AZ, Oct. 29, 2013), an Arizona federal district court denied without prejudice a Muslim inmate's petition for a preliminary injunction to require a change in his religious diet so it will also satisfy his health needs (by substituting other food for raw cabbage).

In Calhoun-El v. Stouffer, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155108 (D MD, Oct, 28, 2013), a Maryland federal district court dismissed complaints by an inmate who is a member of the Moorish Science Temple of America that his headdress was confiscated on four occasions, that his ability to participate in the Ramadan fast was interfered with, and that his request to celebrate his religious holiday was denied.

In Blackwell v. Green, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155181 (D MD, Oct. 20, 2013), a Maryland federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaints regarding shower schedules and medication and ice distribution that allegedly interfered with his obligations surrounding Friday prayer and Ramadan. It also dismissed his claim that he was harassed by someone writing "Jesus" on his cell door.

In Redd v. Lutgen, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155252 (ND IA, Oct. 28, 2013), an Iowa federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a Muslim inmate's claim that his religious exercise was substantially burdened when he was required to sign a Ramadan Agreement as a condition of participating in the Eid feast.

In Nosair v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155309 (SD IL, Oct, 30, 2013), an Illinois federal district court permitted a Sunni Muslim inmate of Arab descent to proceed with his equal protection claim that he was confined in restrictive conditions because of his race and religion. However his claim of discriminatory treatment of certain Muslim inmates in halfway house placement was dismissed.

In Sleighter v. County of Kent, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156113 (WD MI, Oct. 31, 2013), a Michigan federal district court permitted a Jewish inmate to proceed against the county and its sheriff on claims that his need for a kosher diet was not adequately accommodated and that the jail favored Christianity over other religions by scheduling Christian religious services in the common living areas, setting aside a section of the called the "God Pod," encouraging conversion to Christianity, and not accommodating other religions.

In Rivera v. Byars, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156681 (D SC, Oct. 31, 2013), a South Carolina federal district court rejected a magistrate's recommendation and held that a former inmate of the Rastafarian faith can proceed on his free exercise claim for damages alleging that he was not provided an adequate vegetarian diet consistent with his religious faith.

Suit In Australia Invokes Racial Discrimination Act Against Boycott of Israeli Academics

In Australia, Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Center last month filed a lawsuit under  Australia’s 1975 Racial Discrimination Act against Jake Lynch, director of the Center for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney.  As reported by Haaretz yesterday, the suit claims that Lynch's invocation of the anti-Israeli "Boycott/ Divestment/ Sanctions" movement in refusing to sponsor Hebrew University academic Dan Avnon for a fellowship in Australia violates the statute's ban on national origin discrimination.  This is the first time that the anti-discrimination statute has been invoked against the BDS Movement, which includes boycotts of Israeli academics in protest of Israeli policy regarding Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. The suit was filed after mediation at the Australian Human Rights Commission failed several month ago.

Defense Secretary Chastises State National Guards That Are Refusing To Issue ID To Same-Sex Spouses

According to a report this week from American Forces Defense Service, nine states are defying a Department of Defense directive instructing National Guard facilities to issue new ID cards to same-sex spouses.  The new IDs will allow them to obtain spousal and family military benefits in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down Sec. 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.  Indiana, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia, however, are requiring their National Guard members to go to a federal military base if they want to obtain the new ID. In a speech (full text) to an Anti-Defamation League Dinner on Thursday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in part:

... [A]ll spouses of service members are entitled to DoD ID cards, and the benefits that come with them.  But several states today are refusing to issue these IDs to same-sex spouses at National Guard facilities.  Not only does this violate the states’ obligations under federal law, but their actions have created hardship and inequality by forcing couples to travel long distances to federal military bases to obtain the ID cards they’re entitled to.

This is wrong.  It causes division among our ranks, and it furthers prejudice, which DoD has fought to extinguish, as has the ADL.

Today, I directed the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, General Frank Grass, to take immediate action to remedy this situation.  At my direction, he will meet with the Adjutants General from the states where these ID cards are being declined and denied.  The Adjutants General will be expected to comply with both lawful direction and DoD policy, in line with the practices of 45 other states and jurisdictions.

Objections to .HALAL and .ISLAM Top Level Domains Rejected

As previously reported, in June 2012 the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) published a list of proposed new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) names for which various applicants are seeking approval. Some of the proposed new Internet addresses carry religious connotations. ICANN has in place a complicated process for objecting to a proposed gTLD.  One basis for objection is "substantial opposition to the gTLD ... from a significant portion of the community that the gTLD string targets." On October 24, two separate opinions were handed down by the International Center of Expertise of the International Chamber of Commerce, the organization designated to adjudicate community objections.  The decisions upheld the proposed .HALAL top level domain (CASE No. EXP/427/ICANN/44, full text of opinion), and the proposed .ISLAM top level domain (CASE No. EXP/430/ICANN/47, full text of opinion). In both cases the objector was the United Arab Emirates Telecommunications Regulatory Authority and the applicant for the gTLD was a Turkish company.

Ukrainian Appeals Court Says Kiev Synagogue Can Keep Loaned Torah Scrolls

JTA earlier this week reported on a mid-October ruling by the Kiev Economic Court of Appeals in the Ukraine that allows the city's Central Synagogue to retain 18 Torah scrolls that the State Archives Committee wanted returned for inspection, fearing they may have been damaged.  The Committee first requested return of the scrolls in 2007 (Jerusalem Post). The scrolls were seized by the Soviets in the 1920's, but after Ukrainian independence in 1991-- with no restitution law in place-- some scrolls were loaned back to synagogues under unclear arrangements with the government.  The particular scrolls at issue here were loaned back to Central Synagogue in 1995.

D.C. Circuit: Contraceptive Mandate Imposes Substantial Burden On Small Business Owners' Free Exercise

In an important development today, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision producing three separate opinions, held that the Catholic owners of a for-profit small business were likely to succeed on the merits of a RFRA challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The appeals court reversed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, and remanded the case for the district court to make findings about the other preliminary injunction factors. In Gilardi v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (DC Cir., Nov. 1, 2013), two brothers, Francis and Philip Gilardi, owners of Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics, both Ohio corporations, claim that their free exercise rights, and those of their businesses, are burdened by the requirement that they furnish their employees health insurance covering contraception, sterilization and abortion.

The court's opinion written by Judge Brown held that secular corporations do not enjoy free exercise rights:

When it comes to corporate entities, only religious organizations are accorded the protections of the Clause. And we decline to give credence to the notion that the for-profit/non-profit distinction is dispositive, as that, too, is absent from the Clause’s history. Fortunately, we need not opine here on what a “religious organization” is, as the Freshway companies have conceded they do not meet that criterion.

The court also rejected the claim that the corporations may assert their owners' free exercise rights:

In [EEOC v. Townley Engineering & Manufacturing Co.] , the Ninth Circuit concluded— without much in the way of legal substantiation—that the corporation was “merely the instrument through and by which [the owners] express[ed] their religious beliefs.”... 

Admittedly, there is a certain theological congruence to Townley’s  characterization. The Bible says “faith without works is dead.” James 2:26.... As amici point out, not only are Catholic employers morally responsible for the management of their companies, “instructing or encouraging someone else to commit a wrongful act is itself a grave moral wrong—i.e., ‘scandal’—under Catholic doctrine.” ... When even attenuated participation may be construed as a sin, ... it is not for courts to decide that the corporate veil severs the owner’s moral responsibility. But dogma does not dictate justiciability....

Judge Edwards, while dissenting as to other parts of the decision, joined in the portions of Judge Brown's opinion rejecting the corporate claims.  Judge Randolph did not join in this part of Judge Brown's opinion, believing that the court need not reach this issue.

Judge Brown went on, in a section of her opinion joined by all three judges, to hold that the individual owners of the business have standing to assert their claim under RFRA:

If the companies have no claim to enforce—and as nonreligious corporations, they cannot engage in religious exercise—we are left with the obvious conclusion: the right belongs to the Gilardis, existing independently of any right of the Freshway companies. Thus, the Gilardis’ injury—which arises therefrom—is “separate and distinct,” providing us with an exception to the shareholder-standing rule.

In his separate concurring opinion, Judge Randolph added another reason that the Gilardi brothers have standing.  The corporations had elected pass-through treatment under Subchapter S for federal tax purposes.  This means that the tax penalties will directly affect the shareholders' individual tax returns.

Then, in a portion of the opinion joined by Judge Randolph, Judge Brown concluded that the contraceptive coverage mandate imposes a "substantial burden" on the Gilardis free exercise rights, so that strict scrutiny is triggered.  She emphasized that government's arguments that no substantial burden was present turned on the claim that the mandate impacted the corporations, not the individual shareholders. She rejected this, arguing:

If the Gilardis had run their businesses as sole proprietorships, they would presumably have a viable RFRA claim under the government’s theory..... [W]e do not believe Congress intended important statutory rights to turn on the manner in which an individual operates his businesses.

The opinion then concluded that the strict scrutiny standard had not been met, and that there are less restrictive means to achieve the government's interests:

The government cites several concerns to bolster its claim that the contraceptive mandate serves a compelling interest (or interests), but its recitation is sketchy and highly abstract.....  [T]he government does little to demonstrate a nexus between this array of issues and the mandate.

Judge Edwards, in his separate opinion, dissented from the granting of a preliminary injunction because, in his view, the claim that the mandate imposes a "substantial burden" on the Gilardis "is specious." He argued:

The Supreme Court has never applied the Free Exercise Clause to find a substantial burden on a plaintiff’s religious exercise where the plaintiff is not himself required to take or forgo action that violates his religious beliefs, but is merely required to take action that might enable other people to do things that are at odds with the plaintiff’s religious beliefs....

Just as the Government does not directly encourage religion when it provides vouchers that recipients may choose to spend on religious schools, the Gilardis do not directly encourage the use of contraception when they provide insurance coverage that recipients may choose to spend on contraceptives.

He went on to argue that even if the mandate does impose a substantial burden, the government has shown that it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest. AP reports on the decision. This case has been seen by the Justice Department as the test case for many pending in the D.C. circuit. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to Luke Goodrich and Doug Velardo for the lead.] 

UPDATE: In a press release issued shortly after the decision was handed down, American Center for Law & Justice announced that the corporate entities will petition  the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari on the issue of their separate free exercise rights.