Connecticut Legislature Makes Religious Exemption From Vaccination Requirements Marginally More Difficult

On Tuesday, the Connecticut General Assembly gave final passage to HB 6949 (full text) and sent it to the governor for his signature.  The bill places additional procedural requirements on parents seeking to exempt their children on religious grounds from vaccination requirements.  As reported by WNPR:

Currently, [parents or guardians] must simply present a statement that the immunization would be contrary to the child's religious beliefs. But under the bill which cleared the Senate Tuesday, such statements must be submitted annually and officially "acknowledged" by a notary public, attorney, judge, family support magistrate, court clerk, deputy clerk or justice of the peace.

However another bill pending in the legislature would, if enacted, require the notarized statements be submitted only when the child enters kindergarten and when he or she enters 7th grade.

European Court Holds Hearing On Alevis' Complaint Against Turkey

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights yesterday held a hearing in Doğan and Others v. Turkey. (Webcast of full hearing with English simultaneous translation.) The case, brought by members of Turkey's Alevi community, involves claims of unequal treatment. Daily Sabah, reporting on the hearing, provides more background:

Applicants to the court requested the state provide the same status to cemevis as mosques and offer free public services. Several Alevi citizens had filed a lawsuit against the Prime Ministry in 2005 after their request for cemevis to be granted a new status was rejected. They then took their case to the European Court of Human Rights in 2010. They claim Turkish authorities violated the European Convention on Human Rights concerning freedom of religion and thought and its ban on discrimination. An Alevi foundation had asked the government to implement regulations that would enable the bills of cemevis to be paid through a fund administered by the Presidency of Religious Affairs (DİB) that oversees the operation of mosques. Turkish courts had dismissed the foundation's application, basing their decision on the directorate's opinion that cemevis are not places of worship, but rather places of assembly in which spiritual ceremonies are held.

U.S.-Based Sikh Group Sues Facebook Over Takedown of Its Page In India

The U.S. based advocacy group Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) this week filed a federal lawsuit against Facebook, Inc. complaining that Facebook has blocked access throughout the country of India to SFJ's Facebook page.  The complaint (full text) in Sikhs For Justice"SFJ", Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., (ND CA, filed 6/2/2015), contends that Facebook is subject to the public accommodation provisions of the federal 1964 Civil Rights Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.  It alleges that Facebook collaborated with the government of India in retaliating against SFJ for its online campaign against  forced conversion of Christians, Muslims and Sikhs to Hinduism; support for a referendum in Punjab for an independent Sikh country; and amendment of the Indian constitution's provision that labels Sikhs as Hindus. The complaint alleges further:

Defendant willfully, intentionally, purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, and/or negligently deprived Plaintiff and its members in the entire India of the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of Defendant’s internet-based social networking service as a place of public accommodation, as defined in 42 USC Section 2000a.

... Defendant did so deprive Plaintiff and its members with discrimination and segregation on the ground of race, religion, ancestry, and national origin.

Times of India reports on the lawsuit.

California School District Settles Allowing Native American Graduate To Wear Eagle Feather

California's Clovis Unified School District reached a settlement yesterday with Christian Titman, a Native American high school senior who had filed suit two days earlier to force the school district to allow him to wear  an eagle feather during graduation ceremonies today.  (ACLU press release.) Titman argued that the refusal to allow him to honor his Native American heritage and family in this way violated his free speech and religious exercise rights.  (Full text of complaint in Titman v. Clovis Unified School District, CA Super. Ct., filed 6/1/2015.)  The settlement agreement (full text) provides in part:

Christian Titman will be permitted to ... wear the agreed upon prepared eagle feather ... in his hair during the graduation ceremony; and ... upon receipt of his diploma ... is permitted to adorn his graduation cap with the agreed upon eagle feather, and to participate in the tassel turn with the eagle feather connected to his tassel....

Under the agreement, the school will issue a statement indicating that while it remains committed to its tradition of decorum at graduation, it is also committed to working with students and families on accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs.

More Legal Maneuvering Against Same-Sex Marriage In Alabama As U.S. Supreme Court's Decision Nears

With the U.S. Supreme Court less than a month away from finally settling the issue, legal sparring over same-sex marriage continues in Alabama. Two groups that had secured from the Alabama Supreme Court a writ of mandamus ordering Probate Court judges around the state to discontinue the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples (see prior posting) filed a "Motion for Clarification and Reaffirmation of the Court's Orders Upholding and Enforcing Alabama's Marriage Laws".  The motion and supporting memorandum of law (full text) in Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, (AL Sup. Ct., filed 6/2/2015), asked the state Supreme Court to reaffirm its order in light of intervening U.S. federal district court decisions (see prior posting) granting a preliminary injunction (which the district court then stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming decision) barring all Alabama probate judges from refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the motion which said in part: "The Alabama Supreme Court’s prior mandamus Order, and perhaps its disposition of this motion, should send a message that any ruling by Judge Granade or even the United States Supreme Court inventing a right to same-sex 'marriage'a under the U.S. Constitution is illegitimate."

Court Allows Student Distribution of Gospel Tracts

In Leal v. Everett Public Schools, (WD WA, May 29, 2015), a Washington federal district court entered an order (full text) expunging the suspensions of high school senior Michael Leal who has been disciplined for insisting on handing out gospel tracts to fellow students.  The court also held that the portion of Everett Public Schools' policies that allow a student to hand out literature only if it is written or produced by the student violates Leal's free speech rights.  However, the court permitted the school to limit the locations and times at which Leal can hand out literature, and limit his preaching to a free speech area.  The court spelled out the reasons for its order in a ruling from the bench. King5 News reports on the decision as does a press release from Pacific Justice Institute.

Oregon Tax Court Says Rectory Not Tax-Exempt

In St. Mary Star of the Sea Catholic Church, Astoria v. Clatsop County Assessor, (OR Tax Ct., May 6, 2015), an Oregon Tax Court magistrate held that a residential structure located 1.5 miles from the church used as a church rectory did not qualify for a property tax exemption "because the evidence shows the rectory is not reasonably necessary to carry out the religious aims of the church..."  The court said in part:

Although [the parish priest] does write sermons and homilies at the rectory, those duties do not require close physical proximity to the church.... The other uses of the rectory have no direct connection to the church; they certainly do not require a rectory in close proximity to the church. There was generalized testimony about the availability of guest bedrooms for visiting priests, deacons, and seminarians, but no specific testimony or other evidence that such officials have stayed at the subject property and, if so, how many and how often they were there....

Forbes reports on the decision.

Cert Petition Filed In Family Dispute Over Repatriation of Athlete Jim Thorpe's Remains To Tribal Cemetery

Yesterday a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma v. Borough of Jim Thorpe.  In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2014 decision (full text) held that despite its literal language, Congress did not intend the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) to apply to a dispute between the sons of famous Native American Athlete Jim Thorpe who died in 1953 and the Pennsylvania town that renamed itself after Thorpe in an agreement with Thorpe's widow (his third wife) to have his remains buried there. Some of Thorpe's children from prior marriages have insisted that his remains be moved to Sac and Fox tribal land in Oklahoma. Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reports on the cert. petition.

Church Sues To Enforce Bequest

The Tampa Bay Times reported yesterday on a lawsuit filed by Christ the King Catholic Church, one of the Tampa, Florida area's most prominent churches, against Teresa "Terri" Gaffney, a lawyer who is prominent in the Hillsborough County Republican Party.  The church says that Gaffney's father John J. Gaffney who died in 2011 had directed in his will that his house be sold, the proceeds used to pay any remaining expenses for his care, and the remainder be distributed to the Church.  But instead, Theresa Gaffney transferred the house to her daughter.  Gaffney says the house was never willed to the Church, and that the Church is suing her because her children have been raised in the Jewish faith of her husband. The house is valued at $344,000.

Michigan Supreme Court Dismisses Chabad Property Dispute On Statute of Limitations Grounds

In Chabad-Lubavitch of Michigan v. Schuchman, (MI Sup. Ct., May 20, 2015), the Michigan Supreme Court in a brief opinion reversed the state court of appeals in a dispute between Chabad-Lubavitch of Michigan and a local Chabad organization over ownership of a Chabad center in West Bloomfield. The parent organization claimed that the property should have been titled in its name. In the case, the appeals court had rejected defendants' statute of limitations defense, holding that the statute was equitably tolled during the time that the parties were engaged in Chabad's mandatory ecclesiastical dispute resolution process. (See prior posting.)  Reversing, the Michigan Supreme Court said "there are no grounds on which to equitably toll the statute of limitations."

27 Members of Congress Urge New AG To Help Strengthen Anti-Profiling Ban

Yesterday 27 members of Congress sent a letter (full text) to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch urging stronger limits on religious and ethnic profiling than are set out in December 2014 guidelines issued by her predecessor Eric Holder. While the 2014 guidelines for the first time extended anti-profiling restrictions to national origin, gender, gender identity, religion, and sexual orientation (see prior posting), yesterday's letter pointed out a number of weaknesses in those guidelines: they are only advisory and do not offer victims any remedy; they still permit surveillance in order to map and infiltrate Muslim communities based on religious identity; and they do not cover profiling at airports, borders or by state and local officials.  The letter urged Lynch to work with Congress to adopt a comprehensive federal anti-profiling program. [Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]

USCIRF Condemns Sudan's Prosecution of 2 Pastors

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a press release yesterday condemning the government of Sudan for its continuing prosecution of two Christian clergymen on "baseless charges of undermining Sudan’s constitution and waging war against the state"-- crimes which carry a possible death penalty or life in prison.  USCIRF says:

Revs. [Yat] Michael and [Peter] Reith, both of South Sudanese origin, belong to the Presbyterian Evangelical Church Khartoum Bahri congregation.  The congregation has brought a legal case against Sudanese authorities to stop the illegal sale of church land by Sudanese authorities to a Muslim businessman.  The National Intelligence Security Services (NISS) detained Rev. Michael in December 2014, after recording him urging parishioners at a church service to continue standing firm through the trials they were experiencing.  The same month, authorities partially destroyed the church and arrested 37 congregants.  Rev. Reith was detained in January 2015.  Both pastors were held at an undisclosed location and were not granted access to lawyers and family until March 1.

The defendants are also charged with insulting  religious beliefs, breach of the public peace, arousing feelings of discontent among the regular forces and disclosure of official information.

Church Sues Over Zoning Restrictions That Are Forcing It To Move

The San Diego Reader reports on a lawsuit filed May 28 by the San Diego Christian Worship Center against the city challenging zoning restrictions that will force the church to relocate in September.  The city granted the church a 5-year conditional use permit in 2010, and the church made $700,000 of improvements to its site. In 2014 the city changed the zoning in the area to "prime industrial," which does not allow churches, and the city says it will not renew the conditional use permit. The church lacks the resources to find a new building. Apparently the complaint contends that the new zoning designation, which excludes instructional studios and entertainment venues as well as churches, amounts to a prior restraint on First Amendment expression.  The church also claims-- presumably invoking RLUIPA-- that the cost of preparing an application every 5 years to renew its conditional use permit imposes a substantial burden on its exercise of religion.  It will cost $50,000 to $100,000 to prepare the application, which must include an environmental impact statement.

Supreme Court Rules Against Abercrombie In Title VII Religious Accommodation Case

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., (Sup. Ct., June 1, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court today reversed the 10th Circuit's holding on when employers must offer a reasonable accommodation for an employee's religious practices.  The 10th Circuit had held that Abercrombie & Fitch did not violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it failed to reasonably accommodate Samantha Elauf's need to wear a headscarf because Elauf had not informed the company that she wore the hijab for religious reasons and would need an accommodation. (See prior posting.)  In an opinion by Justice Scalia, 7 justices held:

Motive and knowledge are separate concepts. An employer who has actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation does not violate Title VII by refusing to hire an applicant if avoiding that accommodation is not his motive. Conversely, an employer who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation may violate Title VII even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed.

Thus, the rule for disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is straightforward: An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions....

A request for accommodation, or the employer’s certainty that the practice exists, may make it easier to infer motive, but is not a necessary condition of liability.

Justice Alito concurred only in the judgment, urging a different test for liability.  He concluded that Abercrombie is liable only if it had knowledge that Elauf wore her headscarf for religious reasons, but that there was sufficient evidence that Abercrombie had such knowledge that the court should not have granted summary judgment to defendants.

Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that Abercrombie's actions did not amount to disparate treatment (or intentional discrimination):

Abercrombie refused to create an exception to its neutral Look Policy for Samantha Elauf ’s religious practice of wearing a headscarf.... In doing so, it did not treat religious practices less favorably than similar secular practices, but instead remained neutral with regard to religious practices. To be sure, the effects of Abercrombie’s neutral Look Policy, absent an accommodation, fall more harshly on those who wear headscarves as an aspect of their faith. But that is a classic case of an alleged disparate impact.

Politico reports on the decision.

District Court Applies Hobby Lobby To Auto Dealership

In Holland v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D WV, May 29, 2015), a West Virginia federal district court, applying the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, issued a permanent injunction barring federal authorities from enforcing the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage requirement, as in effect June 30, 2014, against a West Virginia auto dealership. The complaint (full text) in the case was brought by Joe Holland Chevrolet, Inc., a closely-held corporation, and its 91% owner who became a born-again Christian in 1996. Joe Holland objects to providing coverage for Plan B and ella, contraceptives that he considers abortifacients. Charleston Daily Mail reports on the decision. Liberty Institute issued a press release on the decision.

Turkey's Constitutional Court Invalidates Ban On Religious Marriage Without Civil Certificate

Anadolu Agency and Hurriyet Daily News report on the May 27 decision by Turkey's Constitutional Court striking down Sec. 230 paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Turkish Criminal Code that prohibit arranging or conducting a religious marriage ceremony without obtaining a civil marriage as well. Four of the 16 judges dissented.  Stressing the constitutional protection for freedom of religion and conscience, the court majority said that since it is legal for couples to live together without being married at all, equal treatment requires allowing couples to live together with only a religious ceremony.  Reacting, officials expressed concern that the decision will encourage the illegal marrying off of children and the erosion of the position of women. The case arose when a lower court in Erzurum province referred a case to the Constitutional Court instead of convicting an imam and the couple he married.

Kansas Catholic School Sued Over Child Neglect Report

Saturday's Kansas City Star reported on a lawsuit filed in Johnson County, Kansas state court last month against the Catholic Archdiocese of Kansas City, Sacred Heart Catholic Church and its school principal.  Plaintiff Melissa Schroeder claims that she told the school her 10-year old daughter was suffering significant health problems from ongoing bullying. Instead of resolving the problem, the suit alleges that school officials filed a false report with the state child welfare agency claiming abuse and neglect, reporting that the child's mother falsified the child's medical documents and had requested an exorcism for her daughter.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Gabor Halmai, Religion and Constitutionalism, (MTA Working Paper No. 2015/05 (May 2015)).
• Elizabeth Pollman, Corporate Law and Theory in Hobby Lobby, (Forthcoming in The Rise of Corporate Religous Liberty (Zoë Robinson, Chad Flanders & Micah Schwartzman, eds., Oxford University Press 2015)).
• Michael John DeBoer, Legislating Morality Progressively -- The Contraceptive Coverage Mandate, Religious Freedom, and Public Health Policy and Ethics, (Journal of Law and Health, Vol. 28, p. 62, 2015).
• Doug Coulson, British Imperialism, the Indian Independence Movement, and the Racial Eligibility Provisions of the Naturalization Act: United States v. Thind Revisited, (Georgetown Journal of Law & Modern Critical Race Perspectives 7 (2015): 1-42).
• Timothy Zick, First Amendment Cosmopolitanism, Skepticism, and Democracy, (Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 76, No. 3, 2015).
• Margaret M. Blair & Elizabeth Pollman, The Derivative Nature of Corporate Constitutional Rights, (56 William & Mary Law Review 1563 (2015).
• Noel Cox, Justice, Fairness and the Common Law: The Tort of Misfeasance in Public Office, (May 26, 2015).
• Michael J. Perry, On the Constitutionality and Political Morality of Granting Conscience-Protecting Exemptions Only to Religious Believers, (Emory Public Law Research Paper No. 15-356 (May 2015)).
• John D. Inazu, Introduction: Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving Through Deep Difference, (in J. Inazu, Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving Through Deep Difference, University of Chicago Press, 2016, Forthcoming).
• Ellen D. Katz, Dignity and Discriminatory Intent: What the Marriage Equality Cases Tell Us About Voter ID, (University of Chicago Legal Forum, Forthcoming).

Muslim Interfaith Advocate Charges United Airlines With Discrimination

CNN reports that Tahera Ahmad, the 31-year old Muslim chaplain and director of interfaith engagement at Northwestern University is charging that United Airlines discriminated against her on a flight Friday from Chicago to Washington. Wearing a hijab (headscarf), she was on her way to attend a conference promoting dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian youth. Ahmed asked the flight attendant for an unopened can of Diet Coke, but was told: "We are unauthorized to give unopened cans to people because they may use it as a weapon on the plane." However the flight attendant gave the passenger next to Ahmad an unopened can of beer. As reported by CNN:

When Ahmad told the flight attendant she was being discriminated against, the attendant abruptly opened the beer can.  "It's so you don't use it as a weapon," Ahmad said she was told. Shocked, Ahmad asked other passengers if they had seen what happened. A man sitting across the aisle turned to her and yelled, "You Muslim, you need to shut the f--- up," she said. "What?" The man leaned over, looked her in the eyes and said: "Yes, you know you would use it as a weapon. So shut the f--- up"....

The flight attendant as well as the pilot later apologized.  Ahmed has Premier frequent flier status with United.  United said: "We are ... discussing the matter ... with Shuttle America, our regional partner that operated the flight. We look forward to speaking with Ms. Ahmad and hope to have the opportunity to welcome her back."

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Grief v. Ask-Carlson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66653 (ED NY, May 21, 2015), a New York federal district court dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's claim that he needs two stuffed animals to use in his practice of meditation that is part of his quest for spiritual enlightenment.

In Allah v. Wade, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66690 (ED NC, May 20, 2015), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that his religious material was seized and declared contraband and non-religious.

In Shabazz v. Lokey, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67051 (WD VA, May 22, 2015), a Virginia federal district court permitted an inmate to move ahead with his claim that his Nation of Islam materials were seized and wrongly declared to be gang-related "Five Percenter" documents.

In Aytch v. Cox, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67180 (D NV, May 21, 2015), a Nevada federal district court granted a Muslim inmate a preliminary injunction ordering prison officials to provide him with a diet that complies with both the tenets of his Muslim faith and his low sodium medical needs.

In Quinn v. Management & Training Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68388 (SD MS, May 4, 2015), a Mississippi federal magistrate judge recommended that an inmate's claim that officials refused to recognize Voodoo as his religion and to allow him access to written religious materials be dismissed as abandoned by plaintiff at the hearing.

In Winston v. Gray, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69388 (ED MO, May 29, 2015), a Missouri federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that he is being denied kosher meals because he failed to comply with the court's discovery order.

In Sessing v. Beard, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69916 (ED CA, May 28, 2015), a California federal magistrate judge vacated his earlier findings and recommendation to dismiss and gave plaintiff 30 days to file a new complaint alleging that Asatru/Odinists were arbitrarily denied access to the Native American fire pit and to a suitable worship area.

In Wahid v. Cruzen, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70036 (ND CA, May 28, 2015), a California federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to proceed with his claim for nominal and punitive damages for authorities' interrupting Muslim congregational prayer on one day.