District Court Refuses To Extend Exemption From Contraceptive Mandate To Non-Religious Organization and Its Religious Employees

In Real Alternatives, Inc. v. Burwell, (MD PA, Dec. 10, 2015), a Pennsylvania federal district court, in a  76-page opinion, rejected two related challenges to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate.  The first challenge was brought by a non-profit, non-religious, pro-life organization that claimed equal protection principles require that it be extended the same exemption from furnishing its employees contraceptive coverage as is given to religious employers. The court held that the government's interest in protecting religious freedom is a rational basis for distinguishing religious from non-religious groups, and that the group here differs significantly from a religious organization:

Here ... we confront only Real Alternatives’ mission statement – a brief, single sentence explaining that Real Alternatives is a business which “exists to provide life-affirming alternatives to abortion services throughout the nation.”...  Though based on moral beliefs, this single mission statement is not “equivalent to religion.” ... It does not provide a comprehensive code to guide individuals in their day-to-day life challenges. It does not operate to fill the same position in one’s mind that religion can occupy. More akin to a political position with moral underpinnings than a coherent ideology, Real Alternatives’ single mission statement is simply not comparable to a philosophic belief system such as Janism or Buddhism....

The court also held that various provisions in federal law that protect conscience rights of those that object to abortion are inapplicable here:

Though Plaintiffs may believe that certain FDA-approved contraceptives cause abortions, federal law has never equated emergency contraceptives with abortion.

The second challenge was by the three employees of Real Alternatives (all lawyers) who argued that the government violated RFRA by forcing them to obtain insurance that includes coverage for drugs and devices to which they are religiously opposed. The court rejected this contention, finding that the requirement does not impose a "substantial burden" on their religious exercise because it does not cause them to modify their behavior in violation of their beliefs:

[W]e cannot in good conscience find that a burden which ... requires no independent affirmative act on the Plaintiffs’ part, is substantial enough to run afoul of the RFRA.

The court went on to hold that the mandate furthers the government's compelling interests in gender equality and public health.  It added another consideration:

Often, as is the case with Plaintiffs today, entire families are covered by one plan. Health care coverage decisions therefore are not left wholly to the individual but are often made in the context of the family. Yet there is no guarantee that every member of a family covered by a plan feels similarly regarding contraceptive services. If families with religious objections to contraceptive coverage are able to opt out of such coverage, the determination of whether to do so is left to the collective family unit. This collective decision could create untold tension and familial strife should disagreement over contraceptive coverage arise, which is more likely now that children up to the age of twenty-six may be covered by their parents’ plans.

Supreme Court Grants Cert In Prisoner Rights Case

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in a prisoner rights case, Ross v. Blake, (Docket No. 15-339, cert. denied 12/11/2015) (Order List).  While the case does not raise prisoner free exercise issues, its resolution will impact litigation by prisoners claiming failure to accommodate religious beliefs.  In the case, the 4th Circuit in a 2-1 decision (full text) held that the requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act that an inmate exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit is satisfied when the inmate reasonably, though erroneously, believed he had exhausted all internal remedies.  SCOTUSblog's case page with links to all the filings in the case is here.

Court Suggests Innovative Interpretation of ERISA "Church Plan" Exemption

A series of cases filed around the country have challenged the treatment of Catholic hospital system pension plans as "church plans" exempt from ERISA. Often challengers are employees who contend that the plans have not been funded in compliance with ERISA or met other ERISA requirements.  The issue has generally been framed as whether it is sufficient that the plans are maintained by the church-affiliated organization that created them, or instead whether the plans must have been established by a "church" for the affiliated medical systems in order to qualify as a "church plan." (See prior posting.)  The statutory language in ERISA is ambiguous.

Now in Medina v. Catholic Health Initiatives, (D CO, Dec. 8, 2015), a Colorado federal district court, while coming down on the side of those courts which have ruled that it is enough that the plan be established and maintained by the affiliated medical system, has also suggested a more direct way to cut the Gordian knot.  It suggests that a Catholic health care system is itself a "church", not just an organization affiliated with a church:

[T]he suggestion that a church is no more than a physical place in which to worship evidences a profound misunderstanding and understatement of the nature of religious devotion and service. At the heart of any church are the religious principles that inform its founding, as animated by the faithful adherents to those principles. Indeed, there would be no need for a house in which to worship if there were no worshipers to gather there. In other words, a church is defined principally by its people – the body of the faithful who profess a similar set of guiding religious principles. Where such people gather to express, in word or deed, the principles and mission of their faith, they are the church.

Under this more resonant definition, the court has little trouble in concluding that CHI is, at the very least, a constituent part of the Catholic Church. 

The court also held that the ERISA church plan exemption does not violate the Establishment Clause. saying "Congress’s expressed purpose in carving out the church plan exemption was precisely to avoid unnecessary entanglement with religion."

Australian Court Finds Anglican Diocese Liable For $40M Bank Loan

In Anglican Development Fund Diocese of Bathurst v. Palmer, (NSW Sup. Ct., Dec. 10, 2015), a trial court in the Australian state of New South Wales held (in a 615 paragraph opinion) that the Anglican Diocese of Bathurst is liable for a $40 million (Aus.) loan (equivalent to $29M US) from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia which the bank extended, under a special policy for loans to certain religious organizations, solely on the basis of "a letter of acknowledgment" from the Bishop of Bathurst. The Diocese's Anglican Development Fund had reloaned $28 million (Aus.) of the funds to two start-up schools that failed.  The Sydney Morning Herald reports on the decision.

British Columbia Court Requires Law Society Approval of Trinity Western Law School

In Trinity Western University v. Law Society of British Columbia, (BC SC, Dec. 10, 2015), a British Columbia trial court reinstated an April 2014 vote by the Benchers of the Law Society of British Columbia approving graduates of Trinity Western University Law School for entry into the Society's bar admissions program.  In October 2014, the benchers had reversed their earlier approval after a referendum of the full membership disapproved of Trinity Western's required community covenant for students and faculty. The covenant includes a prohibition on sexual intimacy outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. (See prior posting.) The court however concluded that the referendum and subsequent October vote of the Benchers were procedurally flawed:

There is no basis upon which a conclusion could be drawn ... that the LSBC’s membership considered, let alone balanced, the petitioners’ Charter rights against the competing rights of the LGBTQ community....

While the Benchers clearly weighed the competing Charter rights of freedom of religion and equality before voting on the April Motion, the record does not permit such a conclusion to be reached with respect to the Benchers’ vote of October 31, 2014. As the respondent had bound itself to accept the referendum results of its members, I am unable to find that the vote of the LSBC’s members or the impugned decision considered, let alone balanced, the two implicated Charter rights. Further support for this conclusion comes from the fact that opposite results were reached by the Benchers’ votes of April 11 and October 31, 2014, despite the October 31, 2014 vote being conducted without any substantive discussion or debate.

CTV News reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Non-Discrimination Fix To Indiana's RFRA ; Local Anti-Discrimination Laws

In Indiana yesterday, two pro-family advocacy groups filed suit in state court challenging the constitutionality of this year's anti-discrimination "fix" to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The suit also challenges the legality of two local anti-discrimination ordinances-- one adopted by the city of Carmel and one by Indianapolis-Marion County.  The 178-paragraph complaint (full text) in Indiana Family Institute, Inc. v. City of Carmel, Indiana, (IN Super. Ct., filed 12/10/2015), says that plaintiff organizations believe in the Biblical teaching that marriage must be between one man and one woman, and that sexual relations must be within that marriage context.  They want to follow these teachings in their employment decisions and their programs.  They contend that the challenged laws preclude this, and in doing so violate a variety of state and federal constitutional provisions.  In a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit, plaintiffs' attorneys said in part:

RFRA originally protected all religious viewpoints and insured a high level of protection for peoples' free exercise of religion.  The 'fix,' however, stripped that protection based on a person's particular religious view, such as, opposition to same-sex marriage.  This pits some religions that the government protects against other religions that will suffer government punishment if they don't fall in line.  We believe this discrimination between religious views is unconstitutional...

Indianapolis Star reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: In January 2016 plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Bloomington and Columbus, Indiana as defendants.

Suit Against Church Claims Plaintiffs Were Defamed After They Opposed Hiring Openly Gay Pastor

The Fargo Forum in an initial and follow-up article reports on a lawsuit filed this week in Cass County, North Dakota state district court against a Kindred, North Dakota Lutheran church, church leaders and the church's parent bodies.  Plaintiffs Ray and Joan Grabanski who had been church members for 23 years seek damages for defamation and infliction of emotional distress. The Grabanskis opposed the church's hiring of an openly gay pastor. As recounted by the Forum:

The lawsuit says when the Grabanskis made their views known, they were subjected to "public ridicule, scorn, intimidation, isolation" by the church leadership, and were told the congregation was too liberal for them.

Joan Grabanski was asked to stop teaching Sunday school, and the couple was told they could leave or be forced out, with church leaders calling them "a cancer," the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit alleges the local synod of the ELCA was aware of the conflict and failed to stop the damaging behavior.

It names the ELCA and the Eastern North Dakota Synod of the ELCA, as well as the church's interim pastor and two other church leaders.

Defendants are seeking dismissal arguing that civil courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate doctrinal beliefs or interpret a church's constitution. [Thanks to Christopher Dodson for the lead.]

Obama Hosts Two White House Hanukkah Receptions

President Obama yesterday hosted two Hanukkah receptions at the White House-- one at 4 pm and the other at 7:30 pm.  Press coverage has focused on the first at which, as reported by the Times of Israel, visiting Israeli President President Reuven Rivlin lit the Hanukkah candles.  Last month the White House asked the public to suggest special menorahs that might be used at this year's receptions, and yesterday it posted the stories of the two that were chosen plus several runners up.  A 15-minute video of remarks by Obama and Rivlin, as well as by Rabbi Susan Talve, at the first reception has been posted by the White House on YouTube.

Bill In Israel's Knesset Encouraging Female Muslim Judges Draws Orthodox Jewish Opposition

While it is well known that Israel has a system of Jewish religious courts, it is sometimes overlooked that the country also has a system of religious courts for over a dozen other religious communities.  These religious courts deal with personal status family law matters of Israelis who are members of those religious groups. (Background.) Times of Israel reported yesterday on a bill proposed by three members of the Knesset (Israel's Parliament) that would require those appointing judges to Muslim religious courts to include at least one woman on the list of nominees and encourage in other ways election of women to Muslim courts. The bill has the backing of the important Ministerial Committee of Legislation.  However under the coalition agreement between the parties in Prime Minister Netanyahu's government, the ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party has a veto over legislation on religion-state matters.  A party spokesman said it was planning to exercise the veto here because it fears the bill could set a precedent for Jewish religious judges which, under Orthodox Jewish law, are only male.

Alien Tort Suit Focuses On Sectarian Rivalry In Turkey

A suit seeking damages under the Alien Tort Statute was filed in a Pennsylvania federal district court this week against Muhammed Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish cleric who has lived in the United States since 1998. The complaint (full text) in Ates v. Gulen, (MD PA, filed 12/7/2015) was nominally brought by three individuals who are members of the Sunni Muslim Dogan Movement, an Anatolian offshoot of the rival Nur Movement.  However according to BuzzFeed News, the Turkish government is behind the lawsuit because Gulen is now an archrival of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

According to the complaint:

Over the course of the past two decades, Mr. Gülen has implemented a political strategy of encouraging his followers to secure official positions within the official Turkish state apparatus – notably in police, prosecutorial and judicial positions – through whom he is able to exercise a corrupt influence in Turkish society....

Defendant intentionally ordered the coordinated, systematic attack on members of the Doğan Movement because of that group’s religious beliefs and public criticism of Defendant. Defendant ordered his co-conspirators in Turkey to use their high level positions in Turkish law enforcement to identify members of the Doğan Movement, plant evidence, and target them for arrest and incarceration.

 The complaint also alleges:

Mr. Gülen has an international following estimated to approach 10 million people. He has developed a vast network of businesses and non-governmental organizations that supply him with financial support, and he is estimated to control at least $25 billion in assets. In the United States, Mr. Gülen controls dozens of business entities and more than 120 charter schools in various states, many of which are or have been under investigation by state and federal criminal and regulatory authorities.

City Will Sue Church Over Ownership of Land On Which Religious Welcome Sign Stands

In Hawkins, Texas, on a 50' x 45' parcel of land between two roads, visitors are greeted with a sign reading "Jesus welcomes you to Hawkins".  In June, the Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote the city objecting to the sign (see prior posting), and in September city council voted to remove it. Tuesday's Tyler Morning Telegraph recounts what happened next. Almost immediately after the vote, members of the Jesus Christ Open Altar Church cordoned off the site on which the welcome sign stands, and had members guarding the site at all hours of the day and night. The Church then purported to buy the land and sign from two funeral homes.  But the city attorney says that the funeral homes did not own the land, so that their deeds to the church conveyed nothing.  On Tuesday, City Council voted to sue the Church and the funeral homes to establish the city's ownership of the property, even though Hawkins' mayor disagrees with City Council's decision.

Suit Challenges North Carolina Law Allowing Officials To Opt Out of Same-Sex Marriage Duties

As previously reported, last June the North Carolina General Assembly overrode the governor's veto to pass to pass Senate Bill 2 that gives individual magistrates have the right to recuse themselves from performing marriages based on any sincerely held religious belief and gives individual register of deeds personnel the right to opt out of issuing marriage licenses on similar grounds. (See prior related posting.) Yesterday three couples filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the new law.  One of the couples is already in a same-sex marriage; a second same-sex couple acting as plaintiffs are engaged to be married; and the third are a blind, heterosexual interracial couple who in 1976 had to sue in order to marry because two North Carolina magistrates refused to perform the ceremony on religious grounds.

The complaint (full text) in Ansley v. State of North Carolina, (WD NC, filed 12/9/2015) contends that Senate Bill 2 violates the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process Clause.  WNCN News reports on the filing of the lawsuit.  Rev. Mark Creech of the Christian Action League called the lawsuit "an effort by gay activism to run people of faith completely out of the public sector."  On the other side, Rev. Jamine Beach-Ferrara of the Campaign for Southern Equality argued that the bill "distorts the true meaning of religious freedom."

Federal Court In Habeas Action Finds California Prosecutor's Use of Biblical References Prejudicial

In Roybal v. Davis, (SD CA, Dec. 2, 2015), a California federal district court granted penalty phase habeas corpus relief in a petition brought by a defendant who had been sentenced to death by a California state jury in the robbery and stabbing murder of a 65-year old woman.  The district court found that the California Supreme Court was "objectively unreasonable" in concluding that improper argument by the prosecutor during the penalty phase of the murder trial was harmless error and not prejudicial to the defendant. (People v. Roybal,  (1998)). At issue were Biblical references made by the prosecutor.  The district court, in a very lengthy opinion dealing with numerous other objections as well, said in part:

It is without question that the prosecutor improperly urged the jurors to impose a death sentence on Petitioner based on biblical law.... [T]he prosecutor did not stop with simply drawing parallels between state law and biblical law which, in itself, would have been misconduct. He went on to quote directly from the Bible, asserting that biblical text demanded a specific punishment for murder.... Such argument could only have been meant to urge the jurors to find justification for a death sentence in biblical text, authority well outside the penal code, and to subvert or frustrate their consideration of the proper sentencing factors under state law....

Here, the prosecutor's unambiguous, repeated, and carefully timed improper exhortations to the jury to apply biblical law diminished the jurors' sense of personal decision-making for the imposition of the death penalty. In so many words, the jury was informed that the Bible requires a murderer who kills with iron (i.e. knife) to himself be put to death. The prosecutor's improper argument presented an intolerable danger that the jury minimized its role as factfinder and encouraged jurors to vote for death because it was God's will, and not that the imposition of the death penalty complied with California and federal law.....

As discussed above, the California Supreme Court correctly found that the prosecutor's religious argument was misconduct and fell outside the bounds of both state and federal law, but unreasonably found that the comments were not prejudicial.

San Diego Union Tribune reports on the decision.

9th Circuit Hears Arguments In Suit Over FBI Infiltration of Mosques

Yesterday the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in Fazaga v. FBI.  The class action lawsuit against the FBI and FBI agents alleges that the government wrongfully spied on mainstream mosques in Southern California and targeted Muslims for surveillance because of their religion. (ACLU case page.)  In the case, a California federal district court dismissed claims against the FBI because of the state secrets privilege, agreeing that national security would be endangered by disclosing targets in counter-terrorism investigations. The court, however, permitted claims under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act against individual FBI agents and supervisors to proceed. (See prior posting.) Politico reports on yesterday's oral arguments, in which all the questions to counsel were asked by Judge Berzon.

Another County Clerk's Religious Response To Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

The latest kerfuffle over marriage equality has surfaced in Kiowa, Colorado where the Ebert County Clerk-- responsible for marriage licenses-- has hung a controversial poster above the desks where marriage licenses are issued. According to Denver7 News, the poster, made specifically in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage, shows a bride and groom along with a Biblical quotation (I Corinthians 7:2) reading "...each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."  County Clerk Dallas Schroeder explained in an e-mail to other county clerks:

My thought process is that they [same-sex couples] have to see the poster, and if they choose to violate God’s written Word, then that is on their head.

Muslim Student Sues Missouri Prof Over Alleged Bigoted Comments

Yesterday's Missourian reports on a lawsuit filed Nov. 30 against University of Missouri biology professor Michael Garcia by Fatma El-Walid, an observant Muslim student who was in one of Garcia's classes.  The suit, seeking $25,000 in damages, claims that the professor directed offensive and bigoted comments at the student during office hours, resulting in trauma that impacted her grades and the loss of a scholarship. According to the report:

The lawsuit alleges that ... Garcia asked El-Walid if her parents had waterboarded her "as a child in preparation for the future," wanted to know if her faith made her hate gay people and Jews, suggested she should pose as a suicide bomber and made sexually suggestive remarks, among other comments.

Garcia's lawyer says his client denies the charges.

Britain's Commission on Religion In Public Life Issues Final Report

The Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life-- created by the Woolf Institute in 2013-- released its final report yesterday. The Commission was chaired by a distinguished retired British judge, Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss. The 104-page report titled Living With Difference-- Community, Diversity and the Common Good makes wide-ranging recommendations.  It identifies important religious changes in Britain over the past 50 years: an increase in the number of non-religious individuals; a general decline in Christian affiliation, belief and practice; and increased diversity of religious beliefs among those who profess a religion. The report sets out a broad vision:

The commission’s vision is of a society at ease with itself in which all individuals, groups and communities feel at home, and in whose flrishing all wish to take part. In such a society all:

• feel a positive part of an ongoing national story – what it means to be British is not fixed and final, for people in the past understood the concept differently from the way it is seen today and all must be able to participate in shaping its meaning for the future

• are treated with equal respect and concern by the law, the state and public authorities

• know that their culture, religion and beliefs are embraced as part of a continuing process of mutual enrichment, and that their contributions to the texture of the nation’s common life are valued

• are free to express and practise their beliefs, religious or otherwise, providing they do not constrict the rights and freedoms of others

• are confdent in helping to shape public policy

• feel challenged to respond to the many manifest ills in wider society.

The Guardian reports on some of the Commission's recommendations, focusing particularly on those affecting schools.

Santeria Priest Extradited To Massachusetts To Face Trial For Stealing Human Remains

According to CBS Connecticut, Amador Medina-- a 32 year old man who says he is a Santeria priest-- waived extradition back to Massachusetts in a Connecticut court hearing today.  Medina is accused of stealing five sets of human remains from a mausoleum in a cemetery in Worcester, Massachusetts, in order to use them in healing rituals.  As reported by the Canon Place Mercury, the skeletal remains date from the early 1900's.  Medina cooperated with police and showed them where the remains were in his Hartford apartment.  The Connecticut judge set Medina's bond at $300,000 and ordered mental health treatment for him.  Medina is unemployed and will not be able to post the bond.

Catholic Diocese of Duluth Files For Bankruptcy Reorganization

The Catholic Diocese of Duluth announced yesterday that it has filed on an emergency basis for bankruptcy protection in order to reorganize under Chapter 11.  The move comes after a jury last month found the Diocese liable for  $4.9 million in a clergy abuse case dating back to 1978. (See prior posting.) As reported by AP, the diocese faces five other sex abuse lawsuits that have already been filed, and has received notices of claims in 12 more.  Minnesota's 2013 Child Victims Act opened a statute of limitations window that closes next May for suit to be filed on old abuse claims. Plaintiff's attorney says that the bankruptcy stay delays attempts to force release of church documents on clergy sex abuse. A hearing on a motion to force release had been scheduled for December 17.  The Diocese's vicar general said that the filing safeguards the Diocese's limited assets, allows it to continue its day-to-day work, and ensures that all victims share justly in the resources available. This is the 15th U.S. diocese or religious order to file for bankruptcy reorganization.

Judge Rejects Challenge To Florida's School Voucher Program

According to AP, yesterday a Florida state trial court judge refused to grant a preliminary injunction against operation of the state's two main school voucher programs. State Circuit Judge George Reynolds held that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the program that provides private school tuition for children with disabilities.  He concluded that the other program that provides tuition assistance to low income families did not run afoul of state constitutional provisions, even though they allowed vouchers for attendance at religiously affiliated schools.  Another suit broadly challenging the adequacy of state funding for education however is still moving forward.