New Mexico Supreme Court Files Amended Opinion Again Striking Down Textbook Loan Program

Last week, the New Mexico Supreme Court denied a motion for a rehearing in its recent Blaine Amendment decision (see prior posting) invalidating the state statute that provides for the loan of secular textbooks to private and parochial school students, but substituted a new opinion for the one handed down last month. The primary change in its new opinion in Moses v. Skandera, (NM Sup. Ct., Dec. 23, 2015), is the addition of paragraphs 28 and 29 rejecting the argument that since funding for the textbook program comes from payments to the state under the federal Mineral Lands Leasing Act, this preempts state constitutional limits.  The court said in part:

The MLLA has neither expressly nor impliedly preempted the application of Article XII, Section 3 because restricting funds appropriated for educational purposes to public schools is not incompatible with the purposes announced in the MLLA. Thus, Intervenors’ argument that funds from the MLLA that are used for the Instructional Material Fund are federal funds which are “not subject to state constitutional limitations” is without merit.

Poll On Attitudes Toward Religious Liberty

AP reported yesterday on the release of a new AP-NORC poll that shows Americans do not value religious liberty equally for all religious groups:

Solid majorities said it was extremely or very important for the U.S. to uphold religious freedom in general. However, the percentages varied dramatically when respondents were asked about specific faith traditions, according to a poll by The Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Eighty-two percent said religious liberty protections were important for Christians, compared with 61 percent who said the same for Muslims. About seven in 10 said preserving Jews' religious freedom was important, while 67 percent said so of Mormons. People who identified with no religion were ranked about even with Muslims in needing support to live out their beliefs.

Malaysia Court of Appeal Says Civil Courts Have No Jurisdiction Over Religious Conversions

Malaysia Insider reports that yesterday in a 2-1 decision, Malaysia's Court of Appeal held that civil courts have no jurisdiction to void a contested conversion of three children to Islam. Only Shariah courts have jurisdiction. The Ipoh High Court (a civil court) had held that the conversion certificate entered by the Registrar of Conversion did not comply with Perak Shariah law because the conversion application was made unilaterally by the children's father, instead of by the children with the father's consent.  The children's mother, now divorced from the father, has also been battling with the father over custody of the children.

3rd Circuit Holds Catholic Healthcare Retirement Plan Is Not Exempt From ERISA

In a decision that could have major financial implications for religiously affiliated hospitals and healthcare systems, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday gave the first appellate level victory to employees who, in a series of cases, are claiming that various healthcare system retirement plans do not qualify for the "church plan" exemption from ERISA.  In Kaplan v. St. Peters Healthcare System, (3d Cir., Dec. 29, 2015), the court read the definitional provisions in the statute literally and held that to qualify as a "church plan," the retirement plan, while it may be "maintained" by the religiously-affiliated healthcare system whose employees are covered, must have been "established" by a church or convention or association of churches.  Since St. Peters' plan was created by the healthcare system, and not by the Catholic diocese, it does not qualify.  In so holding, the court refused to give deference to IRS determination that St. Peters' and plans like it are "church plans."  Without the exemption, the plan is subject to the fiduciary and funding requirements of ERISA.  As of 2014, St. Peters Healthcare retirement plan was underfunded by $30 million. Pensions & Investments reports on the decision.

Israeli Court Avoids Decision on Definition of Prayer on Temple Mount

In Israel on Monday, a Jerusalem district court reversed the order of a Magistrate's Court that had barred right-wing Jewish activist Yehuda Etzion from visiting the Temple Mount compound for 15 days. Haaretz and a press release from Honenu report on developments.  Etzion is founder of Hai VeKayam, a group that advocates allowing Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount where Muslim holy sites are located. Agreements between Israel, the Palestinians and Jordan call for maintaining the "status quo" at the Temple Mount site-- which means no Jewish prayer there.  On Dec. 22, authorities detained Etzion for walking on the Temple Mount with his arms raised, concluding that this violated the status quo.  On appeal, District Court judge Ram Vinograd said he did not need to definitively rule on the definition of an act of prayer since there was not fair warning to Etzion that police had changed their past interpretations to now ban raised arms.  During an earlier visit, police had not stopped Etzion from similar action. The judge commented on the problem of line drawing-- would merely lifting one's eyes upwards, or covering one's head, be enough to violate the prayer ban.

Etzion, obviously pushing the envelope, after the appeals court ruling described his action on the Temple Mount as follows:

With this act I sought to express a connection with the Temple Mount and the One who resides there, and I kept in my memory also the prayer of King Solomon, who spread his palms upwards. 

Bakery Owners Pay Judgment To Pursue Appeal In Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case

The Willamette Week reported Monday that the Oregon bakery that had been ordered by the state Bureau of Labor and Industries to pay $135,000 in damages for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex commitment ceremony, in order to appeal the ruling, paid the judgment (plus interest) on Monday. The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa decided to pay the $136,927 now due, instead of securing an appeal bond for the amount of the judgment. (See prior related posting.)  Supporters of the bakery owners have contributed at least $517,000 to them through crowdsourcing websites.

Suit Challenges Virginia School's Addition of Gender Identity To Non-Discrimination Rules

As reported by the Washington Post, last week a suit was filed in state court in Virginia challenging the Fairfax County School Board's addition of "gender identity" to its non-discrimination policy.  The change was made to comply with federal interpretation of Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  The complaint (full text) (Liberty Counsel press release) in Lafferty v. School Board of Fairfax County, (VA Cir. Ct., filed 12/21/2015), contends that the change violates a Virginia statute that prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting broader anti-discrimination protections than are accorded by state law. A state Attorney General's Opinion, however, had concluded that school boards do have the power to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The suit was brought by the head of the Traditional Values Coalition and by an anonymous high school student identified in the complaint as Jack Doe.  The suit contends:

Because the new policy and code of conduct are not sufficiently defined, Jack Doe has no way of knowing whether he can, for example, question someone who appears to be a girl using the boys’ restroom or locker room, refer to someone by a certain pronoun or even compliment someone on his/her attire without being subject to discipline for “discrimination.”...

Jack Doe is terrified of the thought of having to share intimate spaces with students who have the physical features of a girl, seeing such conduct as an invasion of his privacy, invasion of fellow students’ privacy and a violation of the though[t] patterns and understanding about male and female relationships which are part of his cultural values. 

Second Lawsuit Challenges Exclusion of Parochial Schools From Montana Tax Credit Plan

As previously reported, earlier this month a state court lawsuit was filed in Montana challenging an administrative rule that excludes religiously affiliated schools from participating in the state's new law that provides state income tax credits for contributions to student scholarship organizations.  This week a second challenge was filed, this time a lawsuit in federal court brought by parents and by the Association of Christian Schools International. (Pacific Legal Foundation press release.) The complaint (full text) in Armstrong v. Kadas, (D MT, filed 12/28/2015), alleges that enforcement of the administrative rule violates the U.S. Constitution's establishment, free exercise and equal protection clauses, as well as Montana law. Great Falls Tribune reports on the lawsuit.

Priest Charging Injury From False Accusations May Proceed With Most of His Claims

This week, a Missouri federal district court handed down two decisions in a suit by a Catholic priest who claims he has been falsely accused of child sexual abuse.  According to the court:

Plaintiff Reverend Xiu Hui “Joseph” Jiang is a Chinese-born ordained Catholic priest in the Archdiocese of St. Louis. Jiang asserts that ... A.M. and N.M. falsely accused him of sexually abusing their minor son for the purpose of monetary gain. Jiang also asserts that [two] officers of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, conducted an inadequate investigation of the abuse allegations and targeted plaintiff for prosecution because of his religion and ethnicity. He alleges that [the City] ... failed to properly train the officers.... Jiang further asserts that ... Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests ... led a public smear campaign against him which included making false accusations of child molestation in the media. The criminal case against Jiang ... was voluntarily dismissed shortly before trial....

According to the complaint ... had they conducted a more thorough investigation, they would have learned that the minor child had made unfounded claims of sexual abuse in the past and that he was mentally and emotionally troubled; that defendants A.M. and N.M. had a history of making unfounded allegations against the Catholic Church for financial gain; and that there were circumstances that made it impossible for plaintiff to have committed the abuse as alleged.

In Jiang v. Porter I, (ED MO, Dec. 28, 2015), the court denied SNAP's motion to dismiss the conspiracy, defamation and infliction of emotional distress claims against it, and concluded that the lawsuit is not covered by Missouri's anti-SLAPP statute.

In Jiang v. Porter II, (ED MO, Dec. 28, 2015), the court dismissed the vicarious liability,  unconstitutional policy and practice, failure to train and supervise, and infliction of emotional distress claims against the City of St. Louis.  However the court refused to dismiss equal protection, due process, abuse of process, infliction of emotional distress and civil rights conspiracy claims against two police officers.

Story of Justice McReynolds' Anti-Semitic Photo Refusal Is Debunked

National Law Journal reported yesterday that research by a staffer in the U.S. Supreme Court curator's office has proven false an often-repeated story that no 1924 photograph of Supreme Court justices was taken because the anti-Semitic Justice James McReynolds' would not sit next to Justice Louis Brandeis for the photo.  It turns out that group photos are taken only when a new justice comes onto the court, which was not the case in 1924.  It was the case however that one photo studio that was passed over for the 1923 photo lobbied Chief Justice Taft for an extra photo in 1924, and McReynolds (known for his disagreeable temperament) balked at the idea.  McReynolds does appear in nine other group photos between 1914 and 1941 with Jewish justices, though never next to them because the tradition of seating-by-seniority did not place him there.

UK's Department of Education Clarifies Religious Education Requirements

Britain's Department of Education yesterday issued a Guidance Note (full text) assuring schools that their Religious Education curriculum does not need to change in response to a court decision (see prior posting) last month holding that schools cannot completely exclude the study of non-religious beliefs. According to the Department, the decision does not mean that equal time must be given to teachings of humanism. Schools can continue to give precedence to the teachings of major faith groups, and the curriculum of non-religiously affiliated schools must "reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are, in the main, Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain."

ISIS Fatwas Cover Topics Including Slavery of Infidels and Harvesting of Organs From Apostates

Reuters reported yesterday that among the documents seized from ISIS by U.S. Special Forces in a raid in Syria in May are a number of fatwas (religious rulings) on issues such as the rape of female prisoners, treatment of slaves with minor children, and when a son may steal from his father to for travel funds to fight jihad.  A booklet dated October 2014 and titled From Creator’s Rulings on Capturing Prisoners and Enslavement discusses rules on enslaving women captured from defeated infidels. These are in addition to the ISIS fatwa (full text) reported on last week by Reuters that approves the harvesting of human organs from apostates for transplantation into Muslims.

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the fatwa on sexual intercourse with captured infidel women who are taken as slaves.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• John Witte, 'To Serve Right and to Fight Wrong': Why Religion, Human Rights, and Human Dignity Need Each Other, (Marta Cartabia and Andrea Simoncini, eds., Pope Benedict XVI’s Legal Speeches in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge University Press, 2015), 106-122).
• Alessandro Spina, Reflections on Science, Technology and Risk Regulation in Pope Francis’ Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’, (European Journal of Risk Regulation 4/2015).
• Piro Rexhepi, Mainstreaming Islamophobia: The Politics of European Enlargement and the Balkan Crime-Terror Nexus, (East European Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 2-3, 2015, pp. 189-214).
• Elizabeth Shakman Hurd, Expert Religion: The Politics of Religious Difference in an Age of Freedom and Terror, (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2015/97).
• Rachel Nadelman, 'Let Us Care for Everyone's Home': The Catholic Church's Role in Keeping Gold Mining out of El Salvador, (CLALS Working Paper Series No. 9, Dec. 2015).
• Nelson Tebbe & Paul Horwitz, Religious Institutionalism — Why Now?, (Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 429, Dec. 2015).
• D.E. Frydrychowski, A Critique of Blackstone's Praemunire, (December 21, 2015).
• Bernard Jackson, Law and Narrative in the Book of Ruth: A Syntagmatic Reading, (December 20, 2015).
• David M. Shapiro, To Seek a Newer World: Prisoners’ Rights at the Frontier, (Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 15-48 (Dec. 2015)).
• Robert W. Emerson & Jason R. Parnell, Franchise Hostages: Fast Food, God, and Politics, (Journal of Law and Politics, Vol. 29, No. 353, p. 353-396, 2014).
• Martha Bailey, The Marriage Law of Jane Austen's World, (Persuasions On-line, V.36, No.1 (Winter 2015)).

Suit Challenges Religious Impact on Public School's Curriculum

A lawsuit brought in a Florida state court last month on behalf of a 5th grader by the student's father attacks the way in which a Florida school district teaches about religion and the way in which it allows religion to impact its secular curriculum, including teaching about evolution. The complaint (full text) in Silver v. School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 11/24/2015), contends that textbooks "provide false, misleading, and dangerous information about certain religions, and purposely omit factual information if it appears unfavorable to them and/or politically incorrect.... "  It goes on to allege that "the danger of fundamentalist religion is often obscured and downplayed due to the failure of Defendant School Board to properly monitor its textbooks, and the efforts of fundamentalist religious believers to impose their un-scientific, irrational beliefs such as creationism, which masquerades as science upon the children of this state and county." The lawsuit also contends that the curriculum inaccurately portrays Islam as a peaceful religion, and that schools teach "terrible lies about Jews as if they were historical fact." WPFB reported on the lawsuit in a Dec. 16 posting.

The complaint contends that the school district's practices violate various statutory and state constitutional provisions on education, as well as the 1st Amendment's free exercise and establishment clauses. [Thanks to Scott Mange and Ed Brayton for information on the case.]

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Smith v. Artus, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170473 (ND NY, Dec. 22, 2015), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss a Muslim inmate's claim for injunctive and declaratory relief against the prison's ban on engaging in demonstrative prayer in the prison yard during recreation period.

In Chesser v. Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170661 (D CO, Dec. 22, 2015), a Colorado federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his claims that the prison policy of housing Muslims with ties to terrorism in long term solitary confinement solely because of these ties violates RFRA and that his conditions of confinement violate RFRA.

In Williams v. Valazair, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171559 (WD OK, Dec. 22, 2015), an Oklahoma federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171325, Nov. 9, 2015) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was denied a common fare meal tray during a 4-day time span, apparently because the list had not been updated to include him.

Top Ten Religious Liberty and Church-State Developments of 2015

Each year in December I attempt to pick the most important church-state and religious liberty developments of the past year.  This year was rich with possibilities, and some of my picks actually arose in a broader context but have will have an important impact on religious liberty claims or church-state challenges.  So here are my Top Ten picks.  I welcome readers' comments since I am sure that not everyone will agree with all the choices.

1. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the Constitution requires marriage equality, striking down state laws that bar same-sex marriages.
   
   
2. The battle continues over the adequacy of the Obama administration's accommodation for religious non-profits that object to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the issue this term after granting certiorari in seven cases.
   
   
3. Some states expand RFRA laws to protect objectors to same-sex marriage. Indiana's law provokes particular controversy forcing the legislature to backtrack. Meanwhile around the country some Christian-owned businesses continue to refuse to provide services they see as furthering same sex marriage or LGBT rights, while Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis garners national attention for her refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses.
   
   
4. The U.S. Supreme Court becomes active on prisoners' rights issues, including claims for religious accommodation by inmates.  The Supreme Court gives RLUIPA a broad interpretation in Holt v. Hobbs.  It also interprets the "three strikes" provision that limits indigent prisoner litigation; hears oral arguments in a case on maximum fee payments by indigent prisoners litigating multiple cases; and grants certiorari on a question of exhausting administrative remedies before suing.
   
   
5. The rise of ISIL creates questions about the proper label to apply to the struggle against jihadists.  The dispute centers over the use of terminology such as "the war against radical Islam" that could be misinterpreted to suggest the U.S. is broadly at war with all Muslims.
   
   
6. The Supreme Court interprets the elements of Title VII employment discrimination claims (including claims for accommodation of religious practices) in Abercrombie & Fitch (employer motives) and Mach Mining (EEOC conciliation requirement).
   
   
7. The expression of virulent anti-Muslim sentiment raises free speech and anti-discrimination issues in cases involving anti-Muslim bus ads and a business seeking to create a "Muslim free zone."
   
   
8. The EEOC rules that discrimination on basis of sexual orientation is barred by the "sex discrimination" ban in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
   
   
9. The Supreme Court holds that specialty license plates  are government speech, thus impacting the many cases on license plates with religious themes or symbols.
   
   
10. The successful referendum to overturn Houston's Equal Rights Ordinance positions the battle over transgender rights as next struggle between conservative religious groups and civil rights advocates.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Does Not Require Dismissal of Suit Over Control of Unification Church's Assets

In Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International v. Moon, (DC App., Dec. 24, 2015), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the D.C. Superior Court's dismissal of a complicated dispute over control of a D.C. non-profit corporation, UCI, which over the years has managed hundreds of millions of dollars of assets donated to Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. The trial court had invoked the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, concluding that the dispute could not be resolved without the court deciding questions of religious doctrines.  The appellate court disagreed.

UCI was created in 1977.  In 2006, Preston Moon, one of Rev. Moon's sons became president of UCI and one of its five directors. In 2008, Rev. Moon appointed another son, Sean Moon, (Preston's younger brother) as the next leader of the Church's worldwide religious organization.  This "disappointed" Preston who, apparently assumed that he would be appointed to the religious as well as financial leadership of the Church.  In response to Sean's appointment, Preston took a number of steps to divest the Church of its control over UCI and its assets.

Those actions are challenged in this case by three entities connected with the original Unification Church and by two individuals who Preston removed as directors of UCI. The suit claims that Preston improperly took control of UCI's board, ignoring the long-standing practice of electing individuals nominated by Rev. Moon. The suit also alleges diversion of assets and self-dealing.  In reversing the trial court's dismissal of the case, the court said in part:

From plaintiffs’ allegations, it appears that a profound alteration in the corporation ... occurred under Preston Moon. An organization plainly established to promote the preservation of African wildlife and acquiring vast funds on that basis might well be barred from switching its purpose to expenditures on domestic cats and dogs regardless of how technically such a switch might be read into the text of its articles of incorporation. On the present record, we cannot say with confidence that a somewhat analogous transformation cannot be shown to have occurred here. And, in any event, the allegation that corporate funds were used here to benefit one of the directors personally would appear readily subject to court review....

[W]e agree with plaintiffs that the record at this early stage of a difficult and complicated dispute with many ramifications does not support a conclusion that the trial court must engage in inquiry banned by the First Amendment in order to resolve any of plaintiffs’ claims.... Were we to hold that, based on the current record, the First Amendment precludes our civil courts from adjudicating plaintiffs’ claims, then it would approach granting immunity to “every nonprofit corporation with a religious purpose from breach of fiduciary suits . . . and prevent any scrutiny of questionable transactions.”

The court also resolved jurisdictional and standing issues.

Donald Trump's Christmas Card Covers All Bases

The New York Daily News reports that the Christmas card which Donald Trump mailed to his supporters this week covered all the bases after his campaign emphasis on the need to say Merry Christmas instead of "Happy Holidays."

From the White House For Christmas: Playlists and Concern For Persecuted Christians

On Wednesday, in anticipation of Christmas, the White House posted The Obamas' and Bidens' Holiday Playlists on the White House Spotify channel.  The Obamas' number one pick is "O Tannenbaum, Vince Guaraldi Trio (A Charlie Brown Christmas)," while "Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town, Bruce Springsteen" tops the Bidens' playlist.

The President also posted a more serious statement on Persecuted Christians at Christmas, saying in part:

At this time, those of us fortunate enough to live in countries that honor the birthright of all people to practice their faith freely give thanks for that blessing.  Michelle and I are also ever-mindful that many of our fellow Christians do not enjoy that right, and hold especially close to our hearts and minds those who have been driven from their ancient homelands by unspeakable violence and persecution.

In some areas of the Middle East where church bells have rung for centuries on Christmas Day, this year they will be silent; this silence bears tragic witness to the brutal atrocities committed against these communities by ISIL.

NYC Taxi Appeals Unit Says Religious Belief of Driver Does Not Justify Gender Discrimiination

Triggered by a New York Post article, a number of media outlets last week reported on a Sept. 3, 2015 decision of the New York City OATH Taxi and Limousine Tribunal Appeals Unit.  In Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Tamsir Drammeh , the Appeals Unit upheld a hearing officer's decision that a Muslim cab driver violated a Commission rule prohibiting any action that is "against the best interest of the public" when he refused to transport a female passenger in the front seat of his cab for religious reasons. When a family of four hailed the cab, the driver told them that all four could sit in back, or the husband could sit in front, but the wife could not. The Hearing Examiner concluded: "That his religion did not allow him to sit next to a woman is not an acceptable defense in an occupation that is operated to serve the public." Affirming that decision, the Appeals Unit stated:

There is strong public policy which prohibits a TLC licensee from engaging in “invidious discrimination while serving the public” .... In addition, it is well established that a taxicab driver is required to possess sufficient self-restraint to deal in a mature fashion with the everyday conflicts inherent in his job.... This includes a situation where the driver’s religious beliefs may conflict with his obligations and duties as a taxi driver to transport members of the public.

Here, the respondent’s determination that it would be proper for the passenger’s husband to sit in the front seat, but not proper for the passenger to do so solely because of her gender, evidenced a discriminatory attitude and constituted an action against the best interests of the public.

The cabbie was fined $350 and suspended for one day.