Settlement Reached In Suit Over NYPD Surveillance of Muslims

In 2013, a suit captioned Raza v. City of New York was filed in a New York federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the New York Police Department's surveillance program directed at Muslim religious and community leaders, organizations, businesses and at mosques. (See prior posting.) The NYPD was already operating under the Handschu Guidelines that grew out of a consent decree in an earlier case on NYPD surveillance activities.  In 2013, a motion was also filed in that case claiming that the consent decree had been violated. A press release from the ACLU yesterday reports that after several months of negotiations the parties have agreed on a settlement in both cases.  The settlement involves court adoption of modifications to the Handschu Guidelines to offer greater protections.  As summarized by ABC News:

Under the deal, the Handschu guidelines will specifically ban investigations based on race, religion or ethnicity. Other provisions require the department to use the least intrusive investigative techniques possible and to consider "the potential effect on the political or religious activity of individuals, groups or organizations and the potential effect on persons who, although not a target of the investigation are affected by or subject to the technique."

The settlement also sets time limits for ending investigations that ultimately fail to turn up threats — 18 months for preliminary investigations, three years for full investigations and five years for terror conspiracy cases. The civilian representative, appointed by the mayor, will attend monthly meetings of police officials and NYPD lawyers who review the investigations and will have authority to report any suspected violations of the agreement to City Hall or a federal judge.

The full text of the guideline modifications are set out as Exhibit B to the January 7 Notice of Motion for Approval of Settlement in the Handschu case. A Memorandum of Law in support of the motion was filed by plaintiffs.  A Joint Motion Seeking Entry of Settlement was also filed in the Raza case, as was a Stipulation of Settlement.  Under the settlement, the NYPD will also remove a controversial report titled Radicalization in the West from the NYPD website, and the city will pay $1.671 million for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

Court Rejects Federal Challenges To School Ban On Graduate Wearing Eagle Feather

Having previously denied a preliminary injunction in the case (see prior posting), this week an Oklahoma federal district court dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Native American high school senior challenging a school policy that barred her from wearing an eagle feather on her mortar board tassel at her high school graduation. The feather had been given to her by a tribal elder, and it would be a sign of disrespect not to wear the feather which is sacred according to her religious beliefs. In Griffith v. Caney Valley Public Schools, (ND OK, Jan. 5, 2015), the court rejected plaintiff's free speech claim, concluding that graduation attire is school-sponsored speech, and that the school had a legitimate pedagogical reason for restricting decorations on graduation caps.   It rejected her First Amendment free exercise claim, finding that the regulation is a neutral rule of general applicability.  Finally the court refused to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to decide plaintiff's claim that the school's restriction violates Oklahoma's Religious Freedom Act.  Plaintiff remains free to refile that claim in state court.

Amish Contempt Citation Upheld; Free Exercise Issue Avoided

A Wisconsin state appeals court this week, avoiding the free exercise issue that appellants attempted to raise, upheld the contempt judgment against members of an Old Order Amish family who failed to obtain building and sanitary permits for their residence.  In In re the Contempt in: Eau Claire County v. Borntreger, (WI App., Jan. 5, 2016), the court held that the state constitutional issue that the Borntregers want to raise was not the subject of the contempt decision under appeal, but of the earlier grant of summary judgment to the county which the Borntregers failed to appeal. The court explained appellants' contentions:

The Borntregers argued their decision not to pursue building and sanitary permits was protected by article I, section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The Borntregers subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on this ground, asserting the “county ordinance and the state statutes [the County] relies upon violate the defendants’ freedom of worship and liberty of conscience.” The Borntregers argued they would not sign any application, including those for building or sanitary permits, “that states they will adhere to building codes or adhere to all applicable codes, laws, statutes and ordinances.” The Borntregers reasoned that signing such a form would constitute a false statement because they had no intent to comply, and the making of false statements is prohibited by their religion.

However the trial court rejected their claim, concluding that the Borntregars' beliefs were not burdened by the application process.  The applications merely contained an acknowledgement that the proposed construction is "subject to" applicable codes. The court said that signing this merely confirms the applicant's awareness of the rules, and is not a promise to comply.

Meanwhile the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram yesterday reported that the Borntregars, as well as 20 other Old Order Amish families, have now obtained building permits after the Wisconsin legislature changed the applicable law. The state now allows Amish not to install smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, and to have simple plumbing.  However they still need permits for items like foundations, structure and entrances, and the Amish are willing to obtain these.

Two RLUIPA Zoning Decisions From Last Month

Two RLUIPA zoning cases of interest were decided last month.  In Mesquite Grove Chapel v. DeBonis, (9th Cir., Dec. 18, 2015), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a zoning official's denial of a permit to develop land zoned for church use.  The court, rejecting plaintiff's RLUIPA challenge, said in part:

The primary burdens presented here—relocating or submitting a modified application—were not substantial, especially because Mesquite presented no evidence that other sites are unsuitable.

RLUIPA Defense blog reports on the decision.

In Matter of Septimus v Board of Zoning Appeals for the Incorporated Village of Lawrence, (NY Nassau Co. Sup. Ct., Dec. 16, 2015), a New York trial court upheld a creative judgment by a Zoning Board of Appeals in a case in which a synagogue sought to have a restriction on weekday use of its building-- part of it original zoning arrangements-- lifted so that it could hold regular weekday services.  Neighbors objected because of concern about traffic. The BZA lifted the restrictive covenant precluding weekday services for a one year trial period, with the issue to be re-evaluated after the year had passed.  The court found that under RLUIPA the original ban on weekday use constitutes a substantial burden, and the BZA's trial approach is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest in maintaining the integrity of an established residential neighborhood.  New York Law Journal reports on the decision.

First Same-Sex Marriage Case In China Moves Forward

In China's Hunan Province, a court has accepted jurisdiction for the first time in a case seeking to legalize same-sex marriage in the country.  According to a Reuters report yesterday, plaintiff Sun Wenlin says that last June an official in the Furong district civil affairs bureau rejected his application to marry his same-sex partner. Wenlin argues that China's marriage law protects the freedom to marry and provides for gender equality.

Dentist Sued For Harassing Staff With Constant Playing of Christian Music

According to yesterday's Clarkston News, four former employees of a Lake Orion, Michigan dentist have filed a religious discrimination and religious harassment lawsuit in state court against dentist Tina Marshall and her pastor.  After Marshall and her daughter joined the Christian ministry of Dr. Craig Stasio, Marshall increasingly insisted on playing Christian music in the dental office. Even though her employees objected, eventually she insisted on playing the music all the time, even when the building was empty, "to keep the demons out." The suit alleges that Marshall also conducted daily morning prayers with staff members, which eventually became mandatory.  She also prayed over patients receiving dental treatment.  Employees resisted the music, and some of them either resigned or were fired.  Eventually Marshall called on Stasio to restructure the office, and all but one of the current employees were fired and replaced by members of Stasio's ministry.  The lawsuit alleges discrimination in violation of Michigan's Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act.

Alabama Chief Justice Tells Probate Judges To Continue Refusing To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is once again seeking to defy federal courts on the issue of same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  In March 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court in the Alabama Policy Institute ("API")  case ordered probate judges in the state to discontinue issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite federal district court orders already holding Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. (See prior posting.)  Of course, in June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Obergefell decision, finding bans on same-sex marriage in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky unconstitutional.  Three days later, the Alabama Supreme Court invited parties in the API case to file briefs addressing the effect of the Obergefell decision on the Alabama order in API.  Subsequently two probate court judges petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for orders protecting their refusals to issue same-sex marriage licenses.  All of these matters remain pending before the Alabama Supreme Court.

Today, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore issued an Administrative Order (full text) addressing what he described as the "confusion and uncertainty" that exists among Alabama probate judges.  He says that "an elementary principle of federal jurisdiction [is that] a judgment only binds the parties to the case before the court," suggesting that technically Obergefell  is not binding on Alabama judges.  He went on:

As Administrative Head of the Unified Judicial System of Alabama, authorized and empowered pursuant to Section 12-2-30(b)(7), Ala. Code 1975, to "take affirmative and appropriate action to correct or alleviate any condition or situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the state," and under Section 12-2-30(b)(8), Ala. Code 1975, to "take any such other, further or additional action as may be necessary for the orderly administration of justice within the state, whether or not enumerated in this section or elsewhere"...

IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT: Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect.

AL.com reports on today's order.

California Judges Will Still Be Able To Lead Church Boy Scout Troops

January 21, 2016 is the effective date of an amendment adopted last year to the California Code of Judicial Ethics that eliminated previous exceptions to the ban on California judges holding membership in any organization-- other than a religious organization-- that discriminates on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. A previous exception for non-profit youth organizations had allowed judges to continue their activities with the Boy Scouts.  (See prior posting.)

In a little-noticed Oral Advice Summary (full text) posted Nov. 12, 2015, the California Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions opened the door to judges continuing to participate in church-sponsored scout troops that bar gay leaders. The Committee said in part:

The Advisory Committee commentary to canon 2C advises that determining whether an organization practices invidious discrimination depends on such "relevant factors as whether the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious . . . or other values of legitimate common interest to its members. . . ."

Historically, BSA has prohibited youth and adult membership based on sexual orientation. In January, 2014, BSA adopted a policy that no youth will be denied membership on the basis of sexual orientation. In July, 2015, BSA adopted a policy that BSA employees and non-unit-serving volunteers will not be denied membership on the basis of sexual orientation. The policy also states that chartering organizations, such as those sponsoring local troops, have the right to select adult scout leaders based on the chartering organization’s religious and moral values concerning sexuality.

Given these policies, the requesting judge must determine for himself whether or not his church-sponsored BSA troop excludes adult gay members based on his troop’s commonly-held religious values concerning sexuality....

Yesterday News Now reported on the November Oral Advice.

Northern Ireland Court Acquits Pastor Charged With Internet Broadcast of Anti-Muslim Sermon

In Belfast, Northern Ireland yesterday, a Magistrate's Court acquitted 78-year old Pastor James McConnell who had been indicted on two charges under Britain's Communications Act 2003 for anti-Muslim comments he made in a May 2014 sermon that was streamed online. The Belfast Telegraph reports that McConnell was charged with improper use of a public electronic communications network and causing a grossly offensive message to be sent by means of a public electronic communications network.  At issue were the pastor's statements that Islam is a "doctrine spawned in hell," that it is heathen and satanic, and that he does not trust Muslims. The court ruled that while the statements are offensive, they did not reach the level of being "grossly offensive."  The court also concluded that the pastor had not intentionally caused offense. According to the court:

He is a man with strong, passionate and sincerely held beliefs. In my view Pastor McConnell's mindset was that he was preaching to the converted in the form of his own congregation and like-minded people who were listening to his service rather than preaching to the worldwide internet.

His passion and enthusiasm for his subject caused him to, so to speak, 'lose the run of himself'."

He added that "the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things or express opinions that offend, shock or disturb..."

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the opinion in DPP v. McConnell.  Law & Religion UK has additional discussion of the decision.

Suit Challenges County's Historic Preservation Grants To Churches

Yesterday's Parsippany Daily Record reports that the Freedom From Religion Foundation and a local resident have filed suit in a New Jersey state court challenging the inclusion of churches and houses of worship as recipients of county historic preservation grants from Morris County (NJ).  Some 32% of the $22.6 million in grants since 2003 have gone to churches.  The suit contends that these grants violate Art. I, Sec. 3 of the New Jersey Constitution that provides:

nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right or has deliberately and voluntarily engaged to perform.

The county argues that churches should be eligible because of their historic value.  The suit initially seeks a temporary injunction to bar payment of any grants awarded in the past two years that have not yet been disbursed.  In 2014, the county awarded $1.2 million to 12 churches or houses of worship for items such as restoration of roofs or facades, and for document preservation.

Unusual Amicus Brief In SCOTUS Challenge To Texas Abortion Regulation

The U.S. Supreme Court has set March 2 for oral argument in Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, a challenge to Texas regulations that could result in 75% of the state's abortion clinics being forced to close. (Case page from SCOTUblog). National Law Journal reports on an unusual amicus brief (full text) filed in the case this week.  The brief was submitted by 107 women lawyers, as well as 6 current law students, with the aim of demonstrating the importance of abortion rights to members of the legal profession.  According to the brief:

Amici are lawyers who have obtained abortions and who have participated in a wide variety of different aspects of the legal profession, including at private law firms, corporations, multinational governmental organizations, nonprofit organizations, and law schools....

Amici obtained their abortions at different ages and life stages, under a variety of circumstances, and for a range of reasons both medical and personal, but they are united in their strongly-held belief that they would not have been able to achieve the personal or professional successes they have achieved were it not for their ability to obtain safe and legal abortions.

Air Force Academy Says Football Players Can Continue Pre-Game On Field Prayers

Yesterday's Christian Post reports on last month's controversy over U.S. Air Force Academy football players praying together in the end zone before the start of games. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation complained after several players kneeled in prayer on the field before the start of the December 5 Falcons contest against the San Diego State Aztecs.  MRFF argued that pre-game prayer pressures non-Christian athletes to join in.  Before the Falcons final game on Dec. 29, the Air Force Academy countered with a statement, saying in part:

The United States Air Force Academy will continue to reaffirm to cadets that all Airmen are free to practice the religion of their choice or subscribe to no religious belief at all.  The players may confidently practice their own beliefs without pressure to participate in the practices of others.

Mass. High Court Says Foster Parenting Can Be Denied Over Religious Belief In Corporal Punishment

In Magazu v. Department of Children and Families, (MA Sup. Jud. Ct., Jan. 4, 2016), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a decision by a state agency denying an application by a Christian couple to become foster and pre-adoptive parents because the couple uses corporal punishment as a form of discipline in their home.  State rules, particularly concerned with the emotional needs of abused and neglected children who often are placed in foster care, bar the use of corporal punishment by foster parents.  The couple agreed that they would not use corporal punishment on a foster child, but refused to agree to refrain from spanking their own daughters in private when appropriate. According to the Court:

The Magazus assert that, in accordance with their sincerely held Christian beliefs, they use appropriate corporal punishment on their own two daughters as a matter of loving parenting and biblical understanding. They contend that the department's denial of their application to become foster parents substantially burdens their right to the free exercise of religion under art. 46, § 1, of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.... 

The Court disagreed, saying in part:

although the department's decision imposes a substantial burden on the Magazus' sincerely held religious beliefs, this burden is outweighed by the department's compelling interest in protecting the physical and emotional well-being of foster children.

(See prior related posting.)

Cert Filed In Challenge By Pharmacies To Required Filling of Emergency Contraception RX

Yesterday a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Stormans Inc. v. Wiesman, (cert. filed, 1/4/2016).  In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld rules of the Washington Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission that provide only limited accommodation to pharmacists and pharmacies that object on religious grounds to filling prescriptions for emergency contraception. The rules require pharmacies to deliver all prescription medications, even if the owner has a religious objection. An individual pharmacist with religious objections may refuse to fill a prescription only if another pharmacist working for the pharmacy does so. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition.

Religious Health Care Ministries Show Growth

The Wall Street Journal this morning reports that a growing number of people have been moving to "health care ministries" since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act.  The number of participants in these religious health-sharing arrangements has grown from 200,000 to 500,000 since 2010.  According to the report:

The ministries, which operate outside the insurance system and aren’t regulated by states, provide a health-care cost-sharing arrangement among people with similarly held beliefs. Their membership growth has been spurred by an Affordable Care Act provision allowing participants in eligible ministries to avoid fines for not buying insurance....

The membership growth was largely unanticipated by ministry officials when the groups obtained an exception to the law. Only ministries in continuous operation since at least Dec. 31, 1999 are exempt from the ACA. The carve-out was intended to satisfy what at the time were relatively small religious groups that argued that their nonparticipation was a matter of religious freedom.

Officials are concerned both about the risk to participants from the unregulated operation of the arrangements, and about their impact on the Affordable Care Act insurance pool. (See prior related posting.)

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Lincoln L. Davies, Energy, Consumption, and the Amorality of Energy Law, (109 AJIL Unbound 147 (2015)).
• Michal Tamir, The Freedom to Exclude: The Case of the Israeli Society, (Israel Law Review 49(1), 2016, Forthcoming).
• Leonid Sykiainen, Sharia Courts: Modern Practice and Prospectives in Russia, (Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP 60/LAW/2015).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• James A. Sonne, Religious Liberty, Clinical Education, and the Art of Building Bridges, 22 Clinical Law Review 251-300 (2015).
• Jennifer Fredette, Becoming a Threat: The Burqa and the Contestation Over Public Morality Law in France, [Abstract], 40 Law & Social Inquiry 585-610 (2015).
• Mark A. Lemley, Melville B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture. Faith-Based Intellectual Property. 62 UCLA Law Review Rev. 1328-1346 (2015).
• McNulty, Patrick J. and Adam D. Zenor, Corporate Free Exercise of Religion and the Interpretation of Congressional Intent: Where Will It End?, 39 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 475-513 (2015).
• Twentieth Annual International Law and Religion Symposium: Varieties of Secularism, Religion, and the Law. Speeches by Francoise Tulkens, Malcolm D. Evans and Mark Hill; articles by Louis-Leon Christians, David Little and Andrea Pin. 2014 BYU Law Review 509-633.
• Kevin C. Walsh, Addressing Three Problems in Commentary on Catholics at the Supreme Court by Reference to Three Decades of Catholic Bishops' Amicus Briefs, 26 Stanford Law & Policy Review 411-35 (2015).
• Aliza Plener Cover, Archetypes of Faith: How Americans See, and Believe in, Their Constitution, 26 Stanford Law & Policy Review 555-96 (2015).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Harvey v. Gonzalez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172056 (D CO, Dec. 28, 2015), a Colorado federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172057, Nov. 24, 2015) and permitted a Muslim inmate to move ahead with this complaint that his copy of the Qur'an was confiscated and he was refused a replacement copy.

In Hill v. Gramiak, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172150 (SD GA, Dec. 28, 2015), a Georgia federal magistrate judge recommended permitting a Buddhist inmate to move ahead with complaints that the mail room refused to deliver religious literature sent to him, while prisoners of other faiths could receive a Bible or a Qur'an.

In Wagner v. Worsham, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172704 (ED MO, Dec. 29, 2015), a Missouri federal district court dismissed a Mormon inmate's complaint that prison authorities classify the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a General Christian group, instead of giving it a separate category.

In Hoskins v. Red Onion State Prison, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173107 (WD VA, Dec. 30, 2015), a Virginia federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaints that there was a delay in delivering religious materials mailed to him, that the prison does not provide Jewish or Messianic Jewish services, and the chaplain did not provide him with a number of religious items he requested.

In Perez v. Watts, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173384 (SD GA, Dec. 31, 2015), a Georgia federal magistrate judge recommended allowing an inmate to move ahead (except on certain damage claims) on his complaint that prison authorities truncated the "Spiritual Mass" ceremony for Santeria practitioners by not allowing each individual a half cut cigar, and authorities refused to order Santeria supplies including bead necklaces with Ache.

Fired Police Officer's Free Exercise Rights Not Infringed By Order Not To Associate With Gang Member

In Cuevas v. City of Campbell, (CA App., Dec. 23, 2015), a California appellate court held that the free exercise and expressive association rights of police officer  Sammy Cuevas were not infringed when he was terminated, in part for contact with known gang member Joseph Aguilera-- who had been married to Cuevas' cousin.  Cuevas argued unsuccessfully that because he is the godfather of Aguilera's child and they are both Catholic, the order to not associate violated their right to practice their faith together.

Muslim Employees Walk Out of Meat Packing Plant In Dispute Over Prayer Breaks

Media are reporting this week on the firing of between 150 and 180 Somali Muslim workers at a Cargill meat packing plant in Fort Morgan, Colorado.  Denver 7 News and Minneapolis Star Tribune report that the action grew out of a dispute that developed when a new shift manager told 11 employees that they could not all take a prayer break at the same time. Ten of these workers resigned, and 177 other workers either did not show up, or clocked in and left, the next day in support.  When the protesters did not return or call in for three days they were terminated.  Apparently the parties are still in touch over the possibility of the employees getting their jobs back. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Requirement of Marriage License For Religious Ceremony

While it might seem that the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision last June mooted the many pending cases seeking to make inroads into now invalid bans on same-sex marriage, the Detroit News reported yesterday on a lawsuit that shows this is not universally so.  A year ago, Detroit minister Neil Patrick Carrick filed a lawsuit in Michigan federal district court challenging two Michigan statutes which at that time effectively fined clergy for performing same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) MCL Sec. 551.14  imposes a $500 penalty on any member of the clergy or other person who "knowingly joins any persons in marriage" in violation of Michigan law. MCL Sec. 551.106 provides that : "Any clergyman or magistrate who shall join together in marriage parties who have not delivered to him a properly issued license ... shall be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor" and fined $100 or sentenced to 90 days in jail.

The complaint (full text) in Carrick v. Snyder, (ED MI, filed 1/12/2015). alleged that these provisions violate the 1st Amendment free exercise and expressive association rights of clergy whose faith and religious beliefs allow them to perform marriages that are not authorized by civil law.  In May 2015, the district court entered an order holding the case in abeyance as the Supreme Court considered the issue of same-sex marriage.  In September, after the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision, the district court reactivated the case (Order lifting stay).  While the challenged statutory provisions no longer totally bar same-sex marriages, they still threaten clergy with fines if they "join in marriage" a couple that has not obtained a marriage license.  On December 8, the district court, seeking to avoid the constitutional question, issued an Order (full text) calling for additional briefing on whether these penalties under state law apply to "purely private ceremonies that are not intended to give legal effect to a marriage."

Plaintiff's attorney pointed out the importance of the issue to "elderly or widowed couples who want to marry, but are afraid they will lose their Social Security benefits if they are legally wed."