Religion Clause

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Anti-Westboro Protest Group Found To Have Violated Ordinance Against Picketing of Religious Event

In Topeka, Kansas yesterday. a municipal court judge imposed a $10 fine and $150 in court costs on each of four members of the Journey 4 Justice motorcycle counter-protest group for their Sept. 12 protest outside the Westboro Baptist Church. According to the Topeka Capital-Journal, the group which was formed in 2011 to counter-protest hate groups like the virulently anti-gay Westboro was found to have violated Topeka Municipal Code Sec. 9.45.140 which prohibits picketing a house of worship during an announced religious event carrying a banner, placard or sign. The court ruled that "banners" include American flags that the protest group was carrying, and that the ordinance applies during announced hours of religious services, whether or not services were actually taking place. Originally Topeka police merely asked the group to end their protest, but members of the group insisted that police issue a citation so that a court could clearly interpret the law.

Newdow Sues Again To Get "In God We Trust" Off Money-- This Time Using RFRA

Activist Michael Newdow is trying once again to get the motto "In God We Trust" removed from the nation's coins and currency. Representing some 41 plaintiffs including the Northern Ohio Freethought Society, Newdow and his co-counsel this week filed an elaborate 112-page complaint in an Ohio federal district court. The complaint (full text) in New Doe Child #1 v. Congress of the United States of America, (ND OH, filed 1/11/2016) traces in almost law-review style (and with 362 footnotes) the history of "In God We Trust" on coinage and currency. In addition to 1st Amendment free exercise, establishment clause and compelled speech claims, the suit also relies on RFRA, contending in part:

By placing “In G-d We Trust” on the nation’s coins and currency bills, Defendants have substantially burdened Plaintiffs in the exercise of their Atheistic (and similar) beliefs by requiring them – as the price to pay for using the nation’s coins and currency bills – to personally bear a religious message that is the antithesis of what they consider to be religious truth.

As to one plaintiff-- Adam Clayman-- who is not an atheist, the complaint alleges that he believes:

participation in any activity that ultimately leads to the superfluous printing of G-d’s name on secular documents or to the destruction of G-d’s printed name is sinful. Thus, aware that – due to the acts being challenged in this case – G-d’s printed name on the nation’s money will ultimately be destroyed, Plaintiff Clayman has to choose between engaging in sin or not using the nation’s coins and currency bills.

The Blaze and Cleveland Plain Dealer report on the lawsuit. (See prior related posting.)

AU Creates New RFRA Bill Tracker

Americans United For Separation of Church and State announced yesterday that its "Protect Thy Neighbor" (PTN) project has created a legislative tracking page that allows tracking of all RFRA-type legislation introduced into Congress or state legislatures-- legislation that it describes as "legislation that would allow individuals, businesses and government employees to harm others in the name of religion." PTN's blog, The Shield, will explain and comment on many of the bills.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Court Upholds Bus Company's Rejection of Pro-Life Referral Ads

In Women's Health Link, Inc. v. Fort Wayne Public Transportation Corp., (ND IN, Jan. 5, 2016), an Indiana federal district court upheld a decision by Citilink (Ft. Wayne's public bus service) to reject an ad from Women's Health Link, a pro-life health care referral service. Citilink makes space available for public service announcements from non-profit organizations, but only if they do not express or advocate opinions on political, religious, or moral issues. The court held that Citilink maintains its advertising space as a "non-public forum". According to the court:

The evidence doesn’t support Women’s Health Link’s contention that Citilink allowed comparable advertisements that address the same or similar topics but advocate a non-life-affirming position....

The reasonableness of the restrictions depends on the purpose of the forum. In this case, the stated purpose was maximizing revenue, keeping the cost of riding the bus down, protecting Citilink’s passengers from the risk of imposing on a captive audience, and avoiding any “endorsement, implied or otherwise” of the product, service or message. The restrictions on political, religious, and moral speech serve that purpose and are reasonable under the circumstances.

ADF issued a press release reacting to the decision

Preliminary Injunction and Bitter Fighting Among Top State Officials Over Nevada School Voucher Law

Litigation over Nevada's new school voucher program is getting messy. As previously reported, two lawsuits have been filed challenging the voucher law. Then, as reported by This Is Reno, on January 8, a third lawsuit was filed by Nevada Lt. Governor Mark Hutchison, acting in his private capacity as a lawyer representing for free two Nevada families who want to participate in the voucher program. He is asking the court for a declaratory judgment supporting the constitutionality of the plan, hoping that this will lead to a quicker ruling. The filing of this suit led to bitter criticism from the state attorney general and state treasurer. The attorney general quickly filed a motion to dismiss the suit (full text) (press release) and State Treasurer Dan Schwartz issued a flurry of releases critical of Hutchinson, and is quoted by the press as saying:

[Hutchison is] using this to fill his campaign coffers for political office. We’ve never seen the Lt. Governor at any of the hearings. I’ve never seen him at any of the workshops. He went about getting [information] surreptitiously from one of my staff. All [this lawsuit] is going to do is distract from our other cases, which are serious cases. It’s a political stunt. It’s a perversion of justice. He’s using the court system for his own political gain. I’m seriously considering asking him to resign.

Then yesterday, a state court judge in one of the other cases issued a preliminary injunction ordering the state treasurer to stop implementing the new law's educational savings accounts while the court hears challenges to the law. According to AP, Carson City District Court Judge James Wilson concluded that plaintiffs had shown a reasonable chance of prevailing on the merits. Implementation would have diverted $20 million from the public school budget.

UPDATE: Here is Judge Wilson's full opinion in Lopez v. Schwartz, (NV Dist. Ct., Jan 11, 2016) granting the preliminary injunction. [Thanks to Blog From the Capital for the lead.]

Settlement In Voter Registration Suit Brought By Disenfranchised Hasidic Jews

The Forward and JTA reported yesterday that a settlement has been reached in a lawsuit filed last year against the Sullivan County, New York, Board of Elections by 27 Hasidic Jews whose voter registrations were among 156 in the Village of Bloomingburg that the Board of Elections had taken steps to cancel. The Election Board claimed that the voters were not really residents of the Village, which had a population of only 420 in the 2010 census. (See prior posting.) Under the settlement agreement the names will remain on the voter rolls. This is part of a larger dispute over the building of a high density 396-unit apartment development in Bloomingburg that will be marketed to members of the Satmar Hasidic community.

UPDATE: A Feb. 2 report by the New York Post says that the settlement, which the court has approved, includes the appointment of a monitor for 5 years to oversee the voting process (including review of the voter challenge questionnaire). Also voting materials and signs will be in both Yiddish and English. The county will pay damages of $25,000 and $550,000 in attorneys' fees.

Yeshiva Files RLUIPA Action Against New Jersey Township

In New Jersey last week, a federal lawsuit was filed challenging the denial of a zoning variance by the Township of Ocean to plaintiffs who want to use an existing school building for a 96-student boarding school for advanced Jewish studies. The 79-page complaint (full text) in Yeshiva Gedola Na’os Yaakov, Inc. v. Township of Ocean, New Jersey, (D NJ, filed 1/8/2016) contends that the denial violates RLUIPA, the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses, the Fair Housing Act, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, as well as other provisions. A press release by counsel filing the lawsuit describes it:

The Complaint explains the Yeshiva’s need for a religious school, as well as the Township’s zoning laws that completely prohibit religious education throughout the Township for students over 18 years of age, while permitting other adult education institutions. It also describes a long litany of examples of the substantial hostility faced by the Yeshiva during the variance application proceedings..... The Complaint states that “many Ocean Township residents hold animus toward the Orthodox Jewish community in nearby Lakewood, New Jersey”.... The variance application dragged on for approximately four times the statutory limit of 120 days, including proceedings shut down because of capacity being exceeded by crowds “packing” the venue.

NJ.com has more on the lawsuit.

Suit, Claiming Free Exercise Right, Seeks Voiding of Death Certificate

Late last month, a suit was filed in a California federal district court seeking to require the state of California to invalidate a death certificate issued two years ago when 13-year old Jahi McMath was declared brain dead. However before the child's ventilator was removed, her mother transferred her to a facility in New Jersey, a state which has a religious exemption in its law to the brain-death standard. Jahi's mother claims that Jahi now shows brain function. The complaint (full text) in McMath v. State of California, (ND CA, filed 12/23/2015) seeks an injunction requiring California to restore all rights (including health care benefits) to Jahi, and requiring it to expunge records of the death certificate. Among the grounds for relief asserted by plaintiffs are the Free Exercise clause and RLUIPA. The complaint alleges in part:

Plaintiffs' sincerely held religious beliefs require that they provide ongoing medical care for any person who is alive, including JAHI McMath.... The issuance of a facially invalid (and now substantively inaccurate) death certificate ... created a situation in which Plaintiffs were unable to exercise their religion....

The McMath lawyers issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit, and NJ.com reports on the suit.

Appeals Court Rejects Jehovah's Witnesses Venue Transfer As Delay Tactic

In Fessler v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., (PA Super. Ct., Dec. 30, 2015), a Pennsylvania state appellate court held that a trial court abused its discretion in transferring a sexual abuse case against Jehovah's Witness organizations from Philadelphia County to York County. Plaintiff in the case alleged that as a teenager she was sexually abused by a middle-aged woman (also a defendant) whom she met through a Jehovah's Witness congregation. The defendants' change of venue motion was granted just two weeks before trial was to begin, and after discovery had taken place. The transfer was to the county with the largest civil case backlog in Pennsylvania. The court concluded that the motion was a bad-faith "last-minute gambit to delay trial." Reveal reports on the decision.

Monday, January 11, 2016

Turkey's Religious Affairs Directorate Ends Online Fatwas After Embarrassing Posting

Turkey's Religious Affairs Directorate announced on Friday that it is closing down its online fatwa service after public outrage over a online fatwa discussing whether a man having lustful feelings for his daughter would religiously invalidate his marriage with the girl's mother. According to Today's Zaman, a Directorate spokesman says: "Such a fatwa has never been issued by our High Council on Religious Affairs." The fatwa was removed from the Directorate's website. An investigation into the incident has begun, but explanations so far are confusing, suggesting that the posting of the fatwa may have been a purposeful attempt to embarrass the Religious Affairs Directorate, perhaps by followers of the Gülen movement within the state bureaucracy.

Church Sues Over Denial of Use Permit

According to Saturday's Fort Worth Star Telegram, earlier this month the 75-member Now Faith Deliverance Temple filed a state court lawsuit against the Pantego, Texas Town Council after the Council denied the church a special use permit. The permit would have allowed the congregation to continue to operate in the building to which it relocated 6 months earlier. Apparently the Town had received complaints from neighbors about noise levels at the church. The non-denominational African-American church charges that the Town Council has a history of denying permits to religious groups whose members are racial or religious minorities. Last November, a mosque faced a similar refusal.

Sunday, January 10, 2016

IRS Withdraws Proposal For Donee Reporting By Charities Over Privacy Concerns

The Internal Revenue Service announced in the Jan. 8 Federal Register that it is withdrawing a controversial proposal that would have allowed charitable organizations to report individual donations to the IRS as an alternative to taxpayers obtaining a contemporaneous written acknowledgement of the contribution. Many of the public comments on the proposal expressed privacy concerns since charitable organizations would have needed to collect and maintain social security numbers of donees.

Maritime Park Worker Sues After Being Fired For Helping With Baptism

Courthouse News Service reported last week on a religious discrimination suit filed in a California federal district court. A maintenance worker at the Maritime National Historic Park in San Francisco, who is also a Baptist minister, says he was fired for helping to baptize a visitor in the ocean. The baptism took place while the minister Roger Holly was on his lunch break and was not in uniform. Holly, who is African-American, had previously complained about racial discrimination.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Thompson v. Holm, (7th Cir., Jan 4, 2016), the 7th Circuit, reversing the district court, ruled that withholding a Muslim inmate's meal bags for two days during Ramadan constituted a substantial burden on his free exercise rights. The court, also rejecting several other defenses, urged the district court to appoint counsel for plaintiff on remand.

In Rosales v. Watts, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267 (SD GA, Jan 4, 2016), a Georgia federal magistrate judge recommended that an inmate be allowed to proceed with many of his claims alleging that prison authorities truncated the "Spiritual Mass" ceremony for Santeria practitioners and refused to order Santeria supplies including bead necklaces with Ache. UPDATE: The magistrate's recommendations were adopted at 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33357, March 15, 2016.

In Michaels v. West, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1826 (ND WV, Jan. 7, 2016), a West Virginia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174184, Nov. 25, 2015) and dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies an inmate's complaint that he was denied the vegetarian diet required by his Asatru religious beliefs.

In Todd v. CDCR, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1944 (ED CA, Jan. 7, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that, consistent with a remand from the 9th Circuit, the complaint by an inmate who was a minister in the White supremacist Creativity religion move ahead. Plaintiff complains about confiscation of religious material, failure to provide a fruitarian (or acceptable alternative kosher diet), placing of the Holy Books of Creativity on the banned list, and refusal to recognize Creativity as a religion.

In Young v. Rodriguez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1965 (ED CA, Jan. 7, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge permitted a Rastafarian inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was not permitted to wear his religiously required head covering-- a crown-- into the health care facility visiting room.

In Rezaq v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2288 (SD IL, Jan. 8, 2016), an Illinois federal district court permitted a Muslim inmate to proceed under RFRA (but not under the 1st Amendment) complaining that prison authorities did not have a pre-dawn morning pill line during Ramadan.

In Wallace v. Mayfield, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1137 (ED AR, Jan. 6, 2016), an Arkansas federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174100, Dec. 14, 2015) and denied a preliminary injunction to an inmate who claimed his free exercise rights were infringed when he was forced to shave his beard and cut his hair. Plaintiff sought to enjoin retaliation for filing the lawsuit.

In Coleman v. Lincoln Parish Detention Center, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2633 (WD LA, Jan. 7, 2016) a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174236, Dec. 7, 2015) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was denied the right to participate in weekly Jummah services and when he filed a grievance was transferred to another facility.

Saturday, January 09, 2016

Court Allows RFRA Challenge To ACA Individual Mandate To Proceed

A Missouri federal district court yesterday refused to dismiss for failure to state a claim under RFRA a suit by a state legislator and his wife asserting their religious rights are burdened by the Affordable Care Act's mandate requiring them to purchase health insurance which includes contraceptive coverage. In Wieland v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ED MO, Jan. 8, 2016), Paul and Teresa Wieland, who are Roman Catholics, assert that paying for or participating in a healthcare plan that includes coverage for contraceptives, or providing such insurance coverage for their three daughters, violates their sincerely-held religious beliefs. (The daughters were 12, 18 and 19 when the suit was brought.) The court, relying on 8th Circuit precedent, said:

it is not the Court’s role to second-guess the reasonableness of a plaintiff’s sincerely-held religious beliefs....

The court concluded that while the government may be able to prove that the religious exercise burden is justified by a compelling governmental interest, that is not something plaintiffs have an obligation to disprove at this stage in order to avoid dismissal. The court however did dismiss plaintiffs' 1st Amendment free exercise and free speech claims, as well as their substantive due process and Administrative Procedure Act claims. (See prior related posting including link to complaint.)

Mother's Move To Eskimo Village Does Not Justify Reduction In Her Child Support Obligations

In Sharpe v. Sharpe, (AK Sup. Ct., Jan. 8. 2016), the Alaska Supreme Court in a 3-2 decision upheld a trial court's denial of a mother's motion to reduce the amount she is required to pay under a child-support order. The mother, who is the non-custodial parent of an 10 year old daughter, gave up her high-paying Alaska pipeline job to move back to her Yup'ik Eskimo community. She adopted a subsistence lifestyle there to meet her her cultural, spiritual, and religious needs and help her in her battle with alcohol. Under Alaska rules, the court can order a parent to pay more than would otherwise be justified by his or her current income level if the parent is "voluntarily and unreasonably" unemployed or underemployed. The majority concluded that this was a voluntary and unreasonable decision by the mother to earn less than she is capable of earning.

On appeal, the mother also argued that the child support order burdens her free exercise of religion as protected by the Alaska Constitution. She contended that the order in effect requires her to give up her Native religious and cultural heritage to maintain a stressful job in Anchorage. The majority rejected her claim because it had not been raised at trial.

Justice Winfree dissenting argued in part:

Today’s decision has enormous negative implications. It trivializes and devalues Alaska Natives’ cultural, spiritual, and religious connections to their villages and their subsistence lifestyle. It requires a non-custodial Native parent in rural Alaska to pay child support based on what the parent could earn in urban Alaska regardless of the legitimacy of choosing to live in rural Alaska.... [I]t infringes on constitutionally protected religious and privacy rights.

Friday, January 08, 2016

Texas Gov. Abbott Accuses State Bar's CLE Committee of Religious Discrimination

Texas Lawyer reported yesterday that Texas Governor Greg Abbott has now weighed in on a refusal by the State Bar's Minimum Continuing Legal Education Committee to certify a law professor's continuing legal education program for "Legal Ethics/ Professional Responsibility" credit. Under Texas MCLE rules, all lawyers must take 15 hours per year of continuing legal education, 3 hours of which must be in legal ethics/ professional responsibility. The State Bar's Accreditation Standards provide:

"Legal Ethics and Legal Professional Responsibility" shall include, but not be limited to the accreditation of those topics involving disciplinary rules of professional conduct, rules of disciplinary procedure, and the use and availability of alternative dispute resolution and pro-bono services....

"Legal Ethics and Legal Professional Responsibility" shall not include programs or topics that deal with government or business ethics, individual religious or moral responsibilities, training in personal organizational skills, general office skills, time management, leadership skills or stress management.

Applying these standards, the State Bar's MCLE Committee refused to approve St. Mary's law school professor Bill Piatt's CLE program on "Christian Ethical Perspectives: Faith and Law Today" for ethics credit. Sponsors of the program are appealing to the State Bar of Texas board of directors. Gov. Abbott's general counsel has written to the State Bar president urging a change in the definition of "legal ethics" in the MCLE rules, contending that the current definition is "based on a shallow and impoverished understanding of legal ethics and an unduly narrow view of legal education." He suggested that the refusal to accredit could be seen as religious discrimination against the program sponsors. A week later, Gov. Abbott posted a blunter statement on his Facebook page:

I'm accusing Texas State Bar of religious discrimination for denying continuing education credit for Christian legal ethics programs. The Texas State Bar leaders should be compelled to read my winning arguments upholding the Ten Commandments and "One Nation Under God."

The parties are meeting next week to try to work out a solution before the Jan. 21 appeal hearing.

President Sends Greetings On Orthodox Christmas

Yesterday the White House released a statement (full text) from the President and Mrs. Obama wishing "a blessed Christmas to Orthodox Christians in the United States and around the world." The statement also "reaffirm[ed] our commitment to protect religious minorities, including Christian minorities, who too often face violence and persecution throughout the world."

Israeli Civil Court Orders Chief Rabbinate To Release List of Foreign Rabbis Whose Testimony It Will Accept

In Israel on Wednesday, Jerusalem district court Judge Nava Ben-Or ordered Israel's Chief Rabbinate to release its internal list of rabbis in other countries whose affidavits will be recognized for purposes of proving Jewish identity. Residents who have moved to Israel from abroad can only have access to a Jewish marriage ceremony or Jewish burial in Israel if they are formally recognized as Jewish by the Rabbinate. According to the Times of Israel:

In her decision, Judge Nava Ben-Or declared herself “shocked” by the apparent lack of transparency in this matter most central to everyday existence.

“This is a person’s life, we’re talking about very serious matters,” she said, describing a situation in which people wait indeterminately for the rabbinate to decide their fates, saying they hear nothing and are not being answered.

“It is a right to start a family,” Ben-Or said. “I am ashamed that in a functioning state this information cannot be provided. It is an unprecedented scandal. It is not Jewish, and inhumane.”