9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Dispute Over Control of Sikh Dharma Company

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last Thursday heard oral arguments in Puri v. Khalsa (Docket No. 13-36024) (video of full oral arguments).  Courthouse News Service has extensive background on the case in which Bibiji Inderjit Kaur Puri, the widow of the leader of the Sikh Dharma faith, is seeking a seat on the board of the company that makes Yogi Tea and which also controls various parts of the Sikh Dharma religious movement. Here is an excerpt from CNS's excellent report:

Bibiji sued in Multnomah County [Oregon] Circuit Court, claiming that her husband had wanted her to be a board member and accusing the board of Unto Infinity of inflating their salaries and executing a self-serving sale of the company's cereal division that cheated Sikh Dharma....

The parties agreed to settle in arbitration. But Bibiji moved the case to Federal Court, claiming the settlement was never ratified and was unfair.... There, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mossman dismissed the case, finding that Bibiji lacked standing to sue ... because she is not a board member. He also found that the First Amendment prohibited him from installing the leaders of a religious organization.

On Thursday, Bibiji's lawyer ... urged a panel of the Ninth Circuit to apply "neutral principles of law" rather than a First Amendment exception.

(See prior related posting.)

Pastor Introducing Trump Says Bernie Sanders Must "Come to Jesus"

At a Donald Trump event in Hickory, North Carolina today, Pastor Mark Burns who spoke before Trump and Gov. Chris Christie took the stage called for Bernie Sanders to accept Jesus.  As quoted by Politico, Burns said in part:

Bernie Sanders who doesn't believe in God. How in the world are we going to let Bernie? I mean really? Listen, Bernie gotta get saved. He gotta meet Jesus. He gotta have a come to Jesus meeting.

Egypt's Justice Minister Fired Over Comment Seen As Blasphemous

Egypt's Justice Minister Ahmed El-Zend was dismissed from office yesterday by Egypt's Prime Minister Sherif Ismail after comments that were interpreted as blasphemous went viral. Ahram Online gives background:

Last week, in response to a TV host's question on whether he would jail journalists, El-Zend said, "Even if he was a prophet, peace and blessings be upon him."

The 70-year-old then briefly uttered Islamic words of repentance before adding that "the culprit, whatever his description is... I am not talking about jailing a journalist or jailing a teacher, I am saying jailing a defendant."

El-Zend subsequently asked for forgiveness, saying his comment was a slip of the tongue, but Al-Azhar (the center of Islamic learning in Egypt) issued a statement warning against even unintentional blasphemous comments.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Robin Fretwell Wilson, 'Getting the Government Out of Marriage' Post Obergefell: The Ill-Considered Consequences of Transforming the State’s Relationship to Marriage, (University of Illinois College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 16-14, March 2016).
• Lauren Sudeall Lucas, The Free Exercise of Religious Identity, (UCLA Law Review, Vol. 64, No. 1, 2017 Forthcoming).
• Marc O. DeGirolami, On Expressivism and Retributivism in 'The Mighty and the Almighty', (Journal of Analytic Theology (Forthcoming)).
• Caroline Mala Corbin, The Contraception Mandate Accommodated: Why the RFRA Claim in Zubik v. Burwell Fails, (American Constitution Society Issue Brief, March 2016).
• Briton Jacob Myer, In Pursuit of Religious Freedom: The RFRA and How It Applies to Non-Profit Organizations and Their Objections to the Accommodation of the Affordable Care Act Contraceptive Mandate, (November 23, 2015).
• Peter Nicolas, Backdating Marriage, (California Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Khaled A. Beydoun, Electing Islamophobia, (March 6, 2016).
• Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, Fragmented Oversight of Nonprofits in the United States: Does it Work? Can it Work?, (Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 91, No. 3, 2016).

From SSRN (Non-U.S Law):

• Christa Rautenbach, The South African Constitutional Court's Use of Foreign Precedent in Matters of Religion: Without Fear or Favour?, (Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol. 18, No. 5, 2015).
• Melissa Crouch, Constitutionalism, Islam and the Practice of Religious Deference: The Case of the Indonesian Constitutional Court, (Australian Journal of Asian Law, Vol. 16, No. 2, Article 6, 2016).
• Nadirsyah Hosen, The Constitutional Court and ‘Islamic’ Judges in Indonesia, (Australian Journal of Asian Law, Vol. 16, No. 2, Article 4, 2016).
• Faridah Jalil, Searching for the Benchmark in the Administration of Islamic Criminal Law: Malaysia Experience, (May 30, 2015).
• Faridah Jalil, Challenges and Prospects on Access to Justice in Malaysia, (November 11, 2015).
• Emilia Justyna Powell & Stephen D. McDowell, Islamic Sovereignty Norms and Peaceful Settlement of Territorial Disputes, (iCourts Working Paper Series No. 47, March 2016).
• Amir Attaran, Commentary: The Limits of Conscientious and Religious Objection to Physician-Assisted Dying after the Supreme Court's Decision in Carter v. Canada, (Health Law in Canada 36(3):86-98, 2016).

From SmartCILP:

• Alan M. Hurst, The Very Old New Separationism, 2015 Brigham Young University Law Review 1-61.
• Mary McDonough, Catholic Health Care and the Affordable Care Act: A Matter of Social Justice, [Abstract], 10 Intercultural Human Rights Law Review 69-116 (2015).
• Wolfgang P, Muller, The Internal Forum of the Later Middle Ages. A Modern Myth?, 33 Law & History Review 887-913 (2015).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Wilson v. Soto, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27449 (CD CA, March 2, 2016), a California federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27451, Jan. 21, 2016) and allowed a Muslim inmate to proceed on a RLUIPA claim for equitable relief growing out of a strip search in the presence of female prison staff. Other claims were dismissed, but some with leave to amend. Plaintiff was required to file an amended complaint in order to move ahead.

In Seina v. Federal Detention Center Honolulu, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28544 (D HI, March 7, 2016), a Hawaiian federal district court dismissed a Native American inmate's claim that his right to properly conduct an American Indian Pipe Ceremony was severely hindered because he was not treated for his medical condition (hypertension).

In Hill v. Management Training Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28686 (SD MS, March 7, 2016), a Mississippi federal magistrate judge dismissed a Catholic inmate's complaint that because of an expansive lock down, during the one year period of his incarceration he was only able to attend one religious service.

In Johnson v. Nevada Department of Corrections, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29355 (D NV, March 7, 2016), a Nevada federal district court permitted a Muslim inmate to proceed with claims that his kufi was confiscated, he was denied halal meals and was not served meals on the Ramadan schedule on time.

In Mujahid Ta'Lib Din v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29676 (ND CA, March 8, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge permitted a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his complaint that Muslim congregational prayers during open day room hours were improperly limited.

In Vega v. Hardy, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29911 (ND IL, March 9, 2016), an Illinois federal district court permitted an African Hebrew Israelite inmate who had taken a Nazirite vow to move ahead with his complaint that the warden would not permit him to grow a kouplock as part of his hairstyle.

Virginia Legislature Passes Bill To Protect Clergy and Religious Groups That Object To Same-Sex Marriage; Governor Threatens Veto

Yesterday the Virginia General Assembly gave final passage to S.41 (full text) that protects clergy, religious and religiously affiliated organizations and their employees and volunteers acting in the scope of their employment from being required to participate in the solemnization of any marriage or from receiving adverse treatment of any kind by the state because the person acted on the basis of a sincere religious or moral belief that marriage should be only the union of one man and one woman. As reported by the Washington Blaze, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has said he would veto the bill.  It should be noted that the language of the bill requires careful reading to avoid misinterpreting it as being broader than it is.  Section B. of the bill applies its protection to any "person," but that is limited by the narrow definition of "person" in Section A. The president of the Family Foundation of Virginia accurately, albeit not totally objectively, described the scope of the bill:

This legislation balances the recently discovered right to whatever definition of marriage you want with our nation’s longstanding principle of religious free exercise by ensuring that the heavy hand of government cannot penalize clergy or religious charities simply because of beliefs about marriage.

Suit Seeks Site Plan Approval For Mosque

A suit was filed in New Jersey federal district court by the Islamic Society in a prosperous New Jersey suburb whose attempts to obtain site plan approval for a mosque have been thwarted so far. The complaint (full text) in Islamic Society of Basking Ridge v. Township of Bernards, (D NJ, filed 3/10/2016), summarized the mosque's efforts:

What should have been a simple Board approval for a permitted use devolved into a Kafkaesque process that spanned an unprecedented four years and included 39 public hearings.

 The complaint cites anti-Muslim attitudes among those object to the mosque, and contends that the refusal to approve the sit plan violated RLUIPA, the 1st and 14 Amendments and various New Jersey statutory and constitutional provision.  New York Times reports on the lawsuit. [Thanks to Mel Kaufman for the lead.] 

UPDATE: New Jersey Advance Media reported on March 16 that the Justice Department has opened an investigation into the actions of Bernards Township.

Next SCOTUS Nominee Might Be A Hindu

Washington Post, in an article titled What would a Hindu justice mean for the Supreme Court?, reported that D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan is on President Obama's shortening list of potential Supreme Court nominees.  He would be the first Hindu justice ever to serve on the Supreme Court.  When sworn in as judge on the D.C. Circuit, Srinivasan took the oath on the Bhagavad Gita. Most of those interviewed by the Post suggested that Srinivasan's faith would have little impact on the positions he would take on the Court.  While Protestants are the largest religious group in the United States, no Protestant (mainline or evangelical) has been on the Supreme Court since Justice Stevens retirement in 2010.

New Federal Inter-Agency Initiative On Religious Discrimination Launched

On Tuesday, the Justice Department announced  "Combating Religious Discrimination Today," a new inter-agency initiative to promote religious freedom, challenge religious discrimination and increase enforcement of religion-based hate crimes.  The new community engagement effort launched by 5 federal agencies, will lead a series of community round tables across the country.  The first was in Newark, New Jersey on Tuesday and focused on addressing bullying and religious discrimination in schools. Among those addressing the round table were Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. (Full text of remarks.)  Subsequent round tables are scheduled for  Dallas, Birmingham (AL), Detroit and Palo Alto (CA).  They will focus on topics such as hate crimes, employment discrimination and discrimination by local zoning officials.

Jail Settles Suits Alleging Muslim Women Were Forced To Attend Christian Services

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported this week that Cuyahoga County (Ohio) has entered settlements in two separate lawsuits by Muslim women who said they were required by corrections officer Regina Watts to attend Christian religious services when they were serving time in the Cuyahoga County Jail. The women were housed in the "trustee pod" of the jail while serving time in 2014. Sakeena Majeed, who was in jail for misdemeanor assault received a settlement of $48,500.  Sonya Abderrazzaq was serving time for drunk driving settled for $32,500.  The jail has now moved religious services to other space instead of the pod where the two women were housed. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Federal District Judge Says Obergefell Does Not Bind Puerto Rico

In Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, (D PR, March 8, 2016), a Puerto Rico federal district court held that the recognition of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges  does not bind Puerto Rico until further action by the Supreme Court or Congress.  Relying on the so-called Insular Cases decided by the Supreme Court in the early 20th century, the court said "jurisprudence, tradition and logic teach us that Puerto Rico is not treated as the functional equivalent of a State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment...."  The court concluded:

It is in light of the particular condition of Puerto Rico in relation to the Federal Constitution, with due consideration of the underlying cultural, social and political currents that have shaped over five centuries of Puerto Rican history, that the court examines the effect of Obergefell in the instant case. The court’s analysis, therefore, does not end with the incorporation of the fundamental right to same-sex marriage in the States. Generally, the question of whether a constitutional guarantee applies to Puerto Rico is subject to determination by Supreme Court of the United States.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog has more on the decision.

Suit Challenges Pastor's Invitation To Texas Mayor To Speak At Groundbreaking For Cross

The Corpus Christi Caller Times reported yesterday on a lawsuit against the pastor of a local church who invited Corpus Christi's mayor to speak at a groundbreaking ceremony for a 210-foot tall cross placed along an Interstate highway near the Texas city. Mayor Nelda Martinez spoke at the ceremony about her late father's dream for a cross at the helm of the Corpus Christi Bay.  The lawsuit filed in state court by Patrick Greene accuses the pastor, Rick Milby, of violating state law-- apparently Art. I, Sec. 6 of the Texas constitution-- when he invited the mayor and council leaders to the groundbreaking. The city attorney calls the lawsuit frivolous.

Divorce Decree Restrictions Violate Mother's Free Exercise Rights

In Black v. Black, (WA App., March 8, 2016), a Washington state appeals court held that a trial court imposed improper conditions on the non-custodial parent in a divorce action.  Charles and Rachelle Black had three children whom they raised in a conservative Christian home and sent to religious-based schools.  After 17 years of marriage, Rachelle informed Charles that she is a lesbian, and two years later filed for divorce. The court's final parenting plan designated Charles as the primary residential parent, awarded him sole decision-making as to the children's religious upbringing and required Rachelle to refrain from having further conversations with the children regarding religion, homosexuality, or other alternative lifestyles. The appeals court reversed, saying:

While the best interests of the children is a trial court’s paramount concern ..., here there is no indication that Rachelle’s prior speech related to her sexual orientation or her religious views ... would cause harm to the children if such speech or conduct occurred in the future. Therefore, we hold that the restrictions are an unconstitutional burden on her freedom of speech and her free exercise of religion. 

What Counts As A "Church"?

RLUIPA Defense blog last week recounted the story of Spokane, Washington's "Jedi Alliance" which bills itself as a church.  Tim and Tyler Arnold purchased a large collection of arcade games. Looking for a place to house them permanently, they purchased a building that formerly was used as a Methodist church.  Then, however, city officials told them that the building was zoned only for residential use or use as church.  So the Arnolds registered as a church, opening the building on Sunday evenings for the public to play the arcade games or patronize the gift shop.  The Arnold brothers said:

Is it a church? Well, it’s a church in the sense that we took over a church building.  Are we here congregating? Yes, we’re here congregating getting together.  We can use all of this pop culture stuff to bring people together, to get people to have a reason to come together in a social setting.

Australian Court Says Sex-Segregated Seating At Muslim Lecture Violates Anti-Discrimination Law

In Bevege v Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia, (NSW Civ & Adm Trib, March 4, 2016), the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of the Australian state of New South Wales held that sex-segregated seating at a lecture sponsored by a Muslim group violates the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act of 1977. The sponsor of the lecture, Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia, identifies itself as an 'international political party with a franchise in Australia."  When Alison Bevege attended the group's lecture on American intervention in Iraq and Syria, she was directed to a section of the auditorium reserved for women and children.  Hizb ut-Tahrir argued to the court that separate seating of men and women "is a part of Islam, and Muslims globally are adhering to this practice through choice as part of their belief and culture."

While the Anti-Discrimination Act has an exemption for acts or practices "of a body established to propagate religion that conforms to the doctrine of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion," (Sec. 56(d)), the court concluded that this exemption does not apply.  It was not shown that Hizb ut-Tahrir was established to propagate religion.  Also because Hizb ut-Tahrir argued that Bevege would have been allowed to choose her own seat if she had requested to do so, this shows that separate seating was not necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of Muslims attending the lecture.

To avoid similar discrimination in the future, the court ordered that at events sponsored by the organization there must be notices that gender segregated seating is not compulsory, and ushers must be made aware of this.  Law and Religion Australia has more on the decision.

FLDS Leader Lyle Jeffs Denied Bond In Food Stamp Fraud Case

On Monday, a U.S. Magistrate Judge in Salt Lake City, Utah granted the prosecution's request to deny bond to FLDS Church bishop Lyle Steed Jeffs who is charged with conspiracy to commit food stamp fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Jeffs and ten others are charged with diverting millions of dollars in food stamp benefits to church leaders who then reallocated the benefits. (See prior posting.) KSL News reports that prosecutors convinced the court that Jeffs poses an extreme flight risk, despite the absence of precedent for denying bond in a welfare fraud case. Seven of the other defendants have been released on bond, subject to GPS monitoring and other conditions.

Court Says Jihadist's Religious Faith Was Not Reason For Life Sentence

In Shnewer v. United States, ( NJ, March 2, 2016), a New Jersey federal district court rejected a claim by a jihadist who was sentenced to life in prison for conspiracy to kill United States military personnel that his religious beliefs were improperly used in determining his sentence.  As reported by NJ Advance Media, at issue was the sentence imposed on Mohamad Shnewer, a key figure in a foiled plot to kill soldiers at Fort Dix and other military installations. In rejecting Shnewer's claims, the court said in part:

This Court did not use Mr. Shnewer’s devout Muslim faith to help this Court reach the conclusion that it would sentence him to ... life imprisonment, but rather ... this Court believed that Mr. Shnewer could not be rehabilitated and therefore posed a threat if released based upon his violent radical Islamic beliefs. This did not run afoul of the Constitution and did not amount to this Court using Mr. Shnewer’s devout Muslim faith to determine his sentence. 

RLUIPA Challenge Settled; Soup Kitchen Gets Permit To Operate

JDSupra reported yesterday on the settlement of three related RLUIPA lawsuits that were filed against the City of Norwich, Connecticut by St. Vincent de Paul Place, a ministry of The Polish Roman Catholic Congregation.  The suits sought authorization to continue to operate a soup kitchen and food pantry, and offer related services, at the site of a former parochial school. The Stipulated Judgment (full text) in St. Vincent de Paul Place, Norwich, Inc. v. City of Norwich, (D CT, Feb. 12, 2016), provides that the city will issue a special permit, subject to specified hours of operation, to the church.  The city commission approved the settlement at a public meeting, despite continued opposition from neighbors. City commissioners did not want to risk liability for the church's legal fees that the city would have incurred if it continued to litigate and ultimately lost. (See prior related posting.)

Fired Gay Music Director Sues Chicago Archdiocese for Discrimination

Following an EEOC complaint filed last year (see prior posting), the former music director of a suburban Chicago Catholic parish has now filed an employment discrimination suit in federal district court against the parish and the Archdiocese of Chicago. The Chicago Tribune reported yesterday on the lawsuit by Colin Collette against the Holy Family Catholic Community in Inverness and the Archdiocese, alleging violations of the federal Civil Rights Act, the Illinois Human Rights Act and the Cook County Human Rights Ordinance.  Collette was fired last July after he announced that he was engaged to be married to his longtime partner Will Nifong.  Collette says church leaders knew he was gay long before he posted his engagement notice on Facebook, and his subsequent marriage to his partner.  Collette is seeking damages, back pay and reinstatement.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Bus Ad Case; Thomas Dissents

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. King County, Washington, (Docket No. 15-584, cert. denied 3/7/2016). However Justice Thomas wrote an 8-page dissent to the denial of cert.  Justice Alito joined the dissent. (Order List at pg. 59).  They urged the Court to use the case to resolve the split among Circuits on whether advertising space on public buses should be categorized for First Amendment purposes as designated public forums or limited public forums.  Transit authorities have greater control over content in limited public forums.  AFDI, the appellant in this case, has been involved in a number of the other cases raising the same issue, and some of its ads in other cases have been attacked as anti-Muslim. (See prior posting.)

Meanwhile Reuters reported yesterday:

Humorous ads for a documentary film that aims to promote understanding and tolerance of Muslims went up in New York subways on Monday after the movie's production company won a legal battle with the city's transit authority....

The advertisements debuted after a federal court in Manhattan ruled in October that being Muslim was a religious, not a political, identity. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has a policy prohibiting political speech in ads on public transportation.