Israeli Court Sentences Muslim Preacher For Incitement To Racism

In Israel this week, a Jerusalem Magistrate's court sentenced a Muslim preacher to 11 months in prison (and another 6 months suspended) on three counts of incitement to racism.  According to YNet News, Sheikh Khaled Mughrabi regularly delivered speeches at al-Aqsa Mosque, filmed them and uploaded some of them to YouTube.  In one speech, Mughrabi said that the Holocaust was a result of the Jews’ corruption and took place because Jews prepared "special bread" for Passover by kidnapping children, placing them in a barrel full of needles, and using their blood to make the bread. The indictment referred specifically to 3 speeches in the summer of 2015.

Florida Governor Signs Pastor Protection Act

On March 10, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed HB 43, known as the Pastor Protection Act. (Full text) (Bill history).  The new law protects clergy as well as churches, religious organizations and their employees from liability or penalties for refusing to solemnize a marriage or refusing to provide goods, services, or facilities related to the marriage solemnization or celebration where doing so would violate a sincerely held religious belief. Liberty Counsel issued a press release on the governor's action.

"Seven Drums" Believer Wins Right To Wear Fox Hat In License Photo

Willamatte Week and KTAU report on an Oregon man who recently won his administrative appeal to allow him to wear unusual head gear in his driver's license photo. The man, Jay Bishop, is a practitioner of the Washat religion, generally known as the Drummer-Dreamer or Seven Drums faith.  It is rooted in a Native American belief system held by Nez Perce tribes. Bishop wears a cable knit hat that looks like an orange and cream fox head-- the fox is his religious totem. While the local DMV office last summer allowed him to wear the hat in his license renewal photo, when the license got to the state level for review it was rejected because it was not compatible with the state's facial recognition software. Bishop was without a license for 9 months while his appeal was ongoing.  The DMV said it attempts to accommodate religious beliefs, but had never heard of this religion.

8th Circuit Upholds Denial of Citizenship To Muslim In U.S. On Religious Worker's Visa

In Al-Saadoon v. Lynch, (8th Cir., March 14, 2016), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the denial of the naturalization application filed by an Islamic scholar and his wife who entered the U.S. from Iraq on a religious worker's visa.  Initially the USCIS denied the application on the ground that applicants were not of good moral character.  The district court affirmed on the ground that information on applicants' naturalization application showed that the husband changed religious employers a few months before getting the required INS pre-approval for the change.  The 8th Circuit held that the district court's findings are supported by substantial evidence.  In an interesting footnote, the 8th Circuit said:

The district court stated an alternative basis for its denial of Hamod's petition for naturalization. It concluded that "even if some of Hamod's religious worker services to the ICCC starting in 2000 were voluntary and not paid . . . , those services constitute unauthorized employment." Hamod argues that this conclusion violates his right to freely exercise his religion. In particular, he argues that ... the district court's decision regarding voluntary services punishes him for exercising his religion through volunteer work in his local community of faith. We decline to address Hamod's free-exercise claim, however, because the record clearly supports the district court's primary basis for the petition's denial—Hamod was actually employed by the ICCC before he received the authorization required by his visa.

9th Circuit Rules In Favor of Church's Homeless Ministry

In Harbor Missionary Church Corp. v. City of San Buena Ventura, (9th Cir., March 14, 2016), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to issue a preliminary injunction to allow a church to continue to operate its homeless ministry from the same site as its church building. The city had denied a conditional use permit to the church. The appeals court said in part:

The Church asserts that its religion calls for it “to provide for both spiritual and temporal needs together.” The district court erred by questioning the validity of the Church’s religious beliefs and by determining that its homeless ministry could be divided piecemeal when the Church insisted on the importance of keeping its homeless ministry as a whole at the same location....

The district court abused its discretion when it concluded, without analysis, that a complete denial of the conditional use permit was the least restrictive means by which the City could further its compelling interest in public safety. On remand, the district court should ... detail why the conditional use permit recommended by the City’s staff would or would not sufficiently protect the neighborhood from any negative effects shown to be the result of the Church’s ministry to the homeless.

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.