Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Frederick Mark Gedicks, The Religious-Question Doctrine: Free-Exercise Right or Anti-Establishment Immunity?, (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2016/10, March 2016).
• Nathan B. Oman, Doux Commerce, Religion, and The Limits of Antidiscrimination Law, (Indiana Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Shannon Gilreath & Arley Ward, Same-Sex Marriage, Religious Accommodation, and the Race Analogy, (Wake Forest Univ. Legal Studies Paper March 2016).
• Stuart Chinn, Finding Common Ground Across Race and Religion: Judicial Conceptions of Political Community in Public Schools, (Utah Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Richard Moon, The Accreditation of Trinity Western University's Law Program, (Law Matters (CBA - Alberta), Summer 2015).
• Jeremiah A. Ho, Once We're Done Honeymooning: Obergefell v. Hodges, Incrementalism, and Advances for Sexual Orientation Anti-Discrimination, (Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 104, 2016).
• Anshul Kumar Pandey & Nilotpal Bansal, Mutilating the Past -- The Islamic State and the Last Song of History, (Februrary 19, 2016).

From SmartCILP:

• Henry L.Chambers, Jr., Telescoping and Collectivizing Religious Free Exercise Rights, 75 Maryland Law Review 392-414 (2015).
• John W. Compton, Evangelical Reform and the Paradoxical Origins of the Right to Privacy, 75 Maryland Law Review 362-382 (2015).
• Hon. Kermit V. Lipez, George Washington, Elena Kagan, and the Town of Greece, New York: The First Amendment and Religious Minorities, [Abstract], 16 Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 1-14 (2015).
• Loren F. Selznick, Running Mom and Pop Businesses By the Good Book: The Scope of Religious Rights of Business Owners, 78 Albany Law Review 1353-1392 (2014/2015).
• Symposium: Victoria Saker Woeste's Henry Ford's War on Jews and the Legal Battle Against Hate Speech. Introduction by Donna C. Schuele; essays by Aviam Soifer, Carroll Seron, Clyde Spillenger and Victoria Saker Woeste. 40 Law & Social Inquiry 1032-1079 (2015).

Recent Books:

• Daniel O. Conkle. Religion, Law, and the Constitution (Concepts and Insights Series), (Foundation Press, March 2016).
• Shanruo Ning Zhang, Confucianism in Contemporary Chinese Politics: An Actionable Account of Authoritarian Political Culture, (Lexington Books, March 2016).

Israel's Attorney General Says Bill Restoring Orthodox Control of Mikvehs Is Invalid

As previously reported, last month a 3-judge panel of Israel's High Court of Justice held that state-funded mikvehs  (ritual bath facilities) operated by Orthodox-controlled religious councils must be open for use by the Conservative and Reform Jewish movements for their conversion ceremonies as well as for Orthodox conversions. (See prior posting.)  In response, a bill was introduced into the Knesset (Parliament) by a member of the Orthodox United Torah Judaism Party to reverse the Court's ruling by requiring mikvehs to be run in accordance with Jewish law as interpreted by the ultra-Orthodox Chief Rabbinate.  The bill passed its preliminary reading in the Knesset last week.  Haaretz reports that yesterday Israel's Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit submitted a legal opinion to the government concluding that the bill is invalid because it violates the rights to freedom of religion, human dignity and equality.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Helling v. Johnson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30874 (ED WI, March 9, 2016), a Wisconsin federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was not permitted to read his Quran in his jail cell, but had to go to a dirty holding cell to do so, while other inmates could read their Bibles in their own cells.

In Bishop v. Jesson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30395 (D MN, March 9, 2016), a Minnesota federal district court accepted a magistrate's recommendations (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31142, Feb. 12, 2016) and permitted a detainee in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program to move ahead on a number of his state and federal claims objecting to the quality and quantity of food in the kosher meal program, as well as complaints about food meeting kosher standards.

In Berisha v. Farrell, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31607 (ND NY, March 8, 2016), a New York federal magistrate judge concluded that challenges by a corrections officer to a Muslim inmate's right to wear a beard did not impose a substantial burden on the inmate's ability to practice his religion.

In Williams v. Stovall, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31717 (WD AR, March 11, 2016), an Arkansas federal magistrate judge dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was denied a pork-free diet.

In Rodriguez v. Favro, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31758 (ND NY, March 9, 2016), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint of a Rastafarian inmate that he was permitted to wear his crown (a religious head covering) only in his cell and housing unit, and not outside of these areas.

In Peele v. Klemm, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32333 (WD PA, March 14, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge dismissed an inmate's rambling, incoherent complaint regarding restrictions on Muslim inmates' right to attend the two feasts of the Ramadan holiday.

In Green v. Hawkinberry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32615 (WD PA, March 14, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge dismissed a suit by an inmate who had filed a request to change religion who complained about the three years it took until he was able to qualify for the change and receive kosher meals.

In Robinson v. Cate, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32699 (ED CA, March 11, 2016), a case in which a Muslim inmate is seeking a Halal diet, a California federal magistrate judge recommended denying plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction granting him a kosher diet as a stopgap measure while his suit is pending.

In Carter v. Tegels, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33382 (WD WI, March 15, 2016), a Wisconsin federal district court dismissed Muslim inmates' challenges to a rule barring inmate-led religious services (which resulted in a failure to hold Jumu'ah services in April of 2012), and challenges to the failure to hire a Muslim chaplain.

A California federal district court (ND Cal., March 14 and 17, 2016) issued essentially identical opinions in 6 separate cases allowing inmates at San Quentin to move ahead with suits challenging correctional officers that limited Muslim inmates to one congregational prayer service per day, and barred groups of 5 or more from meeting for prayer. The cases are Saif'ullah v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33424; Fardan v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35542; Karafili v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35559; Abdullah v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35543; Shabazz v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35540; Aziz v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35555. UPDATE: Two more of these opinions were issued on March 24 and 25: Mitchell v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39666 and King v. Albritton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39631.

7th Circuit: Hospital System's Retirement Plan Is Not An Exempt "Church Plan"

In Stapleton v. Advocate Health Care Network, (7th Cir., March 17, 2016), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals joined the 3rd Circuit (see prior posting) in holding that a retirement plan maintained by a church-affiliated hospital system does not qualify for the "church plan" exemption in ERISA if the plan was not initially established by a church.  Interpreting the language of the ERISA exemption, the court said in part:

Church-affiliated organization employees may participate in the same retirement plans as church employees with no further distinctions. Moreover, churches may have outside organizations maintain their plans. The only requirement is that a church must establish the plan in the first place.

Judge Kane filed a concurring opinion emphasizing that the court's interpretation "does not compel church-affiliated organizations to operate in a way that violates their religious beliefs."  This is one of a series of cases filed around the country challenging religiously-affiliated health care systems' reliance on the church plan exemption for their retirement plans.  In this case, plaintiffs charged that the plans failed to meet the vesting, reporting and funding requirements of ERISA. BNA Pension & Benefits Daily reports on the decision and its implications.

Georgia Legislature Passes Wide-Ranging Religious Freedom Bill

As reported by CNN, the Georgia General Assembly yesterday passed HB 757 (full text), the Free Exercise Protection Act. It contains wide-ranging religious freedom protections:

1. The bill protects clergy from any civil suit or tax penalty for performing or refusing to perform any marriage or other religious rite. It also provides that any individual is free to attend or not attend any marriage ceremony or other religious rite.
   
   
2. The bill prohibits local governments from requiring any business to operate on Saturday or Sunday.
   
   
3. The bill provides that churches and religiously affiliated organizations are not required to rent space to another person for an event that is objectionable to the religious organization. Also such organizations are not required to provide social, educational or charitable services that violate the organization's sincerely held religious beliefs.
   
   
4. The bill provides that no faith-based organization is required to hire or retain as an employee any person whose religious beliefs or practices (or lack of either) are not in accord with the organization's sincerely held religious belief.
   
   
5. The bill enacts RFRA language. The government may not substantially burden a person's religious exercise, except in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest that is furthered by the least restrictive means.  This provision, however is limited by several exceptions, including a provision that the RFRA language shall not be construed to "permit invidious discrimination on any grounds prohibited by federal or state law." It should be noted that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity are not prohibited by Georgia law, or by federal law as traditionally interpreted.
   
   
6. The bill waives sovereign immunity for suits seeking injunctive or declaratory relief or reasonable attorney's fees in various suits against the state under the statute.

Gov. Nathan Deal has said that he will veto any bill that allows discrimination in order to protect people of faith. (See prior posting.)  It is unclear whether the non-discrimination language included in HB 757 is sufficient to overcome the governor's objections.

Indian Court Says Sikh Witness Cannot Be Barred From Wearing Kirpan

In Singh v. State of Haryana, (High Ct. Punjab and Haryana, March 16, 2016), a trial court in the Indian state of Punjab held that Art. 25 of India's Constitution which protects freedom of conscience and religion invalidates a court's order barring a Sikh witness from wearing a kirpan while testfying.  The opinion contains lengthy discussion of the kirpan and of the freedom of religion provision in India's constitution. LiveLaw reports on the decision.

4th Circuit Upholds North Carolina's "Choose Life" License Plates

In ACLU of  North Carolina v. Tennyson, (4th Cir., March 10, 2016), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision upheld North Carolina's decision to issue specialty "Choose Life" license plates even though the state refused to also issue a pro-choice specialty plate.  The case was on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court with instructions to to the appeals court to reconsider the case in light of the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.  In reconsidering the case, the 4th Circuit's majority opinion said in part:

The specialty license plate program at issue here is substantively indistinguishable from that in Walker, and the Walker Court’s analysis is dispositive of the issues in this case. Accordingly, we now conclude that specialty license plates issued under North Carolina’s program amount to government speech and that North Carolina is therefore free to reject license plate designs that convey messages with which it disagrees.

Judge Wynn dissenting said in part:

I refuse to believe that with Walker, the Supreme Court meant to force us to choose that the mule in this case is either a horse or a donkey. Instead, Walker’s holding, when narrowly understood, does not lead to the conclusion that the North Carolina specialty plate speech at issue here constitutes pure government speech. On the contrary ..., it presents mixed speech—with private speech components that prohibit viewpoint discrimination.

U.S. Law Week reports on the decision.

False Online Prayer Website Closed Down

This week Washington state's attorney general Bob Ferguson announced that his office had reached an agreement with Christian Prayer Center, a website that offered online viewers prayers in English or Spanish for amounts ranging from $9 to $35.  According to the AG office's release, the website featured non-existent clergy and false consumer testimonials:

The websites contained fictitious testimonials from consumers using stock photos that claimed they successfully prayed to avoid home foreclosure, deliver a healthy baby, win the lottery, obtain negative results on an HIV test and put cancer into remission....

Between 2011 and 2015, CPC collected more than $7 million from 125,000 consumers nationwide. Some of these consumers were charged repeatedly, resulting in a total of over 400,000 transactions.

The settlement requires the website operators, among other things, to end unfair and deceptive business practices, return funds to consumers and pay attorneys' fees of $500,000.

Kerry Says ISIS Guilty of Genocide

As reported by CNN, Secretary of State John Kerry today said he had determined that ISIS (also known as Daesh) is guilty of genocide. At a news conference this morning (video  and full text of Kerry's statement), he said in part:

My purpose in appearing before you today is to assert that, in my judgment, Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control, including Yezidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims. Daesh is genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology, and by actions – in what it says, what it believes, and what it does. Daesh is also responsible for crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing directed at these same groups and in some cases also against Sunni Muslims, Kurds, and other minorities.

Kansas Passes Law Allowing Student Religious Groups To Limit Membership To Adherents

The Kansas legislature yesterday gave final passage to SB 175 (full text) that is designed to allow student religious groups at colleges and universities to restrict their leaders or their membership to those who share or comply with the organizations beliefs.  The bill provides in part:

No postsecondary educational institution may ... deny a religious student association any benefit available to any other student association ... based on such association's requirement that [its] leaders or members ...: (a) Adhere to the association's sincerely held religious beliefs; (b) comply with the association's sincerely held religious beliefs; (c) comply with the association's sincere religious standards of conduct; or (d) be committed to furthering the association's religious missions....

The bill gives a cause of action to any student group injured by a violation of this provision.  AP reports on the bill and some of the incidents leading up to it. It is expected that Gov. Sam Brownback will sign the bill into law.

Suit Against Dearborn Police On Forced Hijab Removal Is Withdrawn

Last July, a Muslim woman filed a federal lawsuit against the Dearborn, Michigan police department charging that she was required to remove her headscarf (hijab) while being booked on traffic charges. (See prior posting.) Now, according to yesterday's Dearborn Press & Guide, plaintiff Maha Aldahami has dropped the lawsuit.  It says that her attorney withdrew the suit when the city produced video that contradicted plaintiff's claims. The city says it follows a stringent policy on head coverings, and that an internal investigation showed no wrongdoing. According to MLive, Aldhalimi's lawyer says the suit was dropped because Dearborn satisfactorily amended its policy on religious head coverings after the lawsuit was filed.

Many Claims of Non-Liturgical Navy Chaplains Are Dismissed; Several Claims Survive

In In re Navy Chaplaincy, (D DC, March 16, 2016), a challenge to Navy procedures for selection and promotion of chaplains that has wound its way through the courts for over 16 years, the D.C. federal district court dismissed a substantial number of plaintiffs' claims.  The case has already generated over 20 decisions in the courts.  In the case (actually 3 consolidated cases), plaintiffs (Non-Liturgical Protestants) challenged both Navy policies and the practices of chaplain selection boards.  As explained by the court in its 59-page opinion:

[T]hey contend that the faith group categories recognized by the Navy are discriminatory and arbitrary..... In particular, they claim that the categories reflect neither religious demographics nor legitimate similarities or differences among the worship traditions represented.  Second, they allege that in the past ... the [Chaplain Corps] used religious quotas to apportion chaplain opportunities among various faith groups..... Third, Plaintiffs challenge a number of facially neutral personnel practices - both current and historical - that they believe have allowed religious bias to infect selection board outcomes.

The court dismissed most of plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing or on mootness or statute of limitations grounds. However the court allowed two former chaplains to proceed with their complaint that the Navy violated their free speech rights by interfering with their form of prayer. More specifically they allege that they were reprimanded for ending their prayer "in Jesus name." The court also allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their non-selection for promotion claims.  In addition, the Navy did not seek dismissal of challenges to policies on the promotion and early retirement selection board process.

Obama's Nominee To Supreme Court Has Said Little On Religious Freedom Issues

Today President Obama nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. (President's remarks announcing the nomination). (White House  media release with background information).  While Garland has served on the D.C. Circuit for 19 years (and served as Chief Judge since 2013) he has had little to say in judicial opinions about religious liberty or church-state separation.

The only opinion involving religious freedom claims actually authored by Judge Garland was Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661 (Jan. 30, 2004) which involved a claim by a former CIA lawyer that he had been fired solely because of his practice of the Jewish religion.  The opinion dealt solely with procedural issues growing out of the complaint being long, repetitive and argumentative.

Garland has served on 3-judge panels in a number of cases involving religious freedom or religious discrimination issues, joining an opinion written by one of the other judges on the panel.  Here is a brief summary of those cases:

• Henderson v. Kennedy, 253 F.3d 12 (Feb. 13, 2001), rehearing denied 265 F.3d 1072 (Oct. 2, 2001): The court ruled against evangelical Christians who claimed a National Park Service regulation prohibiting the sale of t-shirts on the National Mall violated RFRA and the equal protection clause.
  
• Levitan v. Ashcroft, 281 F.3d 1313 (March 8, 2002): in a Catholic inmate's challenge to a prison rule barring consumption small amounts of wine as part of Communion, the court held that a religious practice need not be a mandatory part of a religious creed to be protected by 1st Amendment.
  
• Conservation Law Foundation v. FERC, 216 F.3d 41 (June 23, 2000). The court found that there was no violation of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in its re-licensing of a hydroelectric project.
  
• In re England, 375 F.3d 1169 (July 27, 2004). Non-liturgical chaplains sued the Navy alleging discrimination.  The court refused to compel the Secretary of the Navy to release selection board members from their oath of confidentiality, to allow them to testify about selection board proceedings.
  
• McKeithan v. Boarman, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9024 (April 12, 2012). Summary dismissal of a suit charging discrimination based on sex and religion for failure to state a claim.
  
• Village of Bensenville v. FAA, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 1166 (Jan. 17, 2006). The court refused to grant a stay pending appeal of a district court opinion allowing expansion of O'Hare Airport. At issue was a RFRA challenge to the relocation of remains from a cemetery.

Finally, Garland was a member of several en banc panels that ruled (either summarily or in opinions by others) on issues related to religious rights:

• In Priests for Life v. United States HHS, 808 F.3d 1 (May 20, 2015), Judge Garland was part of the en banc panel that denied a rehearing in a case that rejected a religious non-profit's challenge to the Obamacare contraceptive mandate compromise.  Garland did not join either the concurring or dissenting opinions filed with the per curiam order.  The case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
  
• In re Charges of Judicial Misconduct, 769 F.3d 762 (Aug. 12, 2014). Judge Garland was part of the en banc panel that accepted the recommendation of a special committee to dismiss misconduct charges against Judge Edith Jones. One of the charges involved Jones invoking her religious beliefs to justify the death penalty.
• Newdow v. Roberts, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 27590 (June 29, 2010). Judge Garland was part of an en banc panel that denied a rehearing in case challenging religious elements in Presidential inaugurations.

If Garland is confirmed, he will bring the number of Jewish justices on the Supreme Court to 4.  The remaining 5 justices are Catholic. The New Yorker has an excellent background piece on other aspects of Chief Judge Garland's career.

UPDATE: Religion News Service has two interesting articles regarding Garland's religious beliefs: Merrick Garland is Jewish. Does it matter? and Obama plays the Jewish card, leaving GOP in a pickle.

UPDATE 2: Another opinion written by Judge Garland, Payne v. Salazar, 619 F.3d 56 (2010), should probably also be classified as a religious freedom case.  At issue were procedural questions on when a plaintiff can bring suit because of retaliation against her by her supervisor for filing a religious discrimination complaint.

House Unanimously Passes Resolution Calling ISIS Actions "Genocide"

On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed by a vote of 393-0 House Concurrent Resolution 75 (full text) that expresses the sense of Congress that atrocities committed by ISIS against Christians and other ethnic and religious minorities should be labeled war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. As pointed out in this CNN Op-Ed by Frida Ghitis:

This was one more maneuver in a long-running battle between Congress and the administration. Months ago, Congress set a deadline of March 17 for the State Department to designate ISIS actions as genocide. But according to news reports, Obama administration officials say it appears likely the administration will let the deadline pass while it ponders the legal consequences of the designation.

Some have charged that the State Department's concern is that once ISIS's actions are labelled "genocide," under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide the United States would be committed to "prevent" and "punish" it. However, in a State Department press briefing on Monday, spokesman John Kirby said in part:

[T]here’s a legal definition for genocide. But I don’t want to get into the specifics of it at this point given that the Secretary’s still working his way through his own determination.... [H]e’s taking it very seriously, and ... he wants to take an analytical approach to this based on the best information that’s available....  [T]he argument that somehow it’s being slow-walked or slow-rolled because of the likely pressure that it might result in further calls for military action just is baseless....

Tennessee Legislature Passes Bill To Prevent Religious Indoctrination In Schools

As reported by The Tennesseean, the Tennessee legislature yesterday gave final passage and sent to the governor for his signature HB 1905 (full text). The bill, responding to concern about a middle school social studies unit on Islam, is intended to prevent religious indoctrination. It provides:

The inclusion of religion in textbooks, instructional materials, curriculum, or academic standards shall be for educational purposes only and shall not be used to promote or establish any religion or religious belief.

The bill requires local school boards to develop, with public comment, policies on inclusion of religion in the curriculum. It requires schools to make syllabuses for courses in grades 6-12 publicly available. It calls for revision of the current social study standards and requires teacher training institutes to provide instruction on "what is constitutionally permissible when teaching religious content and strategies for dealing with religious content in curriculum that are educationally sound, fair, neutral, and objective." [Thanks to Blog from the Capital for the lead.]

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.