University's Limits on Religious Speech Create 1st Amendment Concerns

In Faulkner v. University of Cincinnati, (SD OH, March 23, 2016), an Ohio federal district court refused to dismiss a suit against the University of Cincinnati by one of its former lower level administrators, Mark Faulkner, who was sent a "corrective action" letter from the University's Office of Equal Opportunity and Access.  The letter was issued after he made references to Jesus and Biblical teachings in a lecture on "servant leadership" that he was asked to deliver at a leadership training course.  In the letter, Faulkner was told that he  "should refrain from using biblical quotations during presentations and work related interactions." The court said in part:

The University’s asserted interest in avoiding an employee’s discomfort at hearing biblical references (or in another context, hearing references to Buddhist teachings or the Quran, or the principles of atheism) simply and plainly do not outweigh Faulkner’s interests in free speech and in the free exercise of his religious principles.

The court also refused to dismiss a vagueness and overbreadth challenge to the University's Discriminatory Harassment Policy.

2nd Circuit Affirms Win By Rockland County Villages Charged With Anti-Hasidic Discrimination

In the long battle between Hasidic residents and others in parts of Rockland County, New York, the Second Circuit has affirmed the district court's dismissal (see prior posting) of a complaint by Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, a Hasidic religious educational institution, that local villages discriminated against Hasidic Jews in actions opposing the building of a 60-unit adult student housing development.  In Bernstein v. Village of Wesley Hills, (2d Cir., March 23, 2016), the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiffs' had not produced sufficient evidence for a jury to find disparate treatment or discriminatory animus.  Instead, it said the villages had a genuine concern about environmental impact of the development. Lower Hudson Journal News reports on the decision.

"Unfit" Parent Loses Right To Assert Religious Objection To Immunization of Her Children

In In re Deng, (MI App, March 22, 2016), a Michigan state appeals court held that a court can order immunizations for children placed in foster care after the children's parents have been found unfit despite the mother's religious objections to vaccination of her children. The court said in part:

We recognize that, were respondent a fit parent entitled to the control and custody of her children, MCL 333.9215(2) would undoubtedly allow her to forego the immunization of her children otherwise required by the Public Health Code on the grounds of a religious objection. However, this provision is inapplicable on the present facts for the simple reason that the children are not being immunized as a result of provisions in the Public Health Code.... [R]ather, ... the court exercised its broad authority to enter dispositional orders for the welfare of a child under its jurisdiction....

MLive reports on the decision.

Suit Charges NY Community College With Anti-Semitic Hiring Practices

A lawsuit filed last month in federal district court in New York charges the Brooklyn-based Kingsborough Community College and Stuart Suss (who served variously as its Provost, Vice President for Academic Affairs and Interim President) with discrimination against faculty and faculty candidates whose dress or appearance was obviously Jewish (labeled in the complaint as "Outward Jews").  The complaint (full text) in Lax v. City University of New York, (ED NY, filed 2/16/2016) alleges that in 2000 Jews comprised a large percentage of department chairs and of the college-wide Personnel & Budget Committee, but that since then Suss has engaged in hiring and personnel practices designed to reduce or eliminate the number of outward Jews on the faculty and on the P&B Committee in violation of Title VII and New York state and city anti-discrimination laws. Yesterday's Algemeiner has more on the lawsuit.

Lawsuit Filed Against Mystic Rabbi By Woman Who Paid $214,000 For Matrimony and Torahs

The New York Post reported  yesterday on a lawsuit filed against Rabbi Chaim Sharabi, a controversial mystic in the Orthodox Borough Park community, by a woman who claims she paid Sharabi $214,000 after he promised to find her a husband and to purchase three Torah scrolls in her name to be placed in synagogues in Brooklyn and in Israel.  Plaintiff Cecilia Lifschitz says that Sharai never performed on his promises.  Sharabi says he did match Lifschitz with a man, but that things did not work out between them, and that he did purchase the Torah scrolls.

RLUIPA Challenge To Fire Safety Rules By Faith-Based Organization Fails

Affordable Recovery Housing v. City of Blue Island, (ED IL, March 23, 2016), involves a challenge to the action of officials of a Chicago suburb who evicted residents of a recovery home that used faith based methods to treat drug and alcohol abuse.  The city acted because the facility failed to comply with safety regulations requiring fire sprinklers in buildings that house overnight guests. In the case, an Illinois federal district court held that the city's action did not violate various provisions of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act nor similar provisions of  the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:

Plaintiff argues that Blue Island’s eviction of its 73 residents substantially burdened its ability to exercise its religion by effectively rendering religious exercise impracticable. However, the City’s eviction was pursuant to its fire safety code, not its zoning ordinance. Because Blue Island was not “impos[ing] or implement[ing] a land use regulation”..., this action falls outside of the regulatory scope of RLUIPA and IRFRA.

The court also rejected plaintiff's free exercise claim, saying that any burden is merely "the incidental effect of a neutral, generally applicable, and otherwise valid regulation...."

Transcript of Arguments In Zubik Case Is Now Available

The full transcript of today's oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell, the contraceptive coverage mandate accommodation case, is now available. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog has an interesting analysis of the arguments.

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments Today In Contraceptive Coverage Mandate Accommodation Challenge

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell and six other cases consolidated for argument with it. (Hearing List.)  The cases all involve challenges to the Obama Administration's Affordable Care Act accommodation for religious non-profits.  Religious non-profits that object to including coverage for contraceptive services in their employee health plans may opt out in favor of coverage that is furnished instead directly by the organization's insurer or third-party administrator. Although there is a split among circuits on the issue, all of the cases being argued today involve appeals court decisions upholding the mandate.  The cases raise fundamental issues of interpretation and application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Court has allotted 90 minutes for oral argument of the consolidated cases. Argument time for the religious non-profits will be divided between former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement and Jones Day partner Noel J. Francisco. Arguing for the government will be U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.  The SCOTUSblog case page furnishes links to the dozens of briefs from parties and amici that have been filed, as well as links to extensive commentary on the cases. A transcript of the oral arguments should be available later in the day from the Supreme Court's website.

While the arguments are taking place, outside the Supreme Court building a rally is planned by Little Sisters of the Poor, the non-profit that has been the face of the challengers on social media and in an op-ed last week in the New York Times. Planners say that hundreds of religious women, college students, and clergy will participate.  An op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post by Prof. Douglas Laycock counters the arguments by Little Sisters.

With the recent death of Justice Scalia, it is possible that the Court could split 4-4 in the case, which would result in affirmance of the Circuit Court decisions.  The first such 4-4 affirmance was published today in a case involving interpretation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Chabad Center Sues New Jersey Town Claiming Discrimination

A lawsuit was filed in a New Jersey federal district court yesterday by the Chabad Jewish Center of Toms River, New Jersey and Rabbi Moshe Gourarie. The suit claims that the town violated plaintiffs' free exercise and equal protection rights by refusing permission for the Chabad Center, which usually attracts fewer than 15 people, to operate out of a large home and garage on 8 acres on Church Road purchased by Gourarie in 2011. As reported by NJ Advance Media:

The town changed the zoning of that section of Church Road in 2009 to ban churches from operating there and since then, the township has engaged in a systematic practice of discrimination against ultra-Orthodox Jews and are seeking to have them contained in neighboring Lakewood where there is a large population of Orthodox Jews, the complaint contends....

In claiming discrimination, the suit notes that the zone permits activities at the adjacent American Legion, a church, Ocean County College, the county fire academy and other sites that are not residential uses.

(See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

North Carolina Legislature Aims To Repeal City's Transgender Rights Ordinance

In February, the Charlotte, North Carolina City Council approved changes to the city's Non-Discrimination Ordinance.  According to a City Council press release issued in February, the changes "add marital and familial status, sexual orientation, gender expression and gender identity to the list of protected characteristics in the existing Non-Discrimination Ordinances." As reported then by Al.com, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory said he would fight the Ordinance that is scheduled to go into effect on April 1. Now the legislature is apparently poised to implement that fight in a special session of the legislature called for today.  Yesterday, Lt. Governor Dan Forest issued a press release announcing:

Senate and House leaders announced Monday they have obtained the necessary three-fifths majority in both chambers and will convene a special session on Wednesday to address a radical Charlotte City Council ordinance allowing men to share public bathrooms and locker rooms with young girls and women.

The announcement from the legislative leaders said: "We aim to repeal this ordinance before it goes into effect to provide for the privacy and protection of the women and children of our state." Human Rights Campaign and Equality North Carolina issued a release calling the special session a costly and outrageous step.

In Utah, "In God We Trust" License Plate Now Costs Less

As reported by the Salt Lake Tribune, Utah Governor Gary Herbert on Monday signed into law H.B. 127 (full text), making the state's "In God We Trust" license plates available for the standard licence plate fee. The law removes the prior $5 specialty plate surcharge for this plate design. Three plate designs are now available for the standard fee.  In signing the bill, Herbert referred to Utah's creation by people seeking refuge from religious persecution. As reported on the Governor's blog, he added: "Our nation’s motto bears extra importance at a time when free worship of God and religious rights are being challenged."

Diocese of Gallup Files Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan

As previously reported, in late 2013 the Catholic Diocese of Gallup, which encompasses parts of New Mexico and Arizona, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization in order to deal with mounting sex abuse claims against the diocese.  Yesterday the Diocese finally filed its proposed Plan of Reorganization. (Full text of Disclosure Statement describing the Plan.)  The Disclosure Statement begins by admitting:

It is impossible to overstate the tragedy of the Abuse that was inflicted on the children and teenagers of the Diocese. Such Abuse was perpetrated by priests or others purporting to do the missionary work of the Roman Catholic Church. Instead of fulfilling their missions, such perpetrators inflicted harm and suffering on the children and teenagers of the Diocese. Much of this harm was inflicted at a time when the Debtors did not have insurance that covered such claims, or had insurance with an insurer that is now insolvent. 

The Plan, which must receive judicial approval and then be voted on by creditors, ultimately was the product of court-ordered mediation. As reported by the Wall Street Journal:

The plan relies on at least $22 million to repay victims as well as lawyers and other creditors. Of that amount, $11.55 million would come from a settlement in which diocesan insurer Catholic Mutual will buy back its policies. The diocese itself is slated to contribute just over $3 million to the plan....

Other insurance carriers, the Diocese of Phoenix, some of the Diocese of Gallup’s parishes, two Franciscan religious orders and two foundations that support the diocese will also contribute to the restructuring plan....

Supreme Court Denies Review In Oklahoma License Plate Controversy

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied certorari in Cressman v. Thompson,  (Docket No. 15-709, cert. denied 3/21/2016) (Order List). In the case, the 10th Circuit rejected a compelled speech challenge to Oklahoma's vehicle license plates whose design show a Native American shooting an arrow towards the sky. Plaintiff claimed that the depiction is based on a Native American legend, and in violation of his Christian beliefs the depiction teaches there are multiple gods and that the arrow is an intermediary for prayer. (See prior posting.) AP reports on the Court's denial of review. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

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.