Third Canadian Special Prosecutor Can Bring Polygamy Charges Against FLDS Leader

In Blackmore v. British Columbia (Attorney General), (BC CA, June 1, 2016), the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the appointment of the third special prosecutor since 2007 to bring polygamy charges against FLDS Church leader Winston Blackmore who lives in Bountiful, British Columbia.  In 2011, a British Columbia court upheld most applications of Canada's anti-polygamy law. (See prior posting.) In yesterday's decision, the appeals court rejected the argument that the first special prosecutor's decision not to approve charges was final. The Province reports on the decision. [Thanks to Religion News for the lead.]

3rd Circuit: Challenge To Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones May Move Ahead

In Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, (3d Cir., June 1, 2016), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a challenge to Pittsburgh's law creating a 15-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics in which demonstrators and pickets are barred.  The majority held:

the First Amendment claims are sufficient to go forward at this stage of the litigation. The speech at issue is core political speech entitled to the maximum protection afforded by the First Amendment, and the City cannot burden it without first trying, or at least demonstrating that it has seriously considered, substantially less restrictive alternatives that would achieve the City’s legitimate, substantial, and content-neutral interests.

Judge Fuentes concurred in the judgment, but filed an opinion disagreeing with the majority's reasoning, arguing that requiring governments that place significant burdens on speech to prove that less restrictive means either failed or were seriously considered and rejected distorts the "narrow-tailoring" doctrine by eliminating the government's latitude to adopt regulations that are not the least intrusive means of serving the government's interest. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports on the decision.

4th Circuit Puts Transgender Case On Fast Track to Supreme Court

As previously reported, in April, in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Virginia school board's policy barring a transgender boy (who had not undergone sex-reassignment surgery) from using the boy's rest rooms at his school violates Title IX's ban on discrimination on the basis of sex.  The school board filed a motion for a rehearing en banc, but this week in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, (4th Cir., May 31, 2016), the court issued an order denying the rehearing petition.  However Judge Niemeyer, who had dissented in the April decision, filed a dissent from the denial of a rehearing, but said:

While I could call for a poll of the court in an effort to require counsel to reargue their positions before an en banc court, the momentous nature of the issue deserves an open road to the Supreme Court to seek the Court’s controlling construction of Title IX for national application. And the facts of this case, in particular, are especially “clean,” such as to enable the Court to address the issue without the distraction of subservient issues.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports on developments.

EU Court Adviser Says Hijab Ban By Private Business Is Permissible

The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union has recommended to the Court that it interpret the EU's employment equality directive (Directive 2000/78/EC) as permitting businesses to ban Muslim employees from wearing a headscarf as part of an employer's broader policy seeking to achieve religious and ideological neutrality.  The case arose from a request from the Belgian Court of Cassation for clarification of the Directive's provisions. The EU Advocate's full opinion in Achbita v. G4S Secure Solutions NV (May 31, 2016) observes:

Ultimately, the legal issues surrounding the Islamic headscarf are symbolic of the more fundamental question of how much difference and diversity an open and pluralistic European society must tolerate within its borders and, conversely, how much assimilation it is permitted to require from certain minorities.

The opinion concludes in part:

The fact that a female employee of Muslim faith is prohibited from wearing an Islamic headscarf at work does not constitute direct discrimination based on religion ... if that ban is founded on a general company rule prohibiting visible political, philosophical and religious symbols in the workplace and not on stereotypes or prejudice against one or more particular religions or against religious beliefs in general. That ban may, however, constitute indirect discrimination based on religion....

Such discrimination may be justified in order to enforce a policy of religious and ideological neutrality pursued by the employer in the company concerned, in so far as the principle of proportionality is observed in that regard. In that connection, the following factors in particular must be taken into account: – the size and conspicuousness of the religious symbol, – the nature of the employee’s activity, – the context in which she has to perform that activity, and – the national identity of the Member State concerned.

The Court of Justice issued a press release on the Advocate's opinion, and Reuters reports further on it.

Christian Camp Says Nearby Dairy Farm Approval Violates RLUIPA

A lawsuit was filed last month in an Indiana state trial court by a Christian youth camp which objects to a zoning board's approval of a large dairy farm nearby. The complaint (full text) in House of Prayer Ministries, Inc. v. Rush County Board of Zoning Appeals, (filed 5/16/2016), alleges that the 1400 cows and three large waste lagoons on the farm will expose campers to noxious odors and harmful air emissions that will "interfere with Harvest Christian Camp's thirty-year mission and ability to provide a safe, healthy, and Christian rural setting for thousands of children and teens to be educated, enriched spiritually, and enhanced by the outdoors...."  This, the complaint alleges, amounts to a substantial burden that violates the camp's rights under RLUIPA, the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First and 14th Amendments and the state constitution's equal privileges and immunities clause. RLUIPA Defense blog reports on the case.

Iran Will Boycott This Year's Hajj

Reflecting continuing tension between the two countries, on Sunday Iran announced that it will not allow its citizens to travel to Saudi Arabia in September for the Hajj.  According to the New York Times, Iran blamed Saudi Arabia for lack of cooperation, while the Saudi Ministry of Hajj and Umrah said an Iranian delegation refused to sign an agreement to resolve outstanding issues. The two countries had been at odds over transportation, security and procedures for issuing visas. (See prior posting.) Press TV quoted remarks by Iran's Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance Ali Jannati:

Given the way Saudi authorities treated Iranian delegates and talked to them during two rounds of negotiations as well as in view of their sabotage and obstacles they created, unfortunately Iranian pilgrims cannot go to Hajj this year.

Hundreds of Iranian pilgrims were killed in a stampede during last year's Hajj. (See prior posting.)

Catholic Publisher Must File Reports With AG Under New Hampshire Law

In Attorney General, Director of Charitable Trusts v. Loreto Publications, Inc., (NH Sup. Ct., May 27, 2016), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that a non-profit publishing house and bookseller of Catholic literature is a "charitable trust" under New Hampshire law and thus is required to register and submit annual reports to the state Attorney General's office. The court interpreted the reporting exclusion in NH RSA 7:19 for "religious organizations" to apply to organizations classified by the Internal Revenue Service as "churches" under the federal tax code.  According to the court, "Loreto conducts no religious services, has no congregation, and provides no religious instruction." While the exemption also applies to integrated auxiliaries of religious organizations, Loreto is not integrated auxiliary of the Catholic Church either.

Britain's Home Office Launches Investigation Into Sharia Law

In Britain last week, Home Secretary Theresa May announced that her office has begun an independent investigation into the application of Sharia law in England and Wales.  The review will be chaired by Professor Mona Siddiqui, an internationally known expert in Islamic and inter-religious studies. Her panel of experts will be advised by two imams. According to the Department's May 26 press release:

The Home Secretary committed to an independent review of the application of Sharia Law as part of the government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy. The strategy notes that many people in England and Wales follow religious codes and practices, and benefit from the guidance they offer. However, there is evidence some Sharia councils may be working in a discriminatory and unacceptable way, seeking to legitimise forced marriage and issuing divorces that are unfair to women, contrary to the teachings of Islam. It will also seek out examples of best practice among Sharia councils.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Courtney Miller, 'Spiritual But Not Religious': Rethinking the Legal Definition of Religion, (Virginia Law Review, Vol. 102, No. 3, 2016).
• Zachary D. Smith, Of Commandments, Crosses, & Prayers: The Roberts Court's Approach to Public Religion, (Brigham Young University Law Review, Vol. 2015, No. 845, 2015).
• Elizabeth Sepper, Contracting Religion, (Law, Religion, and Health in the United States, Holly Fernandez Lynch, I. Glenn Cohen, & Elizabeth Sepper eds., Cambridge Univ., 2017, Forthcoming).
• Kaari E. Hong, From Footnote to Footprint: Obergefell's Call to Reconsider Immigration Law as Family Law, (Forthcoming in Family Law in Britain and America, Brill Publishers, 2016).
• Kari E. Hong, After Obergefell: Finding a Contemporary State Interest in Marriage, (Forthcoming in The Contested Place of Religion in Family Law, Cambridge University Press, 2016).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Surabhi Chopra, Massacres, Majorities and Money: Reparation after Sectarian Violence in India, (Asian Journal of Law and Society, Forthcoming).
• Ketan Modh, Controlling Hate Speech on the Internet: The Indian Perspective, (October 12, 2015).
• Neliana Rodean, Adoption and Same-Sex Couples: New Rights in European Constitutional Space after the Ruling X and Others v. Austria, Direitos Fundamentais & Justica no.29/2014, Oct. 2015).
• Oonagh B. Breen, European Non-Profit Oversight: The Case for Regulating from the Outside In, (Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 91, No. 3, 2016, Forthcoming).

Judge Sentences Defendant To 12 Sundays of Baptist Services

Yesterday's Cincinnati Enquirer reports on the elaborate in-court discussion that led a Hamilton County, Ohio trial court judge to sentence defendant Jake Strotman, charged with attempted assault, to attend a local Baptist church for the next 12 Sundays.  He also paid $480 in court costs and $2800 in attorneys' fees.  The assault charge grew out of a brawl that developed outside a hockey arena between enthusiastic street preachers and hockey fans (including Strotman) who had been drinking at the game.  Strotman, a Catholic, is apparently happy with the sentence.

Transgender Man Sues Men-Only Barber Shop That Refused Him Service

A state court lawsuit was filed last week in California against a men-only barber shop and two of its barbers who, for religious reasons, refused to cut the hair of a transgender man.  The complaint (full text) in Oliver v. The Barbershop, R.C., Inc., (CA Super., filed 5/24/2016), relates the following reasons given to reporters by the barber shop's owner for the policy:

"It's a shame for a man to have long hair, but if a woman has long hair, it's her glory and it speaks to being given to her as her covering, and I don't want to be the one who is taking away from her glory."  Hernandez also told reporters that when "people go against what God has created, you start getting everything out of whack."

The suit seeks injunctive relief under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. A Lambda Legal press release reports on the case.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Clark v. Curry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67162 (MD AL, May 23, 2016), an Alabama federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67312, April 20, 2016) and dismissed plaintiff's objections to allegedly required participation in a faith-based Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step program as a condition of his suspended sentence.

In Smith v. Fischer, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67403 (WD NY, May 23, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint about a 9-day delay in receiving a kosher diet.

In Powlette v. Morris, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67796 (SD NY, May 23, 2016) a New York federal district court dismissed on qualified immunity grounds plaintiffs' complaint that prison authorities replaced the Rastafari holiday of Negus Day with the Battle of Adwa Victory in the 2013 DOCCS Religious Calendar.

In Riley v. Muhammad, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68766 (WD PA, April 4, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation and dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was not allowed to have his pants legs rolled up in violation of his religious beliefs, his complaint over the way prison authorities calculated the beginning of Ramadan, and his complaiant that he was not furnishes halal meat.

In Muhammad v. Douglas, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70000 (SD NY, May 25, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were infringed by placing him in keeplock for refusing to have his beard removed.

In Hoffman v. Lassen Adult Detention Facility, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70086 (ED CA, May 26, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge recommended allowing plaintiff to proceed with his claim for damages for an initial denial of his request for a kosher diet.

Complaint Alleges Inn Owner Refused Interfaith Wedding Service

ACLU of Illinois reports on a complaint it filed last month with the Illinois Department of Human Rights charging Bernadine’s Stillman Inn in Galena, Illinois with religious discrimination. After reserving the Inn for their wedding, the Inn's owner Dave Anderson told Jonathan Webber and Alexandra Katzman, an interfaith couple, that he would only allow Christian wedding ceremonies to be performed in his chapel. The couple wanted a non-religious ceremony so that the family of Ms. Katzman, who is Jewish, would be comfortable.

Survey of State Legislative Action On Religious Freedom and LGBT Rights

An AP article posted yesterday provides a useful state-by-state summary of legislative activity and executive orders this year in 35 states relating to religious freedom, including bills that specifically protect religious views relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. The summary also includes other bills dealing with LGBT rights. In a number of the states surveyed, proposed bills failed to pass.

New Jersey Court Invalidates Capital Grants To 2 Religious Colleges

In American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. Hendricks, (NJ App., May 26. 2016), a New Jersey state appellate court held that grants to two religious colleges for capital improvements violate the provision in the New Jersey Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 3, that bars taxation "for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry...." The Department of Higher Education had awarded two grants totaling over $10 million to a Jewish school, Beth Medrash Govoha, and three grants totaling $645,323 to Princeton Theological Seminary. The court said that a 1978 New Jersey Supreme Court ruling interpreting Art. I, Sec. 8 compelled it to conclude that these grants of public funds were invalid. NJ.com reports on the decision.

Alabama Commission Hires Law Prof To Prosecute Charges Against Chief Justice

As previously reported, earlier this month the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission filed ethics charges against Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore over his administrative order to all probate judges telling them that they had a duty under Alabama law to continue to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite federal court orders to the contrary. Now, as reported by AL.com, the Judicial Inquiry Commission has hired John Carroll,   professor and former dean of the Cumberland School of Law and former interim director of the Alabama Ethics Commission to prosecute the case against Moore.  In a strongly worded press release yesterday, Moore's attorneys, Liberty Counsel, objected to Carroll because of his service 32 years ago as Legal Director of the Southern Poverty Law Center. SPLC includes Liberty Counsel on its list of Extremist Groups.

Appeals Court Upholds Saturday Murder Trial Despite Defendant's Religious Objection

In State v. Victor, 2016 La. App. LEXIS 1030 (LA App., May 26, 2016), a Louisiana state appeals court held that defendant's free exercise rights were not violated when the court refused to adjourn his second degree murder trial on Saturday, which defendant claimed was his Sabbath.  Defendant was on trial for the murder of his 8-year old stepson who died after a severe beating that was allegedly administered as discipline for stealing ice cream. In upholding on compelling interest grounds the trial court's refusal to adjourn for Saturday, the appeals court said in part:

the record reflects that the trial judge carefully considered defendant's concerns as well as his delay in raising this issue, including his failure to object when the prospective jury was advised numerous times of the possibility that they would be required to work on Saturday, his lack of a specific religious affiliation or particular church membership, the unavailability of the State's key expert witness the following week, and "the justice system as a whole," in denying defendant's request not to hold trial on Saturday.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Leads To Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Complaint Against Cemetery

In Mammon v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., (FL App., May 25, 2016), a Florida appellate court invoked the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss a consumer fraud complaint against a cemetery brought by a widow who claimed that the cemetery gave false assurances that her late husband would be buried in accordance with Jewish burial customs and traditions. A month after her husband was buried, the widow discovered that the cemetery allowed non-Jews to be buried in the same section of the cemetery, a practice which she alleged violated Jewish burial traditions. Defendants however cited theological debates among rabbis on whether there are exceptions to the ban. The court held that:

although the widow’s complaint is framed in counts alleging deceptive and fraudulent misrepresentations regarding “Jewish burial customs and traditions,” the disposition of those counts cannot be accomplished without first determining, as a matter of fact, what constitutes “Jewish burial customs and traditions.” *** That preliminary determination would violate the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

8th Circuit Gives Christian Proselytizer At Irish Fair Limited Victory

In Miller v. City of St. Paul, (8th Cir., May 23, 2016), an evangelical Christian who wanted to proselytize at the 2014 Irish Fair of Minnesota won a partial victory.  Police commander Patricia Englund told David Miller that he and his group who planned to carry a banner, hand out literature and preach were not welcome at the fairgrounds.  The Court held that Miller has standing to pursue a claim for damages against Commander Englund, but could not pursue official capacity claims or injunctive relief. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Memorial Day Display Triggers Controversy

A Memorial Day display intended to honor the 79 residents of Paulding County, Georgia who died in U.S. wars has become a center of controversy. At issue are 79 white, handmade crosses placed on public land along a state highway. As reported yesterday by Fox News:

[T]he crosses were abruptly taken down last Friday after someone called Hiram City Hall questioning whether the soldiers were all Christian.

The move sparked public outcry -- particularly on social media -- and, after a city council meeting Tuesday night, the crosses were put back in place Wednesday morning.

"It was never about religion -- it was just to honor them," [said] Hiram Mayor Teresa Philyaw...