Planned Parenthood and Mormon Church Spar Over Intellectual Property Rights

Life Site News reported yesterday on the interesting intellectual property dispute that played out on the sidelines of last week's Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City.  The Symposium draws over 1,500 attendees to talk about Mormon history, theology, politics, culture from a variety of Restorationist perspectives.  One of vendors at the event was Planned Parenthood, which often uses humor in its messaging.  The group created a special run of condoms to distribute to attendees with packaging carrying the letters "CTR" on a shield.  This mimics the design of a ring which since 1970 has been given to every Mormon child to remind them to "Choose the Right." After receiving complaints, the Symposium sponsors allowed Planned Parenthood to distribute the condoms, but not to display them.  A Mormon Church spokesperson said that Planned Parenthood had not sought permission to use the design which belongs to the Church.

Penitent May Testify To Her Statements To Priest In Confession

As previously reported, in February a Louisiana trial court held that a plaintiff suing the Catholic Church and a priest can testify that in 2008 she told the priest during confession that she was being abused by a 64-year old parishioner. The Church and the priest appealed, but in a 2-1 decision in Mayeux v. Charlet, (LA App., July 29, 2016) the appeals court affirmed the trial court decision.  However Judge Holdridge dissenting argued:

The statements sought to be excluded were made during the Sacrament of Confession, which is one of the central institutional practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Pursuant to the "seal of confession", a priest is prohibited from revealing anything learned during confession under any circumstance.... The violation of the seal of confession subjects the priest to automatic excommunication.... Accordingly, allowing Plaintiffs to mention, reference, or introduce evidence at trial of the confessions at issue will place an undue burden on Father Bayhi' s right to the free exercise of his religion and violates the constitutional command of separation of church and state. La. Const. art. I, § 8. 

ABA To Vote On Anti-Discrimination Professional Conduct Rule

At the American Bar Association Annual Meeting which begins this Thursday in San Francisco, the House of Delegates will vote on an amendment to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4 (full text of amended Rule and Comment) which will make it professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(g) harass or discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This Rule does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline, or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16.

The amendment replaces a current comment the merely bars bias prejudicial to the administration of justice in representing clients. The new proposal apparently has some opposition.  In a piece published today in the conservative American Thinker, a former Regent Law School Dean and a former Reagan Administration official argue among other things:

Statutes accommodating religious conscience abound at both the state and federal level.  Law schools with an overtly religious mission, including the hiring, faculty, and admission of students, enjoy ABA accreditation.  Nationwide, lawyers and law firms hold themselves out to the public as Christians, letting the community know that they are dedicated to practicing law in accordance with ethical rules of their personal faith.  Why should such law firms be barred from hiring lawyers which share the same religious convictions?  Indeed, the Holy Scriptures counsel believers not to become "unequally yoked" with nonbelievers.  2 Corinthians 6:14.  Are Christian lawyers to be barred by ethics rules from obeying Biblical statutes?  Why should lawyers not be free to hire and fire staff on the basis of fidelity to their shared moral code? ... Why should a lawyer be penalized if he candidly advises potential clients what that code is?... 

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Lucia Ann Silecchia, 'Social Love' as a Vision for Environmental Law: Laudato Si' and the Rule of Law, (10 Liberty University Law Review 371 (2016)).
• Geurt Henk Spruyt, Politicians and Epidemics in the Bible Belt, (Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 114-126, June 2016).
• Nelson Tebbe, Micah Schwartzman & Richard Schragger, When Do Religious Accommodations Burden Others?, (The Conscience Wars: Rethinking the Balance between Religion, Identity, and Equality (Susanna Mancini & Michel Rosenfeld eds., Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017 Forthcoming)).
• Nelson Tebbe, Micah Schwartzman & Richard Schragger, How Much May Religious Accommodations Burden Others?, (in Law, Religion, and Health in the United States (Elizabeth Sepper, Holly Fernandez Lynch, and I. Glenn Cohen, ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017 Forthcoming)).
• Johnny Rex Buckles, The Sexual Integrity of Religious Schools and Tax Exemption, U of Houston Law Center No. 2016-W-2. (2016)).
• Robert C. Blitt, Equality and Nondiscrimination Through the Eyes of an International Religious Organization: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Response to Women's Rights and Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Rights, (July 26, 2016).
• Shahbaz Ahmad Cheema, Fatawa in Pakistani Courts: An Appraisal, (July 26, 2016).

From elsewhere:

• U.S. Department of Justice, Combating Religious Discrimination Today: Final Report, (July 2016).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Mayo v. County of York, (3d Cir., July 25, 2016), the 3rd Circuit (via a footnote) affirmed dismissal of an inmate's complaint that a package containing a Bible was initially rejected as overweight.

In Salas v. Gomez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96769 (ND CA, July 25, 2016), a California federal district court allowed a Jewish inmate to move ahead with claims against various defendants as to the adequacy of the kosher diet furnished him and the refusal to transfer him to a different prison that could meet his religious needs more generally.

In Long v. John Does 1-3, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96859 (D HI, July 25, 2016), a Hawaii federal district court held that a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was not provided early meals during Ramadan states a claim, but that he must identify the John Doe defendants through interrogatories in order to move ahead.

In Parkell v. Senato, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97903 (D DE, July 26,2016), a Delaware federal district court permitted an inmate who practices a faith that combines Wicca and Judaism to move ahead with his 1st Amendment and equal protection claims regarding past refusal to furnish him a kosher diet.

In Rivera v. Stirling, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97947 (D SC, July 27, 2016), a South Carolina federal district court dismissed under the "three strikes" rule a suit by a Muslim inmate complaining that he did not receive a vegetarian diet. The magistrate's recommendation is at 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98082, June 24, 2016.

In Hastings v. Thomas, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98161 (MD AL, July 26, 2016), an Alabama federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies a complaint by a Native American inmate that his religion was impeded.

7th Circuit Reluctantly Holds Title VII Does Not Cover Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, (7th Cir., July 28, 2016), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals adhered to its past precedent and held that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not cover employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However two of the three judges (Judge Rovner who wrote the opinion and Judge Bauer) apparently did so hesitantly, joining in the lengthy portions of the opinion that review the anomalies produced by this conclusion.  They said in part:

As things stand now, ... our understanding of Title VII leaves us with a somewhat odd body of case law that protects a lesbian who faces discrimination because she fails to meet some superficial gender norms—wearing pants instead of dresses, having short hair, not wearing make up— but not a lesbian who meets cosmetic gender norms, but violates the most essential of gender stereotypes by marrying another woman. We are left with a body of law that values the wearing of pants and earrings over marriage. It seems likely that neither the proponents nor the opponents of protecting employees from sexual orientation discrimination would be satisfied with a body of case law that protects “flamboyant” gay men and “butch” lesbians but not the lesbian or gay employee who act and appear straight....

In addition to the inconsistent application of Title VII to gender non‐conformity, these  sexual orientation cases highlight another inconsistency in courts’ applications of Title VII to sex as opposed to race....  [C]ourts and the Commission have consistently concluded that the statute prohibits discrimination based on an employee’s association with a person of another race, such as an interracial marriage or friendship..... But ... Title VII ... has not protected women employees who are discriminated against because of their intimate associations with other women, and men with men....

Perhaps the writing is on the wall. It seems unlikely that our society can continue to condone a legal structure in which employees can be fired, harassed, demeaned, singled out for undesirable tasks, paid lower wages, demoted, passed over for promotions, and otherwise discriminated against solely based on who they date, love, or marry. The agency tasked with enforcing Title VII does not condone it, ...; many of the federal courts to consider the matter have stated that they do not condone it...; and this court undoubtedly does not condone it.... But writing on the wall is not enough. Until the writing comes in the form of a Supreme Court opinion or new legislation, we must adhere to the writing of our prior precedent....

Judge Ripple concurred in the outcome, but did not join those part of the opinion expressing doubt about the continued viability of the past precedent.  The decision came in the case of a part-time adjunct professor at a community college who claimed that she was denied a full-time position. Indy Star reports on the decision.

Libertarian Candidate On Religious Liberty

The Washington Examiner yesterday posted an interview with Libertarian Party candidate for President (and former New Mexico governor), Gary Johnson, focusing largely on Johnson's views on religious liberty issues.  Here is an excerpt:

Do you think New Mexico was right to fine the photographer for not photographing the gay wedding?

"Look. Here's the issue. You've narrowly defined this. But if we allow for discrimination — if we pass a law that allows for discrimination on the basis of religion — literally, we're gonna open up a can of worms when it come stop discrimination of all forms, starting with Muslims … who knows. You're narrowly looking at a situation where if you broaden that, I just tell you — on the basis of religious freedom, being able to discriminate — something that is currently not allowed — discrimination will exist in places we never dreamed of."

Parish Assets Not Includable In Archdiocese Bankruptcy

As reported by the Minneapolis Star Tribune, a Minnesota federal bankruptcy court yesterday refused to include the assets of 200 parishes, schools and other entities as part of the assets of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.  In In re: The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, (MN Bkruptcy., July 28, 2016), the court said in part:

The typical substantive consolidation is reserved for situations where the finances of two or more debtors are so confusingly intertwined that it is impossible to separate them. Nothing of the sort is alleged here. There were insufficient facts demonstrating a complete abuse of the non-debtors’ corporate form under Minnesota law governing religious corporations and organizations.

Reacting to the ruling,  Archbishop Bernard Hebda in a statement (full text) said that he is "particularly thankful that [the judge] was not swayed by the allegations that the Archdiocese had hidden assets and engaged in deceptive practices...." He added: "The Archdiocese nonetheless continues to stand ready to work with counsel for sexual abuse claimants to provide fair compensation as part of our Plan of Reorganization.." [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Mormon Judge's Recusal Not Required In Case Involving Indian Tribe

In Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah v. State of Utah, (D UT, July 25, 2016), a Utah federal district court rejected the contention that a federal judge's membership in the Mormon Church should be a basis for requiring recusal in cases involving Indians or Indian tribes.  To support the claim, the Ute Tribe cited a passage in Mormon scripture regarding a curse on the Lamanites, which some identify as American Indians.  In the long-running case involving the extent of tribal court jurisdiction, the court said:

plaintiff's argument is conclusively foreclosed by the Tenth Circuit's unequivocal holding that membership in and support of "the Mormon Church would never be enough to disqualify" a judge.

The court also refused to disqualify the judge on various other grounds as well. Fox 13 reports on the decision.

Kansas City Sued Over Tourism Grant To Baptist Convention

A lawsuit was filed last week by the American Atheists challenging a grant that had been approved by the Kansas City, Missouri City Council to support the National Baptist Convention that will be hosted in Kansas City in September.  According to the complaint (full text) in American Atheists, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, Missouri, (WD MO, filed 7/22/2016), a grant of $65,000 from the city's Neighborhood Tourist Development Fund was to fund shuttle bus transportation for convention delegates from their hotels to convention site. The complaint alleges that the grant violates the Establishment Clause and equal protection clause of the federal Constitution as well as the "no aid" clause of the Missouri Constitution. Plaintiffs also filed a motion (full text) for a preliminary injunction. An American Atheist press release announced the lawsuit. Reuters reports on the suit.

Israel's Parliament Enacts Law To Circumvent Court Ruling On Use of Mikvehs By Non-Orthodox Jewish Groups

According to the Jerusalem Post, in Israel on Monday the Knesset (Parliament) passed a controversial law that essentially circumvents an Israeli Supreme Court ruling last February (see prior posting) that opened publicly funded mikvehs  (ritual bath facilities) operated by Orthodox-controlled religious councils for use by the Conservative and Reform Jewish movements for their conversion ceremonies as well as for Orthodox conversions. The new law allows local rabbinates to limit which groups can use public mikveh facilities, essentially assuring that they will only be open to Orthodox Jewish use. At the same time, the government has proposed that the Jewish Agency-- whose funds come largely from private contributions by Jewish communities outside of Israel-- build up to four mikvehs for use by the Reform and Conservative Jewish movements. The new law does not take effect for nine months to provide time for these new mikvehs to be built. The more liberal streams of Judaism doubt whether the construction can take place that quickly. This is part of a broader struggle by non-Orthodox streams of Judaism to gain more official recognition in Israel, and strong Orthodox resistance to those attempts.

Nova Scotia Appeals Court Overturns Refusal To Recognize Christian Law School's Graduates

In Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society v. Trinity Western University, (NS Ct., App., July 26, 2016), the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, without reaching religious liberty claims, held that the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society exceeded its authority in adopting a regulation that effectively barred graduates of a Christian law school based in British Columbia from being admitted to the bar in Nova Scotia by refusing to allow them to article there.  At issue was Trinity Western University's "community covenant" that requires students and faculty to abide by various Biblical teachings, including a ban on sexual intimacy outside of heterosexual marriage.  The Barristers' Society passed a resolution refusing to recognize Trinity Western's degrees because the community covenant is discriminatory.  The Society subsequently amended its regulations to allow non-recognition of law schools that unlawfully discriminate on grounds prohibited by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act. The court said:

It is inconceivable that the Legislature, without expressing a supportive word in either the Legal Profession Act or the Human Rights Act, intended that the Society’s Council could assert for itself an autonomous jurisdiction concurrent with that of a human rights board of inquiry.

The court went on to conclude that even if the Society's regulation had been properly adopted, Trinity Western did not violate Nova Scotia's Human Rights Act since all its activities occurred in British Columbia, and Trinity Western is not subject to the Charter of Rights because it is a private university. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision, and The Globe and Mail reports on it.

9th Circuit: Healthcare System's Pension Plan Is Not An Exempt "Church Plan"

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday joined the 3rd and 7th Circuits in interpreting ERISA to cover plans of a number of religiously-affiliated health care systems that previously operated their pension plans on the assumption that they are exempt "church plans."  In Rollins v. Dignity Health, (9th Cir., July 26, 2016), the court concluded that under the language of ERISA, a pension plan is exempt as a church plan only if it was originally established by a church or convention of churches.  The class action complaint filed in 2013 alleges that as of that date Dignity Health's pension plan was underfunded by more than $1.2 billion.

Church Meeting Not Totally Immune From Judicial Examination

In Barrow v. Living Word Church, (SD OH, July 25, 2016), an Ohio federal magistrate judge refused to apply the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss a suit by a former volunteer pastor who was removed from his position and from church membership, saying in part:

The Magistrate Judge agrees that the Free Exercise Clause requires this Court to abstain from judging the legitimacy of any Living Word decision about who is or can be a member or a clergyperson of their church or about whether it is proper to remove a person from either position on the basis of church moral judgment of that person’s behavior. If this were a case about those issues or indeed about interpreting church doctrine in any way, we would be required to abstain.  But the Free Exercise Clause does not shield church people from any secular court consideration of what happens in church meetings just because of where it happened. If a church meeting is used as a place to plan to commit torts involving third parties – which is what is alleged here regarding Living Word interference with Barrow’s book deals – ecclesiastical abstention will not shield the occurrences in the meeting from secular court consideration.

RLUIPA Applies To Law Aimed At Transitional Housing For Sex Offenders

In Martin v. Houston, (MD AL, July 25, 2016), an Alabama federal district court held that a pastor can invoke RLUIPA in challenging an Alabama law that would require him to close down his mobile home transitional housing arrangement for recently-released male sex offenders.  The law, which the state legislature made applicable to only one county, prohibits unrelated adult sex offenders from establishing residency in the same home or living less than 300 feet apart on the same property. The court concluded that the law constitutes a land use regulation under which the government makes individualized assessments of the proposed use of property.

2016 Democratic Platform On Protecting Religious Minorities Internationally

Yesterday the Democratic Party at its national convention adopted its 2016 Platform (full text).  This is the last in a series of seven posts that focus on Platform provisions dealing with religious discrimination and with social issues that often generate controversy defined in religious terms. Here is the Platform provision on international human rights dealing with Religious Minorities:

We are horrified by ISIS’ genocide and sexual enslavement of Christians and Yezidis and crimes against humanity against Muslims and others in the Middle East. We will do everything we can to protect religious minorities and the fundamental right of freedom of religion.

2016 Democratic Platform On International Human Rights of LGBT Communities

Yesterday the Democratic Party at its national convention adopted its 2016 Platform (full text).  This is the sixth in a series of seven posts that focus on Platform provisions dealing with religious discrimination and with social issues that often generate controversy defined in religious terms. Here is the Platform provision on international human rights of the LGBT community:

Democrats believe that LGBT rights are human rights and that American foreign policy should advance the ability of all persons to live with dignity, security, and respect, regardless of who they are or who they love. We applaud President Obama’s historic Presidential Memorandum on International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons, which combats criminalization, protects refugees, and provides foreign assistance. We will continue to stand with LGBT people around the world, including fighting efforts by any nation to infringe on LGBT rights or ignore abuse.

2016 Democratic Platform on Reproductive Health, Rights and Justice

Yesterday the Democratic Party at its national convention adopted its 2016 Platform (full text).  This is the fifth in a series of seven posts that focus on Platform provisions dealing with religious discrimination and with social issues that often generate controversy defined in religious terms. Note that the excerpt continues after the jump. Here is the Platform section on Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice:

Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured.

2016 Democratic Platform on Tribal Nation Religious Traditions

Yesterday the Democratic Party at its national convention adopted its 2016 Platform (full text).  This is the fourth in a series of seven posts that focus on Platform provisions dealing with religious discrimination and with social issues that often generate controversy defined in religious terms. Here is an excerpt from the Platform section on Honoring Indigenous Tribal Nations:

We will manage for tribal sacred places, and empower tribes to maintain and pass on traditional religious beliefs, languages, and social practices without fear of discrimination or suppression. We also believe that Native children are the future of tribal nations and that the Indian Child Welfare Act is critical to the survival of Indian culture, government, and communities and must be enforced with the statutory intent of the law.

2016 Democratic Platform on Respecting Faith and Service

Yesterday the Democratic Party at its national convention adopted its 2016 Platform (full text).  This is the third in a series of seven posts that focus on Platform provisions dealing with religious discrimination and with social issues that often generate controversy defined in religious terms. Here is an excerpt from the Platform provision titled Respecting Faith and Service:

Democrats know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith in many forms and the countless acts of justice, mercy, and tolerance it inspires. We believe in lifting up and valuing the good work of people of faith and religious organizations and finding ways to support that work where possible.