Appeals Court OK's Court-Ordered Meeting of Church Members

In Hawkins v. St. John Missionary Baptist Church of Bakersfield, California, (CA App., March 15, 2017), a California state appellate court upheld a trial court's determination that it could use neutral principles of state non-profit corporation law to order a church's Board of Deacons to call a meeting of members to vote on whether to remove the church's pastor. The appeals court said in part:

[T]he court may apply neutral principles of law based on the church’s own constitution, bylaws and rules, and relevant California statutes.... Thus, a court may determine whether an election in which a pastor was removed was properly conducted according to the church’s bylaws, rules and regulations. In other words, the court may assist the church in acting within its proper sphere under its own rules and regulations to protect civil and property rights.

At the meeting, overseen by a court-appointed referee, those favoring removal of the pastor prevailed by 1 vote. The appeals court concluded that the referee had wrongly excluded the votes of 3 members, and remanded the case for the trial court to redetermine the election results after counting those votes.

Hawaii Federal Court Bars Enforcement of Key Provisions of Second Travel Ban

Today a Hawaii federal district court issued a nationwide temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of Section 2  (90 day ban on entry into U.S. of nationals of six Muslim-majority nations) and Section 6 (120 day suspension of entry of refugees) of President Trump's second "travel ban" Executive Order.  The Executive Order was scheduled to go into effect tomorrow. (See prior posting.)  The lawsuit was brought by the state of Hawaii and by the Imam of the Muslim Association of Hawai‘i.  In State of Hawaii v. Trump, (D HI, March 15, 2017), a Hawaii federal district court concluded that:

Because a reasonable, objective observer—enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance—would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose, the Court finds that Plaintiffs, and Dr. Elshikh in particular, are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim.

The court explained its conclusion in part as follows:

The record before this Court is unique. It includes significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor.... The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts should not look into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government decisionmakers and may not undertake a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.”... The Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry.

According to Hawaii News Now,  President Trump reacted to the ruling during a rally in Nashville, saying in part:

This is, in the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach. This ruling makes us look weak, which by the way, we no longer are, believe me.  We're going to fight this terrible ruling. We're going to fight this case as far as it needs to go, including all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Washington Post reports on today's decision. Josh Blackman's Blog has a lengthy post reviewing cases on the application of the Establishment Clause to immigration law matters and reaching a different conclusion than did the Hawaii court about the Executive Order's constitutionality..

NYC Arrangement On Controversial Circumcision Method Apparently Is Not Working

In September 2015, the New York City Board of Health repealed its largely unenforced regulations that required parental consent forms be signed in cases of ritual circumcision using the direct oral suction technique (metzitzah b'peh). The original regulations were adopted to prevent passage of the herpes simplex virus to infants.  In exchange for the repeal, the Orthodox Jewish community was to cooperate in banning mohels  who are found to have infected an infant. (See prior posting.) The New York Post reported Monday that since the the 2015 arrangement by the DeBlasio administration, there have been six case of herpes.  However only two of the six mohels involved have been identified, and those two were not removed, but merely advised not to use the controversial direct oral suction method.  Mayor DeBlasio says the city is reviewing the situation.

City's Settlement of Mosque Litigation Challenged By New Lawsuit

As previously reported, last month the city of Sterling Heights, Michigan reached settlements in two related lawsuits challenging the city's denial of a land use application filed by an Islamic group that wants to construct a mosque on five adjoining lots in the city. Now several individuals have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the settlement.  The complaint (full text) in Youkhana v. City of Sterling Heights, (ED MI, filed 3/13/2017), seeks a declaration that the settlement is invalid and unenforceable. It contends that the city violated plaintiffs' 1st, 4th and 14th Amendment rights, including the Establishment Clause, in the procedures used at the City Council meeting considering the settlement.  It also claims a violation of the Michigan Open Meetings Act. the complaint describes the procedures used at the meeting as follows:

The City ... (1) adopted an ad hoc rule that limited speakers wanting to address the Consent Judgment agenda item to just 2 minutes, thereby severely limiting Plaintiffs’ right to express their views at this public hearing, even though the Mayor allowed other speakers addressing less controversial matters that evening to speak at great length; (2) prohibited certain views based on their content and viewpoint (i.e., no one was permitted to mention religion or even hint at it when discussing the Consent Judgment matter, and certainly no one was permitted to make any statement that might be deemed critical of Islam); (3) directed the City police to seize individuals and escort them out of the meeting if the Mayor opposed what they were saying about the Consent Judgment matter; and (4) ordered the citizens out of the public meeting when it came time to actually vote on the Consent Judgment.

Detroit News reports on the lawsuit.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Robinson v. Superintendent Houtzdale SCI, (3d Cir., March 6, 2017), the 3rd Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an inmate's complaint that he was unable to participate in the sex offender’s treatment program because it requires him to "confess" to a therapist, and as a Christian the Bible only permits him to confess to God.

In Adams v. Scott, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28966 (CD IL, March 1, 2017), an Illinois federal district court dismissed a complaint by several civilly committed individuals that their nondenominational Christian religious beliefs were not accommodated.

In Carawan v. McLarty, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29485 (ED NC, March 2, 2017), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were infringed when authorities confiscated his mail which contained postage stamps donated to him by Muslim inmates practicing zakat.

In Ayers v. Esgrow, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30124 (WD NY, March 1, 2017), a New York federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with his complaint that a correctional officer vindictively seized his personal religious property, removed him from his religious clerk position and filed a falsified misbehavior report against him.

In Barros v. Wetzel, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30498 (MD PA, March 2, 2017), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge recommended allowing a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his complaint that authorities refused to provide him with a medically prescribed therapeutic diet tray during the Ramadan fast.

European Court of Justice Upholds Neutral Employment Rules Barring Religious Dress

The Court of Justice of the European Union today decided two cases raising the question of whether private employers may prohibit Muslim employees from wearing a headscarf at work.  In a case from Belgium, Achbita v. G4S Secure Solutions NV, (CJEU, March 14, 2017), the Court's Grand Chamber ruled:

Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition on wearing an Islamic headscarf, which arises from an internal rule of a private undertaking prohibiting the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign in the workplace, does not constitute direct discrimination based on religion or belief within the meaning of that directive.

By contrast, such an internal rule of a private undertaking may constitute indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 if it is established that the apparently neutral obligation it imposes results, in fact, in persons adhering to a particular religion or belief being put at a particular disadvantage, unless it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, such as the pursuit by the employer, in its relations with its customers, of a policy of political, philosophical and religious neutrality, and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

In a case from France, Bougnaoui v. Micropole SA,  (CJEU, March 14, 2017), however, the Court's Grand Chamber held that where an employer does not have a general rule on dress:

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the willingness of an employer to take account of the wishes of a customer no longer to have the services of that employer provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf cannot be considered a genuine and determining occupational requirement within the meaning of that provision.

The Court issued a press release summarizing the decisions. The Guardian reports on the decision.

7th Circuit Upholds Enhanced Sentence For Hajj Fraud Defendant

In United States v. Minhas, (7th Cir., March 10, 2017), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 114 month prison sentence imposed on a travel agent convicted in two separate cases of wire and mail fraud. One of the cases involved selling 54 customers purported Hajj travel packages when defendant was unable to provide the necessary visas for travel to Saudi Arabia.  The district court imposed sentence enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines because the offense resulted in substantial financial hardship to the victims.  The appeals court upheld the district court's consideration of victims as a group rather than individually in making this determination.  The court added:

It is also worth noting that the district court understood that, at least in the Lightstar Hajj case, the harm was not just the loss of money, but was also a spiritual injury inflicted when it became impossible for the victim to make the hajj.... While being deprived of this opportunity (for a year at the very least) may not constitute a financial loss in the traditional sense of losing dollars from a bank account, it is a significant alteration in life circumstances, as are many of the factors pertinent to interpreting “substantial financial hardship”....

11th Circuit: Title VII Does Not Bar Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, (11th Cir., March 10, 2017), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Title VII of the 1964 Civil rights Act does not protect against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Jude Martinez, in his majority opinion, held:

Our binding precedent forecloses such an action. Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp., 597 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir. 1979)4 (“Discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII . . . .”). “Under our prior precedent rule, we are bound to follow a binding precedent in this Circuit unless and until it is overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court.”

Judge Pryor concurring wrote in part:

I write separately to explain the error of the argument of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the dissent that a person who experiences discrimination because of sexual orientation necessarily experiences discrimination for deviating from gender stereotypes.  Although a person who experiences the former will sometimes also experience the latter, the two concepts are legally distinct. And the insistence otherwise by the Commission and the dissent relies on false stereotypes of gay individuals.

Judge Rosenbaum, dissenting in part, wrote:

Plain and simple, when a woman alleges, as Evans has, that she has been discriminated against because she is a lesbian, she necessarily alleges that she has been discriminated against because she failed to conform to the employer’s image of what women should be—specifically, that women should be sexually attracted to men only. And it is utter fiction to suggest that she was not discriminated against for failing to comport with her employer’s stereotyped view of women. That is discrimination “because of . . . sex,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), and it clearly violates Title VII under Price Waterhouse [v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)].

Atlanta Journal Constitution reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Khaled A. Beydoun, Acting Muslim, (Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (CR-CL), Vol. 53, Forthcoming).
• Jaakko Husa, Hindu Law - Stateless Law?, (Scandinavian Studies in Law, Vol. 62, 2017).
• Lama Abu-Odeh, Religious Difference in a Secular Age: The Minority Report by Saba Mahmoud (2016) Book Review, (Feminist Dissent (Forthcoming)).
• Bronwyn Conwell Roantree , Challenging Statutory Accommodations for Religiously Affiliated Daycares: An Application of the Third Party Harm Doctrine, (January 1, 2017).
• Anthony Michael Kreis, Amputating Rights-Making, (Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 69).
• Jerg Gutmann & Stefan Voigt, The Rule of Law and Islam, (Edward Elgar Handbook on the Rule of Law, Forthcoming).
• Harold Anthony Lloyd, Why Originalism Cannot Work: Lessons from Logic, Scripture, and Art, (March 5, 2017).
• Mary Ziegler, The New Negative Rights: Abortion Funding and Constitutional Law after Whole Woman's Health, (March 9, 2017).
• Miranda Perry Fleischer, Subsidizing Charity Liberally, (San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 17-261 (2017)).

From SSRN (Marriage):

• Anthony Michael Kreis, Stages of Constitutional Grief: Democratic Constitutionalism and the Marriage Revolution, (University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 20).
• Kerry Abrams, The Rights of Marriage: Obergefell, Din, and the Future of Constitutional Family Law, (March 7, 2017).

Utah Legislature Passes Changes to Polygamy Ban

As reported by AP and CNN, the state legislature late last night gave last minute final passage to HB 99 (full text) amending the state's bigamy law.  It is unclear whether Gov. Gary Herbert will sign the bill.  The bill narrows the definition of bigamy, but increases the penalties if the person prosecuted is also convicted of fraud, abuse or trafficking.  The bill required purporting to marry and cohabiting where either party is already married for a person to be guilty of bigamy.  Current law requires only one of those. Reactions to the law vary.  Sponsors say the change is necessary to protect against constitutional challenges and to focus on those plural marriages which are most problematic.  Opponents say the bill will drive polygamy even further underground.

New South Dakota Law Protects Religious Child-Placement Agencies

ACLU reports that on March 10, South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard  signed SB 149 (full text) into law.  The new law protects adoption and foster care agencies that act in accordance with religious or moral beliefs in placing children, providing in part:

No child-placement agency may be required to provide any service that conflicts with, or provide any service under circumstances that conflict with any sincerely-held religious belief or moral conviction of the child-placement agency.

It also explicitly bars any adverse action by the state against a child placement agency that acts in accordance with its religious or moral principles, except it does not authorize discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin.  One of the primary effects of the legislation is to allow agencies to refuse to permit adoptions by same-sex couples.

Dakota Free Press reported on February hearings on the bill in which an ACLU witness pointed out that the bill would allow agencies to exclude adoptions or foster care placements by

not only same-sex couples, but also people who have a different religion [from] the agency, single parents, interfaith couples… families that don’t attend church weekly, service members or gun owners… based on the agency’s moral conviction regarding pacifism, all while children in need of homes languish in foster care and await permanent families. This bill even authorizes agencies to deny a child placement with a close relative and instead place that child with strangers if that relative is of the wrong religion….

Mosque Sues Over Denial of Sewage Permit

As previously reported, last December the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against Culpeper County, Virginia alleging that it violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by denying a sewage permit application to the Islamic Center of Culpeper. Now the Islamic Center has filed its own lawsuit making similar allegations.  The complaint (full text) in Islamic Center of Culpeper v. County of Culpeper, Virginia, (WD VA, filed 3/9/2017) alleges:

The County of Culpeper ... has denied the Islamic Center of Culpeper... essential religious freedoms and equal protection under the law by refusing a “pump and haul” permit to enable ICC to construct a mosque on its own property. This Nation is founded on the principle that there will be religious freedom for all, but the County’s actions in this case violate that tenet by treating ICC differently than other similarly situated religious congregations.

WVIR reports on the lawsuit.

Hawaii Files Amended Complaint To Challenge Trump's New Travel Ban Executive Order

As reported by NPR, on Wednesday, Hawaii became the first state to sue to challenge the Trump administration's revised Executive Order imposing a 90-day suspension of entry into the United States by nationals of six Muslim-majority nations.  The state's Second Amended Complaint (full text) in State of Hawaii v. Trump,(D HI, filed 3/8/2017), alleges that the new travel ban violates the Establishment Clause by having the purpose and effect of disfavoring Islam, and violates the equal protection clause by discriminating on the basis of religion and/or national origin, nationality, or alienage.  It also contends that the Executive Order substantially burdens the exercise of religion in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, contending:

Among other injuries, some non-citizens currently outside the United States cannot enter the United States to reunite with their families or religious communities. Religious communities in the United States cannot welcome visitors, including religious workers, from designated countries. And some non-citizens currently in the United States may be prevented from travelling abroad on religious trips, including pilgrimages or trips to attend religious ceremonies overseas, if they do not have the requisite travel documents or multiple-entry visas.

[Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Church May Move Ahead With RLUIPA Objections To Denial of Demolition Permit

Village of West Dundee v. First United Methodist Church of West Dundee, (IL App., March 7, 2017), involves a church's attempt to obtain a permit to demolish a building located in the Village's Historic District.  The Church used the building as a parsonage until it fell into disrepair. The Village sought to have the church repair the building instead of demolish it.  The Church, in a counter complaint, alleged that denial of a demolition permit imposed a substantial burden in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, amounted to unequal treatment under RLUIPA and constituted an inverse condemnation. The appeals court held that the trial court should not have dismissed the Church's counter complaint because it sufficiently stated several claims and was not barred on failure-to-exhaust grounds.

Photographer Challenges Public Accommodation Law

Earlier this week a suit was filed in a Wisconsin state trial court challenging Madison City Code § 39.03(5) which makes it illegal for public accommodations to deny “equal enjoyment” because of someone’s sexual orientation or political beliefs or to publish “any communication” that denies facilities or that conveys a person’s patronage is “unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable” because of someone’s sexual orientation or political beliefs. It also challenges Wis. Stat. §106.52 that has similar provisions regarding sexual orientation. The complaint (full text) in Amy Lynn Photography Studio, LLC v. City of Madison, (WI Cir. Ct., filed 3/7/2017), contends that these legal provisions impede the ability of photographer Amy Lynn to rely on her Christian religious beliefs in deciding which clients to offer her visual storytelling service:

Amy loves to photograph and post about weddings so that others can see God’s love and character displayed in the beauty of marriage. Amy also wants to photograph for and post about pro-life pregnancy health clinics so that others can see God’s love and character displayed in the sanctity of life. These desires have grown as Amy has seen our culture increasingly question the value of marriage and the sanctity of human life.

To counteract that trend, Amy not only promotes certain content, she avoids certain content. Amy can hardly promote her beliefs while glamorizing contrary ideas. Amy therefore cannot photograph or write about things celebrating pornography, racism, violence, abortion, or any marriage besides marriage between one man and one woman, such as same-sex marriage. Nor can she photograph or write about organizations that promote those beliefs.

But Madison’s and Wisconsin’s public accommodation laws forbid that freedom.

An ADF press release announced the filing of the lawsuit.

100 Senators Call For Action On Jewish Community Center Bomb Threats

All 100 members of the U.S. Senate yesterday signed a letter (full text) to the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the FBI calling for "swift action with regard to the deeply troubling series of anonymous bomb threats made against Jewish Community Centers (JCCs), Jewish Day Schools, Synagogues and other buildings affiliated with Jewish organizations or institutions across the country."  Sen. Gary Peters issued a press release announcing the letter. Politico called the letter "a rare moment of bipartisanship."

Court Rejects RFRA Challenge To Dakota Access Pipeline

In Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (D DC, March 7, 2017), the D.C. federal district court denied a preliminary injunction requested by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe which objects to the presence of oil in the pipeline under Lake Oahe.  It asserted a claim under RFRA that the easement under the lake will cause irreparable harm to its members’ religious exercise. The court held first:

Because of the Plaintiff’s delay in raising this religious-exercise objection and the negative impact of that delay on the Corps and Dakota Access, the Court concludes that the requested preliminary-injunctive relief is barred by laches.

Moving to the merits, the court also concluded that the Tribe has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success, saying in part:

The government action here — i.e., granting the easement to Dakota Access and thereby enabling the flow of oil beneath Lake Oahe — does not impose a sanction on the Tribe’s members for exercising their religious beliefs, nor does it pressure them to choose between religious exercise and the receipt of government benefits. Cheyenne River argues that whether it has been subjected to such sanction or pressure is irrelevant ... and contends instead that it is sufficient for purposes of showing substantial burden that the effect of the government’s action is to prevent the Tribe’s members from performing required religious sacraments at Lake Oahe.... That argument, however, is directly at odds with Supreme Court precedent.

The Hill reports on the decision.

Pennsylvania Diocese Reaches Agreement With Prosecutors On New Child Protection Measures

As previously reported, a year ago a Pennsylvania Grand Jury filed a lengthy Report on sexual abuse of children by Pennsylvania Catholic clergy. On Monday, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown announced a memorandum of understanding on reforms by the Diocese, summarizing the core reforms as follows:

• The creation of an independent, multidisciplinary oversight board;
• The retention of an outside expert to develop a new, comprehensive child abuse prevention program;
• A reporting protocol that requires the Diocese to report allegations of child sexual abuse to law enforcement within twelve hours after receipt; and
• Counseling and support services for victims by qualified and independent mental health professionals chosen by the victims.

Reporting on the new agreement, AP says that it also requires the Diocese to immediately take priests accused of abuse out of positions where they have contact with minors, and place them on leave within 24 hours.

Revised Settlement Agreement Reached In Suits On NYPD Surveillance of Muslims

The ACLU on Monday announced a revised settlement agreement in two cases involving the New York Police Department's surveillance of Muslims. As previously reported, last November a federal district court judge rejected an initial settlement agreement's modifications of the so-called Handschu Guidelines that grew out of a consent decree in an earlier case on NYPD surveillance activities. The agreement announced Monday responds to the judge's concerns.  The ACLU describes the changes as follows:

Under the new enhancements, the civilian representative has even greater authority, independence, and responsibility. She is empowered to report to the court at any time if there are violations of the Handschu Guidelines, is required to report systematic violations, and must report to the court on an annual basis. The mayor is prohibited from abolishing the civilian representative position without judicial approval, and abolition by order of the court is only permitted if there have not been systemic violations of the Handschu Guidelines for the preceding three years. The civilian representative is specifically authorized to review not just the opening or extension of investigations, but also how they are conducted. In addition, the civilian representative will review the propriety of the use of undercover officers or confidential informants — a source of great concern to communities.

Wyoming Supreme Court Censures Judge Who Refused To Perform Same-Sex Marriages

In a 3-2 opinion yesterday, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that a judge who, because of religious objections, refuses to perform same-sex marriages violates the Wyoming Code of Judicial Conduct.  In Neely v. Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics, (WY Sup. Ct., March 7, 2017), Justice Fox wrote for the majority, saying in part:

This case is not about same-sex marriage or the reasonableness of religious beliefs.... This case is also not about imposing a religious test on judges. Rather, it is about maintaining the public’s faith in an independent and impartial judiciary that conducts its judicial functions according to the rule of law, independent of outside influences, including religion, and without regard to whether a law is popular or unpopular.

Responding to petitioner's free exercise argument, the majority stated:

Allowing Judge Neely to opt out of same-sex marriages is contrary to the compelling state interest in maintaining an independent and impartial judiciary.

However, rejecting the Commission's recommendation that Judge Neely be removed from office, the majority said:

Weighing these factors, we find that Judge Neely’s misconduct warrants a public censure. We further find that Judge Neely must perform her judicial functions, including performing marriages, with impartiality. She must either commit to performing marriages regardless of the couple’s sexual orientation, or cease performing all marriage ceremonies.

Justice Kautz, joined by Justice Davis, dissented, saying in part:

The majority’s position that Judge Neely violated Rule 1.2 is based on the mistaken conclusion that Judge Neely refused “to follow the law of the land.” As discussed above, the undisputed evidence shows that Judge Neely made no such refusal. She did not state that she would deny marriage to same sex couples, but rather said she would assist such couples in finding someone to perform their civil marriage ceremony. The law does not require Judge Neely personally to perform every marriage.

Focusing on the majority's free exercise argument, the dissenters said in part:

Apparently some individuals might find it offensive that Judge Neely said she would decline to personally perform a same-sex marriage and instead would refer them to someone else. There is no compelling state interest in shielding individuals from taking such an offense.

AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Gabe Rusk for the lead.]