Yesterday a group of Notre Dame undergraduate and graduate students filed suit in an Indiana federal district court against the University and the Trump Administration challenging a settlement entered last year with the University in its lawsuit over the contraceptive coverage mandate under the Affordable Care Act. The complaint (full text) in Irish 4 Reproductive Health v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (ND IN, filed 6/26/2018), contends that the settlement which exempts Notre Dame from furnishing contraceptive coverage to its students and employees where doing so would violate the University's religious tenets was entered in violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. The settlement reflects the exemptions for religious non-profits which the Trump Administration adopted, but whose application has been enjoined nationwide by two other federal district courts. The complaint also challenges the constitutionality of those now-enjoined rules.
According to the complaint, Notre Dame will provide some contraceptive coverage, but will require co-pays, and will refuse to cover certain IUDs and emergency contraceptives. Presumably this is an attempt to withdraw coverage of contraceptives that may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Plaintiffs in the case are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), the Center for Reproductive Rights and their co-counsel. NWLC issued a press release announcing the lawsuit.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Trump's Travel Ban Upheld By Supreme Court; Establishment Clause Challenge Rejected
This morning in Trump v. Hawaii, (US Sup. Ct., June 26, 2018), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the latest version of President Trump's travel ban, rejecting Establishment Clause challenges to the ban. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion, joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, said in part:
Justices Kennedy and Thomas each filed a separate concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Kagan. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Ginsburg, saying in part:
The case before us differs in numerous respects from the conventional Establishment Clause claim. Unlike the typical suit involving religious displays or school prayer, plaintiffs seek to invalidate a national security directive regulating the entry of aliens abroad. Their claim accordingly raises a number of delicate issues regarding the scope of the constitutional right and the manner of proof. The Proclamation, moreover, is facially neutral toward religion. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to probe the sincerity of the stated justifications for the policy by reference to extrinsic statements—many of which were made before the President took the oath of office. These various aspects of plaintiffs’ challenge inform our standard of review....
Nonetheless, although foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry, this Court has engaged in a circumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a U. S. citizen....
For our purposes today we assume that we may look behind the face of the Proclamation to the extent of applying rational basis review.... As a result, we may consider plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence, but will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds....
The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices. The text says nothing about religion. Plaintiffs and the dissent nonetheless emphasize that five of the seven nations currently included in the Proclamation have Muslim-majority populations. Yet that fact alone does not support an inference of religious hostility, given that the policy covers just 8% of the world’s Muslim population and is limited to countries that were previously designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks.The majority also used its opinion to formally reject the long-discredited Korematsu case that in 1944 upheld the internment of Japanese Americans.
Justices Kennedy and Thomas each filed a separate concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Kagan. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Ginsburg, saying in part:
The United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. Our Founders honored that core promise by embedding the principle of religious neutrality in the First Amendment. The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns. But this repackaging does little to cleanse Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 of the appearance of discrimination that the President’s words have created. Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus. That alone suffices to show that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim. The majority holds otherwise by ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens. Because that troubling result runs contrary to the Constitution and our precedent, I dissent.
Labels:
Establishment Clause,
Immigration,
US Supreme Court
Supreme Court Holds California's FACT Act Violates Speech Rights of Pro-Life Clinics
The U.S. Supreme Court this morning, in a victory for pro-life pregnancy centers, decided National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, (US Sup. Ct., June 26, 2018). At issue was California's FACT Act which requires licensed pregnancy counseling clinics to post and distribute a notice on the existence of publicly-funded family planning services, including contraception and abortion. Unlicensed clinics must disseminate a notice that they and their personnel are unlicensed. Justice Thomas, writing for the majority (Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Gorsuch) held that these disclosure requirements likely violate 1st Amendment free speech rights of the clinics. The Court concluded that the disclosures required of licensed clinics are content-based regulations:
... licensed clinics must provide a government-drafted script about the availability of state-sponsored services, as well as contact information for how to obtain them. One of those services is abortion—the very practice that petitioners are devoted to opposing. By requiring petitioners to inform women how they can obtain state-subsidized abortions—at the same time petitioners try to dissuade women from choosing that option— the licensed notice plainly “alters the content” of petitioners’ speech.The majority then went on to largely reject the 9th Circuit's conclusion that strict scrutiny does not apply because the regulation deals with "professional speech," saying in part:
... this Court has not recognized “professional speech” as a separate category of speech. Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by “professionals.”...
This Court has afforded less protection for professional speech in two circumstances—neither of which turned on the fact that professionals were speaking. First, our precedents have applied more deferential review to some laws that require professionals to disclose factual, noncontroversial information in their “commercial speech.” ... Second, under our precedents, States may regulate professional conduct, even though that conduct incidentally involves speech.... But neither line of precedents is implicated here....
As with other kinds of speech, regulating the content of professionals’ speech “pose[s] the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information.”Turning to the required disclosures for unlicensed centers, the Court said in part:
California has not demonstrated any justification for the unlicensed notice that is more than “purely hypothetical.”A concurring opinion by Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Gorsuch emphasizes a viewpoint discrimination argument, saying in part:
... here the State requires primarily pro-life pregnancy centers to promote the State’s own preferred message advertising abortions. This compels individuals to contradict their most deeply held beliefs, beliefs grounded in basic philosophical, ethical, or religious precepts, or all of these.Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, saying in part:
Because much, perhaps most, human behavior takes place through speech and because much, perhaps most, law regulates that speech in terms of its content, the majority’s approach at the least threatens considerable litigation over the constitutional validity of much, perhaps most, government regulation....
If a State can lawfully require a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortion about adoption services, why should it not be able, as here, to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive healthcare about childbirth and abortion services?
Labels:
Abortion,
California,
Free speech,
US Supreme Court
2nd Circuit: Muslim Plaintiffs Can Seek Money Damages Under RFRA For No-Fly List Abuse
In Tanvir v. Tanzin, (2d Cir., June 25, 2018), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs asserting a claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act may recover money damages against federal officials sued in their individual capacities. At issue in the case were assertions by three Muslim men who are residents of New York or Connecticut that federal law enforcement officials placed or retained them on the No Fly List because they refused, in part for religious reasons, to act as FBI informants. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.
Labels:
Muslim,
No-Fly List,
RFRA
Monday, June 25, 2018
Supreme Court Vacates and Remands Arlene's Flowers Case
The U.S. Supreme Court today in Arlene's Flowers, Inc. v. Washington, (Docket No. 17-108, vacated 6/25/2018), (Order List), granted certiorari, vacated the judgment below and remanded the case to the Washington Supreme Court in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n. In the Arlene's Flowers case, the state of Washington's Supreme Court had upheld a trial court's decision that a florist's religiously-motivated refusal to sell arranged flowers for a same-sex wedding violates the Washington Law Against Discrimination. (See prior posting).
Report On This Year's State Religious Freedom Legislative Activity
In a June 12 report titled How 139 bills across the country are redefining religious freedom, the Deseret News has tracked all legislation affecting religious freedom passed, defeated or pending this year in state legislatures. The paper says in part:
In all, the Deseret News found 139 bills regarding religious freedom that were debated so far this year. These bills cover everything from religious clubs in elementary schools to state officials authorized to solemnize weddings, but most deal with LGBT rights, free speech, health care and adoption....
This analysis sets the stage for a six-month investigation into the state of religious freedom in America. The Deseret News will explore key conflicts affecting people of faith, sharing the stories of religious college students who feel silenced by school leaders and families caught in the middle of fights over faith-based adoption agencies.
Democrats and Republicans, young and old, once rallied around religious freedom. This project will explore why that's no longer the case.[Thanks to Blog from the Capital for the lead.]
Labels:
Religious liberty
Recent Articles of Interest
From SSRN:
- Kaiponanea T. Matsumura, Consent to Intimate Regulation, (North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 96, No. 4, 2018).
- Margo A. Bagley, The Morality of Compulsory Licensing as an Access to Medicines Tool, (Minnesota Law Review, Forthcoming).
- Paul T. Babie, Parliamentary Prayer and the Establishment of Religion, (February 2018) 40(1) the Bulletin of the Law Society of South Australia 12-15).
- Noel D. Johnson & Mark Koyama, The State, Toleration, and Religious Freedom, (Advances in the Economics of Religion, Edited by Iyer, Rubin and Carvalho. Palgrave, 2018).
- Robert G. Natelson, Why Nineteenth Century Bans on 'Sectarian' Aid are Facially Unconstitutional: New Evidence on Plain Meaning, (19 Federalist Soc. Rev. 98 (2018)).
- Thaddeus Mason Pope, How to Respond to a Patient's Discriminatory Request for a Different Clinician, (ASCO Post (April 10, 2018)).
- Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Taking North American White Supremacist Groups Seriously: The Scope and the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internet, (International Journal of Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 2 (2018): 38-57).
- Ghassan Abdul-Jabbar, The Major Themes of Hadith and Its Characteristics, (The Different Aspects of Islamic Culture, Vol. 1, Foundations of Islam (2016)).
- Mohammed A. Arafa, Transitional Justice, the Seeds of Change: Secular Law or Divine (Islamic) Law, Quo Vadis?, (Creighton Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2018).
- Christopher P. Guzelian, Silver: A Morally Good Money, (Procesos de Mercado, vol. 15 (2018).
- Doron M. Kalir, Rethinking Religious Objections (Old-Testament Based) to Same-Sex Marriage, (Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, Vol. 33, 2018, Forthcoming).
- Jonathan C. Augustine, The Fiery Furnace, Civil Disobedience and the Civil Rights Movement: A Biblical Exegesis on Daniel 3 and Letter from Birmingham Jail, (Richmond Public Interest Law Review, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2018).
From SmartCILP and elsewhere:
- Ran Hirschl, Ayelet Shachar, Competing Orders? The Challenge of Religion to Modern Constitutionalism, 85 University of Chicago Law Revies 425-455 (2018).
- J. William Callison, Dangling Threads: Hobby Lobby and Corporate Law Issues, 48 University of Memphis Law Review 447-461 (2017).
- Andrew L. Seidel, Dating God: What Is “Year of Our Lord” Doing in the U.S. Constitution?, [Abstract], 3 Constitutional Studies 129-151 (2018).
Labels:
Articles of interest
Sunday, June 24, 2018
Israeli Trial Court Permits Sex-Segregated Event In City Square
In Israel today, a Tel Aviv trial court overruled the city's ban on a sex-segregated event scheduled for tomorrow in Tel Aviv's Rabin Square. The city had prohibited the event on the ground that sex segregation in the public sphere violates anti-discrimination requirements. Apparently the substantive legal issue turns on whether the event is religious (and thus has an exemption from anti-discrimination requirements) or is cultural. The court criticized the city for waiting too long to cancel the event. Sponsored by the Messianist branch of the Chabad movement, the rally called "Messiah in the Square" is to "greet the Lubavitcher Rebbe, King Messiah." (Background.) According to Haaretz:
The Chabad representative who presented the petition told the court that the planned barrier between men and women in the square would be 50 meters long, but separation would be voluntary and men had the option of sitting with women, as well. The judge said the barrier was for people who identified with the association and that passersby could move freely through the square.
“I don’t understand why the event should not be held the way they [Chabad] want,” [Judge] Vardi said.
Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai responded Sunday to the decision by saying, “We will make sure that in the future there will be no [gender-] separated events in the city.”
Labels:
Israel,
Jewish,
Sex segregation
Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases
In Solton v. Anderson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98239 (D KA, June 12, 2018), a Kansas federal district court concluded that defendants had not improperly denied a Muslim inmate's requests for religious materials and a religious diet.
In Degale v. McDonough, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98549 (SD NY, June 12, 2018), a New York federal district court dismissed a Rastafarian inmate's challenge to the requirement for an initial shave of inmates to maintain a record of appearance in case of escape.
In Young v. Chuvalas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99618 (SD OH, June 14, 2018), an Ohio federal district court denied summary judgment to defendants in a suit by a Muslim inmate who claims he was forced to attend a Christian prison ministry event.
In Shepherd v. Smith, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100012 (ND NY, June 13, 2018), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended that a Rastafarian inmate be allowed to move ahead with his claims against certain defendants that he did not receive a requested cold alternative diet and that there were no Rastafarian religious services available.
In Kearey v. Collier, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99513 (SD TX, June 13, 2018), a Texas federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100014, May 8, 2018) and allowed a Taoist inmate to move ahead against two of the defendants on claims that they were denied access to a package containing eastern religious texts and videotapes; they were not permitted to practice moving meditations and yoga in a group setting; and an outside volunteer was required to supervise moving meditations.
In Greene v. Cabral, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100408 (D MA, June 15, 2018), a Massachusetts federal district court dismissed a Jewish inmate's claim that he was not properly served sufficient kosher food and that he was denied the ability to participate in religious services led by a rabbi.
In Smith v. Drawbridge, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100044 (WD OK, June 13, 2018), an Oklahoma federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100732, May 22, 2018) and dismissed a Jewish inmate's complaint that numerous of his religious practices were not accommodated, including diet, religious services, religious events and apparel. Most of his claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, while his complaint regarding observance of a fast day was found not to have amounted to a substantial burden on his free exercise.
In Parker v. Baldwin, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100749 (SD I, June 15, 2018), an Illinois federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was wrongly disciplined for teaching the Asatru faith, holding Asatru services and teaching the runes.
In Rhoden v. Department of State Hospitals, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100868 (ED CA, June 15, 2018), a California federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90260, May 30, 2018), and allowed a civil detainee to move ahead on his complaint that for several months he has not been allowed a Catholic Chaplain to conduct prayer services and attend mass.
In Gholston v. Powell, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102915 (MD GA, June 20, 2018), a Georgia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103201, May 25, 2018) and allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was not permitted to grow long hair and a beard.
In Degale v. McDonough, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98549 (SD NY, June 12, 2018), a New York federal district court dismissed a Rastafarian inmate's challenge to the requirement for an initial shave of inmates to maintain a record of appearance in case of escape.
In Young v. Chuvalas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99618 (SD OH, June 14, 2018), an Ohio federal district court denied summary judgment to defendants in a suit by a Muslim inmate who claims he was forced to attend a Christian prison ministry event.
In Shepherd v. Smith, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100012 (ND NY, June 13, 2018), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended that a Rastafarian inmate be allowed to move ahead with his claims against certain defendants that he did not receive a requested cold alternative diet and that there were no Rastafarian religious services available.
In Kearey v. Collier, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99513 (SD TX, June 13, 2018), a Texas federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100014, May 8, 2018) and allowed a Taoist inmate to move ahead against two of the defendants on claims that they were denied access to a package containing eastern religious texts and videotapes; they were not permitted to practice moving meditations and yoga in a group setting; and an outside volunteer was required to supervise moving meditations.
In Greene v. Cabral, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100408 (D MA, June 15, 2018), a Massachusetts federal district court dismissed a Jewish inmate's claim that he was not properly served sufficient kosher food and that he was denied the ability to participate in religious services led by a rabbi.
In Smith v. Drawbridge, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100044 (WD OK, June 13, 2018), an Oklahoma federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100732, May 22, 2018) and dismissed a Jewish inmate's complaint that numerous of his religious practices were not accommodated, including diet, religious services, religious events and apparel. Most of his claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, while his complaint regarding observance of a fast day was found not to have amounted to a substantial burden on his free exercise.
In Parker v. Baldwin, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100749 (SD I, June 15, 2018), an Illinois federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was wrongly disciplined for teaching the Asatru faith, holding Asatru services and teaching the runes.
In Rhoden v. Department of State Hospitals, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100868 (ED CA, June 15, 2018), a California federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90260, May 30, 2018), and allowed a civil detainee to move ahead on his complaint that for several months he has not been allowed a Catholic Chaplain to conduct prayer services and attend mass.
In Gholston v. Powell, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102915 (MD GA, June 20, 2018), a Georgia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103201, May 25, 2018) and allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was not permitted to grow long hair and a beard.
Labels:
Prisoner cases
Saturday, June 23, 2018
Restrictions On Religion Around The World Continue To Increase
The Pew Forum this week released its 9th annual study of restrictions on religion imposed by countries around the world. The 124-page report (full text) says in part:
Restrictions on religion around the world continued to climb in 2016, according to Pew Research Center’s ninth annual study of global restrictions on religion. This marks the second year in a row of increases in the overall level of restrictions imposed either by governments or by private actors (groups and individuals) in the 198 countries examined in the study.
The share of countries with “high” or “very high” levels of government restrictions – that is, laws, policies and actions by officials that restrict religious beliefs and practices – rose from 25% in 2015 to 28% in 2016. This is the largest percentage of countries to have high or very high levels of government restrictions since 2013, and falls just below the 10-year peak of 29% in 2012.
Friday, June 22, 2018
EEOC Wins Settlement On Behalf of Hebrew Pentecostal Employee
The EEOC announced on Wednesday that it has won a settlement in a religious discrimination lawsuit brought against J.C. Witherspoon, a South Carolina-based logging company. The company fired a Hebrew Pentecostal employee because he refused to work on Saturday, his Sabbath. The company will pay $53,000 in damages and enter a 2-year consent decree under it will make policy changes and provide training to management employees.
Labels:
EEOC,
Pentecostal,
Reasonable accommodation
Religious Liberty Expert Nominated To Be Assistant Secretary of State For Human Rights
On Wednesday, President Trump announced his intent to nominate Robert A. Destro to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Destro is Professor of Law and founding Director of the Interdisciplinary Program in Law & Religion at Catholic University's Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C. (Biography on University's website). His publications include the book, Religious Liberty in a Pluralistic Society (Carolina Academic Press, 1996, with Michael S. Ariens). From 1983 to 1989, he served as a Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Labels:
State Department
5th Circuit: Title VII Exhaustion Requirement Is Not Jurisdictional
In Davis v. Fort Bend County, (5th Cir., June 20, 2018), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the requirement that a person exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a Title VII action is not jurisdictional. It held that in this case, defendant "forfeited its opportunity to assert this claim" by waiting 5 years and an entire round of appeals all the way to the Supreme Court to raise the defense. At issue is whether plaintiff exhausted her remedies on her religious discrimination claim, which she had added to her sex discrimination and harassment allegations. Reuters reports on the decision.
Labels:
Religious discrimination,
Title VII
Thursday, June 21, 2018
Judge Orders ICE To Stop Pressuring Iraqi Religious Minorities To Agree To Deportation
Last year, in exchange for Iraq being removed from President Trump's travel ban Executive Order, Iraq agreed to take back its nationals who are subject to deportation orders in the U.S. Many of these are Chaldean Christians and members of other minority religious groups in Iraq who say they fear persecution or torture if they are returned. (See prior related posting.) As reported by Bloomberg, a Michigan federal district court yesterday issued an order preventing ICE agents from pressuring these Iraqis to agree that they wish to be returned. Iraq will take them back only if they sign such an agreement. Yesterday's Order (full text) in Hamama v. Adducci, (ED MI, June 20, 2018), also requires posting of notices in detention facilities holding these Iraqis informing them that they will not be penalized if they refuse to state they wish to be removed from the U.S.
Labels:
Chaldean Christians,
Immigration,
Iraq
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Prevents Release of Grand Jury Report On Clergy Sex Abuse
Yesterday the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a brief 2-paragraph Order (full text) barring release of an extensive Grand Jury report detailing sexual abuse and misconduct by priests in six Pennsylvania Catholic dioceses. The report, stemming from two years of testimony before a Cambria County grand jury, was expected to be made public shortly. According to the Morning Call, the six dioceses involved have pledged not to file legal challenges to prevent release of the report. It is unclear who filed objections with the Supreme Court. Its Order indicates that more than one application seeking to prevent release were filed.
Labels:
Pennsylvania,
Sex abuse claims
Father Sues Over Daycare's Policy That Disallowed Religious Jewelry
The New York Daily News reports on a lawsuit filed this week in a New York state trial court against a day care center over its policy barring students, for safety reasons, from wearing jewelry. The school refused to allow Dmitriy Goldin's then 4-year old son to wear his Star of David necklace. According to the paper, the boy's father, who immigrated to the U.S. from Russia in 1991 because of religious persecution, argues that the daycare was required to make an exception to it no-jewelry policy to accommodate his religious beliefs:
Goldin, whose grandfather died fighting Germany in World War II, and who lost about 40 family members in the Holocaust, said he is not strict about Judaism – but wearing the Jewish star is how he and his family express their faith.
“In Russia, if you wore a Star of David back in the day, you could maybe walk 10, 15 minutes with weird looks before they’d spit on us, or cursed us out, or whatever,” he said. “In America, being able to wear the Star of David – it’s freedom.”
Labels:
Jewish,
New York,
Reasonable accommodation
City Violated Establishment Clause By Acquiring Cross Site As Park Land
In Lions Club of Albany, California v. City of Albany, (ND CA, June 15, 2018), a California federal district court held that a city violated the Establishment Clause by acquiring for a public park a 1.1 acre parcel of land that includes a large cross. Originally the cross was on private property, and the Lion's Club held an easement to maintain the 20-foot high cross and to illuminate it each Christmas and Easter. The city acquired the 1.1 acres along with adjacent land in exchange for approving a high rise project nearby. The court said in part:
While the City portrays itself as a victim of the easement, the fact is that the City must bear responsibility. To repeat, the City could have rejected the deal, burdened as it was by the easement. The First Amendment ran against the City, not the private parties. Once the City accepted title and began converting the land into a public park, it then could have solved its Establishment Clause problem by condemning the easement (and paying its value) under its power of eminent domain, selling off, if feasible, a subdivided parcel containing the cross to a private party (and keeping the rest for a park), or by possibly imposing zoning restrictions against all religious displays on public land.
Labels:
California,
Cross,
Establishment Clause
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Fellow Church Members File Ecclesiastical Complaint Against Attorney General Sessions
CNN reports that on Monday, 640 members of the United Methodist Church filed a formal ecclesiastical complaint (full text) against fellow church member, Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The complaint was addressed to pastors of the churches in Mobile, Alabama and Clarendon, Virginia that Sessions attends. The complaint, brought pursuant to Paragraph 2702.3 of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, charges Sessions with child abuse, immorality, racial discrimination and dissemination of doctrines contrary to the standards of doctrine of the United Methodist Church. Calling for entering into a "just resolution process" with Sessions, the complaint says:
Mr. Sessions-- as a long-term United Methodist in a tremendously powerful, public position-- is particularly accountable to us, his church. He is ours, and we are his. As his denomination, we have an ethical obligation to speak boldly when one of our members is engaged in causing significant harm in matter contrary to the Discipline on the global stage.... [W]e believethat the severity of his actions and the harm he is causing to immigrants, migrants, refugees, and asylees calls for his church to step into a process to directly engage with him as a part of our community.
U.S. Withdraws From U.N. Human Rights Council
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley announced yesterday (video of statement) that the the United States has withdrawn from the United Nations Human Rights Council. Haley said that the Council has not implemented needed reforms that have been pressed by the United States. As reported by Vox:
Nikki Haley ... announced the decision on Tuesday evening, saying that the US could no longer be part of a UN body that was a “protector of human rights abusers, and a cesspool of political bias.”
“Look at the council membership and you see an appalling disrespect for human rights,” she said, citing member countries China, Venezuela, Russia, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Egypt. She went on to speak at length about how the council displayed a “chronic anti-Israel bias” and was “not worthy of its name.”
Labels:
United Nations
5th Circuit: Bishops Win Temporary Stay of Subpoena For E-Mails
The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Whole Woman's Health v. Smith, (5th Cir., June 18, 2018), has granted an emergency stay of a district court's order (see prior posting) refusing to quash a subpoena issued to the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops. The subpoena, in a suit challenging the constitutionality of a Texas law that requires health providers to bury or cremate fetal remains after an abortion, sought e-mails relating to burial, cremation, or disposition of fetal or embryonic tissue. The Catholic Bishops' emergency motion for a stay (full text) argued that enforcement of the subpoena would violate their 1st Amendment rights and RFRA. Becket issued a press release announcing the 5th Circuit's action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)