European Court Upholds Conviction For Calling Muhammad A Pedophile

As reported by the Daily Mail, in E.S. v. Austria, (ECHR, Oct. 25, 2018) the European Court of Human Rights ruled unanimously in a Chamber Judgment that Austria did not violate free speech protections of the European Convention on Human Rights, Sec. 10, when it convicted a speaker of disparaging religious precepts.  The speaker, a woman identified as E.S., made a statement disparaging Muhammad at a seminar titled “Basic information on Islam” presented at the right-wing Freedom Party Education Institute. Her presentation labelled Muhammad's marriage to Aisha as pedophilia  As summarized by the Court's Information Note on the decision, the Court held:

The applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation given that they had not been made in an objective manner aimed at contributing to a debate of public interest, but could only have been understood as aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship.... Presenting objects of religious worship in a provocative way capable of hurting the feelings of the followers of that religion could be conceived as a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which was one of the bases of a democratic society....

The applicant had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, while failing to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue, and had thus made a value judgement without sufficient factual basis.... As to the applicant’s argument that a few individual statements had to be tolerated during a lively discussion, it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and deduce that this would render the statements, exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression, passable. Moreover, the applicant had been wrong to assume that improper attacks on religious groups had to be tolerated even if they were based on untrue facts.

Chamber judgments may be appealed to the Grand Chamber. [Updated to provide link to full text of decision. Thanks to Seth Tillman for the link.]

Suit Against Drag Queen Story Hour Dismissed

Last Friday a suit was filed in federal district court in Houston, Texas seeking to stop a city sponsored drag queen story hour that is scheduled for the Houston Public Library. Plaintiffs argued that the story hour violates their religious free exercise. (Houston Chronicle). Yesterday the court dismissed the suit in a four-sentence order, concluding that there is no basis for the requested relief. (Houston Chronicle).

Oral Arguments In 7th Circuit Challenge To Parsonage Allowance

Yesterday the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Gaylor v. Peecher. (Audio recording of full oral arguments.) In the case, a Wisconsin federal district court held that the parsonage allowance provision in Sec. 107(2) of the Internal Revenue Code violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.)  Courthouse News Service reports on the oral arguments.

D.C. Opens Investigation of Local Clergy Sexual Abuse Charges

The Washington Post reported yesterday that the office of the District of Columbia Attorney General has opened a civil investigation into charges of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy in the Diocese of Washington. Earlier this month, Pope Francis accepted the resignation of the Diocese's Archbishop Cardinal Donald Wuerl after controversy over his handling of abuse claims as head of the Pittsburgh (PA) Diocese. (See prior posting.) According to yesterday's Post report:

D.C. statutes allow the attorney general to subpoena documents and seek penalties against a nonprofit — up to and including dissolving it — if it “has exceeded or abused and is continuing to exceed or abuse the authority conferred upon it by law” or if it “has continued to act contrary to its nonprofit purposes.”

[Attorney General Karl] Racine said that any felony crimes his office discovers in the course of its probe would be forwarded to the U.S. attorney. Racine’s staff could also prosecute any violations of the District’s mandated reporting requirements — which would be misdemeanors — separately from the civil investigation.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Challenge To Expanded Contraceptive Coverage Exemptions

Last week, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in State of California v. Little Sisters of the Poor. (Video of full oral arguments). The case involves the appeal by a religious order (as an intervenor) of a nationwide preliminary injunction that a California federal district court issued blocking the Trump administration's Interim Final Rules expanding religious and moral exemptions from the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate. (See prior posting.) According to Courthouse News Service,  two of the three judges on the panel indicated during oral argument that they were inclined to lift the injunction. [Thanks to Blog from the Capital for the lead.]

UN Committee Says France's Anti-Niqab Law Violates Free Exercise Rights

The United Nations Human Rights Committee yesterday issued a press release on two decisions issued Oct. 22:

In two landmark decisions, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that France violated the human rights of two women by fining them for wearing the niqab, a full-body Islamic veil....

The Committee found that the general criminal ban on the wearing of the niqab in public introduced by the French law disproportionately harmed the petitioners’ right to manifest their religious beliefs, and that France had not adequately explained why it was necessary to prohibit this clothing. In particular, the Committee was not persuaded by France’s claim that a ban on face covering was necessary and proportionate from a security standpoint or for attaining the goal of “living together” in society. 

The decisions (available only in French) are Hebbadj v. France and Yaker v. France.

Indian Supreme Court's Ruling On Temple Access By Women Meets Resistance

As previously reported, last month India's Supreme Court struck down a ban on women between the age of 10 and 50 years from entering the Sabarimala Temple.  However, yesterday's New York Times reports that implementing the Court's ruling has been difficult:

When the temple reopened for six days on Wednesday, for the first time since the court’s decision, the pilgrimage path became a kind of conflict zone, pitting traditionalists against police officers who vowed to enforce the law and protect any woman who wished to visit.

At least 12 women attempted the journey. Each was met with a mob that variously shouted in her face, pummeled the police, set vehicles on fire, hurled rocks and blocked the steep, three-mile trail leading to the temple by lying on its slippery stones. All of the women were forced to turn back. One was so overwhelmed that she fainted.

Law Firm Releases Report On Abusive Priests In California

A law firm that is suing to obtain release by three Catholic dioceses in the San Francisco Bay area of the names of all clergy accused of sexual misconduct yesterday released its own report. The 66-page report lists the names and provides background information on 212 accused priests. (Full text of report.)  The report was compiled from various public sources of information. Fox 2 News has reactions to the report.

Families of WW II Vets May Move Ahead With Suit To Recover Remains

In Patterson v. Defense POW/ MIA Accounting Agency, (WD TX, Oct. 23, 2018), a Texas federal district court refused to dismiss substantive and procedural due process, and free exercise and RFRA claims by the families of seven American Army service members who died in the Philippines in World War II. The families sought recovery of the remains of their veterans so they can be properly buried.  The remains are interred as "Unknowns" in the Manila American Cemetery, but the families believe that they can now identify in which of the Unknowns' graves the seven service members are buried. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs allege that the government’s refusal to return allegedly identified remains to the appropriate families for burial “shocks the conscience.” ... Plaintiffs argue that their allegations that the remains are in fact identified, taken as true, render Defendants’ withholding of the remains a substantive due process violation.... At this stage, the Court finds that Plaintiffs sufficiently allege a substantive due process violation....

[G]iven Plaintiffs’ private interests regarding their family members’ remains and the alleged erroneous deprivation of an opportunity to be heard, the Court finds that, at this stage, Plaintiffs sufficiently allege a procedural due process violation that will benefit from further fact development.....

Plaintiffs allege that their free exercise of their sincerely held religious tradition of burial has been burdened because the government refuses to return the remains of their relatives.... These allegations are plausible on their face and meet the pleading requirements at this stage of litigation for both a Free Exercise claim and a RFRA claim

Supreme Court Review Sought In Indiana Abortion Restrictions Case

On Oct. 12, a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., (cert. filed, Oct. 12, 2018).  The petition presents two questions for the Court's review:

1. Whether a State may require health care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation.

2. Whether a State may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex, or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.

The 7th Circuit in an opinion (full text) in April held the provisions of Indiana's abortion laws unconstitutional. Rewire News reports on the petition for review.

Cert. Filed By Catholic Order Objecting To Pipeline Approval

Last Friday, a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Adorers of the Blood of Christ v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (cert. filed 10.19/2018).  In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a challenge under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to FERC's approval of a pipeline project. The natural gas pipeline runs through land owned by an order of Catholic nuns whose religious beliefs require them to preserve the earth. Developers were authorized to acquire land for the pipeline by eminent domain. Adorers of the Blood of Christ issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Cert. Filed In Oregon Wedding Cake Case

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, (cert. filed 10/22/2018). In the case, the Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with the state Bureau of Labor and Industries that Sweetcakes bakery violated the state's public accommodation law when it refused to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

In Chile, Court Awards Damages In Priest Sexual Abuse Case As Investigations Continue

In Chile, the Ninth Chamber Court of Appeals in Santiago has awarded the equivalent of $670,000(US) to three victims of sex abuse by former Catholic priest  Fernando Karadima who was removed from the priesthood by Pope Francis a few weeks ago.  According to  yesterday's Santiago Times, the award against the Archdiocese of Santiago comes in a suit in which Cardinals Francisco Javier Errázuriz and Ricardo Ezzati are accused of covering up Karadima's abuses. The Santiago Times adds:

According to a cadastre published by the Chilean National Prosecutor’s Office at the end of August, there are currently 119 investigations in progress against 167 persons related to the Church and 178 victims quantified, 79 of whom were minors when the events occurred.

Meanwhile, Pope Francis has accepted the resignation of five Chilean bishops, after last May the 34 bishops of the country presented their resignation en bloc to the pontiff in the Vatican after acknowledging that they had committed “serious errors and omissions”.

Australia's Prime Minister Issues Apology To Victims of Institutional Child Sex Abuse [UPDATED]

As reported by The Telegraph, Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison today delivered a speech in Parliament (full text of remarks) apologizing for the government's lack of response to child sex abuse in the Catholic Church and other religious and secular institutions.  The emotional apology on behalf of the nation to victims and their families came after a five-year investigation by a government commission. (See prior posting). The Prime Minister said in part:

Today, we confront a question too horrible to ask, let alone answer. Why weren’t the children of our nation loved, nurtured and protected? Why was their trust betrayed? Why did those who know cover it up? Why were the cries of children and parents ignored? Why was our system of justice blind to injustice? Why has it taken so long to act? Why were other things more important than this, the care of innocent children? Why didn’t we believe? Today we dare to ask these questions, and finally acknowledge and confront the lost screams of our children. While we can’t be so vain to pretend to answers, we must be so humble to fall before those who were forsaken and beg to them our apology.

The Prime Minister also announced that a National Redress Scheme has begun:

The scheme will provide survivors with access to counselling and psychological services, monetary payments, and, for those who want one – and I stress for those who want one – a direct personal response from an institution where the abuse occurred.

[Updated to clarify that the Royal Commission's investigation covered other institutions as well as the Catholic Church.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Paul T. Babie & Joshua Neoh, A Statement on Inclusive Law and Religion, (39 Adelaide Law Review 203 (2018).
• David Hughes, The United States Embassy in Jerusalem: Does Location Matter?, (50 Questions of International Law 15 (2018).
• James M. Oleske, Free Exercise (Dis)Honesty, (Wisconsin Law Review, Forthcoming 2019).
• Clare Huntington, Abortion Talk, (Michigan Law Review, 2019).
• Dalhatu Sani Yola, Hate Speech in Nigeria: Opportunity in Crisis, (International Journal of Crime, Law and Social Issues, Vol. 4, No. 2 (2017).
• Eric Franklin Amarante, Unregulated Charity, (August 6, 2018).

From Academia.edu:

• Deborah Thebault & Lena Rose, What kind of Christianity?  A v Switzerland, (Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, 2018).

HHS Is Considering Eliminating Title IX Protection For Transgender Indivudials

The New York Times reports today that the Trump Administration is proposing another step to eliminate anti-discrimination protection for transgender individuals:

Now the Department of Health and Human Services is spearheading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times....

“Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” the department proposed in the memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since last spring. “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Brown v. State of Washington, (9th Cir.,, Oct. 15, 2018), the 9th Circuit held that the district court properly dismissed an inmate's 1st Amendment and RLUIPA claims regarding burning of his hair.

In Ahdom v. Etchebehere, (9th Cir., Oct. 18, 2018), the 9th Circuit affirmed dismissal of an inmate's complaint that he was prevented from participating in Ramadan meals.

In Shepherd v. Smith, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167510 (ND NY, Sept. 28, 2018), a New York federal district court rejected a magistrate's recommended sua sponte dismissal (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100012, June 13, 2018) of a Rastafarian inmate's free exercise claim regarding dreadlocks.

In Purifoy v. Williams, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170795 (WD AR, Oct. 3, 2018), an Arkansas federal district court dismissed complaints by a Christian inmate of denial of pastoral visits, failure to receive a religious calendar and denial of church services while in solitary confinement.

In Barnes v. Fulton County Detention Center, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170868 (WD KY, Oct. 2, 2018), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint regarding delay in receiving Ramadan meals and his prayer time.

In Resto-Otero v. Mohammad, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171852 (ND NY, Oct. 3, 2018), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended that a Muslim inmate be allowed to move ahead with his suit charging a failure to provide him with religiously appropriate meals during Ramadan.

In Wright v. County of Mecosta, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173876 (WD MI, Oct. 10, 2018), a Michigan federal magistrate judge dismissed an inmate's complaint that his jail meals failed to satisfy his religious dietary needs.

In Lambright v. Indiana Department of Corrections, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175089 (ND IN, Oct. 11, 2018), an Indiana federal district court allowed a Jewish inmate to move ahead with a damage claim for denial of a kosher diet for 3 months, and an injunctive action to obtain Jewish religious services.

In Blade v. Stinson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173929 (WD LA, Oct. 9, 2018), a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175062, Sept. 18, 2018) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint regarding his being served pork sausage and not being transferred to a pork-free facility, as well as his retaliation claim.

In McLaughlin v. Lee, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173926 (WD LA, Oct. 9, 2018), a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175061, Sept. 17, 2018) and dismissed an inmate's complaint regarding lack of Muslim religious services at his former institution, as well as complaints regarding Ramadan and retaliation.

In Cantey v. Martuscello, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175302 (ND NY, Oct. 10, 2018), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a Nation of Islam inmate's complaints regarding celebration of Saviour's Day, Jumu'ah services and showers before them, and cancellation of a study class.

In Covington v. Perry, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176362 (ED NC, Oct. 15, 2018), a North Carolina federal district court granted summary judgment to a Muslim inmate on his RLUIPA claim for a halal compliant diet and the parties were directed to present a joint or individual proposed remedial orders.

No Free Exercise Violation In Ban of Patron From City Swim Club

In White v. Simpson, (WD AR, Oct. 10, 2018), an Arkansas federal district court dismissed plaintiff's claims that his free exercise rights were infringed when he was banned from the premises of a city aquatic club.  The ban was based on his distracting lifeguards and his sexually harassing them verbally.  Plaintiff claimed that his rights were infringed because he was carrying on religious discussions with one of the lifeguards and gave the lifeguard a gift with a "Jesus loves you" message in it. The court found that none of the defendants knew of the religious nature of the discussions, so there was no evidence that he was banned because of his religion or the content or viewpoint of is speech.

House of Lords Debates Religious Intolerance In UK

On Wednesday in Britain the House of Lords engaged in an extensive debate on religious intolerance and prejudice in the United Kingdom. (Full text of the Parliamentary debate.) Lord Hain described the seriousness of the problem in Britain:

We have grown used to pogroms against minorities at various stages in our history as a country: against Jews intermittently and sometimes continuously over the millennia; against the Irish in the nineteenth century; against Jews again in the 1930s; against black and Asian Britons from the late 1950s until today; and against Muslims in the first two decades of this century. But what is entirely novel today is a toxic convergence of attacks on Jewish, black and Muslim British citizens all at the same time. I am not aware of any period in our history when this has occurred before. It is deadly serious, with many of our citizens living in fear or terror simply because of their religion, race or skin colour. This is not just scandalous, it is criminal.

Lord Bourne said in part:

We have asked the Law Commission to review the coverage and approach of current hate crime legislative provision. We must be clear: when someone has perpetrated a hate crime, they will be held accountable for it. Later this year, we will launch a wide-ranging national hate crime public awareness campaign publicly to address hate crime. The refresh commits us to updating the True Vision website to make it easier to use and to ensure it remains the key central platform for all hate crime reporting. We are working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to provide hate crime training for all call handlers in order to ensure an appropriate response from the first contact, and we are creating the challenging hate crime support group—a network of organisations who share resources, skills and best practice.

Law & Religion UK also reports on the debate.

Campus Pro-Life Speech Case Settled

An ADF press release reports that a settlement has been reached in Ratio Christi of Kennesaw State University v. Olens.  In the suit, a student group charged that the Georgia college limited its pro-life display to a small area set aside as a "speech zone." (See prior posting).  Under the settlement agreement, the school will eliminate its speech zone and students will be free to speak in all outdoor areas of the campus.  The school will also pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in the amount of $20,100.