Here, the plaintiffs argue that “Drag Queen Storytime” is a religious event because of an alleged connection between “Drag Queen Storytime,” the LGBTQ community, and secular humanism.... [E]ven accepting that secular humanism could be a religion for Establishment Clause purposes, the plaintiffs fail to allege any facts or basis showing that “Drag Queen Storytime” is a religious activity. There is no allegation that a reader discussed secular humanism at the event, or that any story the Library selected invoked secular humanism or any religion at all. The plaintiffs instead make only conclusory statements associating secular humanism with the event.Houston Chronicle reports on the decision,
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Friday, January 04, 2019
Establishment Clause Challenge To Drag Queen Storytime Dismissed
In Christopher v. Lawson, (SD TX, Jan. 3, 2018), a Texas federal district court dismissed a lawsuit that claimed the Houston Public Library's "Drag Queen Storytime" violates the Establishment Clause. Plaintiffs claimed that the program promotes secular humanism over other religions, including Christianity, The court first held that plaintiffs lack standing. Because they avoided the event to protect their children, they suffered no harm. The court held that they also lack taxpayer standing. The court went on to find that even if plaintiffs had standing, they failed to show an Establishment Clause violation, saying in part:
Labels:
Establishment Clause,
Humanism,
LGBT rights,
Texas
Thursday, January 03, 2019
Two Muslim Women To Be Sworn In As Members of Congress Today
As the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives today, they will pass a new rules package that includes a provision allowing religious headgear to be worn on the floor of the House. As reported by ABC radio, this will overturn a nearly 200-year old ban on wearing hats on the House floor. The rule change will allow newly-elected Rep. Ilhan Omar from Minnesota, a Muslim woman, to wear her hijab. Meanwhile, CNN reports more broadly in a piece by Rafia Zakaria:
On January 3, 2019, not one but two Muslim American women will be sworn into Congress. Taking the oath on a Quran that belonged to Thomas Jefferson, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib will become the first Muslim-American women to serve in the House of Representatives.
Their swearing in will be a historic milestone for the country, but it will be so much more than that for me. A black Somali-American woman who wears a headscarf and pokes fun at Islamophobes on Twitter, Omar crushes stereotypes of what a Muslim woman in a headscarf represents. As an unveiled Muslim American woman, Rashida Tlaib -- who will wear a Palestinian gown to her swearing in -- also dismantles the myth that all "real" Muslim women wear the headscarf.
7th Circuit Remands Prisoner's Attempt To Join Moorish Science Worship
In Neely-Bey v. Conley, (7th Cir., Jan. 2, 2019), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 38-page opinion, remanded to an Indiana federal district court a suit by an inmate who claimed that his free exercise rights were infringed when prison authorities at Correctional Industrial Facility did not permit him to participate fully in worship services of the Moorish Science Temple of America. The court said in part:
Mr. Neely-Bey ... does not ask the CIF to accommodate a personal belief not required of MSTA adherents. Rather, he asks that the CIF require the MSTA to accept him as a full member even though his belief system as a declared sovereign citizen differs substantially from that of the MSTA and MSTA liturgical practices require that its adherents share their religious beliefs in the course of their worship services. The MSTA consequently believes that admitting Mr. Neely-Bey as a member would challenge its teachings and, possibly, jeopardize its status....
We therefore have no doubt that the prison officials are on solid ground in maintaining that they have a right, and indeed an obligation, to protect the right of other prisoners who adhere to the MSTA faith to worship in a congregational manner to the extent that such a practice is consistent with other penal objectives.
Of course, in asserting such an objective and in choosing a means to achieve such an objective, Turner v. Safley ...teaches that prison officials cannot rely on the mere incantation of a penal interest but must come forward with record evidence that substantiates that the interest is truly at risk and that prison officials have chosen an appropriate manner to assert that interest. Before us, the defendants justify their actions only in terms of the MSTA’s rights without any reference to the possible impact on the security, operations, or finances of the CIF. Under such circumstances, we cannot conclude that the defendants have articulated a legitimate “penological” reason for denying Mr. Neely-Bey full participation in MSTA’s Friday services.
The merits of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim for injunctive relief therefore remain an open question. In considering this question, the district court should not only determine the propriety of injunctive relief under the Free Exercise Clause, but possible relief under RLUIPA.Indiana Lawyer reports on the decision.
Labels:
Moorish Science,
Prisoner cases
2018 Law and Religion Bibliography Now Available
The Association of American Law Schools Section on Law and Religion has published its Annual Bibliography. The 21-page bibliography lists journal articles, special journal issues, monographs and edited volumes published in 2018 on law and religion topics.
Labels:
Articles of interest
Wednesday, January 02, 2019
Vatican's Delay of U.S. Bishops Proposals Explained
AP reports today that the surprising Vatican directive to U.S. bishops last November precluding them from discussing proposed standards of conduct for bishops (see prior posting) stemmed from the fact that the Vatican had received a draft of the proposals only 4 days before the U.S. bishops' conference began. According to AP's report on a letter from Vatican Cardinal Marc Oulett:
While [Conference of Bishops President Cardinal Daniel] DiNardo blamed the Vatican, the letter from Ouellet suggests that the Vatican thought DiNardo had tried to pull a fast one by intentionally withholding legally problematic texts until the last minute.
Labels:
Catholic,
Sex abuse claims
Tuesday, January 01, 2019
Split of Ukrainian Orthodox Church From Moscow Looms
The New York Times reported yesterday that in a move having significant political as well as religious significance, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is about to formalize its separation from the Moscow-based Orthodox Patriarchate:
Intensifying a millennium-old religious struggle freighted with 21st-century geopolitical baggage, Ukraine’s security services have in recent weeks interrogated priests loyal to Moscow, searched church properties and enraged their Russian rivals....
The new Ukrainian church is expected to be granted legitimacy on Jan. 6, the eve of the Orthodox Christmas, when its newly elected head, Metropolitan Epiphanius, travels to Istanbul to receive an official charter from the Constantinople patriarchate, a longtime rival power center to Moscow.
Labels:
Russia,
Ukraine,
Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Happy New Year 2019
Dear Religion Clause Readers:
Happy New Year 2019! I hope you continue to find Religion Clause an important resource for news on religious liberty and church-state developments. I continue to strive for objectivity in my posts and to provide links to an abundance of primary source material underlying each post. I am pleased that my regular readers span the political and religious spectrum and include a large number of law school faculty, journalists, clergy, governmental agency personnel, students and others working professionally dealing with church-state relations and religious liberty concerns in the U.S. and around the world.
It has been a year in which some of the most highly charged church-state and religious liberty issues have been a bit defused by judicial and administrative decisions. However, challenges to many of those administrative regulations are still working their way through the courts. Similarly a number of the questions which courts have avoided through narrow decisions will inevitably arise again in the coming years. Also this past year, a number of judicial and legislative developments abroad have continued to reflect interesting approaches to religious liberty concerns.
Thanks again to all of you who are loyal readers-- both those who have followed Religion Clause for years and those of you who have only recently discovered the blog. A special thanks to readers who have quickly sent me leads on recent developments, and to those who have alerted me to mistakes. All of you have made Religion Clause the most recognized and reliable source for keeping informed on the intersection of religion with law and politics. I encourage you to recommend Religion Clause to colleagues, students and friends who might find it of interest. I particularly renew this request this year because, for reasons inexplicable to me, there has been a fall off of page views during the last quarter of 2018 as recorded by the counters I use. Religion Clause is accessible via Twitter and Facebook, as well as through traditional online access and RSS feeds.
I also remind you that the Religion Clause sidebar contains links to a wealth of resources. Please e-mail me if you discover broken links or if there are other links that I should consider adding.
Best wishes for 2019! Feel free to contact me by e-mail (religionclause@gmail.com) in response to this post or throughout the year with comments or suggestions.
Howard M. Friedman
Happy New Year 2019! I hope you continue to find Religion Clause an important resource for news on religious liberty and church-state developments. I continue to strive for objectivity in my posts and to provide links to an abundance of primary source material underlying each post. I am pleased that my regular readers span the political and religious spectrum and include a large number of law school faculty, journalists, clergy, governmental agency personnel, students and others working professionally dealing with church-state relations and religious liberty concerns in the U.S. and around the world.
It has been a year in which some of the most highly charged church-state and religious liberty issues have been a bit defused by judicial and administrative decisions. However, challenges to many of those administrative regulations are still working their way through the courts. Similarly a number of the questions which courts have avoided through narrow decisions will inevitably arise again in the coming years. Also this past year, a number of judicial and legislative developments abroad have continued to reflect interesting approaches to religious liberty concerns.
Thanks again to all of you who are loyal readers-- both those who have followed Religion Clause for years and those of you who have only recently discovered the blog. A special thanks to readers who have quickly sent me leads on recent developments, and to those who have alerted me to mistakes. All of you have made Religion Clause the most recognized and reliable source for keeping informed on the intersection of religion with law and politics. I encourage you to recommend Religion Clause to colleagues, students and friends who might find it of interest. I particularly renew this request this year because, for reasons inexplicable to me, there has been a fall off of page views during the last quarter of 2018 as recorded by the counters I use. Religion Clause is accessible via Twitter and Facebook, as well as through traditional online access and RSS feeds.
I also remind you that the Religion Clause sidebar contains links to a wealth of resources. Please e-mail me if you discover broken links or if there are other links that I should consider adding.
Best wishes for 2019! Feel free to contact me by e-mail (religionclause@gmail.com) in response to this post or throughout the year with comments or suggestions.
Howard M. Friedman
Labels:
Religion Clause blog
Monday, December 31, 2018
Court Refuses To Dismiss Suit Over Parents' Religious Promise
In Gonzales v. Mathis Independent School District, (SD TX, Dec. 27, 2018), a Texas federal district court refused to dismiss a claim under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act by parents of school children who were unable to participate in interscholastic extra-curricular activities because of their violation of grooming standards.. The facts at issue are summarized by the court:
Parents are Hispanic and practice the Roman Catholic religion. As an expression or exercise of their faith and heritage, and in a promise (promesa) to God, Parents have kept a strand of hair on the back of the Children’s heads uncut since birth. More recently,the Children have adopted that promise as their own affirmation of faith and heritage and continue to maintain the single long braid down their backs. However, Parents admit that the promise is not dictated by the Catholic religion and they could change it at any time.[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]
Labels:
High School Athletics,
RFRA,
Texas
Sunday, December 30, 2018
Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases
In Pattison v. State Department of Corrections, 2018 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 962 (NV App., Dec. 17, 2018), a Nevada appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a permanent injunction to require the Department of Corrections to furnish an inmate kosher meals.
In Jackson v. Mike-Lopez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215692 (D MN, Dec. 20, 2018), a Minnesota federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing claims of several inmates that their placement in segregation prevented them from taking part in various religious practices.
In Jackson v. Mike-Lopez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215692 (D MN, Dec. 20, 2018), a Minnesota federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing claims of several inmates that their placement in segregation prevented them from taking part in various religious practices.
Labels:
Prisoner cases
Saturday, December 29, 2018
Objection To Immunization Was Not A Religious Belief
In Potter v. St. Joseph's Medical Center, (MN App., , Dec. 24, 2018), a Minnesota appellate court held, in a case involving the denial of unemployment benefits, that a claimant's refusal to obtain an influenza shot "was driven by a personal, secular belief," not a religious one. The court said in part:
Potter's assertion that her faith requires that she not inject herself with impurities is undercut by her own rationale. Potter stated that if the flu shot was scientifically proven to be effective she "probably would" receive it. It follows that Potter is unwilling to inject what she considers scientifically ineffective impurities but is willing to inject what she considers scientifically effective impurities. This supports the respondents' assertion that Potter's beliefs are not sincerely held religious beliefs, but, rather, "her objection was based on her medical and scientific views, cloaked under the guise of religion."
Labels:
Unemployment benefits,
Vaccination
Friday, December 28, 2018
State AGs Seek To Enjoin Final Broad ACA Exemptive Rules On Contraceptives
Attorneys general from 14 states have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in a California federal district court against various federal departments. The motion seeks to prevent Trump Administration rules expanding religious and moral exemptions from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate from taking effect. The motion and memorandum in support (full text) in State of California v. Azar, (ND CA, filed 12/19/2018) contends that the new rules are contrary to the text and purpose of the Affordable Care Act and were adopted without meeting Administrative Procedure Act requirements. Interim Final Rules similar to the Final Rules at issue in the case have already been enjoined by the courts. (See prior posting.) Consumer Affairs reports on the preliminary injunction motion.
Thursday, December 27, 2018
Australian Court Says Beth Din May Not Impose Religious Sanctions To Force Party To Appear
In Ulman v Live Group Pty Ltd., (New South Wales Ct. App., Dec. 20, 2018), the Court of Appeals of the Australian state of New South Wales held, in a 2-1 decision, that the rabbis and registrar of a Jewish religious court (Beth Din) were properly held in criminal contempt of a secular court for attempting to force adjudication of a commercial dispute in the Beth Din rather than in civil courts. The court however reduced the fines imposed for the contempt to a total of $25,000. In the case, the Beth Din had informed the attorney representing the business being summoned to appear:
Unless by 5pm January 26 2017 the Beth Din hears from you on behalf of your client that he has recanted and that he acquiesces to the Beth Din process in accordance with Jewish Law, (which is indeed compatible with secular law), the following halachic sanctions will apply and the Synagogue/s where he prays will be informed accordingly.
1. He will not be counted to a minyan.
2. He will not be able to receive an aliyah to the Torah.
3. He will not be offered any honour in the Synagogue.J-Wire reports on the decision
9th Circuit Denies En Banc Review In School Board Prayer Case
Yesterday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied en banc review in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education, (9th Cir., Dec. 26, 2018). In the case, a 3-judge panel applied the Lemon test to strike down a California school board's prayer policy for board meetings. (See prior posting.) Seven active judges plus one judge holding senior status who is technically unable to vote on the rehearing petition disagreed with the denial of en banc review. An opinion by Senior Judge O'Scannlan argued that the case should be governed by the legislative prayer precedents rather than by the Lemon test. An opinion by Judge Nelson argued that even it the Lemon test applies, no Establishment Clause violation was present. The seven dissenting active judges joined all or part of both opinions. San Francisco Chronicle reports on the denial of review.
DC Circuit Denies En Banc Review In Bus Ad Case
Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, by a vote of 7-2, denied an en banc rehearing in Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, (DC Cir., Dec. 21, 2018). In the case, a 3-judge panel rejected challenges to the WMATA's guidelines which preclude the sale of advertising space on public buses for issue-oriented advertising, including political, religious and advocacy ads. (See prior posting.) Judge Griffith, joined by Judge Kastas, filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of a rehearing, arguing in part"
WMATA allows entities like Walmart to speak on the subjects of the perfect Christmas gift (toys) and how to spend the Christmas season (buying gifts and visiting stores at specified hours). And WMATA permits the Salvation Army to run ads encouraging people to donate to certain charities. The Archdiocese would also like to express its views on the perfect Christmas gift (Christ), how to spend the holiday (caring for the needy and visiting churches for Mass at specified hours), and whether to contribute to charities (yes, and particularly to religious charities). By barring the Archdiocese from doing so, WMATA’s policy discriminates against religious viewpoints,,,,[Thanks to James Phillips for the lead.]
Labels:
Christmas,
District of Columbia,
Free speech
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
Top Ten 2018 Religious Liberty / Church-State Developments
Each year in December, I attempt to pick the most important church-state and religious liberty developments of the past year-- including developments internationally in the mix. My choices are based on the importance of the pick to law or policy, regardless of whether the development has garnered significant media attention.. The selection obviously involves a good deal of subjective judgment, and I welcome e-mail comment from those who disagree with my choices. So here are my Top Ten picks as another rather chaotic year comes to an end:
- The U.S. Supreme Court issues a narrow decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, failing to resolve the basic question of how to balance religious liberty and free speech rights against demands for equality.
- Battles continue in the courts over whether existing protections against sex discrimination cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
- The third version of President Trump's "travel ban" is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Release of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury report on sexual abuse by Catholic priests in 6 dioceses refocuses attention on the clergy sex abuse scandal.
- Mass shooting in Pittsburgh synagogue raises new fears of anti-Semitism in the United States.
- U.S. Supreme Court protects the speech rights of pro-life pregnancy centers, finding California's FACT Act unconstitutional.
- Canada and Ireland repeal blasphemy laws, while blasphemy cases elsewhere (Pakistan, Spain, Austria, India) continue to attract attention.
- Federal district court holds federal Female Genital Mutilation statute unconstitutional.
- Free speech challenges to state laws designed to combat individual participation in boycott of Israel meet success.
- Congress takes action to fight genocide; passes Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act and. Iraq and Syria Genocide Relief and Accountability Act .
Don Byrd at Blog From the Capital has a different set of the Top Ten.
Labels:
Religious liberty,
Top stories
Tuesday, December 25, 2018
Christmas and the Trump White House
Today is Christmas. Vogue last week published an analysis of this year's White House Christmas Portrait. Meanwhile the White House website gives details on Christmas decorations at the White House, and this year's White House Christmas Card goes back to the traditional Merry Christmas greeting. Elite Daily discusses the issue.
Labels:
Christmas,
Donald Trump
Monday, December 24, 2018
Congress Passes Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act
Last Friday, the House of Representatives gave final passage to S.1158, Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018 (full text). Section 3 of the Act provides:
It shall be the policy of the United States to—
(1) regard the prevention of atrocities as in its national interest;
(2) work with partners and allies, including to build their capacity, and enhance the capacity of the United States, to identify, prevent, and respond to the causes of atrocities, including insecurity, mass displacement, violent conflict, and other conditions that may lead to such atrocities; and
(3) pursue a United States Government-wide strategy to identify, prevent, and respond to the risk of atrocities by—
(A) strengthening the diplomatic, risk analysis and monitoring, strategic planning, early warning, and response capacities of the Government;
(B) improving the use of foreign assistance to respond early, effectively, and urgently in order to address the causes of atrocities;
(C) strengthening diplomatic response and the effective use of foreign assistance to support appropriate transitional justice measures, including criminal accountability, for past atrocities;
(D) supporting and strengthening local civil society, including human rights defenders and others working to help prevent and respond to atrocities;
(E) promoting financial transparency and enhancing anti-corruption initiatives as part of addressing causes of conditions that may lead to atrocities; and
(F) employing a variety of unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral means to prevent and respond to atrocities by—
(i) placing a high priority on timely, preventive diplomatic efforts; and
(ii) exercising leadership in promoting international efforts to prevent atrocities.The bill will now be forwarded to the President for his signature.
Ohio Governor Signs One Abortion Restriction, Vetoes Another
CNN Wire reports that Ohio Gov. John Kasich signed a bill into law last Friday that bans the commonly used dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure for abortions (Sub. S.B. 145). The new law labels such abortions "dismemberment abortions". Meanwhile, Kasich vetoed a bill that would have banned abortions where the fetus has a detectable heartbeat-- generally at 6 weeks of gestation. (Sub. H.B. 258). A press release from the Governor's office reports on the actions. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]
Recent Articles of Interest
From SSRN:
- Dwight G. Newman, Arguing Indigenous Rights Outside Section 35: Can Religious Freedom Ground Indigenous Land Rights, and What Else Lies Ahead?, (Tom Isaac, ed., Key Developments in Aboriginal Law (Toronto: ThomsonReuters Canada, 2018)),
- Teresa Stanton Collett, A Catholic Perspective on Law School Diversity Requirements, (U of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper No. 18-27 (2018).
- Chloë Kennedy, Defences: Justification, Excuse and Provocation. (in Norman Doe, Mark Hill & John Witte (eds), Christianity and Criminal Law: An Introduction (CUP, 2019)),
- Christof Bezemek, Stranger in a Strange Land: The Alien and the State, (In Julia Iliopoulos-Strangas, ed., Migration: Neue Herausforderungen für Europa, für die Staatssou-veränität und für den sozialen Rechtsstaat (2017)),
- Gary J. Simson, Permissible Accommodation or Impermissible Endorsement? A Proposed Approach to Religious Exemptions and the Establishment Clause, (106 Kentucky Law Journal 535 (2017-2018)).
- Barry McDonald & Erwin Chemerinsky, Eviscerating a Healthy Church-State Separation, (Washington University Law Review, Forthcoming).
- Bogdan David, Prevention and Fight Against Harvest and Revenge Motivated Crimes, (November 20, 2018).
- Christopher R. Green, Justice Gorsuch and Moral Reality, (Alabama Law Review, Forthcoming),
- Teresa Quintel & Carsten Ullrich, Self-Regulation of Fundamental Rights? The EU Code of Conduct on Hate Speech, Related Initiatives and Beyond, (Bilyana Petkova & Tuomas Ojanen, eds., Fundamental Rights Protection Online: The Future Regulation Of Intermediaries, Edward Elgar Publishing, Summer/Autumn 2019).
- G. V. Mahesh Nath, Latest Trends in Succession among Hindus, (November 23, 2018).
- Deepa Das Acevedo, Pause for Thought: Supreme Court's Verdict on Sabarimala, (Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. LIII, No. 43, p. 12 (October 27, 2018)).
- Adeel Hussain, Muhammad Iqbal's Constitutionalism, (Indian Law Review, 2:2 (2018)),
- Ousmane Seck, Islamic Microfinance Experience in a Secular State: Case of Benin, (IRTI Policy Paper No. 2017-05 (2017),
- Mohammed Obaidullah, Managing Climate Change: The Role of Islamic Finance, (IRTI Policy Paper No. 2017-01 (2017).
- Mohammed Obaidullah, An Investigation into Goodness of Zakat Laws in Selected Countries, (IRTI Policy Paper No. 2017-04 (2017)),
- Khalifa MohamedæAli, Waqf Resource Mobilization for Poverty Alleviation Based on Maqasid Framework, (IRTI Policy Paper No. 2018-03 (2018)).
- Azam Ali, Tanveer Kishwar & Muhamed Zulkhibri, Islamic Financial Institutions and Participatory Finance Constraints: The Case of Pakistan, (IRTI Policy Paper No. 2018-02 (2018)).
- Jakub Vojtěch, The EU Framework for Islamic Securitisation and Sukuk in the Times of Brexit, (Charles University in Prague Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2018/III/2 (2018)).
From elsewhere:
- Steven H. Sholk, A Guide to Election Year Activities of Section 501(c)(3) Organizations (updated version, 2018).
Labels:
Articles of interest
Saturday, December 22, 2018
Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases
In Amaker v. Bradt, (2d Cir., Dec. 19, 2018), the 2nd Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies of an inmate's claim regarding access to religious meals and retaliation.
In Vincent v. Stewart, (9th Cir., Dec. 21, 2018), the 9th Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of free exercise and RLUIPA claims regarding a religious diet.
In Hancock v. Cirbo, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212319 (D CO, Dec. 14, 2018), a Colorado federal magistrate judge recommended allowing a Jewish inmate to move ahead on his claim of denial of kosher meals, but recommended dismissing his complaint regarding the past requirement that he shave his beard.
In Brown v. Solomon, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212824 (WD NC, Dec. 18, 2018, a North Carolina federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with claims that prison authorities should not classify Jehovah's Witness as a Christian- Protestant sect, and should provide separate group worship services for Jehovah's Witness inmates.
In Ables v. Hall, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214749 (ND MS, Dec. 21, 2018), a Mississippi federal magistrate judge dismissed an inmate's claim of free exercise violations when he was required to withdraw from seminary school for excessive tardiness stemming from no regular schedule for administration of insulin shots.
In Pattison v. State Department of Corrections, 2018 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 962 (NV App,, Dec. 17, 2018), a Nevada appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of only $1 in nominal damages for denial of kosher meals to an inmate. A concurring opinion disagreed with the majority on the need for physical injury to recover damages for a 1st Amendment violation.
In Vincent v. Stewart, (9th Cir., Dec. 21, 2018), the 9th Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of free exercise and RLUIPA claims regarding a religious diet.
In Hancock v. Cirbo, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212319 (D CO, Dec. 14, 2018), a Colorado federal magistrate judge recommended allowing a Jewish inmate to move ahead on his claim of denial of kosher meals, but recommended dismissing his complaint regarding the past requirement that he shave his beard.
In Brown v. Solomon, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212824 (WD NC, Dec. 18, 2018, a North Carolina federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with claims that prison authorities should not classify Jehovah's Witness as a Christian- Protestant sect, and should provide separate group worship services for Jehovah's Witness inmates.
In Ables v. Hall, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214749 (ND MS, Dec. 21, 2018), a Mississippi federal magistrate judge dismissed an inmate's claim of free exercise violations when he was required to withdraw from seminary school for excessive tardiness stemming from no regular schedule for administration of insulin shots.
In Pattison v. State Department of Corrections, 2018 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 962 (NV App,, Dec. 17, 2018), a Nevada appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of only $1 in nominal damages for denial of kosher meals to an inmate. A concurring opinion disagreed with the majority on the need for physical injury to recover damages for a 1st Amendment violation.
Labels:
Prisoner cases
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)