Texas Sues California In Supreme Court Over Travel Ban To States Allowing LGBTQ Discrimination

This week, the state of Texas filed an original suit in the U.S. Supreme Court against the state of California challenging California's ban on the state paying for travel by its employees to other states that allow discrimination against LGBTQ individuals or families. The complaint (full text of complaint and brief in support) in State  of Texas v. State of California, (US Sup. Ct., filed/2/10/2020) reads in part:

California has enacted and is enforcing economic sanctions against Texas, Texas citizens,and Texas businesses. California has targeted Texas and its residents because To Texas protects the religious freedom of faith-based child welfare providers within its borders....

California’s sanctions against Texas and Texans are born of religious animus and violate the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause, U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2, cl. 1; Interstate Commerce Clause, id. art. I, § 8, cl. 3; and guarantee of Equal Protection, id. amend. XIV, § 1.

The complaint and brief in support of the state's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint which is attached to the complaint seeks an order forcing California to take down its travel ban or remove Texas from it. Texas Attorney General's office has issued a press release announcing the filing of the suit.

Free Exercise Claim As To Marijuana Use Is Rejected

In State of Ohio v. Cook, (OH App., Feb. 10, 2020), an Ohio state appellate court rejected a defendant's claim that his use of marijuana-- which he claimed was part of his Shamanism religion-- violated his free exercise rights. The court said in part:

Even assuming that Cook’s “religious” beliefs are sincerely held, and even assuming that the law restricts his practice, there is certainly a compelling state interest in regulating the use of Schedule I controlled substances. Moreover, the drug laws are facially religion-neutral, and do not target any specific sect of any religion. Thus we find that they are narrowly tailored.... For these reasons we cannot find that the trial court erred in overruling Cook’s suppression motions. 

Zoning Requirement Violates RLUIPA

In Hunt Valley Baptist Church, Inc. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, (D MD, Feb. 10, 2020), a Maryland federal district court rejected federalism and Establishment Clause challenges to the constitutionality of RLUIPA against federalism and Establishment Clause challenges.The court went on to hold that the county's zoning ordinances that require a special exception process for churches to build in a conservation zone, but does not require this for schools, violate RLUIPA's equal terms provisions.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Scott D. Gerber, Law and Religion in Plymouth Colony, (8 British Journal of American Legal Studies 167 (2019)).
• Kyriake Topidi, Customary Law, Religion and Legal Pluralism in Israel: Islamic Law and Shari'a Courts in Constant Motion, (Revista General de Derecho Público Comparado 26 (2019)).
• Nicholas Aroney, Christianity, Sovereignty and Global Law, (January 14, 2020).
• Hatim Hussain & Prateek Srivastava, Cryonics in India: Fulfilling the Ardent 'Legal' Desire to Live, (Book on Red Biotechnology (2018), Astral International Publishers).
• Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, Individual Religious Freedom is Subject to Other Fundamental Rights, ((2019) 7 SCC Part-4 J-29).
• Collton Fehr, Re-Thinking the Process for Administering Oaths and Affirmations, (Dalhousie Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Richard F. Duncan, Seeing the No-Compelled-Speech Doctrine Clearly Through the Lens of Telescope Media, (Nebraska Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Jay Augustine, And When Does the Black Church Get Political?: Responding in the Era of Trump and Making the Black Church Great Again (January 1, 2020). 17 Hastings Race & Poverty Law Journal 87 (2020).

6th Circuit: Non-Recognition Substantially Burdened Christian Identity Inmates

In Fox v. Washington, (6th Cir., Feb, 6, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trial court had misapplied RLUIPA in upholding Michigan's refusal to recognize prison inmates' Christian Identity, white separatist religion. The prison system denied Christian Identity adherents the right to group worship and full immersion baptism. The court said in part:

... [P]laintiffs have met their burden ,,, to show that the Department has imposed a substantial burden on their religious exercise with respect to group worship for the Sabbath and holidays....

At step three of RLUIPA, the burden shifts to the Department to make two showings. First, it must prove that the imposition of the substantial burden on plaintiffs’ religious exercise was “in  furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.” ... Second, the Department must establish that it used “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”... The district court made no such rulings, and the record is not well developed on these issues. “As ‘a court of review, not of first view,’ we will remand the case to the district court to resolve the point in the first instance.”

"Neutral Principles" Approach Controls Issue of Joining Parent Church

In Korean New Life Methodist Church v. Korean Methodist Church of the Americas,(CO App., Feb. 6, 2020), a Colorado state appellate court held that the neutral principles of law approach should be used in deciding a dispute over whether a local church agreed to be under the authority of a national denomination.  It agreed that the trial court, using that approach, correctly determined that the local church never gave up control to submit to the authority of the parent church body, saying in part:

[W]e conclude that the question of submission does not involve a “religious dispute” covering ecclesiastical matters or involving church doctrine.... Rather, it involves an inquiry into the local church’s organizational intent as evidenced by church documents, testimony, and conduct.

Court Upholds Denial of Invocation Slot For Satanic Temple

In Satanic Temple v. City of Scottsdale, (D AZ, Feb. 6, 2020), an Arizona federal district court held that the Satanic Temple failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the denial of their request to deliver a non-theistic invocation at a City Council meeting was because of their religious beliefs. The court rejected defendants' claims that the beliefs of the Satanic Temple do not constitute a religion. However the court credited the testimony of the Acting City Manager that he based his decision on a long-standing unwritten policy that only organizations that had substantial ties to the city could deliver invocations. This decision followed substantial public opposition to the Satanic Temple's appearance, including the orchestration by a church of 15,000 e-mails in opposition. The blog For Infernal Use Only reports on the decision.

UPDATE: In an April 9 opinion (full text), the court, with one exception, refused to amend its findings of fact or to amend its judgment.

Fruit Company Settles Suit Over Refusal To Accommodate Sevent Day Adventist

The EEOC announced yesterday that the North Carolina-based Cottle Strawberry Nursery has settled a religious discrimination lawsuit filed against it by the agency. The company was charged with firing a Seventh Day Adventist because she refused to work on Saturdays.  In the settlement it agreed to pay $12,500 in damages and develop a religious accommodation policy.

Trump, Pence Speak At National Prayer Breakfast

Both Vice President Pence and President Trump spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. yesterday. Pence (full text of remarks) said in part:

As the President has said many times, in his words, “We are a nation of faith.”  And I can assure you that this President, this Vice President, and our entire administration believe in prayer and we rely on the prayers of the American people every day.

In fact, President Trump has made it a practice of opening every Cabinet meeting in prayer.

President Trump spoke later in the morning (full text of remarks). This passage has probably captured the most press attention:

Weeks ago, and again yesterday, courageous Republican politicians and leaders had the wisdom, the fortitude, and strength to do what everyone knows was right.  I don’t like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong.  Nor do I like people who say, “I pray for you,” when they know that that’s not so.

Washington Post reports on the Prayer Breakfast.

VP Pence Promotes New School Choice Scholarship Proposal

Vice President Mike Pence yesterday delivered a 20-minute address on School Choice at Saint Francis DeSales School in Philadelphia, PA. (Full text of remarks.) He particularly focused on the proposal for Education Freedom Scholarships that President Trump promoted in his State of the Union address on Tuesday.

German Court Refuses To Order Removal of Anti-Semitic Church Carving

AFP reports that an intermediate appellate court in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt has refused to order the removal of a 13th century anti-Semitic bas relief on a church in the town of Wittenberg. The court concluded that the carving, known as the Judensau (Jews' sow), did not harm Jews' reputation because it was embedded in a broader memorial and was accompanied by a sign put up in 1988 explaining it in context.

Court Dismisses Challenge To City's Refusal To Fly Christian Flag

In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, (D MA, Feb. 4. 2020), a Massachusetts federal district court dismissed a suit challenging refusal by the city of Boston to fly a Christian themed flag on a flag pole outside city hall for a Constitution Day and Citizenship Day event sponsored by plaintiffs. The court held that the city's flag display constituted government speech that is not subject to the strictures of the First Amendment.  It also held that the city's actions did not violate the Establishment Clause or Equal Protection clause. The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals last June affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction in the case. (Full text of 1st Circuit opinion).

Noise Restrictions On Sidewalk Abortion Counselors Upheld

In Henderson v. McMurray, (ND AL, Feb. 4, 2020), an Alabama federal district court upheld a Huntsville, Alabama special events ordinance and the provision in a permit allowing plaintiffs, pro-life sidewalk abortion counselors, to use amplification only if they cannot be heard in adjacent buildings. The court concluded that the challenged restrictions do not violate plaintiffs' rights to free speech or free exercise of religion.

Court Accepts RFRA Defenses of Volunteers Feeding Migrants

In United States v. Hoffman, (D AZ, Feb. 3, 2020), an Arizona federal district court reversed the criminal convictions of four volunteers aiding migrants through the faith-based organization No More Deaths/No Más Muertes. A federal magistrate judge had fined and imposed probation on the defendants for violating federal regulations barring entry into a national wildlife refuge without a permit and barring abandoning property there. Summarizing its holding, the court said in part:

Defendants ... appeal from convictions for violations of the regulations governing the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge.... The violations were committed in the course of leaving supplies of food and water in an area of desert wilderness where people frequently die of dehydration and exposure. Defendants, who are volunteers with a charitable organization affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist Church, admit the factual allegations made by the Government.... Defendants argue that those actions, taken with the avowed goal of mitigating death and suffering, were sincere exercises of religion and that their prosecution is barred by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.... The Court finds that Defendants demonstrated that their prosecution for this conduct substantially burdens their exercise of sincerely held religious beliefs, and that the Government failed to demonstrate that prosecuting Defendants is the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling governmental interest.

Law, Rights & Religion Project issued a press release announcing the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Phil Lord, What Is the True Purpose of Quebec's Bill 21?, ([2020] Directions, (Forthcoming)).
• Manal Cheema, Fill in the Blank: Compelling Student Speech on Religion, (105 Va. L. Rev. Online 175 (2019)).
• Fajri Muhammadin & Mohd Hisham Mohd Kamal, The Western Universalism v. Cultural Relativism Debate on Human Rights and Islam - An ‘Aqidah-Based Approach, (Afkar: Jurnal of Aqidah and Islamic Thought, Vol. 21 (2), 2019, pp.175-216).
• Michael McNally, Native American Religious Freedom as a Collective Right, (2019 BYU L. Rev. 205 (2019)).
• Farrah Ahmed, Arbitrariness, Subordination and Unequal Citizenship, (January 7, 2020).
• Abhinav Chandrachud, Secularism and the Citizenship Amendment Act, (January 4, 2020).
• Samuel D. Brunson, 'I’d Gladly Pay You Tuesday for a [Tax Deduction] Today': Donor-Advised Funds and the Deferral of Charity, (Wake Forest Law Review, Forthcoming).

Orthodox Jewish Family Ejected From Flight Sue American Airlines

An Orthodox Jewish family filed suit in a Texas federal district court last week charging American Airlines with religious, racial and national origin discrimination, as well as defamation, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit comes after the husband, wife and their 19-month old daughter were removed from an American Airlines flight. The complaint (full text) in Adler v. American Airlines, Inc., (SD TX, filed 1/28/2020) alleges that the Adlers were told by an American Airlines agent to deplane. Once off the plane, they were told that they had been ejected on instructions from the pilot because of extremely offensive body odor. In exchanges that followed, the Adlers rejected the claim, but the airline's agent allegedly told the Adlers "that he knew that Orthodox Jews take baths once a week." The complaint goes on to allege that an online search for "body odor" turns up the Adlers' name. Courthouse News Service and Detroit Free Press report on the lawsuit.

Trump Extends Some Travel Ban Restrictions To Six More Countries

In an exceptionally long Presidential Proclamation (full text), President Trump on Friday extended tailored restrictions under his controversial travel ban to immigrants (but not temporary visitors) from six additional countries. As explained by a News Release from the Department of Homeland Security:

.... For four countries – Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, and Nigeria – the President has imposed travel restrictions on immigrant visas.

The reason is straightforward – individuals who have entered the U.S. on immigrant visas are challenging to remove even if, after admission into the U.S., the individual is linked to disqualifying information such as terrorist connections, criminal ties, or misrepresented information. 

 And because each of these countries have deficiencies in sharing terrorist, criminal or identity information, it is likely that information reflecting that a visa applicant is a threat may not be available at the time the visa or entry is approved. This is unacceptable.

 Two countries – Sudan and Tanzania – performed marginally better and the President decided to impose travel restrictions on Diversity Visas.  This is a less severe sanction compared to the general restriction on immigrant visas, given the significantly fewer number of aliens affected....

... [T]his Proclamation only restricts entry on certain categories of immigrant visas. Family members can still visit their loved ones, businesses can still employ qualified candidates, and other visits can take place on a temporary basis with a non-immigrant visa.

DHS also issued this shorter news release. Vox has more on the President's action.

Recent Hearings By House Foreign Affairs Committee

The House Foreign Affairs Committee has held two hearings of interest in recent days:

• Ending Global Religious Persecution (Jan. 28, 2020) Video of full hearing. Further coverage at Blog from the Capital.
  
• Resisting Anti-Semitism and Xenophobia in Europe (Jan. 29, 2020). Video of full hearing.

Church Leaders Sentenced To Prison In Scheme To Siphon Off Church Funds

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey announced this week:

The leader and the main treasurer of the Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ were sentenced to federal prison today for their respective roles in a scheme in which both men caused the church to pay millions of dollars in personal expenses for the leader that the leader then omitted from his personal tax returns.

The two men had previously pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to defraud the United States of at least $250,000 in taxes.  Jermaine Grant, the church leader, was sentenced to 18 months in prison. The treasurer, Lincoln Warrington, was sentenced to 12 months and one day.

Court Denies Preliminary Injunction To Pastor Targeted For Ministering To Migrants

In Dousa v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (SD CA, Jan. 28, 2020), a California federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to a Christian pastor who claimed that her right to freely exercise her religion was substantially burdened by federal government's surveillance, brief detention and harassment of her. She contended that the government's actions amounted to retaliation for her activities ministering to asylum seekers and migrant on the Mexican side of the U.S. southern border. Denying a preliminary injunction, the court said in part:

Dousa has not shown at this stage that the Government has substantially burdened her Free Exercise rights. The harms she alleges—a “canceled trip to Mexico, refrain[ing] from blessing migrant marriages, hav[ing] her pastoral counseling chilled,” ... are subjective, and the Ninth Circuit is clear that “a subjective chilling effect on free exercise rights is not sufficient to constitute a substantial burden.”

However the court refused to completely dismiss her allegations of 1st Amendment and RFRA violations, saying in part:

It bears repeating that a preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.” ... The conclusion here that Dousa is not entitled to an injunction is simply a finding that she has not made that “clear showing” at this stage; it is not a finding that she cannot make that showing down the line, perhaps with the advantage of additional discovery.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.