NY Governor Vetoes Bill on Notifying Defendants of Right to Secular 12-Step Programs

On Dec. 23, New York Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed New York Senate Bill 7313A which would have required courts, in imposing alcohol or substance abuse treatment on a defendant, to inquire if the defendant has religious objections to the program, and if the defendant does, to identify an alternative nonreligious treatment program for the defendant.  As reported by Only Sky, the veto was met with substantial criticism.  In her Veto Memo, Governor Hochul explained her veto in part as follows:

While I support the right to a substance use treatment program that will be most effective, codifying the right to object to mandated attendance at a religious substance use treatment program sets an uncomfortable precedent in that it may invite future selective legislative efforts to inject a similar burden upon judges to inform litigants of their rights to opt out of other court mandates. This process may raise questions whether litigants enjoy rights to opt out of other mandates on religious grounds where the underlying statutes have not been amended to codify those rights. Given that defendants already have the right to request nonreligious treatment, this bill is unnecessary and imposes an overly rigid burden on courts and judges.

Court Says Idiosyncratic Personal Religious Beliefs May Not Support Religious Accommodation

In In re Moscatelli v. New York City Police Department, (NY Cnty. Sup. Ct., Dec. 22, 2022), a New York trial court annulled an administrative determination that denied a New York City Detective a religious exemption from the city's COVID vaccine mandate. The court held that the administrative determination was arbitrary and capricious, saying that "the NYPD EEOD’s determination is a prime example of a determination that sets forth only the most perfunctory discussion of reasons for administrative action." The court went on, however, to say:

The court’s conclusion in this regard should not be construed as a ruling that, had the petitioner’s stated reasons for his request for an exemption, and his discussion of religious doctrine, properly been analyzed and explained by the Panel or the NYPD EEOD in the challenged decisions, those contentions would have constituted a proper basis for an exemption. That would have required a forthright engagement by those agencies with the religious contentions and arguments raised by the petitioner.... It would also have required some actual inquiry ... into the petitioner’s prior behavior concerning vaccines and medications. Had those agencies taken that approach, their determinations might have survived judicial scrutiny, as the petitioner provided scanty proof that the rejection of vaccinations or medications that have been developed, improved, or tested using fetal stem cells is an accepted tenet of Catholic doctrine, as opposed to a personal interpretation of doctrine by a lay person or even a few members of the clergy....

[T]he petitioner ... has not demonstrated that his conclusions about sin, the use of embryonic stem cells in the development and improvement of various vaccinations and medications, and the alleged proscription of desecrating the human body via any genetic manipulation that mRNA vaccinations might generate, are established Catholic doctrine, or merely his personal interpretation of his obligations as a practicing Catholic....  Nor has he demonstrated that he had previously declined to be treated with [other] drugs ... which were either developed, improved, or recently tested by their manufacturers for adverse side effects using stem cells from aborted fetuses.

Survey Shows Religious Affiliations of Members of New Congress

Pew Research Center has released its survey of the religious affiliations of members of the incoming 118th Congress. Titled Faith on the Hill, among the findings are that of the 469 total members of the House and Senate, 303 are Protestant, 148 are Catholic, 33 are Jewish, 9 are Mormon, 8 are Orthodox Christian. Among the faiths that have 3 or fewer members, 3 identify as Muslim, 2 as Hindu, and 1 as Messianic Jewish.  The full report has additional specifics.

Biden Renominates Persons To Be Commissioner and General Counsel of EEOC

With the convening of the 118th Congress yesterday, President Biden resubmitted a large number of nominations that had not been acted upon by the Senate last year. Among them were the nomination of Kalpana Kotagao to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for a term expiring July 1, 2027, and Karla Ann Gilbride to be General Counsel of the EEOC for a four-year term. The EEOC enforces federal laws barring employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), age, disability or genetic information.

11th Circuit En Banc Upholds School Policy Assigning Restrooms on Basis of Biological Sex

In Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida, (11th Cir., Dec. 30, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc in a 7-4 decision held that separating use of male and female bathrooms in public schools based on students' biological sex does not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX. The six opinions filed in the case span 150 pages.  A 3-judge panel in a 2-1 decision had previously ruled to the contrary. The majority opinion on en banc review said in part:

The School Board’s bathroom policy is clearly related to—indeed, is almost a mirror of—its objective of protecting the privacy interests of students to use the bathroom away from the opposite sex and to shield their bodies from the opposite sex in the bathroom, which, like a locker room or shower facility, is one of the spaces in a school where such bodily exposure is most likely to occur. Therefore, the School Board’s bathroom policy satisfies intermediate scrutiny.

The district court avoided this conclusion only by misconstruing the privacy interests at issue and the bathroom policy employed.... [T]he bathroom policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of biological sex....

The policy impacts approximately 0.04 percent of the students within the School District—i.e., sixteen transgender students out of 40,000 total students—in a manner unforeseen when the bathroom policy was implemented. And to accommodate that small percentage, while at the same time taking into account the privacy interests of the other students in the School District, the School Board authorized the use of sex-neutral bathrooms as part of its Best Practices Guidelines for LGBTQ issues....

Contrary to the dissent’s claim, the School Board, through the Best Practices Guidelines, did not discriminatorily “single[] out transgender students.” ... The School Board sought to accommodate transgender students by providing them with an alternative—i.e., sex-neutral bathrooms—and not requiring them to use the bathrooms that match their biological sex— i.e., the bathroom policy Adams challenges.... Ultimately, there is no evidence of purposeful discrimination against transgender students by the School Board, and any disparate impact that the bathroom policy has on those students does not violate the Constitution.

Judge Lagoa filed an opinion Specially Concurring, saying in part:

 I write separately to discuss the effect that a departure from a biological understanding of “sex” under Title IX—i.e., equating “sex” to “gender identity” or “transgender status”—would have on girls’ and women’s rights and sports.

Judge Wilson dissented, saying in part:

Underlying this sex-assigned-at-matriculation bathroom policy ... is the presumption that biological sex is accurately determinable at birth and that it is a static or permanent biological determination. In other words, the policy presumes it does not need to accept amended documentation because a student’s sex does not change. This presumption is both medically and scientifically flawed....

The case of intersex students therefore proves that a privacy concern rooted in a thin conception of biological sex is untenable.

Judge Jordan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Judges Wilson and Rosenbaum, saying in part:

[T]he School Board’s policy allows a transgender student just like Drew to use the boys’ bathroom if he enrolls after transition with documents listing him as male. Because such a student poses the same claimed safety and privacy concerns as Drew, the School Board’s bathroom policy can only be justified by administrative convenience.

Judge Rosenbaum filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

I join Judge Jordan’s dissent in its entirety and Judge Jill Pryor’s dissent’s equal-protection analysis. I write separately only to emphasize one point ...: the Majority Opinion’s misplaced suggestions that affirming the district court’s order on equal-protection grounds would require courts in this Circuit to find that all challenges involving restrooms, locker rooms, and changing facilities must necessarily be upheld are wrong.

Judge Jill Pryor filed a dissenting opinion (which Judge Rosenbaum joined as to her equal protection analysis) saying said in part:

In contrast to transgender students, all cisgender students are permitted to use the restroom matching their gender identity. The policy, therefore, facially discriminates against transgender students by depriving them of a benefit that is provided to all cisgender students. It places all transgender students on one side of a line, and all cisgender students on the other side. The School District cannot hide beyond facially neutral-sounding terms like “biological sex.” As the Supreme Court has observed, “neutral terms can mask discrimination that is unlawful.”...

[T]he bathroom policy’s assignment of Adams to the girls’ restrooms would actually undermine the abstract privacy interest the School District wished to promote. While he attended Nease and was excluded from the boys’ bathrooms, Adams had “facial hair,” “typical male muscle development,” a deep voice, and a short haircut.... He had no visible breast tissue; his chest appeared flat. He wore masculine clothing. Any occupant of the girls’ restroom would have seen a boy entering the restroom when Adams walked in. Thus, the district court found, “permitting him to use the girls’ restroom would be unsettling for all the same reasons the School District does not want any other boy in the girls’ restroom.”...

The School District’s policy categorically assigned transgender students, including Adams, to bathrooms based on only one biological marker: their sex assigned at birth. Adams’s claim that the School District’s notion of what “sex” means is discriminatory is not foreclosed by the Title IX carveouts....

Law & Crime reports on the decision. 

European Court Again Holds That Flying Spaghetti Monster Church Is Not a Protected "Religion"

In two recent Chamber Judgments, the European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed its prior holding in a 2021 case that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose adherents are also known as Pastafarians, does not qualify as a "religion" or "belief" protected by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In Sager v. Austria, (ECHR, Dec. 15, 2022), Austria's Office for Religious Affairs refused to recognize the Church as a religious community. The European Court rejected petitioner's challenge to that decision, saying in part:

[B]y holding that Pastafarianism perceived itself as an ironical and critical movement with educational, scientific and political aims, and lacked religious rites, duties and an active following in Austria, the Office for Religious Affairs and the Federal Administrative Court duly applied the above‑mentioned standards requiring a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

In ALM v. Austria, (ECHR, Dec. 15, 2022), Austrian authorities refused to issue petitioner an identity card with a photograph showing him wearing a crown made of pasta.  Again, the European Court rejected petitioner's challenge to that decision. Law & Religion UK reports on the decisions.

Refusal To Approve Athletic Field Lights for Catholic School Did Not Violate RLUIPA

In Edgewood High School of the Sacred Heart, Inc. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin, a Wisconsin federal district court rejected RLUIPA, free speech and other challenges by a Catholic high school to the city's denial of a permit for outdoor lighting at its athletic fields. The surrounding residential neighborhood association objected to the proposal.  The court said in part:

The initial question is whether putting lights on an athletic field is a religious exercise for plaintiff Edgewood at all....  Edgewood suggests that athletics have long been a part of Edgewood, consistent with the Sinisawa Dominican tradition of educating the whole person. Yet this case is not about athletics in general; it is about Edgewood’s ability to install lights in order to use its athletic field at night.... [U]se of the field at night has never been a part of Sinisawa’s Dominican strategy, which largely takes place during regular school hours.

In fairness, plaintiff also suggests that the field could be used for liturgies and other religious ceremonies, but there is nothing in the record indicating that Edgewood ever uses the field for such purposes, much less that it has a need to do so at night....

Even if the court were to assume that night football (as opposed to a variety of sports conducted in gym classes and at practices) is an important element of Edgewood’s religious exercise, which is certainly not a given, plaintiff offers no evidence that it is substantially burdened by having to play night home games at a different field....

[I]t would be a misreading of [two prior cases cited by plaintiffs] to hold that public outcry is sufficient to show unequal treatment under RLUIPA absent proof of a substantial burden on religious exercise, something simply lacking in this case.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Serap Güneş, De-Europeanisation as Counter-conduct: The Case of Non-Muslim Religious Minorities in Turkey, Romanian Journal of European Affairs (22(2), 5-29 (2022)).
• Nicholas Aroney, Economics, Law, Education, and Religion - Contributions to the Composition of a Good Society, (in Michael Welker, John Witte, Piet Naudè and Stephen Pickard (eds), "The Impact of the Political Economy on Character Formation, Ethical Education and the Communication of Values in Late Modern Pluralistic Societies" (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2020).
• Susan Frelich Appleton, Out of Bounds?: Abortion, Choice of Law, and a Modest Role for Congress,  (Forthcoming, 35 American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Journal ___ (2023)).
• James Cleith Phillips, The Respect for Marriage Act's Polygamy Problem (December 22, 2022).
• Matthew Goldammer, A Defense of the Compulsory Deference Approach for Church Property Litigation, (Forthcoming in the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy).
• Gabriella Kamran, Off-White: Al-Khazraji and Shaare Tefila's Potential to De-Essentialize Antidiscrimination Law, (17 Fla. A&M U. L. Rev. 129 (2022)).
• Zainuddin Zainuddin & Rosmini Rosmini, Distribution of Zakat for Communities Affected by COVID-19 in the Perspective of Socio-Economic Justice, (November 30, 2022).
• Nancy C. Marcus, Bendita Malakia, Ann E. Tweedy & Mya Reid, Bridging the Gap in LGBTQ Rights Litigation: A Community Discussion on Bisexual Visibility in the Law, (Hastings Women's Law Journal, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2023).

From SmartCILP:

• Corey Brettschneider, Praying for America: The Anti-Theocracy and Equal Status Principles of the Free Exercise, Equal Protection and Establishment Clauses, 47 BYU Law Review 1127-1170 (2022).
• Mark Satta, Political Partisanship and Sincere Religious Conviction, 47 BYU Law Review 1221-1274 (2022).
• Josh Blackman, The "Essential" Free Exercise Clause, 44 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 637-762 (2021).

Happy New Year 2023!

Dear Religion Clause Readers:

Happy New Year 2023! I hope that you continue to find Religion Clause a valuable source of information on the intersection of law, religion and public policy. In this past year, we have seen important First Amendment doctrinal developments. Free exercise concerns have loomed larger in the view of the Supreme Court and the Establishment Clause has become a weaker limit on governmental actions. Cases which on their surface were not religion cases have nevertheless sharpened cultural and political divisions along religious lines.  And antisemitism has become a growing concern.

In reporting on these and other developments, I have attempted to retain Religion Clause's objectivity and its policy of linking to extensive primary source material. I hope that the blog continues to have a reputation for reliability at a time when the objectivity of social media is increasingly called into question.  

Religion Clause is a niche blog whose readership includes lawyers, social scientists, advocacy organization personnel, law school faculty, journalists, clergy, legislative and executive branch staff, students and others working professionally dealing with church-state relations and religious liberty concerns in the U.S. and around the world. I attempt to avoid excessively technical matters in my posts in order to make the blog accessible as well to non-lawyers with a general interest in the area.

Thank you to all of you who are loyal readers of Religion Clause-- both those who have followed it for years and those who have only recently discovered it. I hope you will continue to follow Religion Clause in 2023. Please recommend the blog to colleagues, students and friends who may find it useful and interesting.

Best wishes as we all face the challenges that 2023 brings to us.  I hope that we are able to deal with these challenges by respecting divergent viewpoints and coming together with solutions to at least some of the many problems that we face.

Feel free to contact me by e-mail (religionclause@gmail.com) in response to this post or throughout the year with comments or suggestions. Best wishes for 2023.

Howard Friedman

New York Ban on Firearms at Churches Violates 1st and 2nd Amendments

In Spencer v. Nigrelli, (WD NY, Dec. 29, 2022), a New York federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement against plaintiffs-- a pastor and his church-- of New York state's ban on concealed-carry license holders possessing a firearm at any place of worship or religious observation. The court concluded that the ban violates the Free Exercise Clause, Establishment Clause and Second Amendment rights of plaintiffs, saying in part:

Pastor Spencer believes that he has "a moral and religious duty to take reasonable measures to protect the safety of those who enter the Church."... He explained that the "Bible often refers to religious leaders as 'shepherds' and tasks them with caring for and protecting their 'flocks."'... He therefore believes that "providing for the physical safety of the Church tin body of Christ—is [his] religious act and duty as a pastor."...

Pastor Spencer testified that members of the Church's security team of congregants protect the congregation pursuant to a calling from God. Hired outside security, Spencer believes, is not an adequate substitute because such individuals would be working for a paycheck—not acting pursuant to a spiritual calling.... Pastor Spencer and Church members have a religious belief that they, themselves, must protect the flock. Indeed, religious beliefs "need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection." ...

In sum, on this record, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the State permits countless other private actors hosting secular activities to do what a house of worship may not. The houses of worship exclusion is not a neutral law of general applicability....

The new law, in effect, forces them to disregard this spiritual calling and, notably, dictates that protection of the Church may only be provided by a different group of people—i.e., individuals fitting into a statutory exemption. The Supreme Court instructs that "a component" of a church's "autonomy is the selection of the individuals who play certain key roles."... [T]he place of worship exclusion encroaches on matters "closely linked" with the Church's right to determine how best to conduct its own affairs.

However, the court issued a stay pending appeal allowing the church to designate individuals who have concealed carry licenses to carry firearms on church premises to keep the peace. This is consistent with stays issued by the Second Circuit in other cases now on appeal challenging the New York ban on firearms at places of worship. The Reload reports on the decision. Reason has more on the Second Amendment aspects of the case.

HHS Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Conscience Protections For Healthcare Providers

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released yesterday a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (full text) titled Safeguarding the Rights of Conscience as Protected by Federal Statutes. In 2019, the Trump Administration HHS adopted final rules on protecting the conscience rights of health care providers. The rules were criticized as possibly imperiling care for persons seeking reproductive health care, weakening childhood vaccination efforts and potentially leading to discrimination against gay and transgender patients. (See prior posting.) Several courts enjoined enforcement of the 2019 rules. (See prior posting.) Yesterday's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking says in part:

The Department also proposes to retain, with some modifications, certain provisions of the 2019 Final Rule regarding federal conscience protections but eliminate others because they are redundant or confusing, because they undermine the balance Congress struck between safeguarding conscience rights and protecting access to health care access, or because significant questions have been raised as to their legal authorization. Further, the Department seeks to determine what additional regulations, if any, are necessary to implement certain conscience protection laws. The Department is seeking public comment on the proposal to retain certain provisions of the 2019 Final Rule, including on any alternative approaches for ensuring compliance with the conscience protection laws....

The ACLU issued a press release calling the HHS Notice "an important first step toward repealing the most harmful aspects of this dangerous rule."

Court Approves Bankruptcy Reorganization Plan for Santa Fe Archdiocese

The Catholic Archdiocese of Santa Fe, New Mexico announced yesterday that a U.S. Bankruptcy Court has confirmed a Plan of Reorganization that has been agreed to by the Committee representing victims of clergy abuse and by the Archdiocese. According to an Open Letter from the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors recommending that abuse victims vote to accept the plan:

Under the Plan, the Debtor, its affiliates and their insurers will create a settlement fund of approximately $121.5 million (the “Settlement Amount”) upon the effective date of the Plan. The Plan also includes measures to enhance child protection, including the first-ever publication of abuse related documents through an archive administered by the University of New Mexico.

All the Chapter 11 Plan Documents are available on the Archdiocese's website. In announcing the court's confirmation of the plan, Archbishop Wester said in part:

While I hope and pray that the bankruptcy outcome will bring a measure of justice and relief to the victims of clergy sexual abuse, I realize that nothing can ever compensate them for the criminal and horrendous abuse they endured. I pledge that the Archdiocese of Santa Fe will remain vigilant in protecting children and young people from clergy sexual abuse, doing all we can to assure them of a safe and protective environment in the Catholic Church. We will continue to monitor the safeguards we have put in place and implement the non-monetary agreements....

Once again, I express my most profound sorrow and contrition for those who have endured clergy sexual abuse. This is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance and which has no place in the Catholic Church: not now, not ever.

AP reports on the court's action and has additional background on the proceedings. 

Christian School Teacher Fired for Acceptance of LGBT Students Files Suit

Suit was filed this week in an Arizona federal district court by Adam McDorman, an English teacher who was fired by Valley Christian School for urging the school's principal, Josh LeSage, to show acceptance and understanding of a student who identifies as pansexual.  The complaint (full text) in McDorman v. Valley Christian Schools, (D AZ, filed 12/27/2022), alleges in part:

15. McDorman’s Christian faith and beliefs include acceptance and equality for all LGBT persons and do not tolerate discrimination or hostility against them....

19.  On November 1, 2021, during a staff meeting at which McDorman was present, LeSage said that all of VCS staff should have the same religious belief in the sinfulness of LGBT sexual orientation, and that anyone who did not agree was like a cancer that needed to be removed from the (VCS) organization....

The complaint alleges that McDorman's firing amounted to religious discrimination and retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices in violation of provisions of Title VII and Title IX. AZFamily News reports on the lawsuit.

6th Circuit: Healthcare Buffer Zone Law Violates Pro-Lifer's Free Speech Rights

In Sisters for Life, Inc. v. Louisville-Jefferson County, KY Metro Government, (6th Cir., Dec. 21, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an ordinance imposing a 10-foot buffer zone around the entrance of any healthcare facility abridges the free speech rights of pro-life groups and individuals who wish to hand out leaflets and speak with women entering abortion clinics. The court said in part:

Even though caselaw permits a city to enact access laws focused on abortion facilities, ... the County sought to advance its interests by imposing a buffer zone on all medical facilities in Louisville. And why? The record does not reveal access problems beyond EMW.... Yet the ordinance covers every single hospital, clinic, and dentist’s office in the area.... Because the County may not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary” to further the County’s order and access interests,..., and because the County has not made any showing that all medical facilities need this kind of regulation, the ordinance lacks any tailoring, to say nothing of narrow tailoring.... 

The second problem is that the County has not shown that it “seriously undertook to address” its concerns “with less intrusive tools.”... [T]he County offers no tenable... explanation why the first prohibition in the law—that no one shall “knowingly obstruct, detain, hinder, impede, or block another person’s entry to or exit from a healthcare facility,”... will not work.

Rejection of Foster Parent Applicants Over Their Views on Homosexuality Violates Australian Equal Opportunity Law

In Hordyk v. Wanslea Family Services, Inc., (WA SAT, Dec. 23, 2022), the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia held that a non-profit family services agency that contracts with the state to arrange foster care for children placed in custody of the state violated Section 62 of the Western Australia Equal Opportunity Act 1984 when it rejected a couple who are members of the Free Reformed Church of Australia as foster parents. According to the court:

4, During the assessment process, the Hordyks revealed, in answer to specific questions asked of them, that they held the view that the Seventh Commandment in the Old Testament of the Bible requires sexual relationships to take place only between a man and woman who are married and that other expressions of human sexuality are sinful. The Hordyks believe that same-sex relationships are sinful and that people who feel same-sex attraction must fight the sin in order to live in conformity with the Commandments. They informed Wanslea that, as a result of their beliefs, in the event that a foster child who had been placed in their care was found kissing a child of the same sex at school, they would tell the child that they were loved but that the behaviour was sinful and needed to be resisted. The Hordyks said they would have to end the placement of a foster child who continued to behave in that way. They qualified that statement by saying that they would not terminate the placement immediately but could not foster that child in the long term.

5.  Following the Hordyks' expression of those views, Wanslea's staff decided not to proceed to a final assessment of the Hordyks' application and instead terminated the assessment process....

Law and Religion Australia reports at greater length on the decision.

6th Circuit: Temporary Shortening of Prison Worship Time Upheld

In Dykes-Bey v. Schroeder, (6th Cir., Dec. 27, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought under the 1st Amendment and RLUIPA by a Michigan inmate, concluding that the Michigan prison system had not imposed a "substantial burden" on the inmate's free exercise of religion. According to the court:

[D]efendants reduced the worship time for all religious groups from one hour to 30 minutes. As a result of this reduction in worship time, Dykes-Bey, a Moorish American Moslem, was unable to read the proclamation or conduct the closing prayer at four weekly meetings of the Moorish Science Temple of America....

Finding no 1st Amendment violation, the court said in part: 

Dykes-Bey sufficiently alleged a sincerely held religious belief or practice—reading the proclamation and conducting the closing prayer at meetings of the Moorish Science Temple of America. But the defendants' conduct did not rise to the level of a substantial burden on his religious exercise....

Focusing on plaintiff's RLUIPA claim, the court said in part:

Dykes-Bey sought only monetary relief from the defendants, which is not authorized by RLUIPA.

State Department Gets Broader Authority to Pay Rewards in War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide Cases

Yesterday President Biden signed into law H.R.4250 (full text) which expands the Department of State War Crimes Rewards Program that allows the State Department to pay rewards to persons who furnish information leading to the arrest or conviction in any country, or by an international criminal tribunal, of any foreign national accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide. Previously 22 USC §2708(b)(10) had a seemingly artificial limitation on when a reward could be paid.  It was authorized only when the defendant was convicted of these crimes as defined by the statute setting up the international criminal tribunal involved.  The new law expands this to allow rewards when the defendant is convicted in another country or by an international tribunal of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide as defined by "(A) the statute of such country or tribunal, as the case may be; or (B) United States law".

EEOC Sues For Rastafarian Who Was Denied Grocery Manager Position

The EEOC has announced that yesterday it filed a Title VII religious discrimination suit against a Williamsburg, Kentucky IGA grocery store.  The suit, filed in a Kentucky federal district court, alleges that the grocery refused to hire Spiritualist Rastafarian Matthew Barnett as an assistant manager after he refused to cut his dreadlocks which he wears for religious reasons. The EEOC says that employers must consider reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs.

New Ohio Law Focuses on Zoom-Bombing and Other Disruptions of Religious Services

As reported by JTA, the Ohio legislature in its final session earlier this month gave final passage to H.B. 504 (full text) amending the ban on disturbing a lawful meeting to increase penalties and to focus specifically on disturbing religious services.  The Act now provides in part:

Disturbing a lawful meeting is a misdemeanor of the first degree if either of the following applies:

(1) The violation is committed with the intent to disturb or disquiet any assemblage of people met for religious worship at a tax-exempt place of worship, regardless of whether the conduct is within the place at which the assemblage is held or is on the property on which that place is located and disturbs the order and solemnity of the assemblage.

(2) The violation is committed with the intent to prevent, disrupt, or interfere with a virtual meeting or gathering of people for religious worship, through use of a computer, computer system, telecommunications device, or other electronic device or system, or in any other manner.

Clause (2) of this section is particularly aimed at the practice of Zoom-bombing religious services that are being held online. Zoom-bombing has especially been used during the COVID pandemic to create antisemitic disruptions of online synagogue services.  In Ohio, a first-degree misdemeanor is punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a fine of up to $1000.

Utah Supreme Court Says Order in Divorce Proceeding on Children's Religious Teaching Is Too Broad

Kingston v. Kingston, (UT Sup. Ct., Dec. 22, 2022), is a challenge by Ryan Kingston to a trial court's order in a divorce proceeding that barred him from encouraging his children to adopt the teachings of any religion without the consent of his former wife, Jessica. According to the Court:

At the time of their marriage, Ryan and Jessica were both members of the Order, also known as the Kingston Group, a polygamous religious community. Ryan remains a member of the Order today, but Jessica left the Order before the divorce.

During the divorce proceedings, the teachings and practices of the Order became a key issue as both Ryan and Jessica sought custody of their four children.

In a 3-2 decision, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for it to "craft a more narrowly tailored remedy." The majority said in part:

 [W]e agree with Jessica that the State has a compelling interest in shielding the children from psychological harm. The district court found that "[t]he Order's religious teachings jeopardize the health or safety of the children, and will cause harm to the children's welfare." Specifically, the court identified two potentially substantial harms to the children associated with Ryan's religious beliefs: (1) grooming of the children for early marriage; and (2) exposure to Order teachings that ostracize outsiders and demonize those who have left the group, including Jessica. Protecting the children from these harms is a compelling state interest....

The district court's prohibition is broader than necessary to prevent the identified potential harms to the children. The court prohibited Ryan from "encourag[ing] [the children] to adopt the teachings of any religion" without Jessica's consent. This prohibition applies broadly to "the teachings of any religion," but the court only identified specific harms associated with the Order. As written, the prohibition would prevent Ryan from teaching the children the Lord's Prayer or encouraging them to adopt the teachings of Islam. Based on a plain language reading of the prohibition, Ryan would have to seek Jessica's consent before engaging in either of these activities. The prohibition cannot be described as "narrowly tailored" when it reaches far beyond the compelling interest it is meant to address....

 Associate Chief Justice Pearce filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Peterson.  They said in part:

[S]trict scrutiny is the wrong test to apply.... I would follow the Utah Code and analyze whether the district court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, real or substantiated potential harm to the child if the parent is allowed to participate in the child's religious upbringing.....

There is absolutely no evidence in the record that Ryan's objection to the district court's order is fueled by a desire to read the Quran to his children or to lead them in the Lord's Prayer....

... I respectfully dissent and would affirm the district court's order.