Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Timothy Alan Campbell, Law’s Religious Awakening: Cincinnati’s Bible War, the Concept of Religious Neutrality, and Its Role Today , (Belmont Law Review, vol. 7, issue 2, pp. 47-85 (2020)).
• Andrew Seidel, Bad History, Bad Opinions: How ‘Law Office History’ Is Leading the Courts Astray on School Board Prayer and the First Amendment, (Northeastern University Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2020).
• Anita Koirala, Hindu Concept of Law, (April 30, 2020).
• Margaret Ryznar, Extending the Charitable Deduction Beyond the Covid-19 Pandemic, (Tax Notes Federal, Vol. 167, No. 3, pp. 463-464, April 20, 2020).

From SmartCILP:

• Festschrift: In Honor of Arthur J. Jacobson. Preface by Michael Pantazakos; introductory remarks by Richard H. Weisberg; introduction by Melanie Leslie; articles by Arthur J. Jacobson, Tvsi Blanchard, J. David Bleich, Mauro Bussani, George P. Fletcher, Otto Pfersmann, Monroe Price, Uriel Procaccia, Andraa Sajo, Bernhard Schlink, Jeanne L. Schroeder, Suzanne Last Stone, Paul Verkuil. 40 Cardozo Law Review 3047-3320 (2019). (Abstract).

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Joshua Neoh,  Apostasy and Freedom of Religion in Malaysia, (in Paul Babie, Neville Rochow and Brett Scharffs (eds), Freedom of Religion or Belief: Creating the Constitutional Space for Fundamental Freedoms (Edward Elgar Press, 2020)).
• Tarlan Masmaliyeva, Headscarf Cases Before the CJEU: Achbita and Bougnaoui (April 16, 2020).
• Kellen Funk, The Swearer's Prayer, (May 12, 2020).
• Julie Ada Tchoukou, Religion as an Ideological Weapon and the Feminisation of Culture in Nigeria: A Critical Analysis of the Textuality of Violence Through the Legal Regulation of Child Marriages, (The International Journal of Human Rights, 2020).
• Howard Wasserman, Testing the Koufax Curse: How 18 Jewish Players (and Rod Carew) Performed on Yom Kippur, (Florida International University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 20-07 (2020).
• Heidi Gilchrist, 'Act Normal or Leave': When Law and Culture Collide, (Columbia Journal of European Law, Forthcoming).
• Carlo A. Pedrioli, Regulating Online Hate Speech: A U.S. Perspective, (6 Int'l J. Digital & Data L. 259 (2020)).
• Abdullah Salem Bugshan, Faisal Alnori & Walid Bakry, Shariah Compliance and Corporate Cash Holdings (November 30, 2019).

From SmartCILP:

• Francis J. Beckwith, Now, I'm Liberal, But To a Degree: An Essay on Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination by John Corvino, Ryan T. Anderson, Sherif Girgis, 67 Cleveland State Law Review 141-172 (2019).
• Vanita Saleema Snow, Reframing Radical Religion, 11 Georgetown Journal of Law & Modern Critical Race Perspectives 1-41 (2019).
• Brian Miller, Reconciling Religious Freedom and LGBT Rights: The Perils and Promises of Masterpiece Cakeshop, 29 George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal 245-274 (2019).
• Joe Dryden, Matthews v. Kountze Independent School District: An Outlier In a Sea of Establishment Clause Outliers, 29 George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal 275-300 (2019).
• Shelly Aviv Yeini, The Rest Day of Professional Football Players in Israel, [Abstract], 18 Virginia Sports & Entertainment Law Journal 17-34 (2018).

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Steven Douglas Smith, Why School Prayer Matters, (San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 20-447 (2020)).
• Robin S. Maril, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Trinity Lutheran, and Trumpism: Codifying Fiction with Administrative Gaslighting, (Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2020).
• Stephanie H. Barclay, The Historical Origins of Judicial Religious Exemptions, (Notre Dame Law Review (forthcoming 2020)).
• Greer Donley, Beatrice Chen & Sonya Borrero, The Legal and Medical Necessity of Abortion Care Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic, (Journal of Law & the Biosciences, Forthcoming).
• Tifani Silveria, Whole Woman's Health: Not the 'Whole' Story, (Regent University Law Review, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2019).
• Nancy J. Knauer, The LGBT Equality Gap and Federalism, (American University Law Review, Vol. 70, No. 1, 2020).
• David S. Miller, et al, The FFCRA and CARES Act: Key Provisions Affecting Nonprofit Organizations (April 23, 2020).
• Philip Hackney, Political Justice and Tax Policy: The Social Welfare Organization Case, (Texas A&M Law Review, Vol. 8, 2021, Forthcoming).

From SSRN (International and Non-U.S. Law):

• Ioana Cismas & Ezequiel Heffes, Not the Usual Suspects: Religious Leaders as Influencers of International Humanitarian Law Compliance, (Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law Vol. 22: 70 Years Geneva Conventions: Past, Present and Future (2020 Forthcoming)).
• Giancarlo Anello, Homo Religiosus in a Globalized World: How Religious Individuals are Actors of Global Law, (April 4, 2020).
• Margaret Muga & Joshua Malidzo Nyawa, Judicial Protection of the Minority Religious Beliefs: A Commentary on the Rastafarian and Mohammed Fugicha (Hijab) Judgments, (March 28, 2020).
• Shaikh Ahmad, Review on Triple Talaq Within the Islamic Legislations, (March 28, 2020).
• Shaikh Ahmad, Muslim Women's Rights Regarding Marriage and Divorce In the Context of the Islam Religion, (March 31, 2020).
• Shaikh Ahmad, Analysis of the Triple-Talaq Within the Framework of Judiciary in India With Reforms of Sharia Law, (April 2, 2020).

From SmartCILP:

• Shams Al Din Al Hajjaji, A Tale of Two Theories: Government By Judiciary Theory versus Guardianship of the Jurist Theory, 33 Emory International Law Review 503-533 (2019).

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Abner S. Greene, Liberalism and the Distinctiveness of Religious Belief, (Forthcoming, 35 Constitutional Commentary (2020)).
• Suhrith Parthasarathy, An Equal Right to Freedom of Religion: A Reading of the Supreme Court’s Judgment in the Sabarimala Case, (Forthcoming, Oxford Human Rights Hub Journal).
• Aaron J. Saiger, State Regulation of Curriculum in Private Religious Schools: A Constitutional Analysis, (in Yeshivas versus the State of New York: A Case Study in Religious Liberty in Education (Jay Greene & Jason Bedrick eds., Rowman & Littlefield) (forthcoming 2020)).
• Matthew Brown, Coronavirus and Church Closures: Will the COVID-19 Gathering Bans Survive Free Exercise Challenges?, (ConLawNOW (Forthcoming)).
• Ryan T. Anderson, On the Basis of Identity: Redefining ‘Sex’ in Civil Rights Law and Faulty Accounts of ‘Discrimination’, (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 43, No. 2, 2020).
• Dr. Muhammad Sohail & Ataullah Khan Mahmood, Islamic Criminal Jurisprudence on the Offence of Trafficking in Persons: An Interpretation of Fasad fil Arz and Hadd Offence, (December 31, 2019).
• Raymond H. Brescia, Bahareh Ansari & Hannah Hage, The Legal Needs of Nonprofits: An Empirical Study of Tax-Exempt Organizations and Their Access to Legal Services, (17 Hastings Race & Poverty Law Journal 451 (2020).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Andrew L., Seidel, Bad History, Bad Opinions: How “Law Offi ce History” is Leading the Courts Astray on School Board Prayer and the First Amendment, 12 Northeastern University Law Review 248-326 (2020).
• Eimi Priddis Yildirim, A Rhetorical Revolution: The Antithesis of the First Amendment, 33 BYU Journal of Public Law 287-319 (2019).
• Jeffrey A. Brauch & Cody Goings, E.S. v. Austria: The Folly of Europe, [Abstract], 5 Journal of Global Justice & Public Policy 83-105 (2019).
• Mark Tushnet, Trump v. Hawaii: "This President" and the National Security Constitution, [Abstract], 2018 Supreme Court Review 1-19.
• Pamela S. Karlan, Just Desserts?: Public Accommodations, Religious Accommodations, Racial Equality, and Gay Rights, [Abstract], 2018 Supreme Court Review 145-177.
• Melissa Murray, Inverting Animus: Masterpiece Cakeshop and the New Minorities, [Abstract], 2018 Supreme Court Review 257-297.

High School Football Coach's Complaint Over On-Field Prayer Ban Is Dismissed

In Kennedy v. Bremerton Schoool District, (W WA, March 5, 2020), a Washington federal district court dismissed 1st Amendment and Title VII claims by a high school football coach who was suspended when he insisted on prominently praying at the 50-yard line immediately after football games.  The court said in part:

The ensuing dispute has highlighted a tension in the First Amendment between a public-school educator’s right to free religious expression and their school’s right to restrict that expression when it violates the Establishment Clause....

Given this practical assessment of Kennedy’s duties as a coach, the Court must hold that his prayers at the 50-yard line were not constitutionally protected.... Like the front of a classroom or the center of a stage, the 50-yard line of a football field is an expressive focal point from which school-sanctioned communications regularly emanate. If a teacher lingers at the front of the classroom following a lesson, or a director takes center stage after a performance, a reasonable onlooker would interpret their speech from that location as an extension of the school-sanctioned speech just before it. The same is true for Kennedy’s prayer from the 50-yard line....

Here, Kennedy’s practice of praying at the 50-yard line fails both the endorsement and coercion tests and violates the Establishment Clause. While it may not convey school approval as universally as a public announcement system, speech from the center of the football field immediately after each game also conveys official sanction. This is even more true when Kennedy is joined by students or adults to create a group of worshippers in a place the school controls access to.

The case, at the preliminary injunction stage, has already worked its way to the U.S. Supreme Court where certiorari was denied, but with an unusual 6-page concurring statement by 4 justices. (See prior posting.) Kitsap Sun reports on yesterday's district court decision.

Canadian Court Says Indigenous Events In School Did Not Infringe Religious Freedom of Christian Students

In Canada, in Servatius v. Board of Education School District No. 70, (BC Sup. Ct., Jan. 8, 2020), a British Columbia trial court judge rejected claims of infringement of religious freedom asserted by the mother of two school children. The court summarized the dispute:

As part of an effort to acquaint students with Indigenous culture and to promote a sense of belonging in Indigenous children, a Nuu-chah-nulth Elder visited a Port Alberni elementary school and demonstrated the practice of smudging. A few months later, an assembly at this public school witnessed an Indigenous dance performance, in the midst of which the dancer said a prayer. The petitioner is an evangelical Christian. Her nine-year-old daughter and seven-year-old son were enrolled in the school and witnessed these demonstrations of Indigenous culture and spirituality.

In dismissing the claims, the court said in part:

When arrangements are made for Indigenous events in its schools, even events with elements of spirituality, the School District is not professing or favouring Indigenous beliefs. Educators are holding these events to teach about Indigenous culture, and to introduce students to Indigenous perspectives and worldviews....

I conclude that proof on an objective basis of interference with the ability of the petitioner or her children to act in accordance with their religious beliefs requires more than the children being in the presence of an Elder demonstrating a custom with spiritual overtones or being in the presence of a dancer who said a brief prayer. In most instances, it is not difficult to recognize the boundary between a student learning about different beliefs and being made to participate in spiritual rituals. A field trip to a mosque to watch prayers would be learning about Islam; an Imam coming to the classroom and demonstrating prayer rituals would likewise not be problematic. However, in either of these cases, if the involvement of the students progressed to being called upon to pray or read from the Koran then it might well be said that educators have compelled the manifestation of a specific religious practice or the affirmation of a specific religious belief. If a Catholic priest came to school with altar candles and a censer containing incense to acquaint the students with the sights and scents of Church rites, this would seem to be well within the bounds of what the S.L. case stands for: religious freedom is not compromised when students are taught about other beliefs. If, however, the children underwent a baptism, this would be far over the line.

(See prior related posting.)

New Federal Proposals On Grants To Religious Entities, Campus Speech and Guidance on School Prayer

The White House (Fact Sheet, President's Remarks), the Department of Justice and the Department of Education each yesterday announced initiatives on school prayer and participation of religious organizations in government grant programs.

The Department of Education issued a 203-page Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (full text) which proposes rule changes to prevent discrimination against faith-based entities receiving federal grants and to protect free speech on campuses. DOE and the Department of Justice also issued revised Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools (full text).

The Department of Justice issued a 29-page Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (full text) on  Equal Participation of Faith-Based Organizations in Department of Justice’s Programs and Activities. Among the changes described in the Notice is one which:

delet[es] the requirement that faith-based social service providers refer beneficiaries objecting to receiving services from them to an alternative provider and the requirement that faith-based organizations provide notices that are not required of secular organizations.

Finally, the Office of Management and Budget issued a 2-page Memorandum providing guidance as to federal grants. (full text). It reads in part:

Even when no Federal regulation or grant term penalizes or disqualifies grant applicants from participation based on their religious character, some state laws governing awards to subgrantees, including state constitutions, may purport to limit sub-grantee participation in violation of the U.S. Constitution. In attempting to comply with such state constitutions and laws, grantees may be discriminating against applicants for sub-grants on the basis of religion, in violation of the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause and the grantee's commitment to adhere to Federal laws prohibiting discrimination under 2 C.F.R. § 200.300. Accordingly, grant awarding agencies shall ensure that the terms of the Federal grants they award make clear that states or other public grantees may not condition sub-awards of Federal grant money in a manner that would disadvantage grant applicants based on their religious character.

USA Today reports on these developments.

Missouri AG Supports High School Football Coaches' Prayer Practices

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt this week released a letter (full text) which he sent on Dec. 3 to the superintendent of the Cameron, Missouri School District supporting high school football coaches against charges in a letter (full text) from the Freedom From Religion Foundation . In its Oct. 28 letter, FFRF said in part:

It is our understanding the Cameron High School's head football coach, Jeff Wallace, and assistant football coach, David Stucky, have been holding religious "chapel" services for players before and after football games where coaches pray with players and read and discuss bible verses.  We understand that after games, Coach Wallace holds religious services with players on the fifty-yard line and leads players in prayer.  We understand that Coach Wallace often brings in outside preachers to proselytize to players as well.

It is illegal for public school athletic coaches to lead their teams in prayer or religious worship.

Responding to this, Attorney General Schmitt in his letter said in part:

FFRF is an extreme anti-religion organization that seeks to intimidate local governments into surrendering their citizens' religious freedom and to expunge any mention of religion from the public square....

Our understanding is that no coach or other Cameron official has forced any football player to participate in prayer or taken any action against any player who chose not to participate.   The prayer occurs outside of the football game.  The prayer is not broadcast over stadium loudspeakers, and fans evidently cannot hear any part of the prayer.  The school district reports that it received no complaints from anyone about the prayer, and FFRF does not reference any complainant in their letter.   Evidently, FFRF's threat does not reflect any discomfort with the prayers in the local community.  Rather, it reflects only FFRF's radical agenda. And without a complainant, FFRF lacks standing to sue the school district, no matter how strongly it objects to this voluntary prayer.

 Friendly Atheist blog reports on these developments.

Lawsuit Opposes Religious Activities In Tennessee School

Two families who are atheists have filed suit against a Tennessee school board challenging religious practices at a Smith County middle school and high school.  The complaint (full text) in Butler v. Smith County Board of Education, (MD TN, filed 11/18/2019), alleges in part:

For years, [school officials] have routinely promoted and inculcated Christian religious beliefs by sponsoring religious activities and conveying religious messages to students at these two schools. School-sponsored prayer is common at athletic and other school events; religious iconography and messages adorn the walls of the schools; and teachers proselytize their Christian faith.

ACLU of Tennessee issued a press release with more background on the case. KRTV News reports on the lawsuit.

Satanic Temple Can Proceed In Its Attempt To Offer City Council Invocation

In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, (D AZ, Nov. 18, 2019), an Arizona federal district court refused to dismiss a suit by The Satanic Temple (TST). Scottsdale City Council refused to allow the head of TST to deliver an invocation at a City Council meeting. The court, in finding that plaintiffs had standing to bring the lawsuit reasoned in part:

The injury alleged is discrimination – that Plaintiffs have been denied the opportunity to give an invocation when other religious groups have been allowed that privilege....

Although Establishment Clause violations can be asserted by the irreligious as well as the religious, such as a non-believing school student who is compelled to recite a prayer, Plaintiffs’ religious-discrimination claim necessarily requires that they be a religion....

In arguing that Plaintiffs are not religious, Defendant does not rely on any specific judicial definition. Defendant instead asserts that courts have distinguished between religious and secular prayers in legislative prayer cases....

The evidence discussed above suggests that Plaintiffs view their beliefs as religious and sincerely held. Whether Plaintiffs are religious for purposes of the merits of this case – for purposes of showing that the City’s action in the sphere of legislative prayer amounted to religious discrimination – is an issue for trial.

11th Circuit: Christian School Can Proceed In Challenge To Pre-Game Loudspeaker Prayer Ban

In Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc., (11th Cir., Nov. 13, 2019), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Christian school could move ahead with its complaint that its free speech and free exercise rights were infringed when it was denied permission to broadcast a joint prayer over the loudspeaker at the state championship high school football game. Both schools in the playoff were Christian schools. In its 70-page opinion, the court said in part:

As we see it, the district court was too quick to dismiss all of Cambridge Christian’s claims out of hand. Taking the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we must at this stage in the proceedings, the schools’ claims for relief under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses have been adequately and plausibly pled. There are too many open factual questions for us to say with confidence that the allegations cannot be proven as a matter of law. The question of whether all speech over the microphone was government speech is a heavily fact-intensive one that looks at the history of the government’s use of the medium for communicative purposes, the implication of government endorsement of messages carried over that medium, and the degree of government control over those messages.... [B]ased on this limited record, we find it plausible that the multitude of messages delivered over the loudspeaker should be viewed as private, not government, speech. And while we agree with the district court that the loudspeaker was a nonpublic forum, we conclude that Cambridge Christian has plausibly alleged that it was arbitrarily and haphazardly denied access to the forum in violation of the First Amendment. Likewise, we cannot say, again drawing all inferences in favor of the appellant, that in denying scommunal prayer over the loudspeaker, the FHSAA did not infringe on Cambridge Christian’s free exercise of religion.

WCTV News reports on the decision.

New Survey On Religious Activity In Public Schools

Pew Research Center has released a new survey titled For a Lot of American Teens, Religion Is a Regular Part of the Public School Day. (Full text; Summary)

The survey finds that about four-in-ten teens who attend public schools say they commonly (either “often” or “sometimes”) see other students praying before sporting events at school. This includes about half of teenage public schoolers who live in the South, where students are more likely than those in other regions to witness and partake in various religious expressions at school.

In addition, roughly half of U.S. teens who attend public school say they commonly see other students in their school wearing religious clothing (such as an Islamic headscarf) or jewelry with religious symbols (such as a necklace with a Christian cross or a Jewish Star of David).

About a quarter of teens who attend public schools say they often or sometimes see students invite other students to religious youth groups or worship services. About one-in-six (16%) often or sometimes see other students praying before lunch in their public school. And 8% report that they commonly see other teenagers reading religious scripture outside of class during the school day.....

... 8% of public school students say they have ever had a teacher lead their class in prayer – an action that the courts have ruled is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.1 An identical share (8%) say they have had a teacher read from the Bible as an example of literature, which the courts have said is fine.

Court Expands Injunction On Prayer At High School Graduations

In American Humanist Association v. Greenville County School District, (D SC, July 18, 2019), a South Carolina federal district court expanded its May 2015 order relating to prayer at high school graduation ceremonies in a South Carolina school district. It issued a permanent injunction that includes the following provisions:

(1) The district shall not include a prayer ... as part of the official program for a graduation ceremony. The district also shall not include an obviously religious piece of music as part of the official program for a graduation ceremony.

(2) The district and/or school officials shall not encourage, promote, advance, endorse, or participate in causing prayers during any graduation ceremony....

(4) The district and/or school officials shall not provide copies of student remarks from any prior year’s graduation ceremony to any students selected to make remarks during an upcoming graduation ceremony.

(5) ... No program or flier may direct the audience or participants to stand for any student’s remarks at a graduation ceremony.

(6) If school officials review, revise, or edit a student’s remarks in any way prior to the graduation ceremony, then school officials shall ensure that the student’s remarks do not include prayer.

(7) If school officials do not review, revise, or edit a student’s remarks ..., then a student’s remarks may include prayer, provided that no other persons may be asked to participate or join in the prayer, for example, by being asked to stand or bow one’s head. Moreover, in the event that a student’s remarks contain prayer, no school officials shall join in or otherwise participate in the prayer.

(8) Any program or flier for a graduation ceremony must include the following disclaimer if the ceremony includes a student’s remarks: “The views or opinions expressed by students during this program are their own and do not reflect the policy or position of the school district.”

Greenville News reports on the decision.

Justice John Paul Stevens Dies At Age 99

New York Times reports that Justice John Paul Stevens who served on the U.S. Supreme Court for 35 years (1975- 2010) died on Tuesday at the age of 99.  The First Amendment Encyclopedia summarizes Justice Stevens' church-state jurisprudence:

Stevens was a consistent defender of church-state separation in freedom of religion cases.  He wrote the Court’s decision in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), invalidating an Alabama moment of silence law.  Stevens reasoned that the Alabama legislature had a clear religious purpose of bring prayer back into the public schools. Stevens also authored the Court’s decision in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), invalidating a Texas high school district’s practice of announcing prayers over the loudspeakers at football games. 

For lengthier discussions of Justice Stevens views on 1st Amendment religion issues, see:

• Andrew M. Koppelman, Justice Stevens, Religious Enthusiast, (2012).
• Gregory P. Magarian, Justice Stevens, Religion, and Civil Society, (2011).
• Michael Kessler, The Religious Neutrality of Justice John Paul Stevens, (2010).
• Christopher L. Eisgruber, Justice Stevens, Religious Freedom, and the Value of Equal Membership (2006).
• Robert F. Nagel, Justice Stevens' Religion Problem, (2003).

Suit Challenging End of School Yoga Program Moves Ahead

AP reports that a Georgia federal district court judge refused Friday to dismiss an Establishment Clause suit against the Cobb County (GA) School District. The suit alleges the school district ended a yoga program and transferred an elementary school assistant principal in response to parents who objected to the yoga program as inconsistent with their Christian religious beliefs.  The suit brought by former Bullard Elementary School assistant principal Bonnie Cole will now move to trial.  AP reports in part:

During the 2014-2015 school year, Cole said she implemented breathing and stretching exercises based on yoga and meditation in classrooms as a way of reducing stress and encouraging relaxation....

According to the lawsuit, upset parents held a 2016 prayer rally for ‘‘Jesus to rid the school of Buddhism.’’

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the opinion and additional pleadings in Cole v. Cobb County School District (ND GA, March 19, 2019).

Cert. Denied In Football Coach's Firing For On-Field Prayer

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, (Docket No. 18-12, cert. denied 1/22/19).  In the case, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a Washington-state high school football coach who in a challenge to his school district was suspended for kneeling and praying on the football field 50-yard line immediately after games. (See prior posting.)  In today's action, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, filed a 6-page concurring statement (scroll to end of Order List), saying in part:

In this case, important unresolved factual questions would make it very difficult if not impossible at this stage to decide the free speech question that the petition asks us to review....

While I thus concur in the denial of the present petition, the Ninth Circuit’s understanding of the free speech rights of public school teachers is troubling and may justify review in the future....

What is perhaps most troubling about the Ninth Circuit’s opinion is language that can be understood to mean that a coach’s duty to serve as a good role model requires the coach to refrain from any manifestation of religious faith—even when the coach is plainly not on duty.....

While the petition now before us is based solely on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, petitioner still has live claims under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.... Petitioner’s decision to rely primarily on his free speech claims as opposed to these alternative claims may be due to certain decisions of this Court.

In Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith ... the Court drastically cut back on the protection provided by the Free Exercise Clause, and in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison ... the Court opined that Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion does not require an employer to make any accommodation that imposes more than a de minimis burden. In this case, however, we have not been asked to revisit those decisions.

MyNorthwest reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Richard Rice, Can a Christian Be a Corporate Lawyer? Tracing Corporate Law's Religious Roots and Identifying How We Can Integrate Our Faith and Work, (January 1, 2019).
• Michael A. Helfand, Jews and the Culture Wars: Consensus and Dissensus in Jewish Religious Liberty Advocacy, (San Diego Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Jianlin Chen, Joyous Buddha, Holy Father, and Dragon God Desiring Sex: A Case Study of Rape by Religious Fraud in Taiwan, (13(2) National Taiwan University Law Review 183-237 (2018)).
• John Witte, The McDonald Distinguished Christian Scholars Conference: Is Religious Liberty Under Threat? Trans-Atlantic Perspectives, (Ecclesiastical Law Journal 20 (2018): 339-41).
• Cekli Setya Pratiwi, The Permissible Scope of Legal Limitation on Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) and Freedom of Expression (FoE) under International Human Rights Law (IHRL): The Study of Blasphemy Cases in Indonesia,(January 9, 2019).
• Prakash Shah, Sacerdotal Violence and the Caste System: The Long Shadow of Christian-Orientalism, (Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 302/2019).
• Brendan Williams, NIFLA v. Beccera: Abortion Speech Only as Free as the Supreme Court Wants It to Be, (13 Charleston Law Review 89 (2018)).
• W. Burlette Carter, Sexism in the 'Bathroom Debates': How Bathrooms Really Became Separated By Sex, (Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2018).
• Zamir Iqbal & Friedemann Roy, Innovative Islamic Social Finance for Housing Microfinance, (Islamic Economic Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2018).

From SmartCILP:

• Michael S. Talbot, The Challenge of Trokosi: Ritual Servitude and the Framework of International Human Rights Law, 31 Harvard Human Rights Journal 1-32 (2018).
• Nicholas J. Hunt, Let Us Pray: The Case for Legislator-Led Prayer. 54 Tulsa Law Review 49-79 (2018).

School Board Votes To End Appeals of Board Prayer Policy Decision

As previously reported, last month the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, over a number of dissenting views, denied en banc review in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education. In the case, a 3-judge panel applied the Lemon test to strike down a California school board's prayer policy for board meetings. Now, according to the Chino Champion, on Thursday with two new board members voting, the Board voted 3-2 to end all appeals of the decision. One of the new Board members voting with the majority works as a 1st Amendment lawyer.

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.

Oral Arguments In Prayer At Football Games

Yesterday the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments  (recording of full oral arguments) in Cambridge Christian School v. Florida High School Atletic Association, Inc.  In the case, a Florida federal district court dismissed a suit brought by a Christian high school complaining that it was denied permission to use the stadium loudspeaker system to deliver a prayer at the Championship Game in which its football team was playing.(see prior posting.)