British Court Says Sikh Challenge To Census Proposal Is Premature

In Gill, R (on the application of) v UK Statistics Authority, (EWHC, Dec. 12, 2019), a High Court judge in England dismissed as premature a challenge to a proposal by the UK Statistics Authority not to include a Sikh ethnic group tick box response in the 2021 census. Under the proposal there would be a specific "Sikh" response under "Religion", but those wishing to list themselves as Sikh under ethnicity would need to check the "Other, specify" box. The court agreed with the government's claim, which the court described as follows:

[T]his claim is a pre-emptive challenge to the exercise of the Queen's powers ... before the Minister has made a final decision on the form of the census questionnaire, or laid the draft delegated legislation before Parliament, and before Parliament and the Queen in Council have had an opportunity to consider it. The Defendant submits that the claim is premature, and in breach of Parliamentary privilege, as a declaration in the terms sought would not respect the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary.

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

India's Supreme Couirt Will Review Controversial Citizenship Law Amendments

On Dec. 12, India's Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (full text) that was passed by Parliament received assent of the President.  The controversial new law  allows migrants who came into India from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan on or before December 31, 2014, and who belong to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian religious communities, to become citizens. It does not include Muslims from those nations. (Background),  Muslims fear that the new law is part of Home Minister Amit Shah's plan to create a nationwide citizens' register to weed out illegal immigrants.  Now, according to Bloomberg, India's Supreme Court, in response to more than 50 petitions, will review the constitutionality of the new law. An initial hearing is scheduled for January 22.

FBI Releases 2018 Hate Crime Statistics

Today the FBI released its 2018 Hate Crime Statistics. In 2018, 7,120 hate crime incidents were reported to the FBI by law enforcement authorities. These involved 8,496 offenses,  That was down from 7,175 incidents in 2017. Of 7,036 single-bias incidents, 20.2% (1,550 offenses) were motivated by religious bias.  57.8% of the religiously motivated incidents were anti-Jewish.  The next largest group of religiously motivated hate crimes were 14.5% which were anti-Muslim. 4.1% were anti-Sikh. 3.8% were anti-Catholic. Following release of the data, the ADL issued a press release saying in part:

It is unacceptable that Jews and Jewish institutions continue to be at the center of religion-based hate crime attacks.... We strongly urge Congress to immediately pass the Khalid Jabara and Heather Heyer National Opposition to Hate, Assault, and Threats to Equality (NO HATE) Act.

German Court Says Sikhs Not Exempt From Motorcycle Helmet Law

DW reports that Germany's Federal Administrative Court has ruled that religious freedom objections are not sufficient to exempt Sikhs from Germany's law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets. According to DW:

The Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig rejected a Sikh man's appeal, who had argued that the helmet would not fit over his turban.

"People wearing a turban on religious grounds are not for that reason alone exempt from the obligation to wear a helmet," the presiding judge, Renate Philipp, said, adding that the claimant has to accept this restriction to his freedom of religion, as it serves to uphold the rights of others, too....

The Leipzig court argued that the obligation to wear a helmet not only protects the driver but also keeps other drivers from being traumatized if they cause heavy injury to someone driving without a helmet.

The court also said a driver wearing a helmet would be better placed to help others in case of an accident.

Air Force Grants Religious Accommodation To Sikh Airman

In a press release last week, the ACLU announced that for the first time, the U.S. Air Force has granted a religious accommodation to a Sikh active duty airman to allow him to wear a turban, beard, and unshorn hair.  The U.S. Army had previously granted similar accommodations. (See prior posting.)

New York Legislature Passes Bill To Bar Employment Discrimination Based On Religious Attire

The New York State Legislature on Tuesday gave final passage to A4024 (full text) which adds to the state's anti-discrimination law a specific ban on employment discrimination because of a person's attire, clothing, or facial hair worn in accordance  with  the requirements  of  his  or her religion. The employer is excused from this obligation if reasonable accommodation is impossible. AP, reporting on the passage of the bill, says it was particularly supported by a coalition of Sikh houses of worship. [Thanks to Blog from the Capital or the lead.]

UPDATE: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the bill on Aug. 9.

9th Circuit: Sikh Asylum Applicant Did Not Show Past Persecution

To qualify for asylum as a refugee, an individual must show either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. (8 CFR 1208.13). In Singh v. Barr, (9th Cir., March 25, 2019), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 decision that a citizen of India had shown neither. Amaneep Singh, a Sikh, approached members of the Dera Sacha Sauda at one of their recruitment meetings to stop them from criticizing Sikhism. He was chased out of the event. Two months later Dera Sacha Sauda members encountered Singh alone and beat him.  When Singh approached police, they demanded a 25,000 rupee bribe to help him. the majority concluded:

Because Singh’s evidence showed only that the police demanded a bribe on one occasion, the evidence does not compel a finding that the government was unable or unwilling to control the people who attacked him, and therefore does not compel a finding of past persecution....

Singh’s attackers were part of Dera Sacha Sauda, a small religious minority active in only some regions of India. There is no reason to think that Singh is at future risk from a group with such limited influence because he is a Sikh.

Judge Watford dissented saying in part:

Members of another religious faith told Singh to abandon his religion and join their own. When he refused to disavow his faith, they beat him until he was unconscious, hospitalizing him for two weeks. When he went to the police for help, they refused to help him unless he paid a bribe, which was more than he could afford to pay. The majority errs by concluding that these facts do not establish past persecution.

San Francisco Chronicle reports on the decision.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Ollie v. Atchison, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 5439 (7th Cir., Feb. 25, 2019), the 7th Circuit affirmed dismissal of an inmate's claim that he was denied access to congregative religious services.

In Franklin v. Arguello, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24469 (D NV, Jan. 14, 2019), a Nevada federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25065, Jan. 7, 2019) and refused to dismiss an inmate's complaint that he was not allowed to participate in group Christian worship services and receive communion.

In Missouri v. Vansickle, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23246 (WD MI, Feb. 13, 2019), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25071, Jan. 23, 2019) and denied injunctive relief but permitted a Nation of Islam inmate to move ahead with his damages claim for refusal to accept his late sign-up for Ramadan meals.

In Stewart v. Richardson, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26893 (SD NY, Feb. 19, 2019), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that his Arabic texts and his "Complete Book of Witchcraft" were confiscated.

In Cary v. Mox, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26578 (ED MI, Feb. 20, 2019), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27531, Jan. 22, 2019) and denied summary judgment, dismissing some of the claims, to a former inmate now on parole who asserted that his Native American medicine bag was desecrated in a search.

In Petersen v. Fresno County Sheriff's Office, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27928 (ED CA, Feb. 20, 2019), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate's complaint that his Sikh head covering was confiscated on two occasions.

In Dewitt v. Johnson, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28493 (ND OH, Feb. 22, 2019), an Ohio federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that as a member of Disciple of Akrah he was discriminated against and denied a headband and scroll bag.

In Lane v. Tavares, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28511 (MD PA, Feb. 21, 2019), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge recommended allowing a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was denied accommodation for his medical condition that he sought so he could access Friday prayers that were on a different floor of the prison.

In Love v. Price, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29287 (ED MO, Feb. 25, 2019), a Missouri federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that for two months he was forced to eat food that violated his religious diet.

In Ha'Keem v. Mesojedec, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30328 (D MN, Feb. 26, 2019), a Minnesota federal district court rejected in part a magistrate's recommendation (2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31083, Jan. 16, 2019) and allowed Muslim civil sex-offender detainees to move ahead on their claim that their facility's prayer oil policy violates their free exercise rights. However the court adopted other parts of the magistrate's recommendation and dismissed claims regarding religious discussions, cross-gender pat down searches, prayer rugs, prayer space and access to religious services.

Asylum Seeking Indian Sikhs Have Turbans Taken Away In Federal Custody

A report this week in the India Tribune alleges mistreatment of 52 illegal immigrants from India held at the federal prison in Sheridan, Oregon.  Most of these are Punjabi speaking Sikhs.  The immigrants are seeking asylum on the grounds of feared religious and political persecution in India.  In addition to the general problem of prison conditions, the Sikh inmates have had their turbans taken away. Some of the immigrants have now hired lawyers, so their conditions are improving. Community members have furnished beanies as head coverings to some Sikhs.

District Court Again Dismisses Suit Over Board Positions On Sikh Dharma Entities

In Puri v. Khalsa, (D OR, April 26, 2018), an Oregon federal district court dismissed on ministerial exception and ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit originally filed in 2010 growing out of disputes following the death of Yogi Bhajan, an important Sikh spiritual leader in the United States.  The widow and three children of Yogi Bhajan claim that they are entitled to board positions in two nonprofit Sikh Dharma entities. In a 2017 decision, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, reviewing  the trial court's dismissal solely on the basis of the pleadings, held that the suit should not have been dismissed on ministerial exception or ecclesiastical abstention grounds. (See prior posting.)  In yesterday's decision, however, the district court, ruling on a summary judgment motion, held that information outside the pleadings now before the court leads to the conclusion that defendants' motion for summary judgment should be granted.

Injunction Against Serving As Temple Director Upheld

In Sikh Temple Turlock, California v. Chahal, (CA App, Feb 20, 2018), a California state appeals court upheld the trial court's resolution of a governance dispute between two factions in a Sikh Temple.  As described by the court:

Following a bench trial, the [trial] court found the election of the First Board was valid. The court further concluded the April 2013 election did not occur and that appellants took control of the Temple by usurpation. Accordingly, the trial court reinstated the First Board and ordered that a judicially supervised election take place. The court also enjoined five of the appellants from serving as officers or directors of the Temple for five years.

The appeals court rejected challenges to the trial court's decision, including a a free exercise challenge to the 5-year injunction.  The court said in part:

 Appellants submitted evidence that a Sikh has a general obligation to perform selfless service. However, there was no testimony that serving on the board is itself a religious act, constitutes a religious practice, or is required to satisfy the seva obligation. In fact, the evidence suggests otherwise.... Thus, appellants’ claim that the ban infringes on the free exercise of their religion has no support in the record.

Trump Sends Holiday Greetings To Sikhs

On Nov. 4, the White House released a statement (full text) from President Trump sending "warm wishes to Sikh Americans and Sikhs around the world as they celebrate the birth anniversary of Guru Nanak Devji, the founder and first guru of Sikhism."

9th Circuit: Facebook Is Immune From Liability For Blocking Access To Sikh Group's Page

In Sikhs for Justice, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., (9th Cir., Sept. 13, 2017), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a California federal district court's dismissal of a religious discrimination claim against Facebook. (See prior posting.) In the lawsuit, brought by a Sikh human rights group, plaintiffs contend that Facebook violated the public accommodation provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it blocked access to SJF's Facebook page in India.  The suit contends that Facebook collaborated with the government of India in retaliating against SFJ for its online campaign complaining about the treatment of Sikhs and promoting an independent Sikh state.  The 9th Circuit held that Facebook is immune from civil liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and that Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not provide an exception to this immunity.

Sikh Cadets Sue West Point Over Headgear Requirement

Two cadets who are observant Sikhs and who enrolled in the U.S. Military Academy at West Point filed suit in a Michigan federal district court yesterday contending that the Army has failed to follow its own regulations that allow Sikhs to serve without giving up their Sikh grooming and dress obligations.  The complaint (full text) in New Cadet Candidate Chahal v. Seamands, (ED MI, filed 8/14/2017), asserts that the Sikh cadets

are only welcome to remain at the Academy with their unshorn hair, beards, and turban on one condition: they must agree to wear the West Point “tar bucket”—a decorative hat worn in ceremonial parades a few times each year....

 For them, wearing the tar bucket over, or in place of, their turbans would desecrate their religious values....

The suit claims that requiring the cadets to wear the "tar bucket" violates their rights under the 1st and 5th Amendments and under RFRA.  Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

Italy's Top Court Upholds Kirpan Ban

Last Monday, Italy's Court of Cassation upheld a fine that had been imposed for carrying a kirpan in public.  According to The Local:

The Italian judges on Monday rejected the appeal of a Sikh who had been fined €2,000 in 2015 for carrying an 18cm-long kirpan in Goito, a town in Lombardy. He argued that the ban was unfair as the kirpan was a religious symbol rather than a weapon, but the court upheld the original sentence.

"Attachment to values which violate the laws of the host country is intolerable, even if they are lawful in the country of origin," the court said, adding that "public safety is an asset to be protected".

No 1st Amendment Bar To Suit Over Board Seats In Two Sikh Dharma Entities

In Puri v. Khalsa, (9th Cir., Jan. 6, 2017), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, vacating the district court's dismissal, held that neither the ministerial exception doctrine nor the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a suit by the widow and children of the deceased spiritual leader of the Sikh Dharma faith alleging they are being frozen out of board positions in two nonprofit Sikh Dharma entities. In rejecting application of the ministerial exception doctrine, the court said in part:

[T]he pleadings do not allege the board members have any ecclesiastical duties or privileges. In assessing the responsibilities attendant to the board positions, it is relevant that the entities involved are not themselves churches, but rather corporate parents of a church. SSSC’s primary responsibility appears to be holding title to church property, and UI, in addition to being ... the direct corporate parent of the Sikh Dharma church – owns and controls a portfolio of for-profit and nonprofit corporations, including a major security contractor and a prominent tea manufacturer. Although the complaint alleges the board members have “fiduciary duties to UI and SSSC to hold assets in trust for the benefit of the Sikh Dharma community,” it is not clear on the face of the complaint that these duties are “religious” or “reflect[] a role in conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission.”

Turning to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the court said:

Nothing in the character of th[e] defense will require a jury to evaluate religious doctrine or the ‘reasonableness’ of the religious practices followed . . . Under these circumstances, the availability of the neutral-principles approach obviates the need for ecclesiastical abstention.

Army Grants Greater Dress and Grooming Accommodation For Sikhs and Muslims

The Army yesterday issued Directive 2017-03 revising Army uniform and grooming standards to allow greater religious accommodation, particularly for Sikh and Muslim members of the Army. The new directive allows religious accommodation to be granted at the brigade level to Sikhs to wear a turban or under-turban/patka, with uncut beard and uncut hair.  For Muslims, brigade-level approval is allowed for hijabs. The Directive allows a similar religious accommodation for beards, which would affect Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and perhaps soldiers of other religious faiths.  Certain exceptions apply, particularly in relation to those who need to wear protective masks. Also, without the need for granting of a religious accommodation, the Directive allows women to wear dreadlocks and individuals to wear certain religious bracelets. The Atlantic reports on the new Directive.

NYPD To Allow Turbans and Beards For Religious Purposes

In an attempt to accommodate Sikh officers, the New York Police Department announced Wednesday that officers who are granted religious accommodation from the Department's Equal Opportunity Office will be allowed to wear one-half inch beards. They may also wear blue turbans  with a hat police shield attached, instead of the traditional police cap. New York Times and the New York Daily News report on the new policy which was announced by Police Commissioner  James O’Neill standing with a group of Sikh officers in turbans after an NYPD Academy graduation ceremony.

Sikh Neurologist Brings Title VII Suit Against Practice Group

The Sikh Coalition this week announced the filing of a Title VII lawsuit on behalf of a neurologist who claims that he was not hired by a physician‐owned  multi‐specialty medical group in Clarksville‐Montgomery County, Tennessee because of his religion, race and national origin.  The complaint (full text) in Singh v. Premier Medical Group, P.C., (MD TN, filed 12/27/2016) alleges:

Only after requesting information regarding Plaintiff’s appearance, and receiving and reviewing photographs of Plaintiff and information about his Sikh religious beliefs did Defendants refuse to hire Plaintiff.

NY Town Settles Construction Dispute With Sikh Temple

According to NBC News, on Wednesday a settlement agreement between the Town of Oyster Bay, New York and the Guru Gobind Singh Sikh Center was filed with a federal district court. The Sikh Temple had sued under RFRA claiming that the town's stop work and environmental review orders were issued to appease residents who are hostile to the temple and its worship. (See prior posting.) Under the settlement the temple agreed to make certain construction changes and the town board agreed that it would no longer be authorized to serve as the oversight committee for the site plan approval process.