Satmar Community Agrees To Eliminate Official Endorsement of Sex Segregated Playground

The New York Civil Liberties Union reported yesterday that the Village of Kiryas Joel, New York, has settled a Freedom of Information lawsuit brought against it seeking information on the alleged sex segregation of a Village public park.  The media last year reported that the Village, which is comprised predominately of members of the Satmar Hasidic Jewish sect, had constructed a 283-acre playground with one area for women and girls (red benches and playground equipment) and a separate blue area for boys and men. (See prior posting.)  In settling the suit (full text of March 26 Stipulation and Settlement Order), the Village confirmed to the ACLU that it does not have a policy of directing, endorsing or enforcing illegal sex segregation in the Village playground known as Kinder Park.  The settlement authorizes the ACLU to conduct two visits each summer for the next three years to check on its compliance. The ACLU says that the Village has removed Yiddish signs that were previously posted instructing visitors about the sex-segregated areas. The Village also agreed to pay $3000 in petitioners' attorneys' fees. Failed Messiah, reporting on the settlement, claims that the playground will remain voluntarily segregated.

U.S. Catholic Bishops Issue 2013 Report On Clergy Abuse Allegations and Costs

On March 28, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released its most recent report on the Church's ongoing efforts to deal with clergy sexual abuse of minors.  Its 2013 Annual Report on the Implementation of the “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People" discloses that in 2013 there were 370 new credible allegations of sexual abuse of a minor made against 290 priests or deacons. Only nine of the allegations involved victims who were under 18 in 2013. The rest involved adults who claim abuse in the past. 80% of the victims were male while 20% were female.  Five of the 370 allegations involved only child pornography. 69% of the allegations involved conduct that occurred or began between 1960 and 1984. During 2013, dioceses and eparchies paid out $108.9 million as follows: $61 million in settlements; $6 million in therapy for victims; $10.4 million in support for offenders; $28.9 million in attorneys' fees; and $2.4 million in other costs. In the past ten years, costs related to claims have totaled $109 million. Insurance covered 21% of the amounts paid out in 2013. The report deals separately with abuse complaints directed to clerical and mixed religious institutes where 2013 saw 94 new credible allegations of abuse. Catholic World News covers the report. [Thanks to Pewsitter.com for the lead.]

SCOTUS Denies Cert. In 2 Non-Profit Contraceptive Mandate Cases Seeking Review Ahead of Circuit Court Decisions

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari (Order List) in two cases in which Catholic non-profit organizations are challenging the Affordable Care Act compromise that allows them to opt out of providing their employees contraceptive coverage only if they sign a form that results in the employees receiving coverage directly from the health insurance company or third party administrator.  The two cases in which review was denied today were both ones in which the non-profit organization took the unusual step of seeking Supreme Court review before the appeal of the district court's decision was heard and decided by the Court of Appeals. The first of today's denials was in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Sebelius, (Docket No. 13-829, cert. denied 3/31/2014) in which the D.C. federal district court upheld the challenge to the compromise as to one of the plaintiffs that offered a self-insured plan, but not for the others who offered group insurance or church plans. (See prior posting). The second denial was in Priests for Life v. Department of Health and Human Services, (Docket No. 13-891, cert. denied 3/31/2014) in which the D.C. federal district found that no substantial burden was placed on a pro-life group's free exercise by requiring it to complete the self-certification form to opt into the accommodation. (See prior posting.) Reuters reports on the denial of review.

Hearing This Week On Injunction Against New Jersey Archdiocese Selling Headstone and Mausoleum Rights

Yesterday's Newark Star Ledger reports that a hearing is scheduled April 1 in a New Jersey Superior Court on an action by three cemetery monument companies against the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark seeking to enjoin the Archdiocese from selling monuments and private mausoleums at Catholic cemeteries.  The complaint (full text) in Monument Builders of New Jersey, Inc. v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark, (NJ Super Ct), filed last  year argues that the Archdiocese has engaged in unfair competition with private monument companies:

The sale of the monuments and the private mausoleums is in direct competition with Plaintiff entities and because of its tax-exempt status and the close contact with the family of the deceased before, at the time of, and after the burial give the Archdiocese preferred economic position and ease of access to prospective customers in promoting sales.

The complaint also alleges that the sale of monuments by the Archdiocese is ultra vires and against public policy.

The Archdiocese's answer (full text) filed Sept. 4, 2013, says that the Archdiocese is not selling monuments and mausoleums. Rather it is selling inscription rights to monuments and burial rights in mausoleums that the Archdiocese owns.  This arrangement makes it responsible for repairs when there is damage to headstones of mausoleums.  The Archdiocese admits that it is subject to New Jersey's 7% use tax on the monuments and mausoleums it purchases, even though apparently it has not yet paid the tax. (Deposition.)

NY Appellate Court Upholds $1.6 M Religion- Sexual Orientation Discrimination Verdict

In Salemi v. Gloria's Tribeca Inc., (NY App. Div., March 20, 2014), a New York appellate court upheld a jury verdict of $1.6 million in a suit alleging employment discrimination on the basis of religion and sexual orientation in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law.  Plaintiff worked as chef and manager of a restaurant.  The court concluded that the jury had ample evidence to find that plaintiff's employer:

discriminated against her based on her religion and sexual orientation by, amongst other things, holding weekly prayer meetings at the restaurant ... which the staff viewed as mandatory, fearing that they would lose their jobs if they did not attend, repeatedly stating that homosexuality is "a sin," and that "gay people" were "going to go to hell" and generally subjecting her to an incessant barrage of offensive anti-homosexual invective.... Additional evidence demonstrated that ... plaintiff was retaliated against for objecting to [her employer's] offensive comments, choosing not to attend workplace prayer meetings, and refusing to fire another employee because of his sexual orientation.

In response to defendant's argument that he was expressing his religious beliefs, the court said that the jury was properly instructed that he could do so provided he did not discriminate against his employees based on religion or sexual orientation. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Samuel J. Levine, Foreword: Conference on Religious Legal Theory: RLT IV: Expanding the Conversation, (30 Touro L. Rev. 1 (2014)).
• Dallan F. Flake, Image is Everything: Corporate Branding and Religious Accommodation in the Workplace, (University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 163, 2014-15).
• Asifa Quraishi-Landes, Rumors of the Sharia Threat are Greatly Exaggerated: What American Judges Really Do with Islamic Family Law in Their Courtrooms, (New York Law School Law Review, Vol. 57, No. 245, 2013).
• John M. A. DiPippa, God and Guns: The Free Exercise of Religion Problems of Regulating Guns in Churches and Other Houses of Worship, (March 21, 2014).
• John M. Breen & Lee J. Strang, The Forgotten Jurisprudential Debate: Catholic Legal Thought's Response to Legal Realism, (March 24, 2014).
• Micah Schwartzman, Religion as a Legal Proxy, (San Diego Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Micah Schwartzman, Religion, Equality, and Public Reason, (Boston University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Yaniv Heled, On Patenting Human Organisms or How the Abortion Wars Feed into the Ownership Fallacy, (Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 36, 2014, Forthcoming).
• Jessica Feinberg, The Survival of Non-Marital Relationship Statuses in the Same-Sex Marriage Era: A Proposal, (Temple Law Review, Vol. 87, Forthcoming).

From SSRN (Affordable Care Act and Religious Freedom):

• Heidi Muller, Hobson's Choice: For-Profit Corporations and the Exercise of Religion, (November 17, 2013).
• Scott Harrington, No Soup for You! Religion in the Post-PPACA Era, (March 18, 2014).
• Zoe Robinson, The Contraception Mandate and the Forgotten Constitutional Question, (Wisconsin Law Review, Forthcoming 2014).
• Toni M. Massaro, Nuts and Seeds: Disclosure of Religious Exemptions, (Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 14-10 (March 2014)).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. law):

• Lotem Perry-Hazan, From the Constitution to the Classroom: Educational Freedom in Antwerp's Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Schools, (Journal of School Choice, 2014, Forthcoming).
• Lotem Perry-Hazan, Court-Led Educational Reforms in Political Third Rails: The Cases of Israeli Haredi Schools' Curricula and Admission Policies, (March 18, 2014).
• Jill Marshall, The Legal Recognition of Personality: Full Face Veils and Permissible Choices, (10 International Journal of Law in Context 64-80 (2014)).
• Robert J. Delahunty, The Returning Warrior and the Limits of Just War Theory, (Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, 2014).

From SmartCILP:

• Mark W. Cordes, The First Amendment and Religion After Hosanna-Tabor, 41 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 299-355 (2014).
• Alvaro Hasani, Compatibility of Democracy and Islam...Or the Lack Thereof: A Closer Look At Whether the "Arab Spring" Was Ever Capable of Culminating Into a Viable Democracy in the Arab World, 15 Scholar 715-743 (2013).
• Ken Matheny, The Disappearance of Labor Unions and the Social Encyclicals of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XIV, 23 Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 1-35 (2014).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Jackson v. Nixon, (8th Cir., March 28, 2014), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision reversing the district court held that an atheist inmate adequately pled that requiring him to complete a substance abuse program with religious content to be eligible for early parole violates the Establishment Clause.  Judge Smith dissented arguing that the inmate suffered no punishment when he withdrew from the substance abuse program and other avenues for early parole were available.

In Vega v. Rell, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38199 (D CT, March 24, 2014), a Connecticut federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaints that the prison commissary falsely labeled Jolly Rancher candies as Halal; that cheese on the Common Fare menu was not halal; that prison prayer rugs were dirty; and that he was not allowed to purchase a digital Qur'an or Islamic educational CDs.

In White v. Dooley, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38859 (D SD, March 25, 2014), a South Dakota federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was denied access to certain religious items, hardcover religious books and religious study classes.

In Van Buren v. Coy, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39756 (WD KY, March 26, 2014), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was denied religious services by being placed in segregation.

In Davis v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38763 (WD MI, March 25, 2014), a Muslim inmate alleged that he suffered food poisoning after eating items from his Ramadan food bag that were left unrefrigerated for many hours, and subsequently he only ate items from his food bag that did not require refrigeration. A Michigan federal district court held that this did not amount to a free exercise violation because, while he may have preferred more or different food, he did not show that this imposed a substantial burden on his free exercise.

In Maloney v. Ryan, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39360 (D AZ, March 25, 2014), an Arizona federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's claim for damages under the free exercise clause finding that defendants had qualified immunity. No legal authority put them on notice that providing Ramadan breakfast before sunrise, rather than before dawn, violated inmates' constitutional rights. As to injunctive relief, the court gave defendants 30 days to show that their subsequent change in the breakfast policy is permanent.

In Bey v. Virginia, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39636 (ED VA, March 20, 2014), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a complaint by a Moorish American Moslem inmate that he was denied a vegetarian diet, and that in court proceedings, the judge told him to remove his "religious national headdress," did not use his "free national name," and called him "black"instead of Moor.

In Plummer v. Riley, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40654 (D SC, March 26, 2014), a South Carolina federal district court adopted most of a magistrate's recommendations (2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42250, Feb. 26, 2014), and permitted a Rastafarian inmate to proceed with his complaint that he must sign up to attend religious services, cannot attend Rastafarian study groups and was suspended from chapel by the chaplain in retaliation for filing a grievance against him for his not allowing Rastafarians to celebrate Kwanza.

In Ballard v. Johns, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41069 (ED NC, March 27, 2014), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed a complaint by a Catholic civil detainee held as a sexually dangerous person that he was denied religious services while in administrative segregation.

In Dunn v. Kentucky Department of Corrections, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41640 (WD KY, March 28, 2014), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed a complaint by an Odinist (Astaru) inmate (1) that he is only allowed to buy the Thor's Hammer medallion that is available from the approved vendor, and it is of poor quality and features Celtic artwork; and (2) he is not permitted to own a set of personal rune stones.

A Comic Strip Commentary on Hobby Lobby

The Strip in today's New York Times Sunday Review is titled Fun With Corporate Conscience Clauses.  It is a comic-strip commentary on the Hobby Lobby case, corporate free exercise rights and religious conscientious objection which readers will find either immensely humorous or immensely offensive depending on one's views on the issues involved.

Suit Challenging Ohio's Refusal to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage Dropped When Couple Gets Family Health Insurance Policy

AP reports that a gay couple in Cleveland on Friday voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit they had filed last month challenging Ohio's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages.  Al Cowger Jr. and Tony Wesley Jr., who were married in New York state in 2012, sued when they were unable to obtain family health insurance coverage for themselves and their adopted daughter through the federal health insurance marketplace. They were initially told that a family policy was not available because Ohio does not recognize their marriage.  However this week they were finally able to obtain a family policy through the Healthcare.gov website. On March 14, the Department of Health and Human Services told insurance companies that starting next year, if they offer policies to opposite-sex spouses, they cannot choose to deny coverage to same-sex spouses.

Lutheran Affiliated Senior Housing Not Entitled To Property Tax Exemption

In Meridian Village Association v. Hamer, (IL App., March 28, 2014), an Illinois appeals court upheld the Illinois Department of Revenue's denial of a property tax exemption to a senior housing facility that was affiliate with Lutheran Senior Services.  It found that appellants had not shown their property is used exclusively for charitable purposes, nor is it used exclusively for religious purposes:

While the retirement community allows members of the Lutheran Church an opportunity to act out and evangelize their religion in the context of caring for seniors, the operation of the facility is not necessary to promote their religion, because that can be accomplished through other means. Other than caring for the elderly in a faith-inspired manner, there was little evidence of actual religious activity on the property.

Developments In Missouri and Michigan On Same-Sex Marriage Recognition

Here is an update on the rapidly moving developments in two states relating to recognition of same-sex marriages.

In Missouri, where a suit seeking to require the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere is pending, last November the governor in Executive Order 13-14 directed the state Department of Revenue to accept joint tax returns from same-sex couples who are legally married in other states. This led in February to the filing of articles of impeachment (full text) against the Democratic governor by a Republican lawmaker. (See prior posting.)  In January 2014 a lawsuit was filed seeking a declaratory judgment that the Executive Order is unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement.  The complaint (full text) in Messer v. Nixon, (MO Cir. Ct., filed 1/14/2014) contends that the executive order is inconsistent with Missouri Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 33 that provides the only marriages that will be recognized in the state are ones between a man and a woman. Now, as the April 15 filing date for tax returns approaches,  PoliticMO reports that plaintiffs in the lawsuit last Wednesday filed a motion asking the court to grant a temporary restraining order preventing enforcement of the Executive Order.

In Michigan, a federal district court earlier this month struck down the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The next day, the 6th Circuit granted a stay of the order, pending appeal. However in the hours in between, some 300 same-sex couples married. (See prior posting.) In an announcement today (full text), U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government would recognize these 300 marriages for purposes of eligibility for federal benefits.  He said in part:

The Governor of Michigan has made clear that the marriages that took place on Saturday were lawful and valid when entered into, although Michigan will not extend state rights and benefits tied to these marriages pending further legal proceedings.  For purposes of federal law, as I announced in January with respect to similarly situated same-sex couples in Utah, these Michigan couples will not be asked to wait for further resolution in the courts before they may seek federal benefits to which they are entitled.

Pakistani Court Sentences Christian Man To Death For Blasphemy

Reuters reported yesterday that a Pakistani court has convicted Sawan Masih of blasphemy and sentenced him to a fine and to death by hanging. Masih, a Christian, was charged with blasphemy last year after he allegedly made remarks against the Prophet Mohammed when he got into an argument with two men while drinking.  The incident led to Muslims burning down nearly 100 homes of Christians in Lahore. (See prior posting.) At least 16 people are on death row in Pakistan for blasphemy, but none have in fact been executed. 20 others are serving life sentences.

Judge Calabresi Interviewed On Establishment Clause

Religion & Politics yesterday published an interview with Guido Calabresi, senior judge on the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and former dean of Yale Law School, on his views of the Establishment Clause. Judge Calabresi authored the 2nd Circuit's opinion in Galloway v. Town of Greece, the legislative prayer case (see prior posting) that was argued this term and is awaiting decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Describing the 2nd Circuit's opinion, Calabresi said:

We took the position that a non-sectarian prayer is either a contradiction in terms or is an establishment. It is an establishment of the “okay” religions. Of “what we are all agreed on.” What we wanted to do was to find a way of allowing people to pray without having a town define itself as Christian—which was the claim about this case. But, keep in mind that, in our circuit, we also have Kiryas Joel, a town that wants to define itself as Satmar, a particular sect of the Jewish faith. In other words, we have many forms of the desire for self-definition, of the desire to say, in religious terms, “We are something.” What we came up with was the notion that a town can do anything it wants so long as it is open to every religion and non-religion.

U.S. Catholic Diocese Sues Diocese In Ireland Over Transfer of Abusive Priest

AP reported yesterday that an unusual lawsuit has been filed in court in Ireland by the U.S. Catholic diocese of New Ulm, Minnesota. The suit was filed in February against Diocese of Clogher in Ireland and the religious order, Servants of the Paraclete, alleging that in 1981 the Irish diocese transferred a priest, Rev. Francis Xavier Markey, to Minnesota without warning U.S. church officials that he had been accused of sexual abuse. The New Ulm diocese has been sued by a victim of Markey's.

Contempt Motion Filed Against Google Over "Innocence of Muslims" Video

As previously reported, last month in Garcia v. Google, Inc.,  the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a preliminary injunction should be granted to require the controversial film "Innocence of Muslims" to be removed from YouTube.  The decision came in a copyright suit filed by Cindy Lee Garcia who acted in a portion of the film. According to Hollywood Reporter, on Tuesday Cindy Garcia filed an emergency contempt motion (full text) with the 9th Circuit. The motion claims that a version of the video is still available on Google's worldwide platform, and is viewable in Egypt where a fatwa was issued for Ms. Garcia's execution.  According to the motion, Google insists that Ms. Garcia has the burden of informing it of every URL on its platforms that has the video before Google has an obligation to take it down. The motion also claims that Google has not taken down any copies of the video, but has merely disabled it so that the viewer sees a thumbnail and an explanation from Google.  In the meantime, Google is seeking en banc review of the 9th Circuit's decision.

Obama and Pope Francis Meet At The Vatican

As reported by AP, President Obama today met with Pope Francis at the Vatican. The Vatican Press Office issued a statement (full text) after the meetings, reading in part:

During the cordial meetings, views were exchanged on some current international themes and it was hoped that, in areas of conflict, there would be respect for humanitarian and international law and a negotiated solution between the parties involved. In the context of bilateral relations and cooperation between Church and State, there was a discussion on questions of particular relevance for the Church in that country, such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection, as well as the issue of immigration reform. Finally, the common commitment to the eradication of trafficking of human persons in the world was stated.

The White House released excerpts from the President's press conference on his audience with the Pope.  They read in part:

... [W]e had a wide-ranging discussion.  I would say that the largest bulk of the time was discussing two central concerns of his.  One is the issues of the poor, the marginalized, those without opportunity, and growing inequality.... 

And then we spent a lot of time talking about the challenges of conflict and how illusive peace is around the world....  I reaffirmed that it is central to U.S. foreign policy that we protect the interests of religious minorities around the world....

In terms of domestic issues, the two issues that we touched on -- other than the fact that I invited and urged him to come to the United States, telling him that people would be overjoyed to see him -- was immigration reform.... I described to him how I felt that there was still an opportunity for us to make this right and get a law passed.

And he actually did not touch in detail on the Affordable Care Act.  In my meeting with the Secretary of State, Cardinal Parolin, we discussed briefly the issue of making sure that conscience and religious freedom was observed in the context of applying the law.  And I explained to him that most religious organizations are entirely exempt.  Religiously affiliated hospitals or universities or NGOs simply have to attest that they have a religious objection, in which case they are not required to provide contraception although that employees of theirs who choose are able to obtain it through the insurance company.

And I pledged to continue to dialogue with the U.S. Conference of Bishops to make sure that we can strike the right balance, making sure that not only everybody has health care but families, and women in particular, are able to enjoy the kind of health care coverage that the AC offers, but that religious freedom is still observed.

District Court Enjoins Sectarian Invocations At County Council Meetings

In Hake v. Carroll County Maryland, (D MD, March 26, 2014), a Maryland federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring Carroll County, Maryland commissioners opening their commission sessions with sectarian prayer.  Currently sessions are opened with a prayer led by one of the commissioners, on a rotating basis. The Board's voluntary guidelines for commissioners calls for them to "refrain from using Jesus, Jesus Christ, Savior, Prince of Peace, Lamb of God and the like."  However, during 2011-2012, at least 40% of the invocations contained sectarian Christian references, while no prayers made non-Christian sectarian references.  In finding that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim, the court said in part:

Although the podium guidelines discourage sectarian references, the Board has made no effort to curb the frequent sectarian references made by its own Commissioners.... At this time, the record indicates that the prayers invoked by Commissioners before Board meetings advance one religion to the exclusion of others.

The court ruled that Commissioners can continue to deliver non-sectarian invocations, but are enjoined from invoking the name of a specific deity associated with any specific faith or belief in their opining prayers. The American Humanist Association in a press release calls the decision "a major victory for separation of church and state."  The Baltimore Sun reports on the decision.  The U.S. Supreme Court this term has heard oral arguments in a case raising similar issues, and will decide the case within the next few months. (See prior posting.)

UPDATE: A March 27 release from the American Humanist Association says that a Carroll County commissioner defied the preliminary injunction and delivered a sectarian prayer at a county council meeting one day after the preliminary injunction was ordered. The AHA sent a contempt warning letter (full text) to counsel stating in part: "As a courtesy, we are going to refrain from seeking contempt charges against the commissioner in this one instance, in the hopes that today’s behavior was simply an emotional outburst made without the benefit of serious consideration of the rights of plaintiffs and others. She should understand, however, that any continued defiance of the court order will leave us with no choice but to seek a contempt order."

Religious Non-Profits Win Injunction Against Contraceptive Coverage Mandate Opt-Out Rules

In a 91-page opinion in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta v. Sebelius, (ND GA, March 26, 2014), a Georgia federal district court permanently enjoined the government from requiring Catholic Education of North Georgia and Atlanta Catholic Charities to execute and deliver a self-certification form to the third-party administrator of their health care plans.  Final Rules under the Affordable Care Act require the self-certification for objecting religious non-profits to opt out of the requirement to provide coverage for contraceptive services.

The court concluded that the Final Rules impose a substantial burden on plaintiffs' free exercise rights under RFRA:

... [T]he plain terms of the Final Rules show that the purpose and effect of the self-certification form is to enable the provision of contraceptive coverage. The self-certification form is an integral part of the Government’s contraceptive coverage scheme..... [I]t is a Government imposed device that pressures the Plaintiffs into facilitating the contraceptive coverage to which they have sincerely held religious objections.....

The Court’s conclusion does not change even if the Government had argued, as it did in other cases, that it has no ERISA authority to require a church plan to contract with a TPA to provide contraceptive coverage.... It is the fact of the requirement that is important, not whether the Government will or will not choose to enforce it....

The court also concluded that the government had not shown a compelling interest for imposing the substantial burden:

The Government claims that exempting CENGI and Catholic Charities from the contraceptive mandate would hinder its ability to effectively and uniformly administer the requirements of the ACA. That claim is discredited by the Government’s advocacy in other church plan cases in which it has argued that plaintiffs lack standing because self-certification will not necessarily result in the delivery of contraceptive products and services..... 

The Government’s interests in promoting public health and providing women with equal access to health care also cannot be compelling because the contraceptive mandate does not apply to the insurance plans of millions of women in this country.... Grandfathered health plans, small businesses and religious employers are all exempt from the contraceptive mandate....

Finally the court concluded that the provision barring non-profits from seeking to influence the third party administrator's decision to provide contraceptive services is a presumptively invalid, content-based restriction on speech. Daily Report covers the decision.

NYC Transit Authority Must Pay $187,000+ In Plaintiffs' Attorneys Fees In Religious Discrimination Suit

In Small v. New York City Transit Authority, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39582 (ED NY, March 25, 2014), a New York federal district court ordered the New York City Transit Authority to pay $187,570 in attorneys fees and $1450 in costs to two Muslim women who has sued the Transit Authority for religious and gender discrimination.  In the lawsuit:

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant removed them from passenger service as bus operators because they wore Muslim head coverings called khimars and refused to wear a hat to cover their khimars.

The suits, after being consolidated with 3 others raising similar claims on behalf of Muslim and Sikh drivers, were settled, granting damages, a new policy on wearing khimars and return of plaintiffs to their jobs.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Leads To Dismissal of Suit Over Church's Board

In Ivanov v. Notzkov, 2014 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 577 (IL App., March 25, 2014), an Illinois Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's reliance on the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in dismissing a lawsuit  between two factions of St. John of Rila Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Church.  The court refused to order a membership meeting to elect a new board, relying on the trial court's findings that St. John's is governed by the Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Church which gave the parish priest and archbishop authority to determine who are members in good standing that may vote in an election for the church's board. The trial court had concluded that passing on plaintiffs' claim that the clergy did not have the power to appoint members to the board of trustees would require it to decide matters of religious doctrine and polity.