Supreme Court Denies Review In New Mexico Same-Sex Wedding Photographer Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Elane Photography v. Willock,  (Docket No. 13-585, cert. denied 4/7/2014). (Order List.) In the case, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the New Mexico Human Rights Act requires a commercial photography business to serve same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couples. It concluded that the 1st Amendment does not require an exception for creative or expressive professions. (See prior posting.)

Pension Plan of Catholic Hospital Does Not Qualify As "Church Plan" Exempt From ERISA

In Kaplan v. St. Peter's Healthcare System, (D NJ, March 31, 2014), a New Jersey federal district court held that in order for a pension plan to qualify as a "church plan" exempt from ERISA, it must be established by a church or an association of churches.  It is not sufficient that it is established by a tax exempt corporation merely controlled by or associated with a church, despite a 2013 IRS private letter ruling that recognized the New Brunswick, New Jersey Catholic hospital's plan as a church plan. This is the second recent case (see prior posting) to require pension plans of religiously affiliated health care organizations and hospital systems to comply with ERISA. Plaintiff contends that St. Peter's pension plan violates a number of ERISA's requirements, including a requirement that results in its being underfunded by $70 million. MyCentralJersey.com reports on the decision.

Christian Couple Sentenced To Death For Blasphemy By Pakistani Court

Christian Today reports that in Pakistan's Punjab province last month, a Christian couple were sentenced to death for sending blasphemous text messages after police allegedly forced a confession from the husband. The trial was held in prison due concerns about the couple's safety.  Shafqat Emmanuel who is confined to a wheel chair and his wife Shugufta Emmanuel who works as a cleaner at a local missionary school were charged with sending the messages to the two complainants, one of whom was a local bar association president.  The Emmanuel's lawyer says that the judge acted under pressure from Islamist lawyers who continually quoted Qur'anic verses calling for death to blasphemers. Shugufta told police that the cell phone had been lost for a month, and police did not produce the phone's SIM card.  Their lawyer also said that the couple could not have possibly sent the messages, written in Roman Urdu, since they cannot read or write Urdu properly. An appeal is planned once a detailed verdict is received.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• John D. Haskell, The Traditions of Modernity within International Law and Governance: Christianity, Liberalism and Marxism, (Howard University School of Law, Human Rights and Globalization Law Review (Fall 2014, Forthcoming)).
• Muhammad Munir, Islamisation or De-Islamisation?: De-Islamisation of the Law of Evidence under the Disguise of Islamisation by General Ziaulhaq in Pakistan, (March 23, 2014). 

From SmartCILP:

• Evelyn M. Aswad, Rashad Hussain & M. Arsalan Suleman, Why the United States Cannot Agree To Disagree on Blasphemy Laws, 32 Boston University International Law Journal 119-146 (2014).
• Ann Neumann, The Limits of Autonomy: Force-Feedings in Catholic Hospitals and In Prisons, 58 New York Law School Law Review 305-318 (2013/2014).
• Ilias Trispiotis, The Duty To Respect Religious Feelings: Insights From European Human Rights Law, [Abstract], 19 Columbia Journal of European Law 499-551 (2013).

British Government Proposes Shariah-Compliant Student Loan Program Alternative

Last week, the British government's Department for Business, Innovation and Skills announced a proposal to make available Shariah-compliant student loans to Muslim students.  (Full text of Consultation On a Shariah-Compliant Alternative Finance Product).  The Executive Summary explains the proposal in part as follows:

In September 2012 changes to higher education funding mean that students are able take out student loans for tuition of up to £9000 for each year of study. These post-2012 loans carry a different rate of interest, above inflation, to student loans issued before September 2012. 

Some students, whose religious beliefs may forbid the taking out of a loan that bears interest, may be unable to take advantage of student loans because of this change. This could make it more difficult for them to benefit from higher education. 

The Government have been exploring the possibility of making an alternative student finance product available. This finance product would be Sharia-compliant and overseen by a Sharia advisory committee. Any such alternative finance product would not result in a student being in any way disadvantaged or advantaged over a student who took out a traditional student loan. Both the size of the finance and the repayment amounts would be equivalent between the two systems. The model of the proposed product could be applied for in the same way as a traditional loan: through the Student Loans Company (SLC).

The Telegraph reports on the proposal. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Appeals Court Finds Mormon Branch President Did Not Misuse His Police Department Credentials

In Fierro v. Park City Municipal Corporation, (UT Ct. App., March 27, 2014), the Utah Court of Appeals rejected the findings of the city's employee discharge appeal board that had upheld the firing of a member of the police department for misusing his police credentials.  Michael Fierro was president of a small local Mormon congregation (branch) as well as a member of the police department. When a member of his branch was arrested as a suspect in a child sex abuse case, Fierro visited him in jail in his Branch President role.  Fierro was dismissed for misusing his credentials to obtain the visit.  The appeals court found however that the evidence showed Fierro had fully disclosed his ecclesiastical role in visiting the jail. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Suit Against NYC Transit Authority Over Headwear Rules Survives Motion To Dismiss

In Lewis v. New York City Transit Authority, (ED NY, March 31, 2014), a New York federal district court denied the New York City Transit Authority's motion to dismiss a discrimination suit filed against it by Stephanie Lewis, a Muslim woman who was employed as a bus driver, but was transferred to a bus depot for refusing to remove, cover with a cap, or affix a logo to her khimar.  Ultimately her employment was terminated.  In a 55-page opinion, the court permitted the suit (now being pursued by the administrator of Lewis' estate) to proceed with claims under Title VII, the 1st and 14th Amendments, the New York state constitution, and state and city human rights laws.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Smith v. Governor for the State of Alabama, (11th Cir., April 2, 2014), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a number of claims by an Odinist inmate, including his complaint that he was denied religious items (rune container, leather folder for study materials, quartz crystal and outdoor fire pit); claims of retaliation; security threat group designation; destruction of his artwork; and his challenge to the prison's faith-based honor dorm.

In McKinley v. Maddox, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40889 (WD OK, March 27, 2014), an Oklahoma federal district court adopted in modified form a magistrate's recommendations (2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42243, March 4, 2014), and dismissed without prejudice a former inmate's suit complaining that he was not permitted to attend off-site religious services. The dismissal was a sanction for plaintiff's failure to appear at a scheduled deposition.

In Debardelaben v. McKeon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40526 (WD MI, March 27, 2014), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41916, March 6, 2014) and dismissed on qualified immunity grounds an inmate's complaint that he was wrongly removed from the kosher diet program for having purchased non-kosher food from the prison store. Plaintiff was permitted to proceed with a retaliation claim.

In Shapiro v. Community First Services, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42459 (ED NY, March 27, 2014), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate's 1st Amendment Bivens action against a privately-owned halfway house to which he was sentenced for violating probation. Plaintiff claimed he was not given sufficient time to travel to attend Quaker services on Sundays.

In Riehl v. Martin, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42870 (ND NY, March 31, 2014), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186610, Dec. 19, 2013) and permitted a Jewish inmate to proceed with his 1st Amendment (but not his RLUIPA) damage claim alleging that some of the food served to him during Passover 2012 was not kosher for Passover.

In Heard v. Finco, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43048 (WD MI, March 31, 2014), a Michigan federal district court permitted Muslim inmates to proceed with their claims alleging that they received inadequate amounts of food in their Ramadan meals in violation of the 1st Amendment and RLUIPA. Their 8th Amendment claims were dismissed. The magistrate's recommendations in the case are at 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45458, Feb. 25, 2014.

In Hampton v. Wetzel, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43207 (MD PA, March 31, 2014), a Pennsylvania federal district court permitted a Muslim inmate to proceed against certain defendants on his complaint that authorities refused to provide him with a medically prescribed therapeutic diet tray at times to permit observance of the Ramadan fast.

In Ind v. Colorado Department of Corrections, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43461 (D CO, March 31, 2014), a Colorado federal district court held that the free exercise rights under RLUIPA of an inmate of the Christian Separatist faith were violated by limiting him to possessing two books while in administrative segregation.

In Davis v. Abercrombie, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43966 (D HI, March 31, 2014), an Hawaiian federal district court, in an opinion that extensively discusses Native Hawaiian religious rituals, permitted Hawaiian inmates housed in private prison facilities in Arizona to move ahead with their complaints regarding denial of daily outdoor group worship and possession of certain sacred items. Claims regarding a number of other infringements of religious practices were dismissed.

In Seymore v. City of New York, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44951 (SD NY, March 26, 2014), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation and dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies a Muslim inmate's complaint that during Ramadan 2012 religious services were cancelled or curtailed.

Autopsy Did Not Violate 1st Amendment Rights of Accident Victim

Keller v. Finks, (CD IL, March 31, 2014), is a lawsuit growing out of the death of Melissa Keller who was a passenger in a vehicle that struck a tree driving 70 miles per hour in a 10 mile per hour zone. The driver of the auto was Katie McKenna, whose probation had been revoked but who had not been taken into custody.  This suit by the administrator of Keller's estate alleges several claims against county law enforcement officials, including a claim against the county coroner for violating Keller's free exercise rights by performing an autopsy on her that violated the religious beliefs of her and her family. An Illinois federal district court dismissed the claim holding first that once Keller was deceased she was no longer a "person" who had constitutional rights.  In addition, the coroner was acting under a neutral law of general application and so did not violate the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause.

Religious Groups Say Military's New Religious Accommodation Policy Falls Short

As previously reported, in January the Department of Defense adopted a revised policy on religious accommodation in the military, including on matters of appearance and grooming.  However, as explained by the ADL in a blog posting yesterday, many still feel that the new policy does not go far enough. In an April 2 letter to the Pentagon (full text) 21 major religious and civil rights organizations summarized their objections, stating in part:

As currently drafted, ... [the policy] would require religiously observant service members ... to remove their head coverings, cut their hair, or shave their beards ... while their request to accommodate these same religious practices is pending.... We urge you to reconsider this provision, which has the effect of forcing some religiously observant service members to make an impossible choice between their faith and their chosen profession.

Further, under ... [the policy] even if an original accommodation request is approved, religiously observant service members would be required to submit a new request for the same accommodation every time they receive a new assignment, “transfer of duty station, or other significant change in circumstances.” The uncertainty associated with this requirement to repeatedly request an accommodation for the very same religious practices is stifling, and may needlessly limit career opportunities – or, in some cases, end careers.

[Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]

11 French Towns Will Ban Schools From Serving Alternatives When Pork Is On The Menu

In local elections in France last week, the right-wing Front National party, led by  Marine Le Pen, won control of eleven local town councils.  According to RFI  and The Local, Le Pen told RTL Radio yesterday that those eleven towns will now ban their school cafeterias from providing Muslim and Jewish students menu alternatives when the school serves pork meals. She said: "We will not accept any religious requirements on school menus.  There is no reason for religion to enter into the public sphere, that's the law."

Federal Judge Announces He Will Strike Down Ohio's Refusal To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages From Elsewhere

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that at a Friday hearing in a Cincinnati, Ohio federal district court in Henry v. Wymyslo, Judge Timothy Black announced:

I intend to issue a written decision and order by April 14 striking down as unconstitutional under all circumstances Ohio’s bans on recognizing legal same-sex marriages from other states.

The advance announcement gives the state time to prepare an appeal that can be filed immediately after the ruling.  A spokesman for Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine says that an appeal is planned. The lawsuit was filed by four same-sex married couples and originally sought narrower relief-- an order requiring the  names both same-sex spouses to be entered on the birth certificates of their children. (full text of complaint in Henry v. Wymyslo, (SD OH, filed 2/10/2014).

UN Rapporteur On Religious Freedom Issues Preliminary Findings On Kazakhstan

Yesterday, Heiner Bielefeld, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief issued his Preliminary Findings as he ended his eleven day visit to the Republic of Kazakhstan. (Press release).  His report emphasized the religious pluralism in Kazakhstan, and recommended an end to mandatory registration of religious communities.  He said in part:

Non-registered communities must be able to operate free from discrimination and free from fear of intimidation. Thresholds for registration at different levels (local, regional and national) should be defined in such a way that minorities can fully operate throughout the country. The requirement of registering missionary activities as well as the practice of licensing the import and distribution of religious literature should also be generally overhauled.

8th Circuit Sends Suit Against Hebrew National Back To State Court

In Wallace v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., (8th Cir., April 4, 2014), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals took an unexpected route in deciding the appeal in a lawsuit against the manufacturer of Hebrew National hot dogs.  A Minnesota federal district court had dismissed the suit by consumers who claimed that ConAgra misrepresented that Hebrew National products are made of "100% kosher beef" because ConAgra's standards for kosher slaughter were inadequate. The district court held that this posed a religious question that could not be decided by the civil courts. (See prior posting.)

The 8th Circuit, however, examined more closely the nature of plaintiffs' objections to ConAgra's kosher standards.  One part of the kosher certification process is the examination of the slaughtered cow's lungs. Certain defects in the lungs would render the entire carcass non-kosher. The allegations in the ConAgra lawsuit were that production pressures led to some carcasses that should have been rejected instead being marked as kosher.  The 8th Circuit concluded that even if this were true, no consumer would be able to identify whether the particular hot dogs he or she purchased were improperly certified. It went on:

Without any particularized reason to think the consumers’ own packages of Hebrew National beef actually exhibited the alleged non-kosher defect, the consumers lack Article III standing to sue ConAgra. Accepting the consumers’ various allegations, it remains entirely possible, maybe probable, that the packages of beef they personally purchased and consumed met the “strict” standards advertised by ConAgra..... [I]t is pure speculation to say the particular packages sold to the consumers were tainted by non-kosher beef, while it is quite plausible ConAgra sold the consumers exactly what was promised: a higher quality, kosher meat product. Time and again the Supreme Court has reminded lower courts that speculation and conjecture are not injuries cognizable under Article III.

However, instead of dismissing the case for lack of standing, the 8th Circuit ordered that the district court return it to the Minnesota state court where it originated before it was removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. Chicago Tribune reports on the decision.

Discrimination Against Gay Employee By Religious Supervisor States Title VII Religious Discrimination Claim

In Terveer v. Billington, (D DC, March 31, 2014), Peter Terveer, a former management analyst with the Library of Congress alleged religious discrimination, sex discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Terveer claimed, among other things, that he was denied a within-grade salary increase after his supervisor, a conservative Catholic, learned that Terveer was homosexual. The court said, in part, that Terveer claims:

he alleged facts showing that he was discriminated against because he failed to live up to his supervisor’s religious expectations. The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Title VII seeks to protect employees not only from discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs, but also from forced religious conformity or adverse treatment because they do “not hold or follow [their] employer’s religious beliefs."

Advocate reports on the decision.

Lawsuit Challenges Georgia's Scholarship Tax Credit Program

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that a lawsuit was filed yesterday by a group of parents challenging Georgia's student scholarship organization tax credit program.  The program allows individuals and corporations tax credits for contributions to organizations that in turn fund scholarships for private school students.  Among other things, the lawsuit-- backed by the Southern Education Foundation-- alleges that the program gives indirect funding to religious schools in violation of Georgia' constitution. The program has become so popular that this year the $58 million overall cap on tax credits allowed for the year was met in the first few weeks of the year.

Discriminatory Firing Claim Dismissed Under Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Conlon v. Intervarsity Christian Fellowship/ USA, (WD MI, April 3, 2014), a Michigan federal district court applied the ministerial exception doctrine to dismiss a discrimination suit brought by a former spiritual director to Intervarsity Christian Fellowship staff members. Plaintiff Alyce Conlon, who was considering divorcing her husband, was placed on leave and ultimately fired under IVCF’s Separating and Divorcing Staff Policy. She claims that she was treated differently than male staff members who divorced their spouses. The court said in part:

Plaintiff’s suggestion that the ministerial exception applies only to those cases in which a court would be required to evaluate religious doctrine “misses the point of the ministerial exception,” which is not to “safeguard a church’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason.” Hosana-Tabor, 132 S. Ct. at 709. Rather, the exception “ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful—a matter strictly ecclesiastical—is the church’s alone.” Id. Thus, the ministerial exception prevents a court from evaluating the employment decisions of a religious organization regardless of whether the court would be required to delve into religious doctrine.

5th Circuit: Principal Enjoys Qualified Immunity In Adult Speech "Candy Cane" Case

In Morgan v. Swanson, (5th Cir., April 2, 2014), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's conclusion that a Plano, Texas elementary school principal enjoyed qualified immunity in a suit for damages.  In this aspect of the 9-year old litigation, a student's father complained that the principal did not permit him to distribute candy canes with a religious message attached to other adults at his son's in-class winter party.  In a per curiam opinion, plus two concurrences, the court held that the right asserted by the father was not "clearly established". The court said:

A plaintiff does not overcome the qualified immunity defense by alleging the violation of a right that is only defined “at a high level of generality.”... Instead, there must exist a clearly established “particular right” such that the official had “fair notice” of that right and its concomitant legal obligations

In a prior elaborate decision (see prior posting), the 5th Circuit en banc held that even though the principal's actions were unconstitutional, she enjoyed qualified immunity as to claims that the student should have been permitted to hand out the candy canes to his classmates.

UPDATE: On June 3, 2014, the 5th Circuit filed a substituted opinion (full text) in the case modifying some of its language describing the test for qualified immunity. The quote in this posting was unchanged in the substituted opinion.

2nd Circuit: No Free Exercise Problem In Denying School Space For Church Worship Services

In Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York, (2d Cir., April 3, 2014), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, reversed the district court and held that the Board of Education of the City of New York did not violate the free exercise clause when in 2007 it changed its rules to bar the use of school facilities by churches for religious worship services. Board policy permits outside groups to use school space for other purposes during non-school hours merely for the cost of custodial services. The majority held that strict scrutiny is not required when the Board acts in order to avoid the risk of violating the Establishment Clause. It concluded that:

the better rule allows the Board, if it makes a reasonable, good faith judgment that it runs a substantial risk of incurring a violation of  the Establishment Clause by hosting and subsidizing the conduct of religious worship services, to decline to do so.

The majority also concluded that the Board's policy does not require it to become unconstitutionally entangled with religion in deciding what constitutes religious worship.

Judge Walker dissented, arguing that strict scrutiny should apply because the Board regulation "is neither neutral nor generally applicable in its treatment of religion." He concludes that the Board does not have a compelling interest in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation because it is clear that allowing churches to use facilities on the same neutral basis as others does not violate the Establishment Clause.

The decision is the latest in the long-running battle over church use of school space on Sundays. The 2nd Circuit in a previous decision upheld the Board's rule change against a free expression challenge. (See prior posting.) The Wall Street Journal reports that lawyers for Bronx Household of Faith plan an appeal, but that remarks by Mayor Bill DeBlasio suggest that he might be willing to change the Board policy adopted under the predecessor administration.

House Committee Holds Hearing On Persecution of Religious Communities In Vietnam

A video is now available online of the March 26 hearing by the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee's Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission on  Persecution of Religious and Indigenous Communities in Vietnam. The hearing Witness List included USCIRF Commissioner Eric P. Schwartz (written testimony), Father Phan Van Loi (Co-Founder of the Association of Former Vietnamese Prisoners of Conscience), Sub-dignitary Nguyen Bach Phung (Clergy member of an independent Cao Dai Sect); Yunie Hong (Director of Policy Advocacy, Hmong National Development), and Rong Nay (Executive Director, Montagnard Human Rights Organization).