ABA Opens Nominations For Best Legal Blogs of 2014

The ABA Journal announced yesterday that it is opening nominations for its "2014 Blawg 100" awards.  Religion Clause has been honored to be on the Blawg 100 list for 5 out of the last 7 years.  If you would like to nominate Religion Clause, or any other legal blog, as one of the top 100, you may do so in 500 characters or less at this link. The nominations-- so-called "friend-of-the-blawg briefs"-- must be submitted by 5 p.m. ET on Aug. 8, 2014.

LGBT Rights Groups Withdraw Support For ENDA Over Religious Exemptions

US News reported yesterday that a number of LGBT and civil rights groups have decided to withdraw their support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act  (ENDA), now believing that the religious exemption in the version that has passed the Senate (S. 815) is too broad. The shift in attitude has been prompted by increased assertion of religious beliefs as a basis for discriminating against gays and lesbians. Among the groups withdrawing their support are the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the ACLU, Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the Transgender Law Center.

Archdiocese Settles Abuse Suit While Denying Its Validity

Last Monday, the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis issued a press release disclosing that it has settled a lawsuit brought by a female plaintiff identified as Jane Doe 92. Doe 92 claimed that she was sexually abused by Joseph Ross, a priest who was removed from the ministry in 2002. In 1988 Ross plead guilty to a misdemeanor stemming from his inappropriate touching of a young boy. The Archdiocese said that Ross is a known abuser and it is not defending him. However it continues to assert that Jane Doe's allegations are false, saying that she:

has been diagnosed, by her own treating doctors, with a medical condition that causes her to falsify claims, exaggerate symptoms and make inconsistent statements. Her own doctors and expert witnesses voiced doubts about her allegations and noted that they contained multiple inconsistencies. 

Religion Becomes Issue In Arkansas Senate Race

Earlier this week, ABC News reported on the prominent place that religion has assumed in the race for U.S. Senate in Arkansas. In a television interview last week, Republican Rep. Tom Cotton, seeking to capture the Senate seat from incumbent Sen. Mark Pryor, commented on the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, saying:

It's another example of how Obamacare infringes on the liberties of all Arkansans. Barack Obama and Mark Pryor think that faith is something that only happens at 11 on Sunday mornings.

In response, in a television ad running state-wide,Pryor, holding a Bible, says:

I'm not ashamed to say that I believe in God, and I believe in His word. The Bible teaches us no one has all the answers, only God does.

Report Says Muslim-Americans Included In NSA-FBI E-mail Monitoring

According to a lengthy report at The Intercept today, documents from whistleblower Edward Snowden reveal that the NSA and FBI have secretly monitored e-mails of several prominent Muslim-Americans, including Nihad Awad (executive director of CAIR),  Agha Saeed (former Cal State professor and Muslim civil liberties activist); Hooshang Amirahmadi (Iranian-American Rutgers professor); Asim Ghafoor (attorney who has represented clients in terrorism cases); and Faisal Gill (Republican Party operative who served in Department of Homeland Security). The FBI is listed as the "responsible agency" for monitoring of these five individuals.  The reasons for including their e-mail addresses in the nearly 7,500 monitored remain classified.

UPDATE: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice on July 9 issued a statement (full text) apparently in response to The Intercept report, saying in part:

It is entirely false that U.S. intelligence agencies conduct electronic surveillance of political, religious or activist figures solely because they disagree with public policies or criticize the government, or for exercising constitutional rights..... On the other hand, a person who the court finds is an agent of a foreign power under this rigorous standard is not exempted just because of his or her occupation.

Guantanamo Bay Detainees Argue Hobby Lobby Decision Makes RFRA Applicable To Them

AlJazeera reports on emergency motions filed last week in D.C.'s federal district court on behalf of two Guantanamo Bay detainees for temporary restraining orders to prohibit the government from denying the detainees the right to participate in communal prayer during Ramadan. The motions in Hasan v. Obama (full text) and Rabbani v. Obama (full text), both filed July 3 by the British advocacy organization Reprieve, argue that the previous D.C. Circuit decision in Rasul v. Myers holding that Guantanamo Bay detainees are not persons protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has effectively been overruled by the Supreme Court's recent Hobby Lobby decision. As the argument is framed in the Rabbani motion:

The holding and express reasoning in Hobby Lobby makes Rasul a dead letter. Rasul relied on Supreme Court case law that predated Smith and excluded nonresident aliens from the scope of constitutional protections guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Hobby Lobby wholly undermines Rasul by holding that the pre-Smith Supreme Court case law does not restrict the scope of “person[s]” protected by the RFRA, which Congress intended to exceed the scope of constitutional protection as set forth in the pre-Smith case law. Hobby Lobby instructs that the scope of “person[s]” protected by the RFRA is to be determined by reference to the definition of “person” in the Dictionary Act, not by reference to the pre-Smith case law.

... The Guantanamo Bay detainees, as flesh-and-blood human beings, are surely "individuals," and thus they are no less "person[s]" than are the for-profit corporations in Hobby Lobby or the resident noncitizens whom Hobby Lobby gives as an example of persons to whom the RFRA must apply.

A hearing on the emergency motions is scheduled for tomorrow morning.

Connecticut Synagogue Files RLUIPA Challenge To Zoning Denial

In Greenwich, Connecticut the Greenwich Reform Synagogue has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals' refusal, on a 2-2- vote, to grant it a zoning exemption needed for final approval of its planned new building.  As reported by Greenwich Time, the suit, presumably invoking the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, alleges that the denial is burdensome and discriminatory, and treats the synagogue less favorably that the city has treated requests from churches and non-religious institutions.

Court Rules On Various Establishment Clause Challenges To Veterans Memorial

Hewett v. City of King, (MD NC, July 8, 2014), is a challenge to various religious practices at the Veterans Memorial in a King, North Carolina park. The most controversial of the practices were: (1) the flying of a Christian flag along with ten other military, U.S., state and city flags. In a policy that changed over time, ultimately the Christian flag was flown 47 weeks a year on a pole that was designated a limited public forum. And (2) the placing of a stature of a soldier kneeling in front of a cross as part of the memorial. In a 110-page opinion, a North Carolina federal district court ruled that the question of whether these violated the Establishment Clause should proceed to trial on issues of disputed fact.

Plaintiff also objected to various memorial events held at the Veterans Memorial. The court concluded as a matter of law that the city's involvement in arranging and participating in events at which speakers deliver overtly Christian messages violated the Establishment Clause. However the appearance of the city's fire truck at these events, the granting of perpetual permits to host annual ceremonies, installation of pavers, the participation of the mayor in non-religious ways in memorial ceremonies and certain other activities did not amount to endorsement by the city or excessive entanglement. Americans United issued a press release announcing the decision.

Episcopal Diocese Settles With Break-Away Congregations Without Lawsuit

Episcopal News Service yesterday reported on the final steps in an amicable settlement between the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia, Washington and two break-away congregations that ultimately joined the more conservative Anglican Church In North America. (Background.)  Unusual in this time of litigation, the settlement was reached over ten years without any lawsuits being filed.  Two years after the 2004 split, the parties signed a covenant agreement that called for no legal action to be taken before 2014, and for the break-away congregations to temporarily continue to meet in the meantime in their traditional buildings. Now those properties have been returned fully to the Episcopal Diocese, and the break-away congregations have found worship space elsewhere.

EEOC Sues Over Nursing Home's Ban On Hijab

The EEOC announced Monday that it filed suit last month against an Alabama nursing home for refusing to accommodate a Muslim employee's request to wear her hijab. Tracy Martin, hired as a certified nursing assistant by Shadecrest Healthcare Center filed an EEOC complaint after she was told to remove her head covering. Several weeks after the nursing home received notice of the complaint, Martin was summarily fired.

Pakistan Officials Agree On Creating National Commission For Minorities

The Nation today reports that after a year of deliberations, the government and the opposition party in Pakistan have agreed on the framework and composition of a National Commission for Minorities. The Commission will be comprised of ten members from different religions. Finance Minister Ishaq Dar says that four of the commissioners will be Muslim, two Christians, two Hindus, one Parsi and one Sikh. Names of the ten have been agreed upon.

Another Challenge To Idaho's Same-Sex Marriage Laws-- Now By Lesbian Veteran Over Burial Rights

A federal court challenge to Idaho's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere was filed yesterday by a 74-year old Navy veteran who wants to be cremated and have her ashes interred together with those of her already-deceased same-sex spouse. Plaintiff Madelynn Lee Taylor brought her spouse's ashes with her back to Idaho where the couple had lived together. The complaint (full text) in Taylor v. Brasuell, (D ID, filed 7/7/2014), alleges that the sole reason the Idaho State Veterans Cemetery refused her request to make these advance arrangements is Idaho's laws prohibiting recognition of Taylor's 2008 California marriage to her long-time partner. NCLR issued a press release and AP reports on the case. In an unrelated case in May, a magistrate judge in the same federal district court struck down Idaho's laws barring same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) However subsequently the 9th Circuit in Latta v. Otter (May 20, 2014), granted a stay of the decision while it is on appeal.

Belfast Bakery Faces Suit Over Refusal To Decorate Cake In Support of Gay Marriage

Mail Online reported yesterday on the latest clash in Britain between Christian business owners and gay rights proponents. Activist Gareth Lee ordered a cake from Christian-run Ashers Baking Company in Belfast.  He wanted the cake decorated with the name of his organization, QueerSpace, two Sesame Street characters and the words "Support Gay Marriage."  A bakery staff member accepted the order, but the owners and manager of the family-run company called Lee, offering a refund and refusing to produce the cake on religious grounds. Lee complained to Northern Ireland's Equality Commission which wrote the bakery saying that the refusal violates the public accommodation non-discrimination provisions (Regulation Five) of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006.  The Commission said it would file suit within 7 days of the letter.

Diocese Objects To Louisiana Supreme Court Decision On Priest-Penitent Privilege

The Baton Rouge (LA) Advocate reported yesterday on the Louisiana Supreme Court's per curiam opinion and a concurrence in Parents of Minor Child v. Charlet, (LA Sup. Ct., April 4, 2014), a clergy sex-abuse case decided three months ago but only now receiving attention. As summarized by The Advocate:

The case involves a young girl who claims she was sexually abused by a now-deceased church parishioner but that her confession to a local priest fell on deaf ears.

The decision resuscitates a five-year-old lawsuit against the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, the Rev. Jeff Bayhi and others, and gave the girl, now an older teenager, the green light to testify and introduce evidence of “her own confession.”

At the same time, the state high court sent the case back to 19th Judicial District Court Judge Mike Caldwell, saying there is still a dispute “concerning whether the communications between the child and the priest were confessions per se and whether the priest obtained knowledge outside the confessional that would trigger his duty to report” sexual abuse allegations.

Yesterday the Diocese of Baton Rouge posted a statement (full text) on its website strongly criticizing the Supreme Court's decision. The statement reads in part:

The Supreme Court of Louisiana ... remanded for further proceedings in the District Court to hold a hearing concerning whether or not there was a “confession.” We contend that such a procedure is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the U. S. Constitution. The Supreme Court of Louisiana cannot order the District Court to do that which no civil court possibly can—determine what constitutes the Sacrament of Reconciliation in the Catholic Church. Indeed, both state and federal jurisprudence make clear that there is no jurisdiction to adjudicate claims that turn upon such purely religious questions.

India's Supreme Court Rules Sharia Courts Legal As Advisory Bodies, But Should Not Issue Rulings Unless Requested By Party Affected

In Madan v. Union of India, (India Sup. Ct., July 7, 2014), petitioner challenged the legality of Muslim Sharia Courts set up around the country and supported by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board.  The suit was filed after publicity about a case in which a Muslim Court ruled that a married woman who was raped by her father-in-law could no longer remain married to the son. The Fatwah in the case was apparently issued without its being requested by any of the parties immediately involved.  A 2-judge panel of India's Supreme Court refused to order Muslim courts dissolved, saying:

A Qazi or Mufti has no authority or powers to impose his opinion and enforce his Fatwa on any one by any coercive method.... It has no legal sanction and can not be enforced by any legal process.... The person or the body concerned may ignore it ....

However the court was troubled by Fatwas issued at the behest of third parties, saying that they create "serious psychological impact" on the person who chooses to ignore them.  Therefore, it ruled that Muslim courts should not issue Fatwas affecting the rights, status or obligation of an individual unless that person has asked for a ruling. AP reports on the decision.

County Clerk Asking Supreme Court To Stay Decision Allowing Same-Sex Marriage In Pennsylvania

The Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania clerk of courts continues her efforts to intervene in order to appeal a federal district court's invalidation of Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage.  Last week, the 3rd Circuit in Whitewood v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Health, (3d Cir., July 3, 2014) issued a summary order affirming the district court's refusal to permit her to intervene. Remaining unhappy with the Governor's decision not to appeal the underlying decision permitting same-sex marriage, county clerk Theresa Santai-Gaffney is now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stay pending appeal the district court's order striking down the state's laws banning same-sex marriage.  In a petition filed Friday with Justice Alito (full text), she argues that when the Supreme Court granted a stay pending appeal to the state of Utah in a similar case, it signaled all lower federal courts that they should do the same. SCOTUS Blog reports more details.

Algeria Plans To Reopen Synagogues, Though Few Jews Left In Country

According to JTA, Algeria's Religious Affairs Minister last week said that the country is prepared to reopen synagogues. They were closed down in the 1990's for security reasons.  However security arrangements need to be set up before the step is taken. It is estimated that only a tiny number of Jews remain in Algeria.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Benjamin L. Berger, Poetry, Mercy, and the Phenomenology of Justice, (Forthcoming in Ehud Ben Zvi, Claudia V. Camp, David M. Gunn and Aaron W. Hughes, eds., Poets, Prophets, and Texts in Play: Studies in Biblical Poetry and Prophecy in Honour of Francis Landy (London: T & T Clark, 2014)).
• Marie A. Failinger, Twenty-Five Years of Law and Religion Scholarship: Some Reflections, (Touro Law Review, Vol. 30, p. 9 (2014)).
• Wojciech Sadurski, Searching for Illicit Motives: Constitutional Theory of Freedom of Speech, Equal Protection, and Separation of State and Religion, (Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 14/61, July 2014).
• Michael J. T. McMillen & Sheikh Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo, Islamic Finance and the Shari'Ah: The Dow Jones Fatwa and Permissible Variance as Studies in Letheanism and Legal Change, (June 23, 2014).
• András Koltay, The Appearance of the Clear and Present Danger Doctrine In Hungarian Hate Speech Laws and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, (June 23, 2014).

Recent and Forthcoming Books:

• Matthew Stewart, Nature's God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic, (W.W. Norton & Co., July 2014).
• Al-Qadi al-Nuʿman, Disagreements of the Jurists: A Manual of Islamic Legal Theory, (Edited and translated by Devin Stewart), (NYU Press, Jan. 2015).
• J. Judd Owen, Making Religion Safe for Democracy: Transformation from Hobbes to Tocqueville, (Cambridge University Press, Jan. 2015).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Ford v. Bureau of Prisons, (3d Cir., June 30, 2014), the 3rd Circuit dismissed the complaint of a Nation of Islam inmate that he was not provided a meal after his fast on two holy days. The court also rejected his claim that discipline for a radical sermon he gave was retaliation.

In Lackey v. Midget, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87289 (ED VA, June 25, 2014), a Virginia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that on one evening he received an incomplete Ramadan meal.

In Lewis v. Hirsh, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84648 (ED CA, June 20, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge gave an inmate 30 days to amend his pleadings, or else face dismissal of his complaint that  prison authorities are attempting to cause him to violate his Christian Science faith by classifying him as a high medical risk.

In Spight v. Davidson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85671 (MD TN, June 23, 2014), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed a suit by a Seventh Day Adventist inmate who complained that officials would only allow him a vegetarian diet, and not a kosher diet that includes meat.

In Mingo v. Fischer, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87231 (ND NY, June 26, 2014), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate’s complaint that a prison staff member made disparaging remarks about his religion.

In Tate v. Dickinson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86577 (ED CA, June 24, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a Muslim inmate's complaint that he is limited to purchasing only 5 pre-selected fragrances of prayer oils.

In Joe v. Nelson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87560 (MD GA, June 27, 2014), a Georgia federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that unsanitary conditions in his cell meant that he had to wipe the floor before his daily prayers and on one day he could not perform 4 of his 5 daily prayers because of water flooding his cell.

In Johnson v. Corrections Corporation of America, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87978 (SD CA, June 23, 2014), a California federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, an inmate's complaint that the assistant warden would not authorize him to participate in the Ramadan fast.

In Mohamad v. Wenerowicz, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89225 (ED PA, June 30, 2014), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was unable to pray on a single day when he was kept in handcuffs for over two hours.

In Taylor v. Pearson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87657 (SD AL, June 27, 2914), an Alabama federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88358, June 2, 2014) and dismissed without prejudice a suit by an inmate claiming his free exercise rights were infringed when he was required to cut his hair and sideburns in an unsanitary barbering facility. The dismissal was a sanction for plaintiff's failure to list in his application for in forma pauperis status 6 prior suits he had filed.

In Williams v. Roberts, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89015 (ED CA, June 27, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were infringed when a commissioner at his parole hearing questioned his repeated changes in religious belief. Plaintiff had failed to follow through on either Alcoholics Anonymous or an Islam-based program for rehabilitation.

Preacher Sues To Gain Access To Sidewalk Outside Iowa State Fair

The Des Moines Register reports on a federal lawsuit filed last month by Jason Powell who wants to share his Christian message with persons going to the Iowa State Fair next month.  He seeks a ruling that police acted unconstitutionally last year when they detained and photographed him after he insisted on holding a sign and preaching on the sidewalk just outside the entrance gate to the Fair. A police officer told Powell he had to move to the other side of the street. Powell's attorney says that the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in McCullen v. Coakley striking down the abortion clinic buffer zone set up by Massachusetts law supports their case.