Religion Clause

Wednesday, July 09, 2014

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.

Tuesday, July 08, 2014

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.

Monday, July 07, 2014

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.

Sunday, July 06, 2014

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.

Saturday, July 05, 2014

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.

Lawsuit Challenges Lack of Availability of Plans Without Abortion Coverage On Health Insurance Exchange

The Providence (RI) Journal reports today on a lawsuit with a new twist on free exercise objections to the Affordable Care Act. Barth Bracy, director of the Rhode Island Right to Life Committee and a resident of Connecticut, along with his wife, filed suit two months ago because the only health care plans available through the Health Insurance Exchange in Connecticut include abortion coverage. All enrollees must pay a small separate fee for that coverage.

The complaint (full text) in Bracy v. Sebelius, (D CT, filed 5/1/2014), alleges that if the Bracys purchase a plan through the Exchange, they will receive nearly a 100% subsidy for its cost. But they can only obtain a plan that excludes abortion coverage by purchasing outside the Exchange and receive no subsidy. The premium on such a plan would be nearly double the $494 per month premium they are now paying. They allege that this violates their rights protected by the Free Exercise Clause, RFRA and the Connecticut Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They also claim that their 1st Amendment right to receive information is infringed by regulations that prohibit insurers or exchanges from advertising whether plans cover abortions, from informing enrollees prior to the time of enrollment whether the plan covers abortion, and prohibits telling enrollees the portion of their total premium that is allocated to abortion coverage.

Friday, July 04, 2014

Supreme Court In Post-Term Order Enjoins Non-Profit Contraceptive Accommodation, Pending Appeal

It turns out that the U.S. Supreme Court was not completely finished with its work last Monday. Yesterday it granted an injunction to a religiously-affiliated liberal arts college that objects to complying with the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage accommodation for religious non-profits. Wheaton College, which was denied a preliminary injunction by an Illinois federal district court (see prior posting), applied to Justice Kagan for an emergency injunction pending appeal. Justice Kagan referred the application to the full court. In an order issued last Monday, separate from the full Order List for the day, the Court issued a temporary injunction and called for a response by Wednesday. On Thursday in Wheaton College v. Burwell, (S.Ct., July 3, 2014), in an unsigned order the court held:

If the applicant informs the Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing that it is a nonprofit organization that holds itself out as religious and has religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services, the respondents are enjoined from enforcing against the applicant the challenged provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and related regulations pending final disposition of appellate review. To meet the condition for injunction pending appeal, the applicant need not use the form prescribed by the Government, EBSA Form 700, and need not send copies to health insurance issuers or third-party administrators....

[T]he applicant has already notified the Government—without using EBSA Form 700—that it meets the requirements for exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement on religious grounds. Nothing in this order precludes the Government from relying on this notice, to the extent it considers it necessary, to facilitate the provision of full contraceptive coverage under the Act.

In light of the foregoing, this order should not be construed as an expression of the Court’s views on the merits.

Justice Scalia noted that he concurs in the result. Justice Sotomayor, in a strongly worded dissent, Joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, said in part:

[J]ust earlier this week in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., ... the Court described the accommodation as “a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all [Food and Drug Administration (FDA)]-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage.” ... Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today. After expressly relying on the availability of the religious-nonprofit accommodation to hold that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates RFRA as applied to closely held for-profit corporations, the Court now, as the dissent in Hobby Lobby feared it might ... retreats from that position. That action evinces disregard for even the newest of this Court’s precedents and undermines confidence in this institution....

... I do not doubt that Wheaton genuinely believes that signing the self-certification form is contrary to its religious beliefs. But thinking one’s religious beliefs are substantially burdened—no matter how sincere or genuine that belief may be—does not make it so.

The Washington Post and SCOTUS Blog both report on the Court's action.

Anti-Christian Video Clips Did Not Create Hostile Work Environment

Parker v. Side By Side, Inc., (ND IL, June 27, 2014), is a suit by a former employee of a Chicago bar that caters primarily to single gay men. Among other things, plaintiff, a non-denominational Christian, claimed religious harassment by co-workers that created a hostile work environment. The court concluded that it could not determine at the summary judgment stage whether the harassment had a religious character, or instead was political in nature, aimed at the political ideology of conservative Christians:

The line between religious and political beliefs—and, thus, the line between protected and non-protected characteristics under Title VII—is often muddy, especially in the context of social policy issues....

However the court rejected the claim that videos played at the bar amounted to religious harassment, saying:

... [T]he allegedly offensive anti-Christian video clips ... do not contribute to the alleged hostility of his work environment. Sidetrack played the video clips during “Comedy Nights,” and it obtained all or at least a vast majority of the clips from mainstream broadcasts. None of the allegedly offensive material was directed at Plaintiff. Sidetrack, moreover, is known for playing comedic and other video clips on screens around the bar. The Court must evaluate the “totality of the circumstances” ..., but it need not—and must not—abandon common sense and sensitivity to social context in evaluating the alleged hostility. Just as a reasonable professional football player would not consider his working environment to be severely or pervasively hostile “if the coach smacks him on the buttocks as he heads onto the field,”..., a reasonable person in Plaintiff’s position would not view mainstream video clips played as part of Sidetrack’s Comedy Night events to create or even contribute to an allegedly hostile work environment.

Volokh Conspiracy has more on the decision.

China Orders Muslims In Northwest Not To Observe Ramadan Fast

AP reports that schools, government agencies and Communist Party organizations in China's northwestern Xinjiang region have ordered students and civil servants in the region to avoid observing the traditional Ramadan fast that began Saturday night. The move comes in the midst of tightened security in the heavily Muslim region after attacks in May and June led to over 50 deaths. China blames the unrest on Muslim extremists with foreign terrorist ties, and fears that religious activities could become a rallying point for anti-government activity. Apparently earlier this week authorities in some towns held celebrations of the founding of the Communist Party and served food to find out whether Muslim attendees were fasting.

Christian Hip-Hop Group Sues Top Music Star For Copyright Infringement

The St. Louis Post Dispatch reports that earlier this week the members of the Christian hip-hop music group Flame filed a federal copyright infringement lawsuit against pop singer Katy Perry, Capitol Records and others involved in creating Perry's "mega-hit" song and music video, Dark Horse. The complaint (full text) in Gray v. Perry, (ED MO, filed 7/1/2014), alleges:

By any measure, the Dark Horse song also constitutes an infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyright in their Christian gospel song Joyful Noise, released five years before Dark Horse..... And by any measure, the devoutly religious message of Joyful Noise has been irreparably tarnished by its association with the witchcraft, paganism, black magic, and Illuminati imagery evoked by the same music in Dark Horse. Indeed, the music video of Dark Horse generated widespread accusations of blasphemy....

Rapzilla has comparative sound clips from the two songs designed to show that they differ only in pitch and tempo. The lawsuit asks for damages and injunctive relief.

Thursday, July 03, 2014

Faith Leaders Ask Obama To Include Religious Exemption In Planned LGBT Non-Discrimination Executive Order

In remarks (full text) at a June 30 White House reception celebrating LGBT Pride Month, President Obama announced that he has directed his staff to prepare two executive orders. One will prohibit discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Another will expand the sexual orientation non-discrimination provisions applicable to federal employees to also include gender identity.

Meanwhile the Washington Post reports on a July 1 letter (full text) sent to the President by 14 clergy and faith-based organization leaders asking the President to include a religious exemption in any executive order on federal contractors and LGBT employment policy. The letter reads in part:

Without a robust religious exemption,, like the provisions in the Senate-passed ENDA, this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom....

While the nation has undergone incredible legal and social change over the last decade, we still live in a nation with different beliefs about sexuality. We must find a way to respect diversity of opinion on this issue in a way that respects the dignity of all parties to the best of our ability.... [A] religious exemption would simply maintain that religious organizations will not be automatically disqualified or disadvantaged in obtaining contracts because of their religious beliefs.

Religious Health Care Provider Loses Free Exercise Claim Against Medi-Cal Managed Care Plan

In Horisons Unlimited v. Santa Cruz-Monterey-Merced Managed Medical Care Commission, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89030 (ED CA, June 27, 2014), a religious health care provider sued over actions of Alliance, the sole Medi-Cal manged care plan in the county. Alliance refused to credential the clinics' providers and allow new enrollments of Medi-Cal beneficiaries at the clinics. In addition to various antitrust claims, the clinic asserted infringement of its free exercise of religion. The court rejected the contention, saying:

An allegation that one member of Alliance's governing body "objected to" religious services at Horisons' clinics fails show or give rise to a reasonable inference that Alliance burdened Horisons' practice of religion by preventing Horisons from engaging in conduct mandated by Horisons' faith.

Wednesday, July 02, 2014

Arbitrator Awards Damages For Diocese's Breach of Settlement Agreement In Clergy Sex Abuse Cases

In 2008, the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City- St. Joseph (MO) entered a settlement agreement in a lawsuit brought by 47 clergy sex abuse victims, paying them $10 million in damages and agreeing to a number of terms to prevent future abuse and aid past victims. The agreement included an arbitration clause. Yesterday's Kansas City Star reports that in 2011, 44 of the 47 settling plaintiffs filed suit in a Missouri state court seeking to force the Diocese to arbitration for violating the settlement agreement. The charges focused on the Diocese's delay in reporting to authorities their discovery of hundreds of images of young girls on the computer of priest Shawn Ratigan. (See prior related posting.) In March of this year, an arbitrator issued a report finding that the Diocese had breached five provisions of the settlement agreement, and awarded damages of $650,000, attorneys' fees of $450,000, $5,820 for unpaid counseling of sex abuse victims. The award was to remain confidential until one of the parties moved to have the court confirm or vacate it. On June 20, the Diocese filed a motion to vacate the award, and it then became public. The Diocese argues that there is nothing in the settlement agreement that authorizes the arbitrator to award additional damages. The arbitrator had said, however, that plaintiffs could have used the breaches as a basis for voiding the settlement agreement and obtaining an even larger award.

Court Enters Settlement Order In Dispute Over State Funding To Religious Child-Care Facility

In Pedreira v. Sunrise Children's Services, Inc., (WD KY, June 30, 2014), a Kentucky federal district court entered an order incorporating terms of a settlement between the parties in an Establishment Clause lawsuit, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the order. At issue was the long-running controversy over the state of Kentucky's funding treatment for abused and neglected children in facilities operated by Sunrise Children's Services, a Baptist organization. The settlement requires the state to modify its contracts with child care agencies so that the religious affiliation or non-affiliation of children is respected. (See prior related posting.) The court rejected challenges by Sunrise to the settlement:

Sunrise urges that the Agreement will subject it to a “Hobson’s Choice” – That is, it will have to choose either to accept terms in new PCC agreements which it finds objectionable, or forego contracts with the Commonwealth which provide essential funding for its continued operation. As aptly stated by the Commonwealth defendants however, this is not a “Hobson’s Choice;” it is a business choice.... Sunrise does not suggest that the Commonwealth does not have the right to add to or alter the terms of its future PCC contract offerings, with or without this settlement.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the court's action. AP reports on the decision.

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction, Quoting Same-Day's SCOTUS Opinion In Hobby Lobby

In Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Burwell, (ED MO, June 30, 2014), a Missouri federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to Catholic non-profit organizations preventing enforcement of the contraceptive coverage mandate accommodation against them. The court rejected the government's argument that the religious-based organizations are not injured (and thus lack standing) because the government has no authority under ERISA to enforce against the third party administrator of a "church plan" the requirement that it furnish contraceptive coverage directly after the non-profit employer opts out. The court said:

Plaintiffs' injury is not related to whether the TPA can be penalized for noncompliance with the mandate. Rather, Plaintiffs' injury arises when the provision of contraceptive coverage has been facilitated by their actions and their beliefs have thereby been violated. This constitutes a sufficient injury to satisfy the constitutional minimum of standing.

The court went on to conclude that the requirement for non-profits to execute a certification to opt out of the mandate imposes a substantial burden on their religious exercise. Then, incorporating language from the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby opinion decided earlier the same day on which this court's opinion was filed, the court concluded that the government has shown it has a compelling interest, but it has not shown that it has used the least restrictive means to accomplish its goal. The court said in part:

Indeed, the Supreme Court has observed that the most straightforward way for the Government to achieve its goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion would be to assume the cost of providing contraceptives to any women unable to obtain them under their health insurance policies due to their employers' religious objections. Burwell [v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.], --S.Ct.--, 2014 WL 2921709.

The Archdiocese of St. Louis issued a press release welcoming the decision.

5th Circuit: Defer To State Court Proceedings In Church Property Dispute

African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Lucien, (5th Cir., June 30, 2014), involves appeals in two related cases growing out of a property ownership dispute between the national AME Church and a local congregation, St. James Mission Church. St. James sued in a Louisiana state court seeking to evict several AME national church officers who had taken over the local church building. AME filed a counter suit in federal court seeking a declaration that the break-away members had given up any rights to the property through their dissociation. AME then removed the eviction action to federal court, claiming diversity of citizenship. However St. James claimed the removal was improper. The 5th Circuit agreed, finding the jurisdictional diversity of citizenship lacking. The Court ordered that the eviction proceeding be remanded to state court, and that the federal district court also abstain from deciding the counter-suit until the eviction proceeding is concluded in state court.

Court Invalidates Kentucky's Same-Sex Marriage Ban; Stays Order

In Love v. Beshear, (WD KY, July 1, 2014), a Kentucky federal district court held that Kentucky's statutory and constitutional provisions barring same-sex marriage violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause and are unenforceable. Judge Heyburn wrote in part:

in America even sincere and long-held religious views do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted.

However, the court stayed its order until further order of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The same court earlier this year held that Kentucky must recognize valid same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. (See prior posting.) Washington Post reports on yesterday's decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

Supreme Court Grants Review In Church's Challenge To Sign Ordinance

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Reed v. Gilbert, AZ, (Docket No. 13-502, cert. granted 7/1/2014.) (Order List.) In the case, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld an Arizona town's sign ordinance that limits the size, number and time frame in which non-profit groups can display temporary directional signs. The limits on temporary event signs are stricter than limits placed on various other types of signs, having the effect of favoring political and ideological signs over religious ones. The ordinance was challenged by a church that placed 17 signs in the area around its place of worship announcing the time and location of its services. (See prior posting.) Here is the petition for certiorari. An ADF press release has more background.

Supreme Court Cleans Up Docket After Hobby Lobby Decision

Today the U.S. Supreme Court did a clean-up of pending Affordable Care Act contraceptive mandate cases brought by for-profit companies now that the Court has handed down its decision in Hobby Lobby. The Court denied certiorari in cases: Department of Health and Human Services v. Gilardi, (Docket No. 13-915); Burwell v. Newland (Docket No. 13-919); and Burwell v. Korte (Docket No. 13-937). In three other pending petitions for review the Supreme Court granted certiorari and summarily vacated the Court of Appeals decisions, remanding each case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Hobby Lobby. The cases are: Autocam Corp. v. Burwell, (Docket No. 13-482); Gilardi v. Department of Health and Human Services, (Docket No. 13-567); Eden Foods, Inc. v. Burwell, (Docket No. 13-591). All of these actions are noted in today's Order List.)

Israel's Supreme Court Says Rabbinical Courts Lack Jurisdiction To Order Circumcision of Child

Israel's High Court of Justice on Sunday held 6-1 that a rabbinical court did not have jurisdiction in the context of a divorce action to order a couple to circumcise their one-year old son over the mother's objection. (See prior posting.) Jerusalem Post reports that Deputy Supreme Court President Miriam Naor wrote in her majority opinion that the question of circumcision is unrelated to divorce issues that define the rabbinical courts' jurisdiction. She said that parents have the right to make decisions in their child’s best interests whether they are married or divorced. The Court held that the question should be decided by the civil family court system. Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, president of the Supreme Rabbinical Court of Appeal, strongly criticized the High Court's decision, saying in part:

This ruling is another severe step in which Jewish judges forbid the fulfillment of a mitzva for which the Jewish people sacrificed its lives for throughout the generations.

European Court Upholds France's Ban Wearing Burqa In Public

The European Court of Human Rights today, in a Grand Chamber judgment, upheld France's ban on Muslim women wearing the full-face veil in public. In S.A.S. v. France, (ECHR, July 1, 2014), the court by a vote of 15-2 held that France's law prohibiting the concealment of one’s face in public places (and thus barring the burqa and niqab) does not violate either Art. 8 (respect for private and family life) or Art. 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court unanimously held that the law does not violate Art. 14 (discrimination). The Court concluded that the ban can be justified as a means of guaranteeing the conditions of "living together." The Court said in part:

[W]hile it is true that the scope of the ban is broad, because all places accessible to the public are concerned (except for places of worship), the Law of 11 October 2010 does not affect the freedom to wear in public any garment or item of clothing – with or without a religious connotation – which does not have the effect of concealing the face. The Court is aware of the fact that the impugned ban mainly affects Muslim women who wish to wear the full-face veil. It nevertheless finds it to be of some significance that the ban is not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it conceals the face.....

... [T]he respondent State is seeking to protect a principle of interaction between individuals, which in its view is essential for the expression not only of pluralism, but also of tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society .... In such circumstances, the Court has a duty to exercise a degree of restraint in its review of Convention compliance, since such review will lead it to assess a balance that has been struck by means of a democratic process within the society in question.

The Court also issued a press release summarizing the decision. CNN reports on the decision. [Thanks to Paul de Mello for the lead.]

10th and 11th Circuits Grant Injunction Pending Appeal To Religious Non-Profits Challenging ACA Rules

Yesterday two circuit courts of appeal granted stays pending appeal in suits by religious non-profits challenging the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage accommodation. In Diocese of Cheyenne v. Burwell, (10th Cir., June 30, 2014), the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that it would enjoin enforcement of the accommodation against several Wyoming Catholic charitable and educational institutions so long as they inform the Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing (but not necessarily using the government's form) that they are non-profit organizations that hold themselves out as religious and have religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services.

In Eternal World Television Network, Inc. v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (11th Cir., June 30, 2014), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted an injunction pending appeal to a religious non-profit broadcasting network challenging the contraceptive mandate accommodation rules. Judge Pryor wrote a 26-page special concurrence explaining why EWTN is likely to succeed on the merits. Both the court's order and Judge Pryor's opinion cited yesterday's Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby for support. [Thanks to Stephen Blakeman for the lead.]

White House Reacts To Hobby Lobby Decision

At a press briefing yesterday (transcript), White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest set out president Obama's reaction to the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, saying in part:

The Supreme Court ruled today that some bosses can now withhold contraceptive care from their employees’ health coverage based on their own religious views that their employees may not even share. President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves rather than their bosses deciding for them.

Today’s decision jeopardizes the health of women who are employed by these companies. As millions of women know firsthand, contraception is often vital to their health and well being. That’s why the Affordable Care Act ensures that women have coverage for contraceptive care, along with other preventative care like vaccines and cancer screenings.

We will work with Congress to make sure that any women affected by this decision will still have the same coverage of vital health services as everyone else.

President Obama believes strongly in the freedom of religion. That’s why we’ve taken steps to ensure that no religious institution will have to pay or provide for contraceptive coverage. We’ve also made accommodations for non-profit religious organizations that object to contraception on religious grounds. But we believe that the owners of for-profit companies should not be allowed to assert their personal religious views to deny their employees federally mandated benefits.

Monday, June 30, 2014

Some Preliminary Thoughts On Today's Hobby Lobby Decision

The Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby opinions handed down today could (and not doubt will) spawn hundreds of pages of scrutiny and analysis. In this post I offer only some very preliminary reactions, but ones which I hope will be useful starting points for others in analyzing the decisions at greater length.

(1) One of the most widely discussed questions raised by Hobby Lobby has been: Can corporations exercise religion? Justice Alito avoids many of the difficulties posed by this question through adopting the "nexus of contracts" view of corporations put forward by "law and economics" scholars during the past 40 years. He says:

A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.... [P]rotecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.

This approach avoids both the question of whether an "artificial person" can exercise religion, and whether traditional "piercing-the-corporate-veil" notions need to be invoked.

(2) Much attention has been focused on whether the government can show a "compelling interest" in imposing the contraceptive coverage mandate. Again Justice Alito is able to avoid dealing directly with the issue. By focusing instead on the "least restrictive means" prong of RFRA strict scrutiny, he is able merely to "assume" that the government has a compelling interest, without deciding the issue.

(3) Justice Alito's "least restrictive means" discussion creates some of the most important surprises, and may lead those who supported Hobby Lobby's position to recall the adage: "be careful what you wish for." Jutice Alito makes two points. First, he argues that the "most straightforward" less restrictive alternative would be for the government to assume the cost of furnishing contraceptive coverage. The logical extension of this argument seems to be that if numerous other religious objections to providing employer coverage arise, the best alternative may be a single-payer government-run system.

Second, Justice Alito heaps praise on the less restrictive alternative that the government has already developed for religious non-profits, and suggests that this may be the most feasible alternative here as well. However, as Justice Alito briefly references in a footnote, an equally fierce battle against just that alternative is working its way through dozens of lower federal courts. Seldom has the Supreme Court so tipped its hand on its views about cases about to come to it. Dozens of religious non-profits are arguing that opting out of furnishing contraceptive coverage, and thereby triggering coverage from elsewhere, still amounts to religiously objectionable participation. For-profit corporations with religious beliefs seemingly have the same free-exercise concerns. The majority must think those concerns are not justified.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Reparative Therapy and Mt. Soledad Cross Cases

Nearly lost in the coverage of today's Hobby Lobby decision were two important denials of certiorari by the Supreme Court. (Order List of June 30, 2014). The court denied review in Pickup v. Brown (Docket No. 13-949) and the related case of Welch v. Brown (Docket No. 13-1281). The 9th Circuit's consolidated decision in the two cases upheld the constitutionality of California Senate Bill 1172 that bans state-licensed mental health providers from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with patients under 18. (See prior posting.)

Additionally, the Court denied certiorari in Mount Soledad Memorial Association v. Trunk, (Docket No. 13-1061). In seeking cert., petitioners were attempting to bypass the 9th Circuit and obtain Supreme Court review of a long-running battle over a 43-foot high cross in the now federally-owned Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in California. (See prior posting.) Justice Alito filed a separate statement [scroll to end of Order List] concurring in the denial of review, but mainly because of the very demanding standard to obtain Supreme Court review before the Court of Appeals acts.

Supreme Court Rules RFRA Allows Closely-Held Corporations To Refuse Contraceptive Coverage

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., (S.Ct., June 30, 2014), the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and other closely held corporations whose owners object on religious grounds to providing coverage for contraceptive services. In a majority opinion by Justice Alito, the court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to closely-held corporations, and that the government has not shown that the mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering its presumably compelling interest in guraranteeing cost-free access to the four contraceptive methods to which the companies object. Justice Alito said in part:

In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.

Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.

Justice Alito argues that the majority opinion is narrow:

We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

He says that if the same accommodation given to religious non-profits were extended to closely-held corporations, the effect on women "would be precisely zero."

Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion as well as joining Justice Alito's majority opinion. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented in two related dissenting opinions.

Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion calls the majority's decision one of "startling breadth." She adds in a section of her dissent joined only by Justice Sotomayor: "Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private."

Additional analysis of the decision will follow in separate posts.

Supreme Court Grants Cert. On Whether EEOC's Conciliation Efforts Can Be Reviewed

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Mach Mining, LLC v. E.E.O.C. (Docket No. 13-1019, cert. granted 6/30/2014) (Order List.) The case is one involving alleged gender discrimination-- refusal to hire a woman as a coal miner. The issue presented, however, will impact religious discrimination claims filed with the EEOC as well. In the case, the 7th Circuit (full opinion) held that an employer sued by the EEOC for employment discrimination cannot raise as an affirmative defense the EEOC's failure to first engage in conciliation as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). The Petition for Certiorari (full text) asserts that the 7th Circuit's decision exacerbated an already exiting conflict among circuits "over whether and how Title VII’s conciliation obligation may be enforced in court."

EEOC Wins Settlement In Religious Discrimination Suit Against Auto Dealership

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced last week that a federal district court in Chicago has entered a consent decree in a suit brought by the EEOC against a suburban Chicago auto dealership, Rizza Buick GMC Cadillac, Inc. The suit charged that managers made offensive ethnic and religious slurs against three Arab Muslim employees, including mocking and insulting references to the Qur'an and the manner in which Muslims pray. Under the settlement, the dealership will pay a total of $100,000 in damages plus undertaking reporting and employee training to prevent future violations. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Supreme Court Will Decide Much-Watched Hobby Lobby Case Today

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court will hand down the much-awaited decisions in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell. These challenges to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate raise a number of difficult and interesting religious liberty questions. Here are SCOTUS Blog's resource pages on Hobby Lobby and Conestoga. Also SCOTUS Blog will be live blogging from the courtroom here. The opinions in the cases will be posted here by the Supreme Court as soon as they are announced. Religion Clause will be reporting on the decisions and their implications, probably with a rolling post or with several posts during the day and beyond.

Sunday, June 29, 2014

ISIS Declares Caliphate In Parts of Syria and Iraq

As reported by Time, the Sunni group ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) today declared a new Caliphate on the territory it holds in Syria and Iraq. Its statement (full text) declared ISIS leader Abu Baker al-Baghdadi to be the Caliph, and changed ISIS' name to merely Islamic State. The lengthy statement included this explanation:

The time has come for those generations that were drowning in oceans of disgrace, being nursed on the milk of humiliation, and being ruled by the vilest of all people, after their long slumber in the darkness of neglect – the time has come for them to rise. The time has come for the ummah of Muhammad (peace be upon him) to wake up from its sleep, remove the garments of dishonor, and shake off the dust of humiliation and disgrace, for the era of lamenting and moaning has gone, and the dawn of honor has emerged anew. The sun of jihad has risen. The glad tidings of good are shining. Triumph looms on the horizon. The signs of victory have appeared.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Kaufman v. Pugh, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84532 (WD WI, June 20, 2014), a Wisconsin federal district court dismissed a complaint by a now-released prisoner that authorities refused to authorize an atheist study group. Injuntive relief was dismissed as moot, and a damage claim dismissed on qualified immunity grounds.

In Staple v. Commonwealth, 2014 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 388 (PA Commnw. Ct., June 26, 2014), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court denied both a writ of mandamus and a declaratory judgment to an inmate seeking return of several religious books that were confiscated because he had altered him.

In Neal-El v. Beitzel, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84943 (D MD, June 23, 2014), a Maryland federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that for one week he was removed from the list of those permitted to attend Moorish Science Temple services while officials investigated an unfounded report that he was involved in activities jeopardizing security.

In Marron v. Miller, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86629 (WD VA, June 24, 2014), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that his religious books were confiscated as contraband because they were inscribed with his religious name rather than the name recognized by the prison system.

District Court Denies Injunction Against ACA Non-Profit Rules; 3rd Circuit Issues Temporary Stay

In Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia v. Burwell, (ED PA, June 27, 2014), a Pennsylvania federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to several Catholic charitable organizations that object to the Affordable Care Act rules providing for execution of an opt-out form in order to avoid the requirement to cover contraceptive services under their self-insured health care plan. (Full text of complaint.) After a non-profit opts out, ERISA requires the third party administrator to directly cover contraceptive services. The court concluded that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits because the government may not be able to enforce the ERISA requirement against the "church plan" at issue. Even if that is not the case, the court found that the self-certification form is not what triggers the furnishing of contraceptive services by the third-party administrator.

Plaintiffs quickly filed a motion for a stay pending appeal, and the 3rd Circuit issued an order (full text) temporarily granting the stay, but requiring the parties to file responses addressing the impact of the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby and Conestoga decisions (to be handed down Monday) on the issues presented. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports on the decision.

Puerto Rico Appeals Court Applies Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Vega v. Barbara Ann Roessler Church, Inc., 2014 PR App LEXIS 1954 (PR Ct. App., May 30, 2014), the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision applied the "ministerial exception" doctrine to dismiss a claim by a minister that he was unfairly dismissed as pastor of his church. The opinion is in Spanish.

Plaintiff Lacks Standing In Establishment Clause Challenge To ACA Individual Mandate

In Cutler v. United States, (D DC, June 25, 2014), the District of Columbia federal district court dismissed a challenge to the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. Plaintiff based his challenge primarily on a claim that the narrow religious exemption in 26 USC Sec. 5000A(d)(2) violates the Establishment Clause by allowing the government to "regulate and track a person’s religion, and . . . to favor one religion over another." The court concluded that plaintiff lacks standing to raise this claim:

Plaintiff is non-observant in his religion and does not assert that a religious exemption should be extended to him.... Plaintiff’s argument is as follows: there is an exemption to the individual mandate for certain religious groups, he is not a member of any of those groups, and, therefore, he is not able to claim that exemption. It follows that Plaintiff’s challenge to the religious exemption solely is based on the general existence of the exemption and not on the exemption’s specific application to him...

... Further, even if the Court were to find that religious exemption violated the exercise of Congress’ Commerce Power in violation of the First Amendment, Plaintiff would be in the same position. He would be subject to the individual mandate and would be required to either obtain health insurance coverage or pay the penalty. The only difference would be that no one else could claim a religious exemption.

The court went on to conclude that even if plaintiff had standing, the religious exemption provisions do not violate the Establishment Clause.

Former Vatican Diplomat Defrocked On Sex Abuse Charges; Criminal Trial Will Follow

Vatican Information Service reported on Friday:

The first stage in the canonical trial against the former apostolic nuncio in the Dominican Republic, Josef Wesolowski, has been concluded with the laicisation of the prelate.

According to Al Jazeera, in August the Vatican recalled Wesolowski from his position in the Dominican Republic after rumors that he had sexually abused teenage boys there. Dominican authorities were unable to charge him because he had diplomatic immunity. Weslowski has two months to appeal Friday's decision by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. After that, he will face criminal charges in a Vatican City State Tribunal. In the meantime, the Vatican says that it will limit his freedom of movement "in conformity with the gravity of the case."

Saturday, June 28, 2014

7th Circuit Stays District Court's Invalidation of Indiana's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

In Baskin v. Bogan, (7th Cir., June 27, 2014), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay pending appeal of a federal district court' decision striking down Indiana's laws barring same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) Fox59 reports on the appellate court's action and reactions to it.

White House Sends Greetings As Ramadan Begins

Ramadan begins tonight. The White House released a statement (full text) from the President extending greetings from the American people to Muslims communities in the U.S. and around the world. The statement reads in part:

... Ramadan is also an occasion when Muslims around the world reaffirm their commitment to helping the less fortunate.... Here in the United States, we are grateful to the many Muslim American organizations, individuals, and businesses that are devoted to creating opportunity for all by working to reduce income inequality and poverty, not only through their charitable efforts, but also through their initiatives to empower students, workers and families with the education, skills and health care they deserve.

President Obama went on to announce that again this year the White House will host an iftar dinner during Ramadan.

Christian Teacher Loses Suit Challenging Required Removal of Religious Postings In Classroom

In Silver v. Cheektowage Central School District, (WD NY, June 24, 2014), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing most of the discrimination claims brought by a Christian high school science teacher who was required to take down from her classroom her display of several Bible verses, other statements about God and a picture of three crosses on a hill. She was also told to prevent guest speakers from promoting religion. The court rejected teacher Joelle Silver's Establishment Clause and free speech claims and most of her equal protection claims, saying that the school has authority to take action to avoid litigation claiming Establishment Clause violations. The court also characterized as "inapposite" the teacher's comparison of her displays to those by the school social worker that were designed to create a welcoming environment for LGBT students. The court however recommended permitting plaintiff to proceed with a claim that school policies relating to her role as advisor to the student Bible Study Club were selectively enforced. News 4 reports on the decision. American Freedom Law Center issued a press release announcing the decision.

Friday, June 27, 2014

Turkey's Constitutional Court Says Female Lawyers Can Wear Headscarves In Courtrooms

On Wednesday, Turkey's Constitutional Court ruled 16-1 that the rights of a Muslim female lawyer had been infringed when she was not permitted to enter a courtroom wearing a headscarf. According to Daily Sabah, the Council of State, the country's highest administrative court, ruled in 2013 that women lawyers had the right to register at the Bar Association with a photo showing them wearing a headscarf. However some judges were still banning headscarves in their courtrooms. The Constitutional Court said this week that such bans violate Art. 10 (equality before the law) and Art. 24 (freedom of religion and conscience) of Turkey's Constitution.

Council Revokes Invitation To Wiccan To Deliver Invocation

WHNT News reports that the Huntsville, Alabama City Council pulled back the invitation it originally extended to a Wiccan clergyman to deliver the invocation at yesterday's City Council meeting. Wiccan Blake Kirk had been scheduled to deliver the opening prayer, but when the Council agenda was publicly released several Council members received "community concerns" about a Wiccan being invited. Kirk said he gave the invocation earlier this year and no one asked him to identify his faith.

European Court Holds Russia Violated Rights of Jehovah's Witnesses

In Krupko v. Russia, (ECHR, June 26, 2014), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Russia violated the European Convention on Human Rights Art. 5 (right to liberty and security) and Art. 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) when in 2006 police disrupted a Jehovah's Witness religious meeting and arrested some of the participants. The court awarded 36,000 Euros as damages and costs. The court issued a press release on the case. RAPSI reports on the decision.

Christian College Denied Relief Against Contraceptive Coverage Mandate Accommodation

In Wheaton College v. Burwell, (ND IL, June 23, 2014), an Illinois federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to a Christian liberal arts college that objects to complying with the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate accommodation for religious non-profits. It concluded that the 7th Circuit's decision in University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius (see prior posting) is controlling on it:

Because the majority opinion in Notre Dame stands squarely in the path of the principal relief that Plaintiff seeks, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate the requisite likelihood of success on the merits of its claims.

The court added however that if the Supreme Court's upcoming decision in Hobby Lobby calls into question any material aspect of the Notre Dame decision, any party may file a motion for reconsideration.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Supreme Court Strikes Down Massachusetts Abortion-Clinic Buffer Zone Law

The U.S. Supreme Court today in McCullen v. Coakley, (S.Ct., June 26, 2014) struck down the Massachusetts statute that creates a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics. The law prevents anti-abortion sidewalk counselors from entering the buffer zone. The Court's majority decision written by Chief Justice Roberts struck down the law on narrow free speech grounds. While the state has a legitimate interest in preserving access to clinics, and while this is a neutral statute, it burdens more speech that in necessary to accomplish that purpose. The Chief Justice explains:

Petitioners wish to converse with their fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks—sites that have hosted discussions about the issues of the day throughout history. Respondents assert undeniably significant interests in maintaining public safety on those same streets and sidewalks, as well as in preserving access to adjacent healthcare facilities. But here the Commonwealth has pursued those interests by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers. It has done so without seriously addressing the problem through alternatives that leave the forum open for its time-honored purposes. The Commonwealth may not do that consistent with the First Amendment.

Justice Scalia's opinion, joined by Justices Kennedy and Thomas, concurring only in the judgment, criticizes the majority's approach:

Today’s opinion carries forward this Court’s practice of giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents. There is an entirely separate, abridged edition of the First Amendment applicable to speech against abortion.... The ... Court’s analysis today, invalidating the law at issue because of inadequate “tailoring,” is certainly attractive to those of us who oppose an abortion speech edition of the First Amendment. But think again. This is an opinion that ... continues the onward march of abortion-speech-only jurisprudence.

Justice Alito also wrote a separate opinion concurring only in the judgment. The New York Times reports on the decision.

7th Circuit: Church Lacks Standing To Appeal Injunction Against City On Cross Display

In Cabral v. City of Evansville, Indiana, (7th Cir., June 25, 2014), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of standing an appeal of an Indiana federal district court's injunction barring Evansville from permitting a church's proposed display of 31 six-foot tall crosses on 4-block Riverfront area. The district court concluded that the display would violate the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) The city of Evansville did not appeal; the church involved (West Side Christian) which had been an intervenor in the case below did. The 7th Circuit concluded that since the injunction ran only against the city, vacating it would not necessarily remedy any injury West Side suffered. The city could still refuse to permit the display. In addition, any decision the 7th Circuit made on the merits would affect only the city which is not a party to the appeal. The court concluded that in order to obtain standing, West Side would need to apply for a permit and have it denied by the city because of the district court's injunction. The 7th Circuit then added:

We caution, however, that West Side’s road ahead might not necessarily get any easier if it ever attains standing to challenge the injunction. We question whether a reasonable observer would be put on notice that the “Cross the River” display is strictly private speech given the sheer magnitude of a display that takes up four blocks and has two signs alerting citizens that it is a private display.

Indiana's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Invalidated; Motion for Stay, Appeal Filed As Some Counties Issue Licenses

In Baskin v. Bogan, (SD IN, June 25, 2014), an Indiana federal district court held that Indian's ban on same-sex marriage, and on recognizing same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, is unconstitutional. The court found that the ban infringes the fundamental right to marry protected by the due process clause, and discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the equal protection clause, adding:

The court has never witnessed a phenomenon throughout the federal court system as is presented with this issue. In less than a year, every federal district court to consider the issue has reached the same conclusion in thoughtful and thorough opinions – laws prohibiting the celebration and recognition of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. It is clear that the fundamental right to marry shall not be deprived to some individuals based solely on the person they choose to love. In time, Americans will look at the marriage of couples, such as Plaintiffs, and refer to it simply as marriage-- not as same-sex marriage. These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such.

The Indianapolis Star reports that county clerks in several counties began issuing licenses for same-sex marriages yesterday. As reported by WTHR, Indiana's Attorney General quickly filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal (full text) and a notice of appeal to the 7th Circuit (full text). Two county clerks' offices also filed notices of appeal. Meanwhile the Attorney General contacted all counties stating that while only the five county clerks named in the lawsuits are required to comply with the court's order, everyone should "show respect for the judge and the orders that are issued."

10th Circuit Says Utah's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional

In Kitchen v. Herbert, (10th Cir., June 25, 2014), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage, but stayed its mandate pending disposition of any appeal. The majority summarized its 66-page opinion:

We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.

Among the justifications rejected by the court was Utah's argument that allowing same-sex marriage "would create the potential for religious-related strife." Judge Kelly dissenting in part argued that there is no fundamental right to same-gender marriage.

The Salt Lake Tribune reports on the decision. In a statement released yesterday, the Utah attorney general's office says it will file a petition for certiorari seeking Supreme Court review.

Seattle Archdiocese Reaches $12.1 Million Settlement With Abuse Claimants

Reuters reported yesterday that the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle has agreed to settle claims brought by 30 men who were sexually abused 30 to 60 years ago in two diocesan high schools staffed by the Christian Brothers of Ireland teaching order. The lawsuits alleged that the Archdiocese failed to shield the victims from known abusers. According to a press release from the Archdiocese, the $12.1 million settlement was funded by archdiocesan insurance programs. The Christian Brothers previously reached a $16.5 million settlement with 400 victims.

9th Circuit Denies En Banc Review On Strict Scrutiny For Sexual Orientation Classifications

Earlier this week, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant en banc review to an earlier decision by a 3-judge panel that concluded heightened scrutiny must be applied to equal protection claims based on sexual orientation. In SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, (9th Cir., June 24, 2014), the court reported that the call for en banc review did not receive a majority vote. However Judge O'Scannlain, joined by Judges Bybee and Bee, filed a dissent to the refusal to review, saying in part:

This case ... came to our court in the posture of an appeal from a simple juror selection ruling during trial. Sadly, it has morphed into a constitutional essay about equal protection and sexual orientation.... The opinion’s unprecedented application of heightened scrutiny to a peremptory strike of a juror who was perceived to be gay bears significant implications for the same-sex marriage debate and for other laws that may give rise to distinctions based on sexual orientation.

Indeed, today’s opinion is the only appellate decision since United States v. Windsor ... to hold that lower courts are “required by Windsor to apply heightened scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation for purposes of equal protection.” ... Such holding is wrong, egregiously so. Because of the danger that district courts will be misled by the opinion’s sweeping misinterpretation of Windsor, it is most unfortunate that we denied rehearing en banc.

SCOTUS Blog has more on the decision.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

White House Hosts Global LGBT Human Rights Forum

The White House yesterday hosted the first Global Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Human Rights Forum. It brought together religious leaders along with LGBT and HIV activists, human rights advocates and the private sector. A Fact Sheet issued by the White House reviews the international initiatives that the government has taken to protect LGBT rights. National Security Advisor Susan Rice addressed the Forum. (Full text of remarks.) Asserting that "cultural differences do not excuse human rights violations," Rice later asked: "For the faith community, how can we reinforce to religious groups that God loves all the children of his creation equally?"

Zoning Denial For Catholic School Athletic Field Lighting Violates RLUIPA

In Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle v. City of Seattle, WD WA, June 20, 2014), a Washington federal district court held that requiring a Catholic High School to obtain a zoning variance in order to install 70-foot tall light poles in its athletic field violates the "equal terms" provision of RLUIPA. The variance, which was denied, is required because of the 30-foot height requirement for structures in residential zones. The city exempts public school athletic fields from the height requirement. [Thanks to Eric Treene for the lead.]

Congress Passes World War II Memorial Prayer Act

Congress this week gave final approval and sent to the President for his signature S. 1044, the World War II Memorial Prayer Act. The Act calls for an addition to the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. A plaque or inscription containing the words of the prayer that President Franklin Roosevelt delivered on D-Day is to be installed-- using only private contributions to pay for it. According to the Columbus Dispatch last week, the ACLU calls the law needlessly divisive.

Court Decides Dispute Over Proceeds From Sale of Church Property

In Pacific Southwest District of the Church of the Brethren v. Church of the Brethren, Inc., (CA App., June 23, 2014), a California appeals court dealt with a dispute over sharing of the proceeds from the sale of church property. The court summarized its holding:

Pacific Southwest District of the Church of the Brethren (PSWD) ... appeal from a judgment in favor of respondents Central Korean Evangelical Church (CKEC) and its pastor Jang Kyun Park. The judgment gave CKEC an 86-percent share and gave PSWD a 14-percent share in the proceeds from any sale of CKEC’s real property, which consists of three lots in the Koreatown neighborhood of Los Angeles. Appellants argue CKEC holds the property in trust for the Church of the Brethren. We conclude that PSWD is estopped from asserting a trust over the entire property because CKEC joined the denomination on assurances by church representatives that a trust would not apply to property it owned at the time of affiliation, and at that time it already owned two of the three lots. We also conclude that PSWD may assert a trust over the after-acquired third lot. We affirm the judgment to the extent it ordered partition of the property by sale, but reverse and remand for a redetermination of each party’s share in the proceeds from any sale.

Jury Service Does Not Violate Free Exercise Rights

In Bey v. City of Philadelphia, (ED PA, June 17, 2014), plaintiff sued unsuccessfully for $2 million in damages after the city's Jury Selection Commission denied him an exemption from jury duty which he sought because of his religious beliefs and political views. The court concluded that his free exercise claim is legally frivolous because the state's jury service laws are neutral and generally applicable, and are clearly related to the legitimate objective of maintaining a jury system.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Powers v. Coleman, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11667 (7th Cir., June 20, 2014), the 7th Circuit refused to overturn a jury's verdict that a Messianic Jewish inmate did not have a sincere religious belief that he needed a kosher diet.

In Sharrieff v. Moore, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82460 (MD PA, June 16, 2014), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies a complaint seeking separate religious services and a separate fast during December for Nation of Islam inmates.

In Oliver v. Adams, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80519 (ED CA, June 10, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed, with leave to amend, a complaint by an inmate who is an adherent of Shetaut Neter who claims he is being denied a prayer rug, a religious diet, worship services, and religious programming on in-house television while he is in the special housing unit.

In Davis v. Abercrombie, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81780 (D HI, June 13, 2014), a Hawaii federal district court in a very long opinion dealt with claims by Native Hawaiian inmates housed at private prisons in Arizona that their free exercise, RLUIPA and equal protection rights are being infringed as to their daily worship practices, the observance of Makahiki, and access to sacred items, sacred space and a spiritual advisor. The court held that there are genuine issues of fact remaining as to various of the claims.

In Adkins v. Shinn, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81953 (D HI, June 16, 2014), a Hawaii federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaints about lack of visits from an Imam an difficulty in obtaining a Qur'an, other books and a kufi. However the court permitted him to proceed on his complaint that a kosher diet was substituted for his halal diet.

Pregnancy Service Center Signage Requirement Held Void-For-Vagueness

In Austin LifeCare, Inc. v. City of Austin, (WD TX, June 23, 2014), a Texas federal district court struck down as void for vagueness an Austin, Texas ordinance that requires unlicensed pregnancy service centers that do not have full-time licensed health care providers on site to post signs to indicate whether the center provides medical services and if the services are provided under supervision of a licensed health care provider. The ordinance covers centers that offer pregnancy testing or perform sonograms and then offer options counseling. The court concluded that neither "full time" nor "medical services" is adequately defined in the ordinance. Austin American-Statesman reports on the decision.

Sudanese Appeals Court Overturns Apostasy Death Sentence of Christian Woman

In a case that has attracted widespread international attention, an appeals court in Sudan has ordered the release of Meriam Ibrahim who had been sentenced to death for apostasy. Mail Online reports that a Khartoun appeals court overturned the death sentence of the 27-year old woman who was charged with converting from Islam to Christianity. Ibrahim's father was Muslim, but her mother was Christian and she was raised as a Christian. It is unclear whether Ibrahim's sentence of 100 lashes for adultery-- because of her marriage to her Christian husband-- also was reversed. (See prior posting.) Ibrahim's lawyers will meet with U.S. Embassy officials today to discuss possible asylum for her in the United States. Her Christian husband is an American citizen.