Groups Ask White House To End Anti-Muslim Training Material In Federal Agencies

Last week, a coalition of 75 religious and civil rights groups sent a letter (full text) to the White House asking it to " to take immediate action to end the use of anti-Muslim training materials and address anti-Muslim conduct exhibited by agencies throughout the federal government."  The Aug. 14 letter to Lisa Monaco, President Obama's advisor on homeland security and counterterrorism, cites especially the findings in a  July 9, 2014 article in The Intercept.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Raj Bhala & Shannon B. Keating, Diversity within Unity: Import Laws of Islamic Countries on Haram (Forbidden) Products, (July 17, 2014).
• Mark Walters, Why the Rochdale Gang Should Have Been Sentenced as 'Hate Crime' Offenders, (Criminal Law Review (2). pp. 131-144, 2013).

From SmartCILP:

• Lourdes Peroni, The European Court of Human Rights and Intragroup Religious Diversity: A Critical Review, 89 Chicago-Kent Law Review 663-687 (2014).
• Yuvaj Sinai & Benjamin Shmueli, Calabresi's and Maimonides's Tort Law Theories--A Comparative Analysis and a Preliminary Sketch of a Modern Model of Differential Pluralistic Tort Liability Based On the Two Theories, 26 Yale Journal of  Law & Humanities 59-133 (2014).
• Asma T. Uddin, Intragroup Discourse On Intragroup Protections in Muslim-Majority Countries, 89 Chicago-Kent Law Review 641-662 (2014).
• Victor I. Vieth, From Sticks to Flowers: Guidelines for Child Protection Professionals Working With Parents Using Scripture to Justify Corporal Punishment, 40 William Mitchell Law Review 907-942 (2014).

Religious Non-Profit College Wins Attack on Contraceptive Mandate Compromise

In Louisiana College v. Sebelius, (WD LA, Aug. 13, 2014), a Louisiana federal district court granted summary judgment to Louisiana College on its claim that its rights under RFRA are infringed by the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage accommodation for religious non-profits.  The college is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, and offers it employees a self-insured plan through a third party administrator that is also an SBC affiliate.  The court held that the requirement that plaintiff self-certify its objections, or else incur onerous penalties, creates a substantial burden on its free exercise because of its religious objections to facilitating access to contraceptive methods it deem abortifacients. The government failed to show that the compromise was the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling governmental interest. The Shreveport Times reports on the decision.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Haight v. Thompson, (6th Cir., Aug. 15, 2014), the 6th Circuit remanded, finding triable issues of fact, claims by Native American inmates that they should have access to a sweat lodge, and should have buffalo meat at their once a year powwow. The 6th Circuit held, however, that money damages are not recoverable under RLUIPA in suits against officials in their individual capaicites. (AP has more on the decision.)

In Williams v. King, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110757 (SD NY, Aug. 11, 2014), a New York federal district court allowed a Shiite Muslim inmate to proceed with some of his free exercise and equal protection claims alleging that the penal facility's Muslim chaplain, a Sunni, discriminated agiast Shiites by allowing Muslim inmates to pray and fast only for the last two days of Muharram (the Sunni custom) rather than for the full ten days (the Sunni custom).

In Howard v. Webster, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111301 (ED WI, Aug. 12, 2014), a Wisconsin federal magistrate judge permitted a Buddhist inmate to proceed with his complaint that Christianity was promoted in various ways in the prison: a painting of Jesus in the library, religious messages in hygiene bags, and Christian music piped through a TV channel. He also could move ahead with a complaint that he was not allowed to possess a necklace with an emblem of Buddha.

In Jones v. Nevin, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111576 (D NV, Aug. 11, 2014), a Nevada federal district court dismissed a Jewish inmate's complaint that he did not have access to kosher meals and, instead, had only the common fare menu thast is so distasteful as to discourage inmates from practicing Judaism.

In Diaz v. Kessler, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112357 (ND CA, Aug. 12, 2014), a California federal district court permitted an inmate to proceed with his claim that his Jewish religious service was terminated on one occassion in retaliation for his objections to the way other complaints were handled.

In Wortham v. Lantz, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112487 (D CT, Aut. 13, 2014), a Connecticut federal district court dismissed a Hebrew Isrelite inmate's complaints that the common fare vegetarian diet did not satisfy his religious needs because it did not include kosher meat, as well as his complaints about not being able to purchase oils from outside vendors or purchase various other religious items.

In Harvey v. Segura, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112877 (D CO, Aug. 14, 2014), a Colorado federal district court dismissed on qualified immunity grounds a Muslim inmate's religious objections to a strip search by a female officer, but permitted plaintiff to move ahead with his challenge to the confiscation of his kufi and his claim for punitive damages.

In Depaola v. Virginia Department of Corrections, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112585 (WD VA, Aug. 12, 2014), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a Nation of Islam inmate's complaint that the prison's common fare diet does not meet his religious dietary needs.

2nd Circuit: NYC Ritual Circumcision Informed Consent Rule Is Subject To Strict Scrutiny Analysis

In Central Rabbinical Congress of the United States & Canada v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, (2d Cir., Aug. 15, 2014), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction against New York City's informed consent regulations governing metzitzah b’peh, a method of ritual circumcision used by some Orthodox Jewish mohels. (See prior posting.) The regulation, concerned about the possible spread of herpes, requires signed written consent from a parent before direct oral suction may be used in any circumcision. The Second Circuit disagreed with the district court's conclusion that the regulation is neutral and generally applicable and is thus subject only to rational basis scrutiny. The appellate court remanded for the district court to now rule on the likelihood of success on the merits using strict scrutiny, but added:

Acknowledging the weighty interests at stake in this litigation (the plaintiffs’ in the free exercise of their faith and the Department’s in the health of newborns and in informed parental consent concerning risks these newborns face), we express no view as to whether plaintiffs have satisfied this [strict scrutiny] standard, believing that careful adjudication will benefit in the first instance from the district court’s comprehensive analysis.

Reuters reports on the decision.

Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Negligence Suit Against Hospital Chaplain

In Lefkowitz v. Skokie Hospital, (IL App., July 25, 2014), an Illinois appellate court reversed a trial court's dismissal of a suit by an Orthodox Jewish man, Moshe Lefkowitz, who alleges that Skokie Hospital's Jewish chaplain was negligent in failing to prevent his amputated leg from being incinerated. Orthodox Jewish beliefs require amputated body parts to be  preserved or buried so that they can eventually be buried with the individual from whom they came. The appeals court said that there was a question of whether the forms Lefkowitz signed consenting to the hospital's disposal of his amputated leg were effective since Lefkowitz was blind and did not read them. The Chicago Tribune, in an article appearing in tomorrow's edition, discusses the case and also points out that Lefkowitz is a defendant in an unrelated criminal case charging him, his father (a rabbi), and his brother with stealing $10,000 in donations from a North Shore synagogue.

Church Sues JPMorgan For $13 Million In Losses From Bad Trust Investments

This week, Christ Church, an Episcopal Church in Indianapolis, Indiana, filed suit against JP Morgan Chase alleging mishandling of the church's $35 million trust whose assets came originally from gifts from Eli Lilly, Jr. The complaint (full text) in Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church Cathedral of Indianapolis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., (SD IN, filed 8/13/2014), alleges that securities law violations, fraud and breach of trust led to losses of $13 million from 2004-2013.  It claims that defendants selected "high-risk, high-cost, opaque, unsuitable and poorly performing investments in order to further their own financial interests to the detriment of Christ Church." BNA Daily Report for Executives [subscription required] reports on the lawsuit.

Britain's Equality Commission Seeks Public Inupt On Religion and Belief Issues

Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission yesterday called for input from the public as part of its three-year project to strengthen the understaning of religion and belief in public life. Yesterday's EHRC Release reads in part:

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has today launched a major call for evidence from individuals and organisations about how their religion or belief, or that of other people, may have affected their experiences in the workplace and in using the services and facilities they need in everyday life. People can give their feedback at www.equalityhumanrights.com/religion.

The Commission wants to gather as much information as possible from members of the public, employers, providers of services, legal advisors and religion or belief organisations.  This will be used to assess how employers and service providers are taking religion or belief into account and the impact this has on individuals.  The work covers all faiths and beliefs and experiences in England, Scotland and Wales. We want to hear about the issues people face and how they find solutions.  The Commission will also use the evidence as part of its work looking at how effective the current legislation is proving in practice.

In Tennessee, A Rare Win For Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage

In the face of a long string of federal cases in recent months striking down state laws that bar recognition of same-sex marriage, the opponents of same-sex marriage last week realized a rare victory. In Borman v. Pyles-Borman, (TN Cir. Ct., Aug. 5, 2014), a Tennessee state trial court upheld Tennessee's ban on recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. The decision comes in a divorce case involving a same-sex couple legally married in Iowa, but now residing in Tennessee.  A Tennessee court presumably cannot grant a divorce unless the marriage is first recognized in the state.

In upholding Tennessee's anti-recognition law against an equal protection challenge, the court wrote in part:

In the Windsor case the Supreme Court opines that if a state finds same-sex marriage to be valid, the Federal Government cannot trump that State's law. The Supreme Court does not go the fmal step and fmd that a State that defines marriages as a union of one (1) man and one (l) woman is unconstitutional. Further, the Supreme Court does not find that one State's refusal to accept as valid another States valid same-sex marriage to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.... 

The Court finds that marriage is·a fundamental right. However, neither the Tennessee Supreme Court nor the United States Supreme Court has ever decided that this fundamental right under a state's laws extends beyond the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one (1) man and one (1) woman.... The Legislative Branch of Tennessee and the voters of Tennessee have said that the definition of marriage should be as it always has been.....

The court then adopts language from the state's brief in finding a rational basis for the state's traditional definition.

Moving to the full-faith-and-credit challenge, the court concludes:

The laws of Iowa concerning same sex marriage is so diametrically opposed to Tennessee's laws, and Tennessee's own legitimate public policy concerning same-sex marriage, that Tennessee is not required by the U.S. Constitution to give full faith and credit to a valid marriage of a same-sex couple in Iowa. 

Yesterday Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision. Earlier this month, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a separate challenge to Tennesseee's marriage recognition laws. (See prior posting.)

Canadian Rival FLDS Leaders Indicted For Polygamy

In Canada yesterday, the Criminal Justice Branch of the British Columbia Minstry of Justice announced that indictments charging polygamy have been filed against the leaders of two rival Bountiful, BC sects of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints. The indictments charge that Winston Blackmore practiced a form of polygamy with 24 women, while James Oler is charged with having polygamous unions with four women. Tgey are also charged with unlawful removal of a child from Canada. National Post has more on the indictments. In 2011, atrial court upheld the constituitonality of British Columbia's anti-polygamy laws. (See prior posting.)

NY Farm Fined For Denying Its Wedding Facilities For Same-Sex Wedding

In McCarthy v. Liberty Ridge Farm, LLC, (NY Div. Human Rights, Aug. 8, 2014), the New York State Divsion of Human Rights levied a $10,000 civil fine and awarded compensatory damages of $3,000 in a proceeding against a farm that adversises itself as a venue for weddings, but which refused to contract with the two women complainants for them to use the facilities for their same-sex wedding. The Division held that the discrimination violated the public accommodation provisions of the New York Human Rights Law.  Respondents were also required to take steps to prevent future discrimination.  The Albany Times-Union reported on the decision.

Leonard Fine, 80, Dies

Leonard Fine, a giant in the field of religion, public policy and social justice, died today at the age of 80. The Forward, for whom he was a long-time columnist, reported on his death. Fine was a co-founder of Moment Magazine, founder of MAZON and of the National Jewish Coalition for Literacy.

4th Circuit Refuses Stay In Invalidation of Virginia's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

By a 2-1 vote yesterday, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Order (full text)  in Bostic v. Schaeffer refusing to delay the mandate in its decision last month invalidating Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  SCOTUSblog reports that attorneys representing the county clerk who is defending the same-sex marriage ban on appeal say they will seek a stay from the Supreme Court before the 4th Circuit's mandate takes effect next Wednesday. A petition for certiorari has already been filed seeking Supreme Court review of the underlying decision. (See prior posting.) Washington Post has more on the plans to seek a Supreme Court stay.

Indian Court Upholds National Commission For Minorities Act

The Times of India reports today that a 2-judge panel of the Allahabad high court has upheld the constitutionality of India's National Commission for Minorities Act. Rejecting claims that the Act discriminates on the basis of religion, the court said in part:

The commission cannot be regarded as a body which is constituted as an institution in aid of or for the protection of a religion but it is an institution which has been created by the Act of Parliament to ensure that minorities are able to realise their rights to development and freedom.

Recount Looming In Slim Primary Victory of Controversial Wisconsin House Candidate

The Hill reports that a likely recount in Wiconsin's Republican congressional primary has called into question Tuesday's initial apparent victory of state senator Glenn Grothman. As of Wednesday morning, Grothman was leading by only 214 votes. (Wis. Election Watch). Grothman, running for the Republican nomination for the U.S. House of Representatives in Wisconsin's 6th District, has become controversial because of his conservative social views.  According to The Hill:

Grothman recently said it was "unbelievable" that Secretary of State John Kerry criticized Uganda's harsh anti-gay laws, and has repeatedly called homosexuality a "sin," saying it "should not flourish" in American society. He's also attacked what he's called the "war on men" during a 2010 Tea Party rally, has said that "money is more important for men" as part of explaining why he opposed equal pay legislation, and has sponsored legislation that said that single parenting is a contributing factor to child abuse.

Canada's Citizenship Oath To The Queen Does Not Violate Charter Rights

In McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General), (Ont. Ct. App., August 13, 2014), the Court of Appeal for Ontario rejected constitutional challenges to the requirement that immigrants who wish to become Canadian citizens must swear or affirm that "I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors." Two of the challengers were committed republicans whose consciences were offended by taking an oath to a hereditary monarch. They alleged that the oath violates their freedom of expression and their equality rights protected by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Two other plaintiffs asserted that the oath violates their freedom of conscience and religion protected by the Charter:

The appellant Ms. Simone Topey is a Rastafarian who regards the Queen as the head of Babylon. She deposes that it would violate her religious beliefs to take any kind of oath to the Queen. She further deposes that on account of the oath, she would feel bound to refrain from participating in anti-monarchist movements. The evidence of Mr. Howard Gomberg, a former plaintiff in these proceedings, is that taking an oath to any human being is contrary to his conception of Judaism.

In rejecting the Charter challenges, the appeals court said:

Although the Queen is a person, in swearing allegiance to the Queen of Canada, the would-be citizen is swearing allegiance to a symbol of our form of government in Canada. This fact is reinforced by the oath’s reference to “the Queen of Canada,” instead of “the Queen.” It is not an oath to a foreign sovereign. Similarly, in today’s context, the reference in the oath to the Queen of Canada’s “heirs and successors” is a reference to the continuity of our form of government extending into the future.

The Globe and Mail reports on the decision.

In Criminal Trial of Palestinian, Jewish Judge Recuses Himself On New Grounds

In Detroit yesterday, federal district Judge Paul Borman recused himself, sua sponte, in the criminal trial of a Palestinian woman chargged with failing to disclose to immigration officials the fact that she spent ten years in an Israeli prison for participating in two terrorist plots, one of which involved the bombing of a supermarket.  Last month Borman refused to recuse himself when his impartiality was challenged on the basis of his history of fundraising for the Detroit Jewish Federation and his organizing trips to Israel. (See prior posting.) Now, however, the prosecution furnished a translation of the Israeli indictment against defendant Rasmieh Odeh which indicated that the supermarket targeted in the bombing plot was a SuperSol. In United States v. Odeh, (ED MI, Aug. 12, 2014), Judge Borman wrote:

[A]t the time of the 1969 bombing, my family had a passive financial investment connection to SuperSol.... The Court concludes that my family’s passive financial investment connection to SuperSol at the time of the 1969 bombing could be perceived as establishing a reasonably objective inference of a lack of impartiality in the context of the issues presented in this case.

I recuse today, not because of my charitable giving or my work on behalf of the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit or other charities, which I concluded in my previous Order created neither the reasonable appearance nor the fact of impartiality. My decision to recuse today is based upon facts which became known to me yesterday in review of a relevant document not previously seen by the Court....

The Chicago Sun-Times reports on the decision.

USCIRF Issues Report On Sectarian Violence In Pakistan

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom yesterday issued a Factsheet titled Violence Towards Religious Communities In Pakistan. It reports that  from July 2013 to June 2014 there were 122 incidents of sectarian violence resulting in 430 deaths and another 773 injuries.  The most common kind of violence was targeted shooting. The largest number of attacks were against Shi'a Muslims, with 222 deaths. The second largest number were against Christians, with 128 deaths. The report includes details of each violent incident.

Vatican Calls On Muslims and Others To Condemn ISIS

Vatican Radio reports that the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue yesterday issued a statement strongly condemning the atrocities comitted in Iraq by ISIS. The full text of the statement is included in the Vatican Radio report. It reads in part:

The whole world has witnessed with incredulity what is now called the "Restoration of the Caliphate," which had been abolished on October 29,1923 by Kamal Ataturk, founder of modern Turkey. Opposition to this "restoration" by the majority of religious institutions and Muslim politicians has not prevented the "Islamic State" jihadists from committing and continuing to commit unspeakable criminal acts....

The dramatic plight of Christians, Yezidis and other religious communities and ethnic minorities in Iraq requires a clear and courageous stance on the part of religious leaders, especially Muslims, as well as those engaged in interreligious dialogue and all people of good will. All must be unanimous in condemning unequivocally these crimes and in denouncing the use of religion to justify them. If not, what credibility will religions, their followers and their leaders have? 

Israel's Law of Return Extended To Same-Sex Non-Jewish Spouses

Since 1970, Israel's Law of Return which grants every Jew in the world the right to settle in Israel has also permitted the non-Jewish spouse of a Jew to settle in the country. The Jerusalem Post reports that yesterday Israel's Interior Minister Gidon Saar instructed the Population and Immigration Authority and the Jewish Agency to grant immigration visas and Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return to non-Jewish same-sex spouses on the same basis as to heterosexual couples. Haredi (ultra-Orthodox Jewish) groups in Israel and the United States strongly criticized the Interior Minister's decision.