Navy May Remove Christian Chaplain For Inapproriate Counseling On Sexuality

Military Times reported Wednesday on the Navy's threat to remove Pentecostal chaplain Lt. Cmdr. Wesley Modder from the service because of inappropriate counseling he offered to sailors on issues of sexuality. After a number of sailors filed equal opportunity complaints against Modder, on Feb. 17 he was issued a "detachment for cause" letter.  His commanders charge that Modder is intolerant and unable to function in a diverse and pluralistic environment. Assigned to the Nuclear Power Training Command in South Carolina, Modder had criticized female sailors for pre-marital sex and told students that homosexuality is wrong. When told of complaints against him, Modder responded that he will not follow Navy policy that conflicts with his religious beliefs. Modder has been temporarily reassigned, while it is determined whether a board of inquiry to officially separate him from the Navy will be convened.  He has less than a year to serve in order to qualify for 20-year retirement benefits.

Philadelphia Transit System Must Accept Anti-Muslim Ad

In American Freedom Defense Initiative ("AFDI") v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, (ED PA, March 11, 2015), a Pennsylvania federal district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring Philadelphia's transit system to accept a controversial anti-Muslim ad on its buses.  AFDI sought to purchase space for an ad that reads in part: "Islamic Jew-Hatred: It’s in the Quran." The ad pictures Adolph Hitler meeting with an Arab leader.  SEPTA had rejected the ad under its policy to prohibit: "Advertising that tends to disparage or ridicule any person or group of persons on the basis of race, religious belief, age, sex, alienage, national origin, sickness or disability." The court held, however, that this is an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech in a designated public forum. It added:

[I]t is clear that the anti-disparagement standard promulgated by SEPTA was a principled attempt to limit hurtful, disparaging advertisements. While certainly laudable, such aspirations do not, unfortunately, cure First Amendment violations.

AP reports on the decision.

9th Circuit: Anti-Injunction Act Bars Suit Seeking New IRS Procedures For Religious Objectors

In Boardman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, (9th Cir., March 12, 2015), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Anti-Injunction Act requires dismissal of a suit seeking to prevent the Intenal Revenue Service from using expedited procedures to resolve frivolous assertions of religious objections to paying income taxes.  Plaintiff had asked for an injunction ordering the IRS to adopt "procedures for processing disputes, claims, collections and litigation adverse to taxpayers who refuse to pay taxes because of conscience or religion that are respectful, efficient, transparent and minimally burdensome and that lead to Tax Court determinations upon taxpayer request."

Britain's Equality Commission Reports On Religion In the Workplace and Service Delivery

Yesterday Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission released a report on its Consultation launched last year seeking evidence on religious discrimination and accommodation in Britain. The 218-page report, titled Religion or Belief in the Workplace and Service Delivery, reports on information received from nearly 2500 individuals and organizations. Here is an excerpt from the Commission's summary of key findings:

Some employees or service users stated that they had experienced no or few negative issues in their workplace or in receiving a service which they attributed to the view of employers or service providers that religion or belief was a private matter and should not be discussed in the workplace or the service.

Some employees and students stated that they had encountered hostile and unwelcoming environments.... The issues raised concerned the recruitment process, working conditions, including the wearing of religious clothing or symbols, promotion and progression, and time off work for religious holidays and holy days. Some reported that particular beliefs were mocked or dismissed in the workplace or classroom, or criticised unwelcome 'preaching' or proselytising, or the expression of hurtful or derogatory remarks aimed at particular groups....

Many participants were concerned about the right balance between the freedom to express religious views and the right of others to be free from discrimination or harassment. Specific issues raised included conscientious objection in relation to marriage of same sex couples and how to protect employees from harassment and discrimination by staff, customers or service users with a religion. There was a marked divergence of opinion about when it was desirable and appropriate to discuss religious beliefs with service users during the delivery of a service.

The Commission's press release on the report emphasized some of the concerns expressed by respondents. The report is discussed further at Law & Religion UK blog.

NLRB Asserts Jurisdiction Over Faculty Election At Jesuit College

In Seattle University v. Service Employees International Union, (NLRB Reg. Dir., March 3, 2015), an NLRB Regional Director Supplemental Decision, the Regional Director applied the NLRB's new standard  for religious colleges to hold that the NLRB has jurisdiction over a faculty union election at Seattle University. The Director held that while the University holds itself out as a Jesuit Catholic institution, it does not hold faculty members out as performing a religious function.

First Lady Hosts Nowruz Reception

Yesterday, First Lady Michelle Obama hosted a reception in the East Room of the White House to mark Nowruz.  The holiday, with roots in Zoroastrianism, celebrates the start of the new year in the Persian calendar. In her remarks (full text), Mrs. Obama said in part:

I think it’s so fitting that we’re holding this celebration here today because one of my favorite things about the White House is how it is truly the People’s House –- a house that reflects the diversity of culture and traditions that make us who we are as a country.  And Nowruz is one of those traditions.

For more than 3,000 years, families and communities in the Middle East, Asia, and all around the world, including here in the United States, have celebrated this holiday to mark the renewal of the earth in springtime....

The GW Hatchet reports in more detail on the reception.

Alabama Supreme Court Subjects Remaining Probate Judge To Its Order Banning Issuance of Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

On Tuesday the Alabama Supreme Court followed up its March 3 decision that ordered all Probate Court judges around the state to discontinue the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (See prior posting.)  In that earlier decision, Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis asked to be excluded as a respondent on the ground that he was subject to a conflicting federal court order in Strawser v. Strange. (See prior posting.)  In Ex parte State of Alabama ex. rel. Alabama Policy Institute, (AL Sup. Ct., March 10, 2015), in a 6-1 decision, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that Davis is not subject to a conflicting order because the federal court had only granted injunctive relief requiring him to issue marriage licenses to the four couples who were plaintiffs in the Strawser case. Those license have now already been issued. The Supreme Court thus added Davis as a respondent who is bound by its March 3 order. AL.com reports on the decision.

Fired Employee Claims HIs Religious Objections To Direct Pay Deposit Should Have Been Accommodated

According to Northwest Ohio Media Group, an employment discrimination lawsuit was filed last week in an Ohio federal district court by a man who has a history of filing religious discrimination lawsuits against large companies.  Plaintiff Lee Yeager says that his Christian fundamentalist beliefs prohibit him from having a bank account because he believes banks engage in Biblically prohibited usury. Yeager was terminated from the internship program at FirstEnergy Generation Corp. after he refused to agree to have his pay directly deposited into a bank account.  The complaint (full text) in Yeager v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp., (ND OH, filed 3/3/2015) contends that the company could have reasonably accommodated plaintiff's religious beliefs without undue hardship. In January the Ohio Civil Rights Commission ruled in Yeager's favor on the direct deposit claim, but the company is appealing the ruling.

Suit Charges Religious Discirmination In Cancellation of Hasidic Jews' Voter Registration

A class action lawsuit was filed yesterday in a New York federal district court by a group of Hasidic Jews against the Sullivan County Board of Elections that oversees voting in the small Village of Bloomingburg, New York.  According to Newsweek, in January the Board of Elections sent notices to 184 of the Village's 285 registered voters to show cause why the Board should not cancel their voter registrations. More than 160 of the voters receiving the notices are Hasidim.  Last month the Board announced that it would move ahead to cancel registrations of 156 of these voters-- comprising virtually every Hasidic Jewish resident of the Village.  The suit alleges that the voters were singled out only because of their religion.  A lawsuit filed last year charges the Village more generally with acting together with a neighboring town to keep more Hasidic Jews from moving into the area. (See prior posting.)

Failed Messiah blog says that the Village has good cause to cancel the voter registrations:

The suit is backed by Shalom Lamm, the Modern Orthodox developer [of a Bloomingburg housing project] who ... deceived (and, some say, bribed) his way past naive locals to get the original go-aheads for the project, which was always meant to be a 396-unit high density Satmar hasidic village but camouflaged as a low density 125-home golf course vacation and retirement community....

The hasidim who were disqualified from voting almost all claimed one of Lamm's private homes in the village as their residence, with more than a dozen adults showing the same single family home as their "official" residence. The property, however, showed no sign of regular habitation....

Challenge To Oklahoma 10 Commandments Monument Dismissed On Standing Grounds

An Oklahoma federal district court yesterday dismissed an Establishment Clause challenge to the Ten Commandments Monument located on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol.  In American Atheists, Inc. v. Thompson, (WD OK, March 10, 2015), the court held that the individual plaintiff in the case lacks standing because she saw the Monument only once before filing suit, and then only because she went looking for it -- apparently in order to create standing to sue. The standing of American Atheists, Inc. depends on the standing of the individual plaintiff who was a member. Reacting to the decision, Oklahoma state Attorney General Scott Pruitt said: "The historical relevance of the Ten Commandments and the role it played in the founding of our nation cannot be disputed. I commend Judge Cauthron’s decision to rule in the state’s favor." AP reports on the decision.

Sheriff Tells Registered Sex Offenders To Attend Church At County Jail

In Graham County, North Carolina, the sheriff last month sent a letter (full text) to the 20 registered sex offenders in his county telling them that a North Carolina law barring offenders from being within 300 feet of premises where minors are supervised means that they may not attend church. The letter continues:

This is an effort to protect the citizens and children of the community.... That is why I am letting you know that if you want to go to a church service you are welcome to come to the Graham Co. Jail on Sunday's to attend church services.

Reporting yesterday, WCNC News  says that Sheriff Danny Millsaps now concedes that his wording may not have been totally correct, but he stands by his interpretation of the law.

7th Circuit: Milwaukee Archdiocese Cannot Protect Cemetery Trust Funds In Bankruptcy

In Listecki v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, (7th Cir., March 9, 2015), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that $55 million held by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in a perpetual care trust fund for maintaining Catholic cemeteries is potentially available in bankruptcy to satisfy claims of clergy sex abuse victims.  The district court had held that the Archdiocese's free exercise rights under RFRA and the 1st Amendment would be infringed if the trust funds were made available to claimants. (See prior posting.)  The 7th Circuit held, however, that RFRA does not apply unless the government is a party to the suit, and that a creditors' committee in bankruptcy does not act "under color of law" as a governmental instrumentality.  It rejected the Archdiocese's 1st Amendment free exercise assertion, finding that the Bankruptcy Code's fraudulent transfer provisions are neutral and generally applicable. It further held that the Bankruptcy Code reflects a compelling governmental interest in the protection of creditors. AP reports on reactions to the decision.

Orthodox Jewish School Loses RLUIPA Zoning Challenge

In Joan Dachs Bais Yaakov Elementary School v. City of Evanston, (IL App., March 6, 2015), an Illinois appellate court rejected a RLUIPA challenge brought by an Orthodox Jewish elementary school after Evanston City Council refused zoning modifications that would allow the construction of a school on property in an industrial zone that plaintiff had purchased.  Rejecting the school's reliance on RLUIPA's equal terms provision, the court said:

Unlike its nonreligious comparators, the removal of the ... property from the property tax rolls would deprive Evanston of hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in property tax revenue at a time when approximately 40% of its land is already off the tax rolls. The generation of tax revenues is a legitimate concern of land-use regulation.... and, thus, renders JDBY, which is not subject to property taxes, dissimilar to its nonreligious comparators who are subject to such taxes.

The court also upheld a trial court finding that RLUIPA's nondiscrimination provisions had not been violated.  RLUIPA Defense blog has more on the decision.

8th Circuit Invalidates Missouri House of Worship Protection Act

In Survivors Network of Those Abused By Priests, Inc. v. Joyce,  (8th Cir., March 9, 2015), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Missouri's House of Worship Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment's free speech protections.  The statute, which prohibits "using profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior, or making noise either within the house of worship or so near it as to disturb the order and solemnity of the worship services," was challenged by groups and individuals who picket Catholic Churches over clergy sexual abuse and other issues.  The court concluded that the statute is a content-based restriction on speech and is thus subject to strict scrutiny.  The court added:

The broad sweep of the Worship Protection Act's ban ... can prevent significant messages from being publicly expressed, solely because they are offensive or disagreeable to some. Such risks are heightened near the places regulated by the Act—churches and buildings used for religious purposes. These locations are the most likely places for appellants to find their intended audience, including individuals who have personally been affected or victimized by instances of clerical sexual abuse and church employees with knowledge or information about abusive acts.

Kansas City Star reports on the decision.

Supreme Court GVRs Notre Dame's Appeal In Contraceptive Mandate Challenge

As previously reported, in October Notre Dame University filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in its challenge to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate as applied to religious non-profits.  However instead of seeking full review of the 7th Circuit's decision, the petition asked the Court to issue a so-called GVR order. Today the Supreme Court did just that.  In University of Notre Dame v. Burwell, (Docket No. 14-392) (Order List), the Court issued the following order:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U. S. ___ (2014). 

[Thanks to Marty Lederman vial Religionlaw for the lead.]

Israel's Rabbinate Loosens Religious Constraints On Hotels

In Israel, the chief rabbinate, under pressure from the organization Hiddush that promotes freedom of religion, has lifted a number of non-food related requirements that were in the past imposed on hotels in order for them to have their food and restaurants certified as kosher.  Haaretz reports that the Chief Rabbinate announced last Thursday that it has suspended former requirements that prohibited hotels from displaying Christmas trees, that prohibited Jewish employees from accepting money on the Sabbath and barred filming events on hotel premises on the Sabbath.

State RFRA Legislation Tracker Created

As a number of states consider new or amended religious freedom statutes, Don Byrd at the Baptist Joint Committee's Blog From the Capital has created an extremely useful State RFRA Bill Tracker. The Tracker, posted last week, follows both newly proposed RFRA laws as well as proposed amendments to existing ones-- with links to the bills.  It also links to all state RFRA laws that have already been enacted.  The page will follow the progress of the bills and highlight the key language at the core of each proposal.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Zvi H. Triger, 'A Jewish and Democratic State:' Reflections on the Fragility of Israeli Secularism, (41 Pepperdine Law Review 1091 (2014)).
• Luke Beck, The Establishment Clause of the Australian Constitution: Three Propositions and a Case Study, (Adelaide Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2014, pp. 225-250).
• Rebecca Gould, Everyday Violence, Quotidian Grief: Patriarchal Bargains in Georgia’s Pankisi Gorge, (Women Living Under Muslim Laws Dossier 32-33: Sexualities, Culture and Society in Muslim Contexts, ed. Anissa Hélie 123-135).
• Sean McDivitt, Striking the Harmonious Chord for Corporate Social Responsibility and Individuals: Affirming Closely Held Corporations’ Religious Objections to the HHS Mandate, (Oklahoma City University Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2014).
• Paul Andrew Gwaza, Addressing the Boko Haram Insurgency in Nigeria: The Effectiveness or Otherwise for the Application of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Techniques, (March 5, 2015).
• Lindsey H. Emerson, An Artifact or a Memorial: The Latin Cross and the Establishment Clause, (March 5, 2015).
• Caroline Mala Corbin, Exploiting Mixed Speech, (California Law Review Circuit, Vol. 103, 2015, Forthcoming).
• Julia Guenther, Gender and Globalization: Power Relations at India's Margins, (Journal of Developing Societies March 2015 31: 1-7).
• Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter from Seth Barrett Tillman to Ukip in Regard to Ukip's Supporting the British Veterinary Association (“BVA”) and Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (“RSPCA”) in Calling for a Ban on Non-Stun Slaughter, (March 7, 2015).

From SmartCILP:

• Vicenc Feliu, Corporate "Soul": Legal Incorporation of Catholic Ecclesiastical Property in the United States: A Historical Perspective, 40 Ohio Northern University Law Review 441-465 (2014).
• Louis W. Hensler III, Flexible Interpretations of "The Powers That Be" From Constantine to Mandela and Beyond, 27 Regent University Law Review 43-102 (2014-2015).
• The Travels of Law: Indian Ocean Itineraries. Introduction by Renisa Mawani and Iza Hussin; articles by Julia Stephens, Iza Hussin, Fahad Ahmad Bishara, Rohit De and Riyad Sadiq Koya; afterword by Engseng Ho. 32 Law & History Review 733-889 (2014). 

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Spence v. Nelson, (5th Cir., March 5. 2015), the 5th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a Shia Muslim inmate's complaint regarding an alleged unpublished prison mail room policy that prohibited inmates from receiving literature from Iran.  The court concluded that the named plaintiffs were not the policy makers responsible.

In Triplett v. LeBlanc, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24468 (MD LA, March 2, 2015), a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24663, Feb. 5, 2015) and dismissed an inmate's complaint that his free exercise and equal protection rights were infringed when he was reassigned and disciplined for not attending a scheduled church call-out for inmate ministers.

In Addis v. Arizona Department of Corrections, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25519 (D AZ, March 2, 2015), an Arizona federal district court dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's complaint that trash, contraband or notes were sometimes placed in kosher meals.

In Hammer v. Keeling, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25641 (ED VA, March 3, 2015), a Virginia federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint over being temporarily removed from the Common Fare religious diet because he was found concealing a bell pepper in the front of his pants.

In Mitchell v. Cox, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25871 (D NV, March 2, 2015), a Nevada federal district court permitted an inmate who identified as Jewish and Hebrew-Israelite to move ahead with complaints regarding kosher meals, denial of attendance at Sabbath services and restrictions on leaving his cell to observe Passover.

In Sutton v. VanLeeuwen, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26367 (D CO, Feb. 25, 2015), a Colorado federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that his free exercise rights were infringed when he was forced to eat meat.

In Cullen v. Saddler, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27459 (CD IL, March 6, 2015), an Illinois federal district court granted summary judgment to a pro se plaintiff who objected that while in prison he was required to participate in a religious 12-step program in order to be considered for additional good time credit. The court suggested that if further proceedings were necessary to decide whether plaintiff in fact suffered the $350 damages he claimed, that the parties should waive a jury trial.

In Adams v. Woodall, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27719 (MD TN, March 4, 2015), a Tennessee federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing complaints of a Muslim inmate's complaints regarding denial of religious jewelry, denial of access to religious vendors and denial of a religious diet.

In Smith v. United States Congress, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27818 (ED VA, March 6, 2015), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a complaint by a Nation of Islam inmate that Virginia state prison rules prevented him from purchasing CDs of sermons of Minister Farrakhan directly from The Final Call and barred Arabic language CDs.

In Lucas v. Director of Department of Corrections, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27957 (ED CA, March 5, 2015), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies a Muslim inmate's complaint that he has not received a religious diet.  The court held that an amended complaint filed after administrative remedies are exhausted cannot cure a prematurely filed original complaint.

Applying Holt v. Hobbs To A Complex Case-- The Demands of a Transgender Native American Inmate

A fascinating decision handed down by an Idaho federal district court last week shows the complexity faced by prisons in attempting to applying the U.S. Supreme Court's January RLUIPA decision in Holt v. Hobbs.  In Stover v. Corrections Corporation of America, (D ID, Feb. 27, 2015), the court was faced with demands by a Native American male-to-female transgender prisoner for use of the prison's sweat lodge for religious purposes.  According to the court:

Although Plaintiff receives female hormone therapy and has developed feminine characteristics such as breasts, she is incarcerated in a men’s prison because she remains anatomically male—she has not had sex reassignment surgery.

Defendants conceded that under RLUIPA barring plaintiff from engaging in a sweating ceremony is a substantial burden on the exercise of her Native American religious beliefs. According to the court:

Defendants offer two explanations for their decision to prohibit Plaintiff from using the sweat lodge to practice her religion. First, they argue that prohibiting Plaintiff from using the lodge is necessary to ensure her safety. The Court does not doubt that prohibiting Plaintiff from using the sweat lodge in the company of male inmates is justified by the compelling governmental interest of keeping Plaintiff safe from physical or sexual assault..... [I]nmates are generally not fully clothed in the sweat lodge, and prison staff cannot observe the inside of the lodge. Plaintiff has already been a victim of several sexual assaults in prison. As a transgender prisoner with feminine characteristics such as breasts, Plaintiff would be in serious and immediate danger if she were to sweat with the male inmates in the sweat lodge at the men’s prison in which she is confined. Ensuring a vulnerable prisoner’s safety is obviously a compelling governmental interest.

However the court was not convinced that prison authorities had satisfied the least-restictive-alternative test as interpreted by the Supreme Court. A volunteer chaplain had apparently offered to escort Plaintiff to the sweat lodge when it was not in use by others so she could carry out the ritual.  While that may well seem to be the kind of less restrictive alternative that the Supreme Court required in Holt, here there was another complexity:

[Defendants] argue that the religious beliefs of the other inmates, who use the only sweat lodge... would be violated by allowing Plaintiff to enter the sweat lodge at any time, even by herself.... "[S]ome Native American tribes believe that allowing a two-spirited person (an individual suffering from gender identify disorder or gender dysphoria) to enter a sweat lodge utilized by single-spirited individuals would desecrate the religious sanctity of the lodge." ... 

After careful consideration, the Court concludes that Defendants have not establish[ed] that burdening one individual’s religious practice in an attempt to avoid burdening another’s religious practice is a compelling governmental interest under RLUIPA. .... The Court is persuaded that government officials cannot avoid Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim merely by citing other inmates’ religious concerns, particularly where, as here, the asserted justification is based on mere speculation as to what some other inmates might find religiously objectionable.