Prayer At School Board Meetings Governed By School Prayer Criteria

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education, (CD CA, Feb. 18, 2016), a California federal district court, in a 26-page opinion, held that invocations at school board meetings are governed by case law relating to school prayer, not by the line of cases on legislative prayer. Emphasizing that students regularly attend and make presentations at school board meetings, the court found the invocation policy unconstitutional, saying in part:

Because of the distinct risk of coercing students to participate in, or at least acquiesce to, religious exercises in the public school context, the Court finds the legislative exception does not apply to the policy and practice of prayer in Chino Valley School Board meetings.

The court also invalidated the Board’s practice of praying reading from the Bible and making religious statements at various points in school board meetings. (Court's order).  FFRF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Court Rejects Free Exercise Defense To Federal Cockfighting Conviction

In United States v. Olney, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19947 (ED WA, Feb. 18, 2016), a Washington federal district court, after a bench trial, convicted Shane Scott Olney of sponsoring an Unlawful Animal Fighting Venture in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2156(a)(1). The court rejected defendant's claim

that as a baptized Catholic, and an enrolled member of the Yakama Nation, he "has a sincerely held religious belief that the Holy Scriptures quoted in Genesis 1:26-28 ... entitles him to rule over his fighting roosters, to breed them, exhibit them, train them, and to present them for gamecock fighting."....

The court explained:

Aside from the fact that the conduct Defendant claims to be protected is not the conduct for which he was tried and convicted, the Court finds the federal statute at issue does not unconstitutionally encroach upon his First Amendment rights....

The Court finds that the statute at issue is a neutral law of general applicability and thus, it is reviewed for a rational basis.... Here, the statute is related to prevention of cruelty to animals and thus, survives rational basis review.

Former Employee's Fraud Claim Against Diocese Dismissed

In Simon v. Finn, (MO Cir. Ct., Feb. 16, 2016), a Missouri state trial court dismissed a fraud claim against the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City- St. Joseph brought by Colleen Simon, formerly the director for social ministries of a local parish.  Simon was dismissed after a newspaper article disclosed that she was in a same-sex marriage.  While Simon claimed that she was falsely assured by the Diocese that her same-sex marriage would not impact her employment, the court said:

For the Court to inquire into the knowing falsity of the Diocesan agents’ ... representations to Plaintiff about her sexual orientation relative to her position in the Diocese would impermissibly entangle the Court in matters and decisions purely canonical, since the Court must necessarily examine the religious views and practices of the Diocese in an attempt to perceive the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s reliance on the Diocese’s representations.

However the court permitted Simon to move ahead with her claim that the Diocese violated Missouri law requiring it to furnish any former employee requesting it a letter describing his or her service. It also permitted Simon to move ahead with her wage and hour claim. ADF issued a press release announcing the court's decision.

UPDATE: Catholic Culture reported Feb. 23 that the Diocese and Simon have entered an undisclosed settlement of the wage and hour and the severance letter claims.

11th Circuit Upholds Contraceptive Mandate Accommodation, But Delays Enforcement Pending SCOTUS Decision

Yesterday in a consolidated appeal of cases coming from Alabama and Georgia, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision upheld the Obama Administration's accommodation for religious non-profits that object to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate.  In Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v. Burwell, (11th Cir., Feb. 18, 2016), the majority, in an 86-page opinion by Judge Pryor, held that the accommodation does not violate the protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because it does not substantially burden the religious exercise of non-profits.  Alternatively the majority concluded that the government has met RFRA's compelling interest and least restrictive means tests. Judge Pryor, in a n 86-page majority opinion, said in part:

We recognize that the plaintiffs sincerely abhor and object to the subsequent acts taken by the government and their TPA [third party administrator], which ultimately result in the TPA providing contraceptive coverage to their plan participants and beneficiaries. We acknowledge that they “may not accept [the] distinction” that we draw here between their conduct and the downstream, separate conduct of HHS and the TPAs to provide coverage.... But we simply cannot say that RFRA affords the plaintiffs the right to prevent women from obtaining contraceptive coverage to which federal law entitles them based on the de minimis burden that the plaintiffs face in notifying the government that they have a religious objection. 

Judge Anderson filed a 3-page concurring opinion focusing on the "less restrictive means" issue.

Judge Tjoflat, in a 55-page dissent, said in part:

If the substantial-burden test were as the majority believes it to be, federal judges would have to decide whether the burden itself substantially violated the adherent’s beliefs. That is, the majority would necessarily shift the gaze of its “objective inquiry” to the merits of religious belief. In this Bizarro World, it would be secular courts making ex cathedra pronouncements on whether Muslims are truly put out by requirements to shave their beards...., whether Seventh-day Adventists are sufficiently deterred from accepting employment by requirements to work on Saturdays..., whether Santeria priests could just make do without ritual sacrifice or Ache-infused beads and shells..., and whether the sacramental use of peyote is really that big of a deal to members of the Native American Church.... But, of course, the Constitution does not vest in the judiciary the authority to declare winners and losers in matters of faith.

Despite the majority's views on the merits, it stayed enforcement of the accommodation against plaintiffs pending the Supreme Court's decision later this term on the identical issue in Zubik v. Burwell.  Daily Report has more on the decision.

Canadian Clergy Sex Abuse Class Action Settled For $30 Milliion

The National Post reports that a court in Quebec has approved a $30 million settlement-- the largest in a clergy sex abuse case in Quebec history.  The case-- a class action brought in 2012-- alleged that at least 60 deaf students at the Catholic Church-run Montreal Institute for the Deaf (a boy's boarding school) were abused between 1940 and 1982. The suit named 28 members of the Clercs de St. Viateur du Canada and 6 lay people working at the school as offenders.

Texas Lt. Gov. Seeks To Dispute Judicial Conduct Commission On Chaplaincy Program

In a press release yesterday, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick announced that he has requested a formal opinion from state attorney general Ken Paxton on the constitutionality of a volunteer Justice Court Chaplaincy Program created by Montgomery County Justice of the Peace Wayne Mack.  (Full text of request for AG Opinion and Brief in Support.)  Mack, who is also the County Coroner, created the chaplaincy program to help grieving family, friends and witnesses at death scenes to which the coroner is called.  To recognize these volunteer chaplains, Mack also invites them to give a brief prayer to open his justice of the peace court proceedings.  A complaint was filed against Mack with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Complaint was eventually dismissed, but the Commission urged Mack to end the chaplaincy program and to modify the opening prayer ceremony. Patrick hopes that an Attorney General's Opinion will clarify that the programs are constitutionally permissible.

South Dakota Legislature Passes Bill On Transgenders In School Restrooms; 3 Other LGBT Bills Pending

This week the South Dakota legislature passed and sent to  Gov. Dennis Daugaard HB 1008 (full text) that provides:

Every restroom, locker room, and shower room located in a public elementary or secondary school that is designated for student use and is accessible by multiple students at the same time shall be designated for and used only by students of the same biological sex. In addition, any public school student participating in a school sponsored activity off school premises which includes being in a state of undress in the presence of other students shall use those rooms designated for and used only by students of the same biological sex.

"Biological sex" is defined as "the physical condition of being male or female as determined by a person's chromosomes and anatomy as identified at birth."  The bill goes on to provide that transgender students are to be provided with reasonable accommodation, which "may include a single-occupancy restroom, a unisex restroom, or the controlled use of a restroom, locker room, or shower room that is designated for use by faculty."

According to the Christian Science Monitor, the governor has not yet decided whether to sign the bill. The Argus Leader reports that the governor will meet both with transgender students and with the bill's sponsors before making a decision.

Human Rights Campaign says that two other anti-LGBT bills have been passed by the full House of Representatives, and another anti-transgender bill has passed through committee. HB 1112 passed by the House voids the current transgender policies of interscholastic activities associations and requires that their future policies determine sex by a student's chromosomes and the sex recorded on the student's birth certificate.

HB 1107 passed by the House bars the state from taking any action against a person because that person acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious or moral belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, that sexual relations should be reserved to marriage, or that the terms male and female refer to distinct and immutable biological sexes determined by anatomy and genetics by the time of birth.

Finally, HB 1209 which has recently cleared a House Committee provides:

Any public body ... that accepts any information on a South Dakota birth certificate as official and valid shall accept all information on a South Dakota birth certificate as official and valid in carrying out the public body's legal and official duties.

Army Reservist Sues "Muslim Free" Gun Range

The ACLU of Oklahoma announced yesterday that it, along with the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR, has filed a religious discrimination suit against an Oktaha, Oklahoma gun range that advertises itself as a "Muslim Free Establishment."  The complaint (full text) in Fatihah v. Neal, (ED OK, filed 2/17/2016), contends that plaintiff, a member of the U.S. Army reserves, was denied access to the gun range because of his Muslim faith. News 9 reports on the lawsuit.

EEOC Releases Data On Complaints Received

The EEOC last week released its Fiscal Year 2015 Enforcement and Litigation Data. In fiscal 2015, the agency received 89,385 charges of workplace discrimination.  Of those, only 3,502 (3.9%) charged religious discrimination.  A further breakdown of the data shows that the EEOC found no reasonable cause in 68% of the cases of alleged religious discrimination.

Muslim Technician Sues Charging Employment Discrimination

CAIR-Michigan this week announced the filing of a religious discrimination lawsuit in federal district court against an Indiana-based healthcare technology management organization (with an office in Troy, Michigan) on behalf of an American Muslim Egyptian biomedical technician. The complaint (full text) in Hassane v. Trimedx, (ED MI, filed 2/15/2016) says that plaintiff was hired as a technician in a program that included extensive training. However, after he requested the use of two-weeks earned vacation time to travel to Egypt to celebrate Eid-al-Fitr with his family, he was removed from the training program, placed on probation and denied a promotion and salary increase that all others received. Detroit News reports on the lawsuit.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Upholds Voucher Plan Over Blaine Amendment Objections

In Oliver v. Hofmeister, (OK Sup. Ct., Feb. 16, 2016), the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state's voucher program that permits children with disabilities to attend any private school of their choice to obtain special education services, whether the school is sectarian or non-sectarian.  The Court held that the program does not violate the "no aid" clause of Oklahoma's Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 5 (Oklahoma's Blaine Amendment), saying in part:

Because the parent receives and directs the funds to the private school, sectarian or non-sectarian, we are satisfied that the State is not actively involved in the adoption of sectarian principles or directing monetary support to a sectarian institution through this scholarship. When the scholarship payment is directed to a sectarian private school it is at the sole and independent choice and direction of the parent and not the State. The scholarship funded through the Act has no bearing on state control of churches. We are convinced that the scholarships funded by the Act have no adverse impact on the ability of churches to act independently of state control and to operate separately from the state.

Tulsa World, reporting on the decision, says that in 2014-15, 61% of the the $2.5 million total vouchers went to religious schools.

RFRA Excuses Amish Defendant From Being Photographed During Pre-Release Processing

In United States v. Girod, (ED KY, Dec. 30, 2015), a Kentucky federal magistrate judge, accepting a federal RFRA claim, allowed an Amish criminal defendant to be processed for pre-trial release without his being required to pose for identification photographs by the U.S. Marshals Service.  Samuel Girod, charged with selling misbranded drugs in violation of federal law and with obstruction of justice, objected on religious grounds to knowing participation in photography.  Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the district court said in part:

[RFRA] requires that the Court not evaluate the general legitimacy of a stated governmental interest; rather, the Court must judge whether, as to Samuel Girod, the United States has proven a compelling interest servable only by the manner of USMS photography sought.

The court concluded that neither the interest in identifying a defendant if he were to flee nor the interest in pre-rial supervision were compelling as to this particular defendant because of his history of appearing when summoned and his ties to the community.  It added:

If this case centered on rational basis review, the Court likely would require that Girod submit to the Marshals’ processing like everyone else encountering a neutral, generally applied law or policy. Congress elected to revivify a more searching inquiry when a conflict exists between authentic religious exercise and governmental act. To prevent an exemption, the United States must prove, as to the potentially exempt objector, a compelling interest furtherable only by the offending means. The Government has failed in that burden in this particular case, at this particular stage...

Justice Scalia's Opinions on Religion Clauses and Religious Issues (Updated)

The media continue to be filled with tributes to Justice Antonin Scalia who died suddenly over the week end. (See prior posting).  Religion News Service and NPR review Justice Scalia's views on religion, the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment and on social issues that have become religious flash points.

Here are links to cases involving issues of religion, religious exercise or religious speech in which Scalia wrote opinions (either majority, concurring or dissenting):

• Edwards v. Aguillard, (1987) (dissenting opinion)
• Employment Division v. Smith, (1990) (majority opinion)
• Lee v. Weisman, (1992) (dissenting opinion)
• Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, (1993) (concurring opinion)
• Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, (1993) (concurring opinion)
• Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, (1994) (dissenting opinion).
• Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette, (1995) (opinion of the court)
• City of Boerne v. Flores, (1997) (concurring opinion)
• Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, (2002) (concurring opinion)
• Locke v. Davey, (2004) (dissenting opinion)
• Van Orden v. Perry, (2005) (concurring opinion)
• McCreary County v. ACLU, (2005) (dissenting opinion)
• Elmbrook School District v. Doe, (2014) (dissent to denial of cert.)
• EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., (2015) (majority opinion)

Here are opinions he wrote on issues of abortion, homosexuality and same-sex marriage:

• Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, (1989) (concurring in part)
• Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, (1990) (concurring opinion)
• Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, (1992) (concurring and dissenting)
• Shenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, (1997) (concurring and dissenting)
• Stenberg v. Carhart, (2000) (dissenting opinion)
• Lawrence v. Texas, (2003) (dissenting opinion)
• Obergefell v. Hodges, (2015) (dissenting opinion)

These lists are almost certainly incomplete.  I invite readers to continue to send along citations to others that should be added.

Zoning For "Houses of Worship" Does Not Include Homeless Services Site

The Albany Times-Union reports that a New York state trial court judge last week overruled the Albany Board of Zoning Appeals decision that would have allowed the non-profit group Family Promise of the Capital Region to use a building in an area zoned to include "houses of worship" to provide services to homeless families.  The site-- a parsonage of the Bethany Reformed Church-- was used to provide daytime child care, access to computers, career and life counseling and a place to pick up mail and make phone calls.  The Board of Zoning Appeals held that the outreach services were part of Bethany's religious mission.  However the court disagreed, saying that a "house of worship" is a place set aside for for some form of religious devotion, ritual or service showing reverence. Critics of the court's decision say the ruling could create problems for all sorts of congregations that make their basements and meeting rooms available for social programs they deem part of their missions.  Family Promise can still apply for a zoning variance to allow it to continue its operations.

Jehovah's Witnesses In Puerto Rico Win Access To Additional Gated Communities To Proselytize

In 2013, a Puerto Rico federal district court, in a case on remand from the 1st Circuit, ordered neighborhood homeowners' associations (urbanizations) that operate gated communities to provide Jehovah's Witnesses who wish to proselytize in the neighborhood access equal to that of residents. (See prior posting.) There has been a good deal of resistance by urbanizations to complying with the orders, particularly because of concern about crime.

Earlier this month another lawsuit was filed by Jehovah's Witnesses against gated communities in 38 municipalities, a majority of the remaining municipalities not named as defendants in the earlier suit.  In Watchtower Bible Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Municipality of Aguada, (D PR, Feb. 10, 2016), a Puerto Rico federal district court issued an elaborate temporary restraining order designed to facilitate maximal compliance with the right of Jehovah's Witnesses to obtain access to gated communities, particularly in light of the March 23 Memorial of the Death of Jesus Holiday.  The court ordered that urbanizations in all 38 municipalities must be open for Jehovah's Witnesses to proselytize on Saturday, February 27, 2016 from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Then by March 15, all the municipalities must either notify plaintiffs that they agree to the same kind of open arrangements that were ordered in the earlier case, or else notify the court that they are defending against the lawsuit.  Municipalities that agree to go along with the earlier arrangements will be given time to confer with plaintiffs on implementing an action plan, and will avoid assessment of attorneys' fees.  Others will move to litigation.

Abortion Restrictions In Latin America Remain Despite Zika Virus Spread

With the Zika virus spreading fast in a number of Latin American countries and the disease's link to microcephaly in newborns, the debate over loosening abortion restrictions is increasing. Reuters reported last week that in Brazil-- which has one of the most restrictive abortion laws-- change is unlikely:

Vandson Holanda, head of health for the Catholic Church in Brazil’s northeast, said there was no chance the Church would shift its position on abortion because of Zika.

Suspected cases of microcephaly have topped more than 4,000 – with more than 400 of those confirmed so far – since Zika was first detected in April....

Women’s rights groups in Brazil ... plan to appeal to the Supreme Court to relax Brazil’s abortion laws. They hope to build on a successful case in 2012 that legalized abortion for anencephaly, where the fetus develops without a major part of its brain and skull.

Given the difficulty of identifying microcephaly before the final weeks of pregnancy, Sinara Gumieri, a legal advisor to Anis, said the group would petition the court to legalize abortion for women diagnosed with Zika whose child was at risk of the condition, even if it is not diagnosed in the fetus. She admitted it would be difficult.

The doctors who led the anencephaly campaign in 2012 do not expect its success to be repeated.

The New York Times last week had more on the Catholic Church's unchanged position.  Meanwhile, the Huffington Post reported that the U.S. Agency for International Development has recommended that the U.S. offer contraceptive and family planning assistance to Latin America.  U.S. law prohibits foreign aid funds being used to pay or advocate for abortion.  At a Feb. 10 House subcommittee hearing on the global Zika epidemic (video of hearing), subcommittee chairman Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) said that the push in Latin American countries for greater access to abortion "is heartbreaking, especially since there are different degrees of microcephaly."

Parents Can Move Ahead With Claims Their Daughters Were Lured Into Religious Cult At School

In Doe v. Mastoloni, (D CT, Feb. 12, 2016), a Connecticut federal district court ruled that parents whose three high-school age daughters were allegedly indoctrinated into a religious cult by three Spanish teachers and a counselor at their high school can file an amended complaint to pursue a number of claims.
The court held that plaintiffs had alleged enough to move ahead with claims that the school violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses and the equal protection clause, that they interfered with parental rights to raise children in the religion of their choice, and with familial associational rights. It also allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with claims against the Board of Education alleging Monell liability. The court dismissed various other claims. (See prior related posting.)

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Adriaan Lanni & Victor Bers, Disqualified Olympians: The Skeptical Greek View of Divine Judges, (Mermerlstein & Holtz, eds., The Divine Courtroom in Comparative Perspective (Brill 2014)).
• Michael A. Helfand, Identifying Substantial Burdens, (University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2016).
• Louis-Léon Christians, Ideologically Oriented Enterprises Faced with the Reconfiguration of Ethics and Spiritual Management, (BYU Law Review, Volume 2014, Issue 3, August 2015).
• Rene Provost, Centaur Jurisprudence: Culture Before the Law, (René Provost ed., Culture in the Domains of Law (Cambridge University Press), Forthcoming).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Amnon Lehavi, Residential Communities in a Heterogeneous Society: The Case of Israel, (in: Private Communities and Urban Governance: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives, A. Lehavi (Ed.), New York: Springer (2016, Forthcoming)).
• Khaled A. Beydoun, Beyond the Paris Attacks: Unveiling the War within French Counterterror Policy, (American University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Maria Elizabeth Marais & Loot J. Pretorius, A Contextual Analysis of the Hate Speech Provisions of the Equality Act, (Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2015).

From SSRN (Same-Sex Marriage):

• Robin Fretwell Wilson, Bargaining for Civil Rights: Lessons from Mrs. Murphy for Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Rights, (Boston University Law Review, Vol. 95, No. 3, 2015).
• Robin Fretwell Wilson, Bargaining for Religious Accommodations: Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Rights After Hobby Lobby, (The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty (Micah Schwartzman, Chad Flanders, Zoë Robinson, eds., Oxford University Press, 2016)).
• Stephen Matthew Feldman, (Same) Sex, Lies, and Democracy: Tradition, Religion, and Substantive Due Process (With an Emphasis on Obergefell v. Hodges), (24 William & Mary Bill of Rights 341 (2015)).
• Yuvraj Joshi, The Respectable Dignity of Obergefell v. Hodges, (California Law Review Circuit, Vol. 6, 2015).

Defamation Suit Stemming From Ground Zero Mosque Plans Dismissed

Forras v. Rauf, (DC Cir., Feb. 12, 2016), is another installment in the battle that began in 2010 over plans to build the so-called "Ground-Zero Mosque" near the site of the 2001 World Trade Center Attacks.  When the plans were announced, former firefighter Vincent Forras filed suit attempting to stop the project, contending it was a public nuisance and asserting claims for infliction of emotional distress and assault. (See prior posting.) In seeking dismissal of the case, defendant Imam Rauf's attorney submitted an affidavit contending that the lawsuit was motivated by "blind bigotry."  Forras' suit was dismissed, but he and his attorney Larry Klayman then sued Rauf and Bailey in federal district court in the District of Columbia for defamation. In this opinion, the D.C. Circuit held that the defamation suit should be dismissed because there is no personal jurisdiction in D.C. over defendants under D.C.'s long-arm statute.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Gupton v. Wright, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14730 (WD VA, Feb. 6, 2016), a Virginia federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that authorities denied publications and holiday packages to Asatru inmates.

In Sands v. Smith, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15200 (ED CA, Feb. 5, 2016, a California federal magistrate judge allowed a Jewish inmate to move ahead with his free exercise and retaliation complaints regarding failure to provide kosher food and Jewish religious services on many occasions.

In Edwards v. Rubenstein, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15236 (ND WV, Feb. 9, 2016), a West Virginia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15237, Jan. 20, 2016) and dismissed complaints of a Muslim inmate about treatment of Muslims less favorably than Christians, and about a now-modified ban on growing beards.

In Irvin v. Yates, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15272 (ED CA, Feb. 8, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that a Muslim inmate be permitted to move ahead with his complaints about a new halal religious diet program, access to chapel and denial of packages containing religious items.

In Amos v. Karol, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15354 (ED MO, Feb. 9, 2016), a Missouri federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was not provided halal meals, was not allowed to possess a prayer rug or hardback Qu'ran, and was not given access to an Imam.

In McDaniels v. Stewart, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15843 (WD WA, Feb. 8, 2016), a Washington federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend a suit by a Muslim inmate against of 40 defendants seeking compensatory damages and over $27 million in punitive damages alleging inadequacy of the halal diet and his inability to go back on it after switching to a vegan diet.

In Rodriguez v. Hubbard, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16432 (ED CA, Feb. 9, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing without prejudice for failure to exhaust internal remedies the complaints by a Native American inmate regarding lack of religious services, confiscation of his sacred pipe, sweat lodge access, ceremonial tobacco use, and lack of access to a Native American spiritual advisor, as well as retaliation and lack of protection claims.

In Casey v. Stephens, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16976 (SD TX, Feb. 9, 2016), a Texas federal district court dismissed a suit by a Native American inmate seeking the right to grow his hair long or wear a kouplock; wear a medicine bag; and keep and smoke a personal prayer pipe.

In Chaparro v. Ducart, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17780 (ND CA, Feb. 8, 2016), a California federal district court dismissed a suit by a Jehovah's Witness inmate complaining about the prison's former policy of denying an inmate the right to attend religious services for a month if the inmate missed without a valid reason a service he was scheduled to attend.