Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Williams v. Wilkinson, (10th Cir., April 14, 2016), the 10th Circuit, reversing the district court, held that a Muslim inmate could move ahead with his RLUIPA and 1st Amendment challenges to the denial of his request for a kosher diet, even though a halal diet would have been available to him if he requested it.

In Banks v. United States Marshals Service, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45931 (WD PA, April 4, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46624, Feb. 24, 2016) and dismissed a damage action alleging that a jail chaplain failed to procure Wiccan tools and a Wiccan bible for plaintiff, and that various defendants failed to provide a volunteer wiccan chaplain.

In Johnson v. Gonzalez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46688 (ED CA, April 6, 2016) a California federal magistrate judge dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that religious items including his Qur'an were destroyed when authorities disposed of his excess property in preparation for his move to a segregation unit.

In Dixon v. Allison, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46775 (ED CA, April 6, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend a former inmate's vague claim that his religious rights were infringed when placed in lockdown.

In Locascio v. Longinetti, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46918 (D NJ, April 7, 2016), plaintiff sued after his supervised release was revoked for promoting gang signs, namely wearing a shirt with a design that included a swastika that plaintiff claimed was a religious, not a Nazi, symbol. A New Jersey federal district court permitted plaintiff to move ahead with a suit for an injunction to prevent his religion from being used against him in future parole proceedings. It dismissed his claims for damages and overturning of his parole revocation.

In Vaughn v. Wegman, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47354 (ED CA, April 7, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend a Jewish inmate's complaint that he was not allowed to continue his participation in the Jewish Kosher program and services.

In Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc. v. Thompson, 2016 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 269 (KY App., April 8, 2016), a Kentucky state appeals court upheld a prison rule that inmates use their legal name on official documents.  Plaintiff, a member of the Moorish Science Temple of America, had a grievance rejected by prison authorities because he signed it including his "attribute or tribal name." He claimed refusing to allow him to use this violated his free exercise rights.

In Gordon v. Fisher, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48305 (ND MS, April 11, 2016), a Mississippi federal district court permitted a Jewish inmate to move ahead with his complaint that his requests for Jewish religious material and food were denied.

In Vincent v. Stewart, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48535 (WD WA, April 11, 2016), a Washington federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend a complaint by a Hare Krishna inmate that his religion required his diet to include fresh milk, and the vegan or metabolic diets he was forced to choose between did not satisfy his religious and health needs.

In Talib v. Guerrero, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49891 (CD CA, March 14, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed complaints by four plaintiffs, who were held overnight on a stolen vehicle charge that their religious head dresses and spiritual jewelry were forcibly removed.  The suit involved over a dozen other complaints about his treatment as well.

Parents' Challenge To Ban on "Rod Discipline" of Their Children Rejected

In State of Wisconsin v. Caminiti, (WI App., April 7, 2016), a Wisconsin state appellate court rejected facial constitutional challenges by parents to the statutory ban on intentionally (subject to a "reasonable discipline" defense) causing bodily harm to their children.  Alina and Matthew Caminiti were convicted of regularly using "rod discipline" on their two young children beginning when the children were 2 to 3 months old. Matthew was an "elder" in a Christian church and believed that the Biblical injunction: "He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently" requires him to use a wooden spoon or wooden dowel to spank his children. The court rejected arguments that the intentional physical abuse ban unjustifiably interferes with the substantive due process rights of parents under the 14th Amendment , or with their free exercise rights under the 1st Amendment or their freedom of conscience rights under Wisconsin's constitution.

Texas Supreme Court Dismisses Attempt To Void Early Same-Sex Marriage

As reported by the Austin Statesman, the Texas Supreme Court today unanimously dismissed as moot a petition for mandamus filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton seeking to invalidate a same-sex marriage performed in the state four months before the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Obergefell case creating marriage equality throughout the United States.  However in the Texas case, In re State of Texas, (April 15, 2016), Justice Willett in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Devine (full text) took the lower court to task for ignoring a procedural statute in Texas that requires Texas courts to notify the attorney general of state constitutional challenges and give the state 45 days to weigh in before the case is decided. Justice Brown in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Devine (full text) argued that the trial court procedurally should not have used the device of a temporary restraining order to allow the same-sex marriage to go forward, after which plaintiffs dismissed their lawsuit. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

Trump Noncommittal On Religious Liberty Questions

JTA and The Forward report on a question-and-answer session held yesterday by Donald Trump with two dozen Jewish reporters and Orthodox Jewish activists.  The questions focused on religious liberty and on Israel.  JTA reports:

Here’s Trump’s answer to a question on whether religious employers should have the right to discriminate on the basis of religion when it comes to hiring:

“That’s the question that’s been asked and discussed very brilliantly on many different levels over the last short period of time,” Trump said. “And I’m going to really leave that decision to you. That’s your personal decision. What would your answer be to that question?”

When asked about tax-exempt status for religious groups, Trump said, “It’s really become a very big point of discussion and a very complex point of discussion and it’s something that I’m very interested in and I’m really forming policy on it and I’m actually going to be announcing something that I actually think you’re going to be very happy with. OK?”

Tennessee Governor Vetoes Bill Making Bible The State's Official Book

Yesterday Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam vetoed House Bill 615  that would have made the Holy Bible Tennessee's official book. In his veto message (full text), Haslam cited a state attorney general's opinion finding that the bill was unconstitutional, and added:

In addition to the constitutional issues with the bill, my personal feeling is that this bill trivializes the Bible, which I believe is a sacred text.  If we believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then we shouldn't be recognizing it only as a book of historical and economic significance.  If we are recognizing the Bible as a sacred text, then we are violating the Constitution....

According to The Tennessean,  legislative sponsors plan to seek a veto override which, in Tennessee, only requires a majority vote in both chambers of the legislature. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

ISIS Threatens Two Prominent U.S. Muslims

UPI reports that in the latest issue of Dabiq, ISIS's online English-language magazine, the Islamic terrorist organization calls for the death of two prominent Muslim U.S. political figures-- Huma Abedin (aide to Hillary Clinton) and U.S. Rep. Kieth Ellison.  The threats appear in Issue 14 of the magazine (full text) in an article titled Kill Imams of Kufur in the West (article begins at pg.8; specific threats at pg. 17).  It lists the two along with several others that the article describes as those who "directly involve themselves in politics and enforcing the laws of kufr."

Powers of Saudi Religious Police Are Curbed

Al Jazeera reports that Saudi Arabia's cabinet yesterday voted to strip the country's religious police-- the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice-- of their power to detain or arrest those charged with violations of Islamic religious law.  The new regulations say: "Neither the heads nor members of the Haia are to stop or arrest or chase people or ask for their IDs or follow them - that is considered the jurisdiction of the police or the drug unit." Religious police were told that they should "carry out the duties of encouraging virtue and forbidding vice by advising kindly and gently."

Chinese Court In First Ruling of Its Kind Rejects Same-Sex Marriage

A court in China yesterday ruled that same-sex marriages are not legal.  As reported by the New York Times, this is the first case of its kind adjudicated in China.  In a decision handed down a few hours after the hearing, the court upheld a decision by the civil affairs bureau in Changsha, Hunan Province, to deny Sun Wenlin and Hu Mingliang a marriage license.  The two men plan an appeal.

Suit Challenges District's Definition of Catholic Schools

Wisconsin Watchdog reports that a state court lawsuit was filed last week claiming that Wisconsin's Friess Lake School District infringed the religious freedom of 3 students when it denied them free transportation to St. Augustine School, an independent school that teaches Catholic doctrine. Under Wisconsin law, public school districts are required to provide transportation for students in religious schools who live more than a mile away from the school in their attendance zone.  If there are multiple religious schools in a district, they must create their own non-overlapping zones. Friess Lake School District authorities have ruled that St. Augustine and another Catholic school that is operated by the Archdiocese are both Catholic schools in the district and must have non-overlapping attendance zones before students are entitled to free transportation.  St. Augustine says it is separate and should be able to get transportation for students from anywhere in the Friess Lake District.  It contends that it is improper for public school authorities to determine that a school which says it is independent is instead Catholic. The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty announced the filing of the lawsuit.

Court OK's Distribution of Gospel Tracts At Motorcycle Rally

In McMahon v. City of Panama City Beach, Florida, (ND FL, April 12, 2016), a Florida federal district court issued a preliminary injunction to allow plaintiff to hand out Christian Gospel tracts at the Thunder Beach Motorcycle Rally event held at Frank Brown Park in Panama City Beach. The court concluded that the city cannot rid the park of its "public forum" status by issuing a private party a permit to for exclusive use of the Festival Site in the park for an event, explaining:

If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck..... Thunder Beach, a large gathering of people interested in motorcycles, though organized by a private corporation, is free and open to the public and has no barriers limiting or restricting ingress and egress.... Thunder Beach looks like a public forum, and so is a public forum, and McMahon retains the rights to free speech that he would possess in any public forum. 

Court Says Flying Spaghetti Monster Is Not a "Religion"

In Cavanaugh v. Bartelt, (D NE, April 12, 2016), a Nebraska federal district court became one of the few to undertake a serious analysis of whether "FSMism"-- the doctrine of the Flying Spaghetti Monster whose followers are called "Pastafarians"-- qualifies as a "religion" for purposes of RLUIPA or the 1st Amendment.  In a suit by a prisoner seeking accommodation of his Pastafarian faith, the court (in a 16-page opinion) said:

The Court finds that FSMism is not a "religion" within the meaning of the relevant federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. It is, rather, a parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education. Those are important issues, and FSMism contains a serious argument—but that does not mean that the trappings of the satire used to make that argument are entitled to protection as a "religion."

Later in the opinion, the court explained:

This case is difficult because FSMism, as a parody, is designed to look very much like a religion. Candidly, propositions from existing caselaw are not particularly well-suited for such a situation, because they developed to address more ad hoc creeds, not a comprehensive but plainly satirical doctrine. Nonetheless, it is evident to the Court that FSMism is not a belief system addressing "deep and imponderable" matters: it is, as explained above, a satirical rejoinder to a certain strain of religious argument.....

This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction..... Of course, there are those who contend ... that the Bible or the Koran are just as fictional as those books. It is not always an easy line to draw. But there must be a line beyond which a practice is not "religious" simply because a plaintiff labels it as such. The Court concludes that FSMism is on the far side of that line.

1st Circuit Applies Obergefell To Puerto Rico

In In re Conde-Vidal, (1st Cir., April 7, 2016), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals repudiated the holding by a federal district court in Puerto Rico (see prior posting) that the Supreme Court's Obergefell marriage equality decision does not bind Puerto Rico.  The appeals court said in part:

The district court's ruling errs in so many respects that it is hard to know where to begin....

In ruling that the ban is not unconstitutional because the applicable constitutional right does not apply in Puerto Rico, the district court both misconstrued that right and directly contradicted our mandate. And it compounded its error (and signaled a lack of confidence in its actions), by failing to enter a final judgment to enable an appeal in ordinary course.

Error of this type is not so easily insulated from review. This court may employ mandamus jurisdiction when a district court has misconstrued or otherwise failed to effectuate a mandate issued by this court....

[T]he case is remitted to be assigned randomly by the clerk to a different judge to enter judgment in favor of the Petitioners promptly....

LifeSite News reports on the opinion.

Norway's State Church Approves Same-Sex Marriage

According to Fox News, Norway's state church-- the Evangelical Lutheran Church-- voted on Monday to approve same-sex marriages.  It will adopt procedures to implement the decision at next year's church synod. While 88 of the synod's 115 members voted in favor of the proposal, the resolution also allows objecting clergy to refrain from performing same-sex ceremonies.

Tennessee Legislature Protects Therapists Whose "Principles" Conflict With Client's Behaviors

The Tennessee General Assembly yesterday passed HB 1840/SB 1556 (full text) which provides in part:

No counselor or therapist providing counseling or therapy services shall be required to counsel or serve a client as to goals, outcomes, or behaviors that conflict with the sincerely held principles of the counselor or therapist; provided, that the counselor or therapist coordinates a referral of the client to another counselor or therapist who will provide the counseling or therapy.

The bill insulates counselors and therapists from civil liability and criminal prosecution. It also protects them from license suspension or revocation except when their refusal to treat involves an individual who is in imminent danger of harming himself or others. The bill now goes to Gov. Bill Haslam for his signature.  As reported by the Christian Science Monitor, it is unclear whether Haslam will sign the bill or veto it.  He has 10 days to decide.

An earlier narrower version of the bill protected therapists' sincerely held religious beliefs, but the bill as passed protects any "sincerely held principles." The American Counseling Association, which strongly opposes the bill, says:

HB 1840 is an unprecedented attack on the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics....  If HB 1840 is signed into law, its enactment could also jeopardize federal healthcare funding for Tennessee because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has clearly stated that no state has the authority to deny healthcare to anyone based on religion, race, sexual orientation, or other federally protected populations.

North Carolina Governor Issues Executive Order Emphasizing LGBT Rights Retained After H.B. 2

As previously reported, last month the North Carolina General Assembly passed, and Gov. Pat McCrory signed, House Bill 2 regulating the use by transgender individuals of bathrooms and changing facilities in public schools and government offices.  The new law also pre-empts local employment and public accommodation anti-discrimination laws and prohibits civil actions in state courts based on discrimination complaints filed with the federal EEOC. After, in the language of the New York Times, "withering criticism" since the law was enacted, yesterday Gov. McCrory issued (signing statement) Executive Order No. 93 (full text) going as far as possible within the new law to protect LGBT rights.

The Executive Order emphasizes that House Bill 2 did not pre-empt local laws on housing discrimination, and that it allows state and local governments, as well as private businesses and non-profits, to set non-discrimination policies for their own employees. The Order provides that:

North Carolina is committed to administering and implementing all State human resources policies, practices and programs fairly and equitably, without unlawful discrimination, harassment or retaliation on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, political affiliation, genetic information, or disability.

It also calls on state and local governments and colleges to provide single occupancy restroom accommodations for transgender individuals wherever practicable. It provides that when state property is leased by private entities, those private entities may control restroom and locker room policies. It calls for the state Human Relations Commission to submit an annual report to the governor, and calls on the legislature to restore a state cause of action for wrongful discharge based on unlawful employment discrimination.

Parties Respond To Supreme Court's Proposed Contraceptive Compromise In Zubik Case

As previously reported, last month the U.S. Supreme Court in Zubik v. Burwell issued an unusual order seeking the parties' reactions to a Court drafted compromise on provision of health insurance contraceptive coverage for employees of religious non-profits. Yesterday both the government (full text of Government's brief) and the petitioners (full text of Petitioners' brief) filed briefs with their answers.  Neither side totally bought into the Court's alternative.  At the center of their disagreement is the question of whether employees of objecting religious non-profits will end up automatically receiving contraceptive coverage from an alternative source, or whether they will have to take separate independent action in order to obtain that coverage. The compromise floated in the Supreme Court's Order is ambiguous in this regard, suggesting:

Petitioners ... would not be required to submit any separate notice to their insurer, to the Federal Government, or to their employees. At the same time, petitioners’ insurance company—aware that petitioners are not providing certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds—would separately notify petitioners’ employees that the insurance company will provide cost-free contraceptive coverage.... 

In responding to the Court's proposal, the Government said in part:

Requiring an employer seeking an exemption from the contraceptive-coverage requirement to provide written notice plays an important role in implementing the accommodation, and eliminating that requirement would impose real costs on the parties whose rights and duties are affected—including objecting employers. But the accommodation for employers with insured plans could be modified to operate in the manner posited in the Court’s order while still ensuring that the affected women receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly, together with the rest of their health coverage.

On the other hand, Petitioners argued:

Under the current regulatory scheme, there is just a single plan that automatically comes with payments for contraceptive services. Petitioners’ employees, therefore, automatically receive free contraceptive coverage solely by virtue of their enrollment in petitioners’ plans. There is no reason why this must be so. Instead, to truly separate petitioners from the contraceptive coverage, there should, at a minimum, be “two separate health insurance policies (that is, the group health insurance policy and the individual contraceptive coverage policy),”... with separate enrollment processes, insurance cards, payment sources, and communication streams....

[I]f the contraceptive coverage is to be truly separate, not just an automatic and unavoidable component of the petitioner’s plan, then it must have an enrollment process that is distinct from (and not an automatic consequence of) enrolling in the employer’s plan. Otherwise, it is not independent of the employer’s plan. That process certainly need not be complex. Like activating a credit card, it could be as simple as having the insurance company send each eligible employee a contraceptive coverage card with a sticker attached providing a telephone number to call or website portal to use should she wish to activate the coverage.

Both the government and petitioners recognized that the Court's proposed alternative failed to deal with non-profits that self-insure and use third-party administrators to implement coverage. They both also recognized that petitioners' objections are more difficult to deal with in this context. The government's answer was that some designation or self-certification by the non-profit is unavoidable here, but " any employer that objects to a feature of the accommodation unique to self-insured plans can switch to an insured plan."

The non-profits, on the other hand, devoted a significant portion of their brief to the problem of self-insured employers, saying in part:

If commercial insurance companies begin making truly separate  contraceptive coverage available to the employees of petitioners with insured plans as contemplated by this Court’s order, then there should be no legal obstacle to allowing additional individuals to enroll in those plans, whether directly through the insurer or through the Exchanges..... 

The only question, then, would be how employees of employers with self-insured plans would learn of the availability of those contraceptive-only policies. Asking the objecting employer or the objecting church plan to provide employees with that information would go well beyond what this Court’s order contemplates and what RFRA can tolerate. But there are other means through which individuals could learn about the availability of such contraceptive-only policies and how to enroll. For instance, the government itself could provide that information and assist individuals in enrollment.....

The government also could require doctors and other healthcare providers who have no religious objections to contraception to provide individuals with information about how to enroll in a contraceptive only plan if their employer’s plan does not include such coverage, and to help them complete that process should they choose to do so.

Wall Street Journal reports on the briefs.

Challenge To Catholic Hospitals' Ethical Directives Dismissed On Standing and Ripeness Grounds

A Michigan federal district court has dismissed on standing and ripeness grounds a challenge to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services followed by Catholic hospitals.  In ACLU v. Trinity Health Corp., (ED MI, April 11, 2016), the ACLU sued claiming that provisions in the Directives that prevent terminating a pregnancy to stabilize a woman's condition when emergency complications occur violate the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and the Rehabilitation Act.  The court held that allegations of past injury because of the hospital's compliance with the Directives does not give standing for future-looking declaratory and injunctive relief, and allegations regarding one woman who is currently pregnant do not show a substantial risk of pregnancy complications or likelihood of future treatment at defendant's hospitals.  A report from Michigan Radio has reactions of the parties to the decision.

10th Circuit:Dismisses As Moot Challenge To Utah Polygamy Law

In Brown v. Buhman, (10th Cir., April 11, 2016), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed on mootness grounds the constitutional challenge to Utah's anti-polygamy laws that had been filed by the polygamous family from the television show "Sister Wives." A federal district court had held most of Utah's ban unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) The 10th Circuit, however, concluded that a new prosecution policy announced by the County Attorney for Utah County after the suit was originally filed has mooted the case.  County Attorney Jeffrey Buhman issued a policy that states:

The Utah County Attorney’s Office will prosecute the crime of bigamy under [the Statute] in two circumstances: (1) When a victim is induced to marry through their partner’s fraud, misrepresentation or omissions; or (2) When a person purports to marry or cohabits with another person in violation of [the Statute] and is also engaged in some type of abuse, violence or fraud. This office will prosecute the crime of child bigamy under Section 76-7-101.5 regardless of whether one of the parties is also engaged in some type of abuse, violence or fraud.

Further supporting the finding of mootness is the fact that the Brown family has moved to Nevada. AP reports on the court's decision.  Jonathan Turley, counsel for the Brown family, said in a posting that the decision will be appealed.  [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Provocative Anti-Muslim Rally Planned For Atlanta

According to yesterday's Atlanta Journal Constitution,  after the Georgia Building Authority rejected a request for a permit to hold a "United against Islam and Islamic immigration refugee rally" at Liberty Plaza across from the state capitol, authorities now expect a non-permitted, anti-Islamic protest on the sidewalks of the Georgia State Capitol on April 18.  The protest's organizer James Stachowiak, founder and editor of Freedom Fighter Radio, said that speakers at the rally will focus on the threat from Islamic immigration and refugees. He added:

We also plan to shred images of Obama, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Muhammad along with the shredding of the Koran. This will be an open carry event with the use of long arms as Georgia law allows.

CAIR-Georgia reacted with a press release stating in part:

We encourage these protesters to put down their guns, cancel their unsanctioned rally, and meet with representatives of our state’s Muslim community for an open and frank discussion of their concerns.

Rastafarian Minister Loses Fight To Solicit Ballot Signatures At Revenue Office

In Brown v. Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration, (WD AR, April 8, 2016), an Arkansas federal district court dismissed an action by Rev. Tom Brown, a Rastafarian minister, challenging a recent no-solicitation policy imposed by the state at certain Revenue Offices. For over a year Brown had stationed himself at a table on the lawn of the Fayetteville Revenue Office seeking signatures for a ballot initiative on the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act.  A number of patrons had filed police reports complaining of Brown's behavior. The court held that the solicitation ban is a reasonable restriction on speech in a non-public forum, saying in part:

As the ban is reasonably designed to promote the normal business activities of the State’s revenue offices and is viewpoint-neutral, the Court finds that the ban does not violate Rev. Brown’s constitutional rights. The ban does not prevent Rev. Brown from canvassing in other public forums, such as on city sidewalks, in plazas, or in parks. Similarly, Rev. Brown is still free to express to others his ideas about marijuana use, his religious faith, and the benefits of signing the ballot initiative he supports.