Trenton Curfew Arrangement With Churches Is Questioned

AP reports today on the church-state questions that are being raised by the juvenile curfew enforcement policies of the Trenton, New Jersey police department. Last month Trenton police began enforcing a midnight to 6 a.m. curfew for juveniles under 18.  If police pick up a violator, they first call the juvenile's parents.  However if the parents do not answer, or refuse to pick up their child, police under arrangements with a number of faith-based groups drop the juvenile off at a local church. Police say that the churches may not discuss religion with the drop offs, and they are usually held in a community room rather than in the sanctuary.  The juvenile is given the option of instead being dropped off at a police building. The ACLU says that police should provide a number of non-religious drop-off alternatives, though the group has broader objections to the curfew as well.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Sims v. Owens, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105341 (MD GA, Aug. 10, 2016), a Georgia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105554, July 22, 2016) and dismissed a suit by a Rastafarian inmate who was not permitted to grow a goatee.

In Glidden v. Cerliano, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105928 (ED TX, Aug. 10, 2016), a Texas federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106356, June 24, 2016) and dismissed a suit by an inmate who had recently changed his religious preference to Pagan, but was not permitted to take possession of a book sent to him titled Buckland's Complete Book of Witchcraft, and was not permitted to meet with a Coven priestess.

In Hoke v. Lyle, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106912 (SD GA, Aug. 8, 2016), a Georgia federal magistrate judge recommended that a Christian inmate be allowed to proceed with certain RLUIPA, free exercise and equal protection claims regarding the refusal to provide him with a study Bible and his Bible lessons.

In Hunter v. Corrections Corporation of America, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105035 (SD GA, Aug. 9, 2016), a Georgia federal magistrate judge recommended denying summary judgement to either side in a Muslim inmate's Establishment Clause and RLUIPA claims (but only for nominal damages) challenging the Georgia prison system's Life Principles Program.

French Mayor Bans Muslim Burkinis On Beach [UPDATED]

In an order issued on July 28, but first publicized last week, the mayor of the seaside French city of Cannes has banned swimwear that does not reflect "good morals and secularism."  The order, which is effective through August, is aimed at preventing Muslim women from wearing burkinis-- full-body swimsuits.  According to NBC News, the mayor said that after last month's terrorist attack in nearby Nice killing 80 people and the subsequent attack on a church:

Beachwear manifesting religious affiliation in an ostentatious way, while France and its religious sites are currently the target of terrorist attacks, could create the risk of disturbances to public order.

UPDATE: Qantara reports that  an Aug. 13 court decision upheld the Cannes ban:

Three women backed by the Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) challenged the Cannes decision.... But a court in Nice rejected the request, saying the move was legal under French law forbidding people from "invoking their religious beliefs to skirt common rules regulating relations between public authorities and private individuals".

Meanwhile the resort of Villeneuve-Loubet imposed a similar ban.

Ethics Complaints Are Newest Tool In Wars Over Same-Sex Marriage

Legal ethics complaints appear to have become the most recent weapon in the culture wars.  After the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a series of complaints with the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore (see prior posting), an ally of Moore's has turned the tables.  On July 28, Alabama attorney Trent Garmon and his wife Holly filed a complaint against Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, over Cohen's comments attacking Moore for Moore's actions opposing same-sex marriage.  As reported by AL.com, the complaint alleges that Cohen's statements violated Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.2 that provides;

A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, 

Cohen's comments included a statement that Alabama "elected [Moore] to be a judge, not a pastor;" Cohen called Moore a demagogue and the "Ayatollah of Alabama," and said he is unfit for office.

Muslim Woman Sues Chicago Police Charging Profiling and False Arrest

Chicago Tribune reports on a federal civil rights lawsuit filed yesterday against the city of Chicago and 6 of its police officers by a Muslim immigrant from Saudi Arabia who says she was assaulted and wrongly arrested by police officers who profiled her as a possible suicide bomber, apparently in part because she was wearing a hijab and niqab. Her suit alleges use of excessive force, false arrest, unlawful search, malicious prosecution and violation of Al-Matar's right to freedom of religious expression.  The arrest took place on July 4, as Al-Matar was walking to catch a train home to break the Ramadan fast.

Texas AG Cleared of Ethics Charges Over Reaction To Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Texas Tribune reports that in an Aug. 3 notice, the State Bar of Texas announced that it is dismissing an ethics complaint signed by over 200 Texas lawyers claiming that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton "violated his own official oath of office" last summer when he issued an Opinion and statement on the right of public officials to assert religious objections to issuing marriage licenses or performing same-sex marriages. According to the notice: "The Chief Disciplinary Counsel has determined that there is no just cause to believe that [Paxton] has committed professional misconduct."

Settlement Reached In Suit Over Sheriff's Religious Use of Department's Facebook Page

A settlement agreement has been reached in American Atheists, Inc. v. Watson, a suit alleging that Bradley County, Tennessee Sheriff Eric Watson used the sheriff department's Facebook page to promote the sheriff's Christian religious beliefs. (See prior posting.)  According to an American Atheists press release yesterday, under the settlement the county will pay $15,000 in damages to American Atheists and the local plaintiffs as well as $26,000 in attorney’s fees.  Also under the settlement, the Sheriff’s Department  will create a new, information-only, Facebook page that will not be used to "promote or further any religion, religious organization, religious event or religious belief." The original Facebook page has already been deactivated.  Sheriff Watson will be allowed to maintain a clearly marked personal Facebook page reflecting his personal opinions.

Native American Cannot Claim Religious LiIberty Defense In Prosecution for Unlawful Hunting

In State of Washington v. McMeans, (WA App., Aug. 9, 2016), a Washington state appeals court upheld a trial court's refusal to give the jury an instruction on a free exercise defense asserted by a Yakima Tribe designated hunter in a prosecution of him for unlawful hunting.  Defendant Ricky Watlamet killed 4 elk to provide meat for the funeral of a tribal elder.  The elk harvesting took place outside of elk hunting season on land of co-defendant who sought help to get rid of elk damaging her property.  Under an 1855 treaty, the Yakima tribe is allowed to hunt on "open and unclaimed lands," but not private property.  The court said in part:

The defense presented substantial evidence that Mr. Watlamet had sincere religious beliefs and that he used the elk meat for religious purposes. However, he did not provide any evidence that the McMeans property was the only available location to obtain the elk meat. In fact, the record shows that Mr. Watlamet could lawfully hunt elk on State land, Federal land, tribal land, or any open and unclaimed land. The record also indicates that at the time in question there were numerous elk on the reservation as well as elk on state land adjacent to the McMeans property. Mr. Watlamet could have hunted these elk without running afoul of any regulation. He presented no evidence that either these particular elk or this particular place were necessary, preferable, or even convenient, nor has he presented any evidence that hunting the lawfully available elk was in any way burdensome. 

Armed Forces Court of Appeals Interprets RFRA In Military Context

In United States v. Sterling, (US Armed Forces Ct. App., Aug. 10, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces held that a Marine Lance Corporal failed to establish a prima facie case under RFRA in defending against charges growing out of her work space posting of unauthorized signs containing Biblical quotations.  Appellant, in the wake of other personnel issues, posted 3 signs reading "[n]o weapon formed against me shall prosper."  The signs did not indicate that these were Bible verses. She refused orders to remove them and was court martialed.  The majority held in part:

while the posting of signs was claimed to be religiously motivated at least in part and thus falls within RFRA’s expansive definition of “religious exercise,” Appellant has nonetheless failed to identify the sincerely held religious belief that made placing the signs important to her exercise of religion or how the removal of the signs substantially burdened her exercise of religion in some other way. We decline Appellant’s invitation to conclude that any interference at all with a religiously motivated action constitutes a substantial burden, particularly where the claimant did not bother to either inform the government that the action was religious or seek an available accommodation.

The court spelled out its understanding of what must be shown to establish that the government imposed a substantial burden on appellant's religious exercise:

[W]hile we will not assess the importance of a religious practice to a practitioner’s exercise of religion or impose any type of centrality test, a claimant must at least demonstrate “an honest belief that the practice is important to [her] free exercise of religion” in order to show that a government action substantially burdens her religious exercise.... A substantial burden is not measured only by the secular costs that government action imposes; the claimant must also establish that she believes there are religious costs as well, and this should be clear from the record....

In contrast, courts have found that a government practice that offends religious sensibilities but does not force the claimant to act contrary to her beliefs does not constitute a substantial burden.... We reject the argument that every interference with a religiously motivated act constitutes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. 

Contrary to Appellant’s assertions before this Court, the trial evidence does not even begin to establish how the orders to take down the signs interfered with any precept of her religion let alone forced her to choose between a practice or principle important to her faith and disciplinary action.

Judge Ohlson dissented, saying in part:

Unfortunately, instead of remanding this case so that it can be properly adjudicated by the court below, the majority instead has chosen to impose a stringent, judicially made legal standard in this and future religious liberty cases that is not supported by the provisions of RFRA. Contrary to the majority’s holding, the plain language of the statute does not empower judges to curtail various manifestations of sincere religious belief simply by arbitrarily deciding that a certain act was not “important” to the believer’s exercise of religion.  Neither does the statute empower judges to require a believer to ask of the government, “Mother, may I?” before engaging in sincere religious conduct. And further, nowhere in the statute are service members required to inform the government of the religious nature of their conduct at the time they engage in it.

[Thanks to ChristianFighterPilot.com for the lead.] 

Britain's Supreme Court Refers Complex Transgender Case To European Court of Justice

In MB v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, (UK Sup. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016), Britain's Supreme Court, divided on a complicated issue of transgender rights under European Council Directive 79/7/EEC (Progressive Implementation of the Principle of Equal Treatment for Men and Women in Matters of Social Security), referred the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union:

[W]hether Council Directive 79/7 EEC precludes the imposition in national law of a requirement that, in addition to satisfying the physical, social and psychological criteria for recognising a change of gender, a person who has changed gender must also be unmarried in order to qualify for a state retirement pension.

As permitted by the Directive, Britain allowed women to obtain a retirement pension at an earlier age than men.  However a transgender woman needed a full gender recognition certificate to qualify for the earlier pension, and under British law at the time could not obtain one if she remained married.  The facts of the case are summarized in the Court's press release:

So far as MB was concerned, she was registered at birth as a man but has lived as a woman since 1991 and underwent gender reassignment surgery in 1995. She has not applied for a full gender recognition certificate because she and her wife are married and wish to remain so.... On 31 May 2008, MB turned 60 [and] ... applied for a state retirement pension.... That application was rejected....

EurActiv reports on the decision.  [Thanks to Paul deMello for the lead.] 

RFRA Does Not Impact Bankruptcy Code's Denial of Discharge

The Bankruptcy Code, Sec. 727(a)(2)(A) provides that a bankruptcy court should deny a discharge if the debtor has within one year of filing for bankruptcy transferred property with the intent to hinder, defraud or delay a creditor.  In In re Crabtree, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 2922 (MN Bkr., Aug. 8, 2016), a Minnesota federal bankruptcy judge held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not prevent applying this provision to a family's donation of a box of 500 silver coins, valued at $12,000.00, to their church, Firestarters Worship Center.

Court Rejects As Applied Challenge To California Reparative Therapy Ban; Seattle Adopts Its Own Ban

In Pickup v. Brown, (ED CA, Aug. 9, 2016), a California federal district court dismissed plaintiffs' amended complaint raising an "as applied" challenge to California's ban on health professionals providing conversion therapy (sexual orientation change efforts) to minors. The courts had previously rejected facial attacks on the law. (See prior posting.) Now the court held that plaintiffs had not pointed to any action by defendants involving differential application of the law to them.

Meanwhile, last week the Seattle, Washington City Council unanimously adopted an ordinance (full text) banning licensed medical or mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy or reparative therapy to a minor. (Background and White Paper.) Capitol Hill Seattle Blog reports on the Council's action.

Muslim Flight Attendant Sues Over Refusal To Accommodate Objection To Serving Alcohol

CAIR Michigan announced yesterday that it has filed suit in federal district court against ExpressJet Airlines on behalf of a Muslim flight attendant who has religious objections to serving alcohol to passengers. Originally the flight attendant, Charee Stanley, had worked out arrangements with other flight attendants  on duty for them to serve all alcohol.  However apparently one of the flight attendants objected and the airline placed Stanley on administrative leave. The lawsuit follows an earlier complaint filed with the EEOC. (See prior posting.)

Football Coach Sues Seeking Right To Pray At 50-Yard Line

Yesterday Bremerton, Washington, High School assistant football coach Joe Kennedy who was placed on paid leave for insisting on praying at mid-field at the end of games (see prior posting) filed suit against the Bremerton school district alleging free exercise, free speech and Title VII violations.  The complaint (full text) in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, (WD WA, filed 8/9/2016), contends that Kennedy is compelled by his sincerely held Christian religious beliefs to engage in brief private religious expression at the conclusion of school football games. He offers a prayer of thanksgiving as part of a covenant he made with God.  The complaint argues that the school district's directive which bans any "demonstrative religious activity" that is "readily observable" to students or members of the public is unconstitutional. The suit seeks declaratory relief as well as an order reinstating Kennedy and granting him a religious accommodation that allows him to pray at the 50-yard line at the conclusion of games.  Seattle Times reports on the lawsuit.  First Liberty has also created a website with details of the case.

New Survey On Political Preaching From the Pulpit

The Pew Research Center on Monday released a new survey titled Many Americans Hear Politics From the Pulpit. Among other things, it reports that 14% of churchgoers in recent months heard their clergy speak directly in support of or against a specific presidential candidate. 64% heard clergy speak from the pulpit about at least one of the six specific social and political issues.

3rd Circuit: Some Plaintiffs Have Standing In Ten Commandments Challenge

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. New Kensington Arnold School District, (3d Cir., Aug. 9, 2016), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a complicated opinion on standing in a suit in which a student, her mother and an advocacy organization are challenging a 6-foot tall Ten Commandments monument on the lawn of a Pennsylvania high school. The district court had dismissed, finding that all the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not been injured by the presence of the monument. (See prior posting.) The 3rd Circuit reversed in part, looking separately at each of the plaintiffs as well as considering the claim for an injunction separately from the claim for nominal damages. The 3rd Circuit held that the mother had standing to sue for nominal damages because

[her] allegations that the monument “signals that [she is] an outsider because [she] do[es] not follow the particular religion or god that the monument endorses,” ... and that her “stomach turned” when she encountered it, ... are sufficient to demonstrate that her contact with the monument was unwelcome.

On the other hand, the daughter did not because when she encountered the monument she was too young to understand it. The court went on to hold that both the mother and daughter have standing to sue for injunctive relief, even though the mother had sent her daughter to a different school because of the monument.  Its removal could lead to the daughter's return.  Finally the court said that the advocacy group's standing depends on whether the mother was a member at the time the suit was filed.

Judge Smith filed a lengthy opinion "concurring dubitante," saying:

I am doubtful that a claim for nominal damages alone suffices to create standing to seek backward-looking relief. While this issue has little practical importance to this case, it does have broad consequences for our standing and mootness inquiries in other scenarios.

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports on the decision. [Thanks to several readers for the lead.]

Roy Moore's Trial On Ethics Charges Set For Next Month

After a hearing yesterday on charges against Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary issued an Order (full text) denying motions for summary judgment from both sides.  Yesterday's order also set the case for trial on Sept. 28. At issue are charges filed by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission contending that Moore acted unethically when in January he issued an administrative order telling state probate judges that they had a duty under Alabama law to continue to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (See prior posting.) Al.com reports on yesterday's developments.

Arkansas Is A Step Closer To A Ten Commandments Monument At Its Statehouse

Last year, Arkansas enacted legislation directing the secretary of state to arrange for private groups to place a Ten Commandments monument on the State Capitol grounds. (See prior posting.) Now according to an AP report yesterday, the American History and Heritage Foundation has filed an application with the Arkansas secretary of state to allow it to install the 6000 pound, 6-foot tall monument that it has created and has in storage. Its monument is similar to the Texas one that survived a U.S. Supreme Court challenge in Van Orden v. Perry. The Arkansas secretary of state must now consult with the Capitol Arts and Grounds Commission before approving the monument.

Texas Muslim Teen-- Alarm Clock Inventor-- Sues For Discrimination

As reported by the Dallas Observer, a lawsuit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court by teenager Ahmed Mohamed who made news last September when his Irving, Texas school teacher mistook an alarm clock Mohamed had constructed for a bomb. Police were called in and both an arrest and school discipline followed. As summarized by plaintiffs' lawyer:

Despite the fact that (the Irving police) knew it wasn't a bomb, that he never threatened anyone, never alarmed anyone, they yanked him out of his chair, put him in handcuffs and arrested him. There was no cause for arrest. Even after the police acknowledged it didn't look like a bomb, the school suspended him. So yes, those are violations of his civil rights.

The complaint (full text) in Mohamed v. Irving Independent School District, (ND TX, file 8/8/2016), asking for damages and an injunction, alleges in part:

The IISD has a long and ugly history of race struggles up to and including the Board of Trustees. Additionally, the State of Texas, including the IISD, has a history of discrimination against Muslims in Texas curriculum and schools. 

Suit Challenges Illinois Amendments To Health Care Right of Conscience Act

On Friday, two pro-life pregnancy care centers and a pro-life physician filed suit in Illinois state court challenging SB 1564, the recently enacted Illinois law amending the state's Health Care Right of Conscience Act. (See prior posting.)  The complaint (full text) in Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford v. Rauner, (IL Cir. Ct., filed 8/5/2016) alleges that the new law violates Illinois' Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as plaintiffs' religious freedom, free speech and equal protection rights under the Illinois constitution. The complaint describes the provisions that would require plaintiffs to violate their religious and moral beliefs:

S.B. 1564 requires Plaintiffs and other medical facilities and physicians to choose between referring for abortions, transferring a patient to an abortion provider, or provide a patient asking for an abortion with a list of providers they reasonably believe may perform the abortion.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit/