2nd Circuit Hears Arguments On Whether Money Damages Are Available Under RFRA

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday heard oral arguments (MP3 audio of full arguments) in Tanvir v. Comey.  In the case, Muslim plaintiffs sued claiming that when they refused to become FBI informants, partly because doing so would violate their religious beliefs, the government retaliated by placing them on the No-Fly List.  The district court held that RFRA does not provide for money damages against federal officers in their personal capacities. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on the oral arguments in the appeal of that decision.

Religious Coalitions Take Contrasting Positions As Amici In Transgender Bathroom Case

Broad coalitions of religious groups have, through amicus briefs, now weighed in on opposite sides of the battle over transgender rights and Title IX that will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 28 in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G.(SCOTUSblog case page).  A brief (full text) filed in January by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations;  National Association of Evangelicals; Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod; and Christian Legal Society argues in part:

Major religious traditions—including those represented by amici—share the belief that a person’s identity as male or female is created by God and immutable. That belief is contradicted by the U.S. Department of Education’s interpretation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)....

Interpreting Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination as an implicit ban on gender identity discrimination would undermine the ability of religious organizations to govern their own institutions consistent with their tenets. Maintaining religious schools, colleges, and universities that reflect the faith of their sponsoring religious organizations would be in jeopardy. But also, because federal civil rights laws for employment and housing contain the same prohibition on sex discrimination as Title IX, a misstep in this case could threaten religious liberty across a broad range of circumstances, including employment, housing, and public accommodations.

Meanwhile, a brief (full text) filed yesterday on behalf of 15 religious organizations (Protestant, Jewish and Muslim) and more than 1800 faith leaders took a different position, arguing in part:

The arguments of religious amici supporting Petitioner are ultimately not about religious freedom at all. A high school boy simply wanting to use the same restroom as his classmates at a public school poses no threat to anyone’s religious exercise or expression. Rather, these religious actors seek to enforce a kind of religious orthodoxy that rejects the fundamental existence and dignity of transgender persons. Permitting such religious views to inform the scope of civil rights law enforcement would violate the Establishment Clause both by enshrining religion in secular law and by favoring particular religious views and the views of particular institutions over those espoused by the undersigned Amici.

Huffington Post has more on this brief.

Krishna Community Reaches Agreement Over Pipeline Route On Sacred Land

As reported by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, last Tuesday a lawsuit was filed in federal district court in West Virginia by the New Vrindaban Krishna community claiming that the proposed shale gas Rover Pipeline will cut through sacred property that holds two of the community's seven sacred temples. But The Intelligencer reports that as a hearing date arrived the parties engaged in negotiations and yesterday it was announced by the pipeline developers that an agreement had been reached. An Energy Transfer Partners spokeswoman said:

We were able to agree on compensation for the right of way and most importantly, agree on minor route changes that avoided all sacred sites and mitigated any impact to the environment.  This is the result of all parties being willing to come together to openly and effectively communicate to solve an issue. This clearly demonstrates that infrastructure and sacred sites can co-exist in this country.

Survivor Resigns In Protest From Pontifical Commission On Protecting Minors

In a written statement yesterday, Marie Collins announced that she has resigned in protest from Pope Francis' Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.  As reported by National Catholic Reporter, Collins was one of two clergy sex abuse survivors appointed to the Commission in 2014.  The other abuse victim member was placed on leave last year because of friction with other Commission members. The only other abuse survivor on the Commission, Englishman Peter Saunders, took a leave of absence last year after friction over his criticisms of the Pope.  In her statement yesterday explaining her resignation, Marie Collins said in part:

The reluctance of some in the Vatican Curia to implement recommendations or cooperate with the work of a commission when the purpose is to improve the safety of children and vulnerable adults around the world is unacceptable....

The last straw for me, on top of the refusal to cooperate on the Safeguarding Guidelines, has been the refusal, by the same dicastery, to implement one of the simplest recommendations the Commission has put forward to date.

Last year at our request, the pope instructed all departments in the Vatican to ensure all correspondence from victims/survivors receives a response. I learned in a letter from this particular dicastery last month that they are refusing to do so.

Suit Says City Misled Public About Scope of Ordinance Adding LGBT Protections

Liberty Counsel announced yesterday that it has filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of recent amendments to the Jacksonville, Florida Human Rights Ordinance.  The complaint (full text) in Parsons v. City of Jacksonville, Florida, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 3/1/2017), alleges that amendments adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the "protected categories" in the Jacksonville's existing nondiscrimination laws were improperly adopted.  Florida state law provides:

No ordinance shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Ordinances to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act or section or subsection or paragraph of a section or subsection.

The new lawsuit contends that the amendments to the Human Rights Ordinance failed to set out the provisions that were being amended, and charges that "the violations result from the intentional omission of plain and obvious legal requirements, by the ordinance authors and sponsors, to deceive the Jacksonville public, City Council, and Mayor as to the true contents and scope of the HRO."

Suit Over Priest's Breach of Confessional Secrecy Is Dismissed

In Sonnier v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Lafayette, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26498 (WD LA, Feb. 23, 2017), a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27235, Jan. 18. 2017) and dismissed an action alleging invasion of privacy and defamation brought by a member of a Catholic church who claimed that a priest violated his 1st Amendment rights by disclosing plaintiff's use of the confessional to communicate with individuals involved in a civil litigation matter. The court concluded that the 1st Amendment does not apply because no state actor was involved in the conduct.  The court went on to hold that in addition:

Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of internal religious affairs as they are predicated on: (1) the breach of the sacramental seal of confession, as defined by the Roman Catholic Church; and (2) Bishop Jarrell's failure to remedy the breach in accordance with church doctrine. In order to discern whether Plaintiff has asserted meritorious claims against Defendants, the Court would have to interpret church doctrine relating to the sacrament of confession and otherwise encroach upon the internal affairs of the Roman Catholic Church. Application of long-standing First Amendment jurisprudence, therefore, mandates that this Court refrain from considering Plaintiff's claims.

6th Circuit Grants En Banc Review In Legislative Prayer Case

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on Feb. 27 granted en banc review in Bormuth v. County of Jackson.  In the case, a 3-judge panel in a 2-1 decision held that the manner in which the Jackson County, Michigan Board of Commissioners opens its meetings with prayer violates the Establishment Clause.  AP reports on the grant of review by the full court which has the effect of vacating the panel decision while review is pending. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Supreme Court Clerk Chastises Amici For Wording In Brief On Transgender Rights

Over three dozen amicus briefs have been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G.  At issue is whether Title IX requires schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity.  Slate reports that letters dated Feb. 24 from the Clerk of the Supreme Court (full text 1, 2) to two amici supporting petitioners have chastised them for referring to the transgender male student involved as "her."  The Clerk wrote Liberty Counsel and Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence saying:

... the covers of your amicus briefs in this case identify the respondent as “G.G., by her next friend and mother, Deirdre Grimm.” In fact, the caption for the case in this Court, as in the lower courts, identifies the respondent as “G.G., by his Next Friend and Mother, Deirdre Grimm.”  (Emphasis added.) Under Rule 34, your cover is to reflect the caption of the case. Please ensure careful compliance with this requirement in this and other cases in the future.

Pakistan Supreme Court Takes Action Against Fraudulent Hajj Tour Operators

In Hussain v. State, (Pakistan Sup. Ct., Feb. 27, 2017), the Supreme Court of Pakistan denied bail to defendants charged with defrauding a large number of Muslims seeking to perform Hajj by creating a fake travel agency that absconded with their travel funds. The Court explained:

This nature of frauds have become so common that, every year, before the Hajj Season commences, innocent and rustic peoples are looted by various so called agencies including the unauthorized tour operators, of which judicial notice is required to be taken to curb the increasing menace of frauds practiced in religious and pious matters, therefore, Courts are required to treat these cases differently and such frauds must be brought to halt.

The Court strongly criticized government agencies for failing to enforce the law and "allow[ing] the fraudsters to commit such crimes with impunity." In an attempt to prevent such frauds in the future, the Court ordered the Ministry of Religious Affairs

to update its website in English, Urdu and all local languages, conveniently readable and understandable by the illiterate poor people, showing all the details about the duly approved Hajj & Umrah Tour Operators, warning the public at large that except those mentioned on the website, no other agency or Tour & Hajj Operator is authorized to make booking or collect money for sending people to perform Hajj or Umrah. At the same time, the said Ministry shall give wide publicity to such lists through electronic and print media and also through handbills/notifications in different languages....

The Court also ordered further disclosures to travelers and indemnity bonds by authorized Hajj tour operators.  Today's Express Tribune reports on the decision.

Catholic High School Loses Ministerial Exception Defense In Suit By Former Teacher

Monrovia Patch reports that a California state trial court has rejected the ministerial exception defense raised by a Glendora, California Catholic high school in a suit by a former teacher who was fired for marrying his same-sex partner shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision.  The court ruled that Kenneth Bencomo can move ahead with his wrongful termination, Labor Code and breach of contract claims against St. Lucy's Priority High School.  The court ruled that while the high school is a religious institution, Bencomo produced substantial evidence that that did not teach any religious classes.  He taught only studio art, dance, English and yearbook and magazine courses. The school did not require that religion be part of his classes, and he never led prayers or referenced Catholic doctrine.

Muslim Organization Gets Rulings In Its Favor In Zoning Challenge

In an opinion covering two suits-- one by a Sufi Muslim religious organization and the other by the United States--, an Illinois federal district court concluded that the city of Des Plaines, Illinois may well have violated RLUIPA and the 1st and 14th Amendments, as well as state law, in denying a zoning amendment that would allow the Muslim group to use property it had purchased for religious and educational purposes.  In Society of American Bosnians and Herzegovinians v. City of DesPlaines, (ND IL, Feb. 26, 2017), the court denied summary judgment to both sides, but concluded that a reasonable fact finder could infer that the City imposed a substantial burden on the religious organization's free exercise of religion and that the city's parking concerns did not constitute a compelling interest. The court also concluded that the city violated RLUIPA's equal terms provision, and that there is a genuine dispute on whether the city acted with discriminatory intent. Cook County Record reports on the decision.

Cert. Denied In Church Retirement Plan Fiduciary Duty Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Bacon (Docket No. 16-910, cert. denied 2/27/2017). (Order List.)  In the case, a Minnesota state court of appeals held that the First Amendment does not prevent a civil court from adjudicating a challenge to the manner in which the Lutheran Church retirement plans were managed. Plan participants claimed breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and fraud and concealment in the administration and management of the Plans. (See prior posting.)

Canada's Supreme Court Will Review Two Trinity Western Law School Cases

On Feb. 23, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear appeals in Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario) (summary of case) and Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, et. al. (British Columbia) (summary of case). At issue is the question of whether the Law Societies in various provinces can refuse to accredit Trinity Western University Law School because of its code of conduct based on evangelical Christian teachings.  In particular, the law school refuses to recognize same-sex marriages and requires students to sign its Community Covenant that, among other things, prohibits sexual intimacy outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. TaxProf Blog has more on the Supreme Court's action. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Kashmir Court Employees Must Offer Regular Prayers At Proper Time To Get Raises

According to WIO News, the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir has told court employees that their annual salary increases will turn on their offering prayers regularly and at the prescribed times. Ibrahim Zia, who was sworn in Saturday as Chief Justice, instructed that offering prayers is now mandatory for all court employees.  He also told employees they must work with dedication, honesty and regularity to ensure speedy justice to the public.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Satvinder Juss, Back to the Future: Justiciability, Religion, and the Figment of 'Judicial No-Man's Land', (Public Law Issue 2, April 2016, pp. 198-206).
• John D. Inazu, Law, Religion, and the Purpose of the University, (Washington University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Giulia Capacci, In Vitro Fertilization, the Catholic Church and National Survival: The Discursive Construction of Reproductive Rights in Poland, (February 3, 2017).
• Barbara P. Billauer, The Secrets of Jethro - Father of Jurisprudence, Patriarch of the Druze, Unifier of Legal Systems, (February 21, 2017).
• Thomas J. McSweeney, Salvation by Statute: Magna Carta, Legislation, and the King's Soul, (William & Mary Bill of Rights, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2016).

From SmartCILP:

• Deepa Das Acevedo, Temples, Courts, and Dynamic Equilibrium in the Indian Constitution, 64 American Journal of Comparative Law 555-581 (2016).
• Shlomo Pill, Jewish Law Antecedents to American Constitutional Thought, [Abstract], 85 Mississippi Law Journal 643-696 (2016).
• Lua Kamal Yuille, Creating a Babel Fish for Rights & Religion: Defining 'Rights' Through Sacred Texts, [Abstract], 25 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 309-361 (2016).
• Nelson Tebbe. McElroy Lecture. How To Think About Religious Freedom In an Egalitarian Age, [Abstract], 3 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 353-367 (2016).
• Symposium: Global Legal and Religious Perspectives on Elder Care. Introduction by Amy Zeittlow and Naomi Cahn; articles by Israel (Issi) Doron, Charles Foster, M. Christian Green, Nancy J. Knauer, Thomas G. Long, Rabbi Edith M. Meyerson, Diane E. Meier, Allison Kestenbaum, Rahimjon Abdugafurov, Beverly Moran and Xing Guang. 31 Journal of Law & Religion 115-226 (2016). 

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Heyer v. U.S. Bureau of  Prisons, (4th Cir., Feb. 23, 2017), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a deaf inmate to move ahead with his claim that his free exercise rights were infringed by failure to provide him a sign-language interpreter for religious services.

In Crowder v. Lariva, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23687 (SD IN, Feb. 21, 2017), an Indiana federal district court held that a prison chaplain who was sued by a Hebrew-Israelite inmate demonstrated that there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether the denial of plaintiff's requests for a kosher diet substantially burdened his right to practice his religion because he continued to purchase non-kosher items from the commissary.

In Pruitt v. Williams, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25044 (ED AR, Feb. 23, 2017), an Arkansas federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25468, Feb. 2, 2017) and dismissed an inmate's complaint that as a form of punishment he was denied the right to practice his religion.

In Ali v. Haese, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25431 (ED WI, Feb. 23, 2017), a Wisconsin federal district court allowed an inmate to proceed on his claim that he was denied participation in the 2016 Ramadan fast, but not due process and retaliation claims added in his amended complaint.

The FBI and Religion Is Studied

Salon today has posted an interesting article titled How the FBI Is Hobbled by Religious Illiteracy.  Much of it is an interview with University of Pennsylvania Prof. Steven Weitzman.  Introducing the interview, interviewer Emma Green says in part:

The story of the FBI and religion is not a series of isolated mishaps, argues a new book of essays edited by Steven Weitzman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and Sylvester A. Johnson, a professor at Northwestern University. Over its 109 years of existence, these historians and their colleagues argue, the Bureau has shaped American religious history through targeted investigations and religiously tinged rhetoric about national security.

At times, the Bureau has operated according to an explicit vision of protecting Christianity, as it did during the tenure of J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime director of the FBI. But in other cases, it has operated with religious ignorance.

Handling of Vaccination Exemption Request Did Not Violate Religious Rights

In Nikolao v. Lyon, (ED MI, Feb. 23, 2017), a Michigan federal district court dismissed free exercise and establishment clause challenges to the manner in which the Wayne County, Michigan Health Department handled a mother's request for an exemption for her children from the public school vaccination requirement.  Michigan law permits an exemption on the basis of a parent's religious convictions or alternatively on the basis other objections to  immunization. A 2014 Administrative Rule added the requirement that before an exemption will be granted, the parent must receive education  from the local health department on the risks of not receiving vaccinations.  The health department has prepared materials for its employees to use in attempting to persuade parents to allow vaccination, including materials to counter religious objections.

Plaintiff claims that if she wanted a religious waiver, she was required to explain her religious beliefs and discuss them with a health department nurse.  When she refused, she was granted an exemption on the non-religious ground that "mom wants child to have natural immunity."  Plaintiff contended that this deprived her of her religious and moral responsibility to object on account of her religion. Rejecting plaintiff's free exercise claim, the court said:

At most what Plaintiff alleges is that she was exposed to “coercion” to violate her beliefs regarding immunization for her children and “filled with lies about her faith from health department employees.” Plaintiff, however, did not yield to the nurses’ alleged pressure or lies and agree to immunize her children. She left the health department with the required and completed immunization waiver forms.

No Religious Discrimination In Suspension of Minister's Gym Membership

In Armstrong v. James Madison University, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25014 (WD VA, Feb. 23, 2017), a Virginia federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing claims of religious discrimination and infringement of free exercise rights brought by Matthew Armstrong, a 65-year old Christian minister, after his alumnus membership in James Madison University Recreation gym was suspended. The suspension followed a complaint filed by a female student employee of the gym who claimed that comments made to her by Armstrong amounted to sexual harassment. Armstrong had told the student about his religious beliefs that allowed him to have a young wife, and asked her if she would be interested in getting to know him better with the eventual possibility of marriage.

Arkansas Supreme Court Invalidates City's LGBT Anti-Discrimination Law

In Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville, (AR Sup. Ct., Feb. 23, 2017), the Arkansas Supreme Court held that the City of Fayetteville is precluded by state statute from extending its anti-discrimination provisions to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. The Arkansas' Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act provides:

A county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance, resolution, rule, or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.

Fayetteville claimed that its expanded non-discrimination law is permitted because state laws on bullying, domestic abuse shelters and amendment of birth certificates include reference to sexual orientation and gender identity. The Court held, however, that municipalities are precluded from providing non-discrimination protection to categories beyond race, religion, national origin, gender and disability that are included in the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993.  Arkansas Matters reports on the decision.