Revised Settlement Agreement Reached In Suits On NYPD Surveillance of Muslims

The ACLU on Monday announced a revised settlement agreement in two cases involving the New York Police Department's surveillance of Muslims. As previously reported, last November a federal district court judge rejected an initial settlement agreement's modifications of the so-called Handschu Guidelines that grew out of a consent decree in an earlier case on NYPD surveillance activities. The agreement announced Monday responds to the judge's concerns.  The ACLU describes the changes as follows:

Under the new enhancements, the civilian representative has even greater authority, independence, and responsibility. She is empowered to report to the court at any time if there are violations of the Handschu Guidelines, is required to report systematic violations, and must report to the court on an annual basis. The mayor is prohibited from abolishing the civilian representative position without judicial approval, and abolition by order of the court is only permitted if there have not been systemic violations of the Handschu Guidelines for the preceding three years. The civilian representative is specifically authorized to review not just the opening or extension of investigations, but also how they are conducted. In addition, the civilian representative will review the propriety of the use of undercover officers or confidential informants — a source of great concern to communities.

Wyoming Supreme Court Censures Judge Who Refused To Perform Same-Sex Marriages

In a 3-2 opinion yesterday, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that a judge who, because of religious objections, refuses to perform same-sex marriages violates the Wyoming Code of Judicial Conduct.  In Neely v. Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics, (WY Sup. Ct., March 7, 2017), Justice Fox wrote for the majority, saying in part:

This case is not about same-sex marriage or the reasonableness of religious beliefs.... This case is also not about imposing a religious test on judges. Rather, it is about maintaining the public’s faith in an independent and impartial judiciary that conducts its judicial functions according to the rule of law, independent of outside influences, including religion, and without regard to whether a law is popular or unpopular.

Responding to petitioner's free exercise argument, the majority stated:

Allowing Judge Neely to opt out of same-sex marriages is contrary to the compelling state interest in maintaining an independent and impartial judiciary.

However, rejecting the Commission's recommendation that Judge Neely be removed from office, the majority said:

Weighing these factors, we find that Judge Neely’s misconduct warrants a public censure. We further find that Judge Neely must perform her judicial functions, including performing marriages, with impartiality. She must either commit to performing marriages regardless of the couple’s sexual orientation, or cease performing all marriage ceremonies.

Justice Kautz, joined by Justice Davis, dissented, saying in part:

The majority’s position that Judge Neely violated Rule 1.2 is based on the mistaken conclusion that Judge Neely refused “to follow the law of the land.” As discussed above, the undisputed evidence shows that Judge Neely made no such refusal. She did not state that she would deny marriage to same sex couples, but rather said she would assist such couples in finding someone to perform their civil marriage ceremony. The law does not require Judge Neely personally to perform every marriage.

Focusing on the majority's free exercise argument, the dissenters said in part:

Apparently some individuals might find it offensive that Judge Neely said she would decline to personally perform a same-sex marriage and instead would refer them to someone else. There is no compelling state interest in shielding individuals from taking such an offense.

AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Gabe Rusk for the lead.]

Trump Issues More Focused Travel Ban and Refugee Restrictions

As reported by the Washington Post, yesterday President Trump issued a narrower and more focused Executive Order (full text) imposing a 90-day suspension of entry into the United States by nationals of six Muslim-majority nations-- Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Iraqi nationals are no long included in the travel ban, though they may be subjected to increased scrutiny.  The Order justifies this list of nations:

Each of these countries is a state sponsor of terrorism, has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contains active conflict zones. Any of these circumstances diminishes the foreign government's willingness or ability to share or validate important information about individuals seeking to travel to the United States. Moreover, the significant presence in each of these countries of terrorist organizations, their members, and others exposed to those organizations increases the chance that conditions will be exploited to enable terrorist operatives or sympathizers to travel to the United States.... 

This new Order exempts, among others, lawful permanent residents of the U.S. and dual nationals traveling on other country passports.  The Order comes as the President's broader Order issued in January remains tied up in the courts.  Yesterday's Order begins with a lengthy section setting out justifications for the earlier Order.  Section 1.(b)(iv) lays out the Administration's argument against charges that the earlier Order favored Christian refugees over others:

Executive Order 13769 did not provide a basis for discriminating for or against members of any particular religion. While that order allowed for prioritization of refugee claims from members of persecuted religious minority groups, that priority applied to refugees from every nation, including those in which Islam is a minority religion, and it applied to minority sects within a religion. That order was not motivated by animus toward any religion, but was instead intended to protect the ability of religious minorities -- whoever they are and wherever they reside -- to avail themselves of the USRAP in light of their particular challenges and circumstances.

Like the earlier Order, the new one suspends refugee entry of 120 days and limits the number of refugees in fiscal 2017 to 50,000. However, in the new Order Syrian refugees are not singled out for a longer suspension.

Court Awards Nominal Damages Over School's Live Nativity Scene Show

In Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Concord Community Schools, (ND IN, March 6, 2017), an  Indiana federal district court awarded nominal damages totaling $10 and issued a declaratory judgment concluding that Concord High School's Christmas Spectacular as performed in 2014 and as proposed to be performed in 2015 violated the Establishment Clause. The shows included a living Nativity scene. After rejecting the school's mootness arguments, the court ruled:

The 2014 version of the Christmas Spectacular presents an even clearer case. Not only did this version of the show include the same extended living nativity scene as the proposed-2015 show, in which the nativity scene was emphasized unlike any other aspect of the show, it included a narration consisting of Bible passages read by a faculty member, telling the story of Jesus’ birth. It also lacked any context suggesting an educational or cultural purpose for this presentation, and instead focused solely on the Christmas holiday, and in particular, the religious content of that holiday. The message of endorsement conveyed by this version of the show was unmistakable. Indeed, at no point in this litigation has the School presented any argument in defense of this version of the show.

FFRF issued a press release announcing the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Supreme Court Remands Transgender Bathroom Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued an order (Order List) in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., (Docket No. 16-273), the high profile Title IX transgender bathroom case, sending the case back to the 4th Circuit.  The Order reads:

The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of the guidance document issued by the Department of Education and Department of Justice on February 22, 2017.

In February the Trump Administration withdrew the Guidance document that had been issued by the Obama Administration. (See prior posting).  That withdrawn Guidance document took the position that Title IX requires that students be allowed to use rest rooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. New York Times reports on the Supreme Couirt's action.

Recent Articles and Book of Interest

From SSRN:

• Edward A. Zelinsky, Churches' Lobbying and Campaigning: A Proposed Statutory Safe Harbor for Internal Church Communications, (Rutgers Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Jared A. Goldstein, Unfit for the Constitution: Nativism and the Constitution, from the Founding Fathers to Donald Trump, (Roger Williams Univ. Legal Studies Paper No. 174 (2017)).
• Jonathan P. Kuhn, The Religious Difference: Equal Protection and the Accommodation of (Non)-Religion, (Washington University Law Review, Vol. 94, No. 1, 2016).
• Jerrold A. Long, The Origins of a Rebellion: Religion, Land, and a Western Environmental Ethic, (February 26, 2017).
• Timothy Lubin, Custom in the Vedic Ritual Codes as an Emergent Legal Principle, (Journal of the American Oriental Society 136.4 (2016): 669–687).
• Roger Colinvaux, The Importance of a Participatory Charitable Giving Incentive, (Tax Notes, Vol. 154, No. 5, 2017).

From SmartCILP:

• Cathleen Kaveny & Kevin L. Flannery, Response and Rejoinder: On Voting, Intrinsic Evil, and Ranking of Political Issues, [Abstract], 61 American Journal of Jurisprudence 259-273 (2016).
• Nicole Buonocore Porter, Accommodating Everyone, 47 Seton Hall Law Review 85-136 (2016).
• Samuel D. Brunson, Taxing Utopia, 47 Seton Hall Law Review 137-196 (2016).
• Robin Maril & Sarah Warbelow, Finding an End to Federally Sanctioned Discrimination: A Call to Rescind the 2007 OLC World Vision Memo, 24 American University Journal of Gender Social Policy & Law 445-467 (2016).
• Haider Ala Hamoudi, Resurrecting Islam or Cementing Social Hierarchy?: Reexamining the Codification of "Islamic" Personal Status Law, 33 Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law 329-382 (2016).
• David L. Gregory, Is Religious Liberty the Ultimate Management Prerogative?: Some Reflections on Pacific Lutheran University and Service Employees International Union, Local 925, [Abstract], 33 Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal 207-240 (2016).
• Jonathan D. Colan, The Supreme Court's Talmudic Debate on the Meanings of Guilt, Innocence, and Finality, 73 Washington & Lee Law Review 1243-1294 (2016).
• Vol. 1, Issue 1 of Buddhism Law & Society has appeared.

Recent Book:

• Patrick M. Brennan &William S. Brewbaker III, Christian Legal Thought: Materials and Cases, (Foundation Press, 2017).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Shehee v. Ahlin, (9th Cir., Feb. 27, 2017), the 9th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a civil detainee's complaint regarding problems in connection with a requested religious diet.

In Sariaslan v. Rackley,(9th Cir., Feb. 28, 2017), the 9th Circuit held that the district court had overlooked a Muslim inmate's allegations that he was blocked without good cause from receiving food that he purchased for Ramadan.

In Herbert v. Balducci, (9th Cir., March 1, 2017), the 9th Circuit affirmed dismissal of an inmate's First Amendment claims related to the denial of Alcoholics Anonymous’ Big Book while in disciplinary segregation.

In Register v. Helder, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26006 (WD AR, Feb/ 24, 2017), an Arkansas federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26909, Feb 2, 2017), and dismissed an inmate's complaint regarding his desire to be baptized by a Jehovah's Witness.

In Rolph v. Richardson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27534 (D MD, Feb. 28. 2017), a Maryland federal district court held that a Jewish inmate's religoius rights were not violated when he was required to provide the name of his Rabbi and synagogue to be approved for a kosher diet.

In Cherry v. Corizon Health, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27654 (SD IN, Feb. 28, 2017), an Indiana federal district court rejected an inmate's complaint that his rights were violated when he was forced to receive injections of antipsychotic medication because he was on a religious fast. The court found that he had not shown that refusing 20 consecutive meals, thereby endangering his health, was a practice of his religion.

In Jones v. West, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27880 (ED WI, Feb. 27, 2017), a Wisconsin federal district court ruled that a Muslim inmate needed to file an amended complaint over a change in sign-up policy for Ramadan meals.

In Mueller v. Mesojedec, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27414 (D MN, Feb. 27, 2017), a Minnesota federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28119, Jan. 6, 2017) and dismissed without prejudice claims by civilly committed sex offenders that their ability to practice their Asatru faith in various ways was impeded.

In Carawan v. Mitchell, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28832 (D NC, Feb. 28, 2017), a North Carolina federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his complaint that prison authorities refused to set up a zakat fund so he could practice charity.

In Berger v. Burl, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27708 (ED AR, Feb. 28, 2017), an Arkansas federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28760, Jan. 19, 2017), finding that questions of fact remain as to an inmate's claims that allowing beards and long hair for religious but not secular reasons violated the Establishment Clause, and allowing long hair only for female inmates denied him equal protection.

No Bivens Claim By Vet Denied Psychological Care Because of Anti-Gay Views

In Waksmundski v. Williams, (SD OH, Feb. 27, 2017), Marine Corps veteran John Waksmundski who had been receiving psychological counseling for a number of years at a VA Hospital from defendant Dr. Crystal Williams sued when Williams excluded him from a new therapy group she was forming. She also refused to serve any longer as his counselor.  Waksmundski claims that the exclusion flowed from statements he made in a group therapy session expressing his opposition, based on his Catholic religious beliefs, to gays in the military and gay marriage. The denial of care created significant psychological damage.  Waksmundski sued claiming violations of his 1st Amendment speech and religion rights as well as his equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment. The court dismissed his claims, holding that the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act "is a comprehensive remedial scheme that precludes Bivens claims for damages against VA employees premised on the assertion that the employees denied, or interfered, with a party’s benefits."

Trump Emphasizes His Call For School Choice

As reported by the Orlando Sentinel, yesterday President Trump visited St. Andrew Catholic School in Orlando, Florida as part of a trip focusing on school choice. In his remarks (full text) prior to a closed-door round table, the President said in part:

St. Andrews Catholic School represents one of the many parochial schools dedicated to the education of some of our nation's most disadvantaged children.  But they're becoming just the opposite very rapidly through education and with the help of the school choice programs.  This month, we commemorate the thousands of peaceful activists for justice who joined Martin Luther King on the march from Selma to Montgomery.  And that day, Reverend King hoped that inferior education would become, as he said, "a thing of the past."  And we're going to work very much for the future and what he predicted would be with the future.  As I've often said in my address to Congress and just about anyplace else I can speak, education is the civil rights issue of our time.  And it's why I've asked Congress to support a school-choice bill.  

House Task Force On Anti-Semitism Sends Suggestions To Trump

Yesterday the eight co-chairs of the U.S. House of Representatives Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Anti-Semitism sent a letter (full text) to President Trump suggesting three specific steps to improve the government's response to anti-Semitism:

Ensure that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice has access to the necessary resources and information to fully investigate alleged anti-Semitic crimes and ensure the perpetrators are brought to justice.

Ensure that a mechanism exists to coordinate inter-agency detection of and response to new anti-Semitic crimes.

Evaluate growing anti-Semitism online, particularly incitement to violence, and devise a comprehensive policy response.

Times of Israel reports on the letter.

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.