No 1st Amendment Bar To Deciding Catholic College's Student Expusion

In Chestnut Hill College v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, (PA Commnwlth. Ct., April 7, 2017), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (an appellate court) held that a Catholic college’s decision to expel a student is reviewable by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.  The college expelled an African American student a few weeks before his scheduled graduation, allegedly because the student retained some of the proceeds from events that were held for a charitable cause.  The student claimed this was a pretext for racial discrimination.

The court held that Catholic colleges and universities are "public accommodations" under the state's Human Relations Act.  It held that adjudicating the claim would not involve unconstitutional entanglement between church and state, saying:

Student’s claims do not require the Commission to construe religious doctrine. Importantly, College did not identify any Catholic doctrine as grounds for Student’s expulsion.

The court also emphasized that the college "did not cite any religious doctrine based defense to Student’s racial discrimination claims."

European Court Says German Church Taxes Do Not Violate Religious Freedom

In Case of Klein and Others v. Germany, (ECHR, April 6. 2017), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Germany's church taxes do not violate Article 9 (freedom of religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  The holding is summarized in the press release on the case issued by the Court:

[I]n these cases the taxes/fees had been levied not by the State, but by the applicants’ churches – which the applicants were free to leave under German law. As such, in most of the cases the levying and calculation of the taxes/fees had been an autonomous church activity, which could not be attributed to the German State.

However, in one case the State had been involved in levying a special church fee on an applicant who was not a member of the relevant church. This was because the fee which had been levied on the applicant’s wife had been subtracted directly from the applicant’s tax reimbursement claim by way of an off-set – therefore subjecting the applicant to his wife’s financial obligations towards her church. However, this off-set had arisen because the couple themselves had chosen to file a joint tax assessment....

DOJ Gives New Emphasis To Combating Religious Hate Crimes

Attorney General Jeff Sessions yesterday issued a Memo (full text) to U.S. Attorney’s Offices and Department of Justice component heads giving an update on DOJ's Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety. The Task Force will work through a number of subcommittees, one of which is a Hate Crimes Subcommittee. The Memo reads in part:

We must also protect the civil rights of all Americans, and we will not tolerate threats or acts of violence targeting any person or community in this country on the basis of their religious beliefs or background.  Accordingly, the Hate Crimes Subcommittee will develop a plan to appropriately address hate crimes to better protect the rights of all Americans.  As with many other areas of the Task Force's work, we are already making significant progress toward our goal of a safer America.  Recently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working with law enforcement partners in Israel and elsewhere, helped secure the arrest of a man believed to be responsible for the recent surge in threats of violence against Jewish community centers and synagogues.  I commend their outstanding efforts.

CNN reports on the Sessions Memo.

Objectors To Assisted Suicide Lack Standing To Challenge Vermont Law

In Vermont Alliance for Ethical Health Care, Inc. v. Hoser, (D VT, April 5, 2017), a Vermont federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a suit challenging Vermont's law which protects physicians who prescribe a lethal dose of medication to terminally ill patients who meet specified requirements.  Plaintiffs, two organizations whose members are healthcare providers holding religious and ethical opposition to assisted suicide, sought injunctions shielding from professional disciplinary action healthcare providers who for religious or ethical reasons refuse to inform patients that assisted suicide is an available option.  the court said in part:

The prospect of imminent harm through the filing of disciplinary proceedings in the future is highly unlikely. The parties largely agree on a solution to their dilemma which satisfies both sides. They agree that making a false statement or ignoring a patient's inquiry is wrong. Both agree that directing a patient to a website explaining the conditions under which assisted suicide might be available will neither violate religious principles nor fall short of the physician's obligation to provide information to the patient.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Williams v. Bedison, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42553 (ND TX, March 23, 2017), a Texas federal district court adopted in part a magistrate's recommendations (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42629, March 3, 2017) and dismissed an inmate's complaint that no separate services are held for Moorish Science Temple of America members.

In Chichakli v. Cheatham, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43408 (SD FL, March 22, 2017), a Florida federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate's complaint that an officer insulted his Jewish faith, and that he was denied access to his prayer book, bible and tefillin for 42 days while he was in segregated detention.

In Moir v. Amdahl, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43462 (SD IL, March 24, 2017), an Illinois federal district court permitted an inmate who was a member of the Al-Islam faith to move ahead with a claim that on two occasions he was prevented from attending Jumah services and was targeted for harassment because of his race and religion.

In Kugler v. Rao, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44044 (CD IL, March 24, 2017), an Illinois federal district court rejected religious objections to taking psychtropic drugs raised by a civilly committed inmate, finding that forcible administration did not violate his rights under RLUIPA. Plaintiff was a Satanist who followed the Ninth Enochian Key.

In Seagraves v. Treachler, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44210 (D NJ, March 27, 2017), a New Jersey federal district court permitted an inmate to file an amended complaint charging the warden with denying Muslim inmates' requests for vegetarian meals.

In Koch v. Carlisle, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43141 (WD OK, March 24, 2017), an Oklahoma federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44531, March 2, 2017) and allowed a Satanist inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was denied the right to celebrate the Festival of the Winter Solstice on the proper date.

UN Experts Urge Russia to Drop Extremism Suit Against Jehovah's Witnesses

Yesterday, in anticipation of today's hearing before Russia's Supreme Court, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights issued a press release urging the Russian Federation to drop a suit brought under Russia's anti-extremism legislation against all Jehovah's Witnesses congregations. According to the press release, which quotes three UN human rights experts:

"This lawsuit is a threat not only to Jehovah’s Witnesses, but to individual freedom in general in the Russian Federation...."

"The use of counter-extremism legislation in this way to confine freedom of opinion, including religious belief, expression and association to that which is state-approved is unlawful and dangerous, and signals a dark future for all religious freedom in Russia...."　

The condemnation follows a lawsuit lodged at the country’s Supreme Court on 15 March to declare the Jehovah’s Witnesses Administrative Centre ‘extremist’, to liquidate it, and to ban its activity. 　

A suspension order came into effect on that date, preventing the Administrative Centre and all its local religious centres from using state and municipal news media, and from organizing and conducting assemblies, rallies and other public events.

5th Circuit Hears Arguments On Mississippi's Conscience Protection Law

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Barber v. Bryant.  In the case, a Mississippi federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Mississippi House Bill 1523, the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act.  The law protects a wide variety of conduct, or refusals to provide goods and service, based on a religious or moral belief that: (1) marriage is a union of one man and one woman; (2) sexual relations should be reserved to heterosexual marriage; and (3) gender is an immutable characteristic determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth. (See prior posting.)  Buzzfeed has extensive coverage of the oral arguments.

7th Circuit En Banc: Title VII Bars Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In an important decision handed down yesterday, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc held in an 8-3 decision that under title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination.  In Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, (7th Cir., April 4, 2017), Chief Judge Wood in her majority opinion stated in part:

The logic of the Supreme Court’s decisions, as well as the common-sense reality that it is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex, persuade us that the time has come to overrule our previous cases that have endeavored to find and observe that line.

The lawsuit was filed by an adjunct professor who was rejected for full time positions and whose part-time contract was not renewed. She believes these actions were taken because she is a lesbian.

Judge Posner filed an interesting concurring opinion focusing on the issue of originalism in statutory interpretation.  He said in part:

It is well-nigh certain that homosexuality, male or female, did not figure in the minds of the legislators who enacted Title VII. I had graduated from law school two years before the law was enacted. Had I been asked then whether I had ever met a male homosexual, I would have answered: probably not; had I been asked whether I had ever met a lesbian I would have answered “only in the pages of À la recherche du temps perdu.” Homosexuality was almost invisible in the 1960s. It became visible in the 1980s as a consequence of the AIDS epidemic; today it is regarded by a large swathe of the American population as normal. But what is certain is that the word “sex” in Title VII had no immediate reference to homosexuality; many years would elapse before it could be understood to include homosexuality.

A diehard “originalist” would argue that what was believed in 1964 defines the scope of the statute for as long as the statutory text remains unchanged, and therefore until changed by Congress’s amending or replacing the statute. But as I noted earlier, statutory and constitutional provisions frequently are interpreted on the basis of present need and understanding rather than original meaning.

Judge Flaum joined by Judge Ripple also filed a concurring opinion.

Judge Sykes, joined by Judges Bauer and Kanne dissented, saying in part:

The majority deploys a judge-empowering, common-law decision method that leaves a great deal of room for judicial discretion. So does Judge Posner in his concurrence. Neither is faithful to the statutory text, read fairly, as a reasonable person would have understood it when it was adopted. The result is a statutory amendment courtesy of unelected judges. Judge Posner admits this; he embraces and argues for this conception of judicial power. The majority does not, preferring instead to smuggle in the statutory amendment under cover of an aggressive reading of loosely related Supreme Court precedents. Either way, the result is the same: the circumvention of the legislative process by which the people govern themselves.

Advocate reports on the decision.

Court Dismisses Fanciful Suit Designed To Discredit Same-Sex Marriage

A Kentucky federal district court has dismissed a rather fanciful lawsuit filed by opponents of same-sex marriage designed to emphasize plaintiffs' belief that only traditional marriage should be recognized.  In Sevier v. Bevin, (ED KY, March 31, 2017), the court describes plaintiffs' claims:

They identify themselves as "machinist" and "zoophile", respectively, and, together, allege the Commonwealth violated the following constitutional rights by denying Sevier's request for a marriage license permitting him marry his laptop and Ording's request for a marriage license permitting her to many an animal: (1) the right to due process; (2) the right to equal protection; (3) the right to freedom of association; and ( 4) the right to travel. They also claim that the denial of their request for a marriage license is a violation of the Supremacy and Establishment Clauses of the United States Constitution, and also amounts to discrimination on the basis of race.

The court concluded that: "The Plaintiffs' Complaint or Amended Complaint fail to establish any plausible entitlement to relief. "  In a press release on the decision, Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver said: "To marry a laptop computer or a parrot is nonsense, but the same was said about same-sex marriage, and yet there are now five lawyers on the U.S Supreme Court who pulled that rabbit out of a hat."

Case Charging HUD With Antisemitism In Investigation Moves Ahead

In Township of Lakewood, New Jersey v. Castro, (D NJ, April 3, 2017), a New Jersey federal district court refused to dismiss on the pleadings a lawsuit against the Department of Housing and Urban Development alleging that its investigation of the housing assistance program in Lakewood, New Jersey reflected hostility toward Jews and the practice of Orthodox Judaism. Among other things, the court found that "Plaintiffs’ allegations plausibly suggest HUD’s conduct imposed a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ exercise of their faith, in violation of the RFRA...." HUD's action ultimately resulted in administration of housing funds being transferred away from Lakewood.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Rafael Domingo, God and the Secular Legal System: Introduction, (Cambridge University Press, 2016).
• Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr., Agora, Dignity, and Discrimination: On the Constitutional Shortcomings of 'Conscience' Laws that Promote Inequality in the Public Marketplace, (Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 20, 2017).
• Rafael Domingo, Why Tolerate Religion? A Response to Brian Leiter, (March 21, 2017).
• Jonathan R. Cohen, A Genesis of Conflict: The Zero-Sum Mindset, (17 Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 427 (2016)).
• Ioana Cismas, Reflections on the Presence and Absence of Religious Actors in Transitional Justice Processes: On Legitimacy and Accountability, (Roger Duthie and Paul Seils, eds., Justice Mosaics: How Context Shapes Transitional Justice in Fractured Societies (ICTJ, 2017), pp. 302-343.
• Nuno Ferreira, Commentary on the Re-Written Judgment in R (on the Application of Begum) V. Governors of Denbigh High School, (Helen Stalford, Kathryn Hollingsworth and Stephen Gilmore, Children’s Rights Judgments, Hart, 2017 (Forthcoming)).
• Anthony Michael Kreis, Against Gay Potemkin Villages: Title VII and Sexual Orientation Discrimination, (96 Texas Law Review Online (2017).
• Thomas Wooden, Indigenous Sacred Sites as Cultural Property, (RUMLAE Research Paper No. 17-05 (2017).
• Peter J. Smith & Robert W. Tuttle, Civil Procedure and the Ministerial Exception, 86 Fordham Law Review (Forthcoming).

From SSRN (Legal History):

• Nico Schröter, Nico, Order, Authority, and Law: On the Development of Modern Conceptions of Political Order, Legitimate Rule, and Law and How They are Challenged, (LSE Law Review vol. 2 (2017), pp. 24-44).
• M.C. Mirow, Juan Solórzano Pereira,(in Rafael Domingo and Javier Martinez-Torron, Great Christian Jurists in Spanish History (Cambridge University Press, 2017)).
• C.G. Bateman, Supreme Court of the Roman Empire: Constantine's Bishops,(March 21, 2017).

From SmartCILP:

• Nathalie Martin, Right Scholarship and the Goddesses of Commercial Law, 34 Columbia Journal of Gender & Law 124-158 (2016).
• Kim E. Clark, Critical Race Theory, Transformation and Praxis, 45 Southwestern Law Review 795-823 (2016).
• James G. Wilson, Bridging the Secular-Religious Divide with Assistance from the Buddha, [Abstract], 45 Southwestern Law Review 861-895 (2016).
• Stacy A. Scaldo, Seditious Acts of Faith: God, Government, Conscience, and Boiling Frogs, 29 Regent University Law Review 87-121 (2016-2017).
• Chief Judge Glen A. Huff, Repairing Our Foundation Through Christian Scholarship, 29 Regent University Law Review 123-132 (2016-2017).
• Eric G. Osborne & Michael D. Bush, Rethinking Deference: How the History of Church Property Disputes Calls Into Question Long-Standing First Amendment Doctrine, 69 SMU Law Review 811-842 (2016).
• Allan W. Vestal, Fixing Witness Oaths: Shall We Retire the Rewarder of Truth and Avenger of Falsehood?, [Abstract], 27 University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy 443-504 (2016).

More Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

[Note to readers: A unusually large number of prisoner free exercise cases have been decided in recent weeks, so Religion Clause will summarize them in postings more frequent than the usual once-per-week post on such cases until the backlog is covered.]

In Brooks v. Walsh, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40484 (D NV, March 20, 2017), a Nevada federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were infringed when authorities refused to correct a mistaken designation of his chosen religion, which led to him being denied a kosher diet and participation in Hebrew-Israelite religious services.

In Higgins v. Rodriguez, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40700 (ED CA, March 21, 2017), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a suit by a Muslim inmate who alleged that his halal food tray at various times had missing or incomplete food items.

In Harrell v. California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40819 (ED CA, March 21, 2017), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed an inmate's claim that denial of treatment for Hepatitis with a new drug violated his free exercise rights and his right to procreate because he cannot have a child without giving that child Hepatitis.

In Becker v. Reddish, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41163 (MD FL, March 22, 2017), a Florida federal district court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies an inmate's complaint that prison officials confiscated his prayer shawl, tulasi bead necklace, and krsna pendant.

In Bayadi v. Clarke, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41244 (WD VA, March 22, 2017), a Virginia federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to continue with his complaint that pork-free Common Fare meal trays are not kept properly separated from meal trays containing pork products.

In Al-Azim v. Everett, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41570 (ED VA, March 22, 2017), a Virginia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41716, March 3, 2017) and dismissed two inmates' suit complaining that they did not receive a diet consistent with Nation of Islam beliefs.

In Russell v. Pallito, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42009 (D VT, March 23, 2017), a Vermont federal district court, rejecting a magistrate's contrary conclusion (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185274, Aug. 9, 2016), interpreted 42 USC 1997e(e) as allowing an inmate to recover damages for violation of his Free Exercise rights even though he did not suffer any physical injury.  At issue was prison policy to provide Muslim inmates kosher meals instead of halal meals.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Orwig v. Chapdelane, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38875 (D CO, March 17, 2017), a Colorado federal district court allowed an inmate to proceed with some of his claims complaining he was prohibited from carrying his pocket Bible outside of his POD (other to and from religious services), thus compelling him to give up his prison work and incur punishment for doing so. The magistrate's recommendation is at 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38874, Feb. 16, 2017.

In Christian Separatist Church Society v. Mohr, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38902 (SD OH, March 17, 2017), an Ohio federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38901, Jan. 30, 2017) and allowed an inmate to proceed with his RLUIPA complaint that members of the Christian Separatist Church are not permitted to conduct their own communal worship services separate from other Protestant services.

In Staples v. New Hampshire State Prison, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39615 (D NH, March 17, 2017), a New Hampshire federal district court dismissed a complaint by a Taoist inmate that he was penalized for not complying with the prison's beard policy and was denied access to Taoist resources.

In Strickland v. Godinez, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39707 (SD IL, March 20, 2017), an Illinois federal district court dismissed a complaint by an inmate who practices  Asatru/ Odinism that he was denied various religious items, celebration of religious holidays and group services.

In Leshowitz v. Collins, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39877 (WD WA, March 20, 2017), a Washington federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39885, Feb. 10, 2017) and dismissed an inmate's complaint that his Bible calendar was thrown away.

In Avery v. Beard, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39895 (SD CA, March 20, 2017), a California federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with his complaint about the lack of a separate outdoor spiritual area for practitioners of the Wiccan and Odinist/Asatru religions.  The court also granted a 90 stay so plaintiff could exhaust administrative remedies on his complaint that Wiccans should have access to a sweat lodge.

Montana Diocese Files for Bankruptcy

As reported by the Great Falls Tribune, the Diocese of Great Falls-Billings (Montana) yesterday filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The filing grows out of settlement negotiations in a suit that was filed in 2012 by 72 survivors who suffered sexual abuse as minors from priests over the course of several decades. A press release from the Diocese says in part:

On March 31, 2017, the Diocese is filing a chapter 11 reorganization case before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana to fulfill a pre-bankruptcy mediated negotiated agreement with known abuse survivors and the Diocese’s liability insurance carrier.

Bishop Michael W. Warfel and the Diocese have chosen a pastoral approach which provided the basis for its having entered this confidential mediation process. The recent mediation resulted in the beginning stages of general parameters of proposed settlements with the victims and the insurance carrier. The details of that comprehensive agreement are still being worked on by the parties. Under the supervision and ultimate approval of the Bankruptcy Court, the diocese and its insurance carrier would both contribute to that comprehensive settlement, which would compensate the currently identified victims. There will be additional settlement funds for additional and unknown victims. The process of obtaining Bankruptcy Court approval included the opportunity for victims and creditors to vote on the proposed settlement. The Diocese expects that its reorganization will be expedited by the pre-bankruptcy negotiations with all the affected parties.

Fired Hospice Chaplain Loses Title VII Claim In 9th Circuit

In Blair v. Shulkin, (9th Cir., March 28, 2017), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that a Title VII religious discrimination claim against the Department of Veterans Affairs should be dismissed. Plaintiff, Carmen Blair, claimed that she was fired from her position as a chaplain because of her Christian religious beliefs, alleging that her dismissal stemmed from discriminatory and biased attitudes on the part of her hospice team towards her as a conservative Charismatic Christian.  The court accepted the VA's explanation that the firing was because Blair was unable to integrate into the hospice unit team.  It pointed out that "the very basis upon which Blair claims she was
discriminated against—her Christian faith—was a prerequisite for her initial employment."  Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

North Carolina Repeals "Bathroom Law", But Pre-Empts Local Regulation

North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper yesterday signed into law House Bill 142 (full text), a compromise bill that repeals H.B. 2, the state's controversial "bathroom law" that restricted use of restrooms and locker rooms in public schools and government offices by transgender individuals. (See prior posting.) The new law also repeals Session Law 2016-99, and thus apparently eliminates any private action under state law for employment discrimination. The new law prohibits local governments, state universities and state agencies from enacting their own regulation of access to multiple occupancy restrooms, showers, or changing facilities.  It also prohibits local governments until Dec. 1, 2020 from enacting or amending any ordinance regulating private employment practices or public accommodations.  In his remarks (full text) in signing H.B. 142, Gov. Cooper said in part:

This law I’m signing today is not just about North Carolina’s reputation – or jobs and sports. It’s about working to end discrimination. Under HB2, North Carolina had zero LGBT protections. Today’s law not only provides for LGBT protections, but opens the door for more.

 This is not a perfect deal or my preferred solution. It stops short of many things we need to do as a state.

 In a perfect world, we would have repealed HB2 today and added full statewide protections for LGBT North Carolinians. Unfortunately, our supermajority Republican legislature will not pass these protections. But this is an important goal that I will keep fighting for.

Washington Post reports on these developments.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Leads To Dismissal of Suit By Expelled Student For Priesthood

In Doe v. Pontifical College Josephinum, (OH App., March 30, 2017), an Ohio appellate court applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss a suit by a former student who was dismissed from an academic program designed to prepare him to become a priest.  The student was dismissed after the school's Vice Rector determined that there was a "credible accusation of homosexual activity."  The student sued for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unauthorized disclosure of confidential educational records, and unjust enrichment. In an internal canon law appeal of his dismissal, the student was unable to prepare a defense because he could not obtain relevant records from the school.  The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the lawsuit, saying in part:

Although appellant argues that the trial court could resolve his claims without addressing ecclesiastic issues, it is clear that the alleged unjust dismissal lies at the core of each claim. Therefore, evaluating those claims would require the common pleas court to consider issues related to the Josephinum's disciplinary process and the dismissal. 

Challenge To Boca's Zoning For Chabad Again Dismissed For Lack of Standing

As previously reported, last July a Florida federal district court dismissed on standing grounds a challenge by residents and taxpayers of Boca Raton to zoning changes by the city that permitted a Chabad (Hasidic Jewish) group to construct a religious center.  Plaintiffs, who identified themselves as Christians, claim that the city's actions violated the Establishment clause, the equal protection and due process clauses, and the Florida Constitution. Subsequently plaintiffs filed an amended complaint attempting to find standing by describing plaintiffs as citizens and residents of the United States residing in Boca Raton, and as members of the Christian religion.  In Gagliardi v. City of Boca Raton, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46805 (SD FL, March 27, 2017), the court again found that plaintiffs lack standing, saying in part:

Far from the particularized and concrete injury required to confer standing, Plaintiffs have simply reasserted, again and again, a list of conjectural injuries to the whole of the area surrounding the proposed Chabad site, and potentially beyond.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Crawley v. Parsons, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36572 (WD VA, March 14, 2017), a Virginia federal district court allowed an inmate who was a member of the House of Yahweh faith to move ahead in his suit against the chaplain (but not against others) for failure to grant his request to participate in Passover meals.

In Delk v. Younce, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36581 (WD VA, March 14,2017), a Virginia federal district court dismissed complaints about his religious diet raised by a Wiccan/ Pagan inmate.

In Carter v. Fleming, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36644 (WD VA, March 15, 2017), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a complaint by a Nation of Islam inmate that halal and Kosher foods were served on the regular as well as the Common Fare menu.

In Simpson v. Director., Texas Department of Criminal Justice- Correctional Institutions Division, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37419 (ED TX, March 16, 2017), a Texas federal district court dismissed a Jewish inmate's complaint that officers confiscated material he used for religious study while searching his housing unit.

In Cochran v. Sherman, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38165 (ED CA, March 15, 2017), a California federal magistrate judge allowed an inmate to move ahead with his claim against two defendants for refusing to allow him to obtain a religious name change.

In Dorsey v. Shearin, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38483 (D MD, March 17, 2017, a Maryland federal district court refused to dismiss a Native American inmate's complaint regarding the unavailability of religious services to him while in Max II housing.

Pastor's Suit Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Speller v. St. Stephen Lutheran Church of Drayton Plains, (MI App., March 28, 2017), the Michigan Court of Appeals applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss a suit brought by a Lutheran pastor challenging actions that forced his resignation from St. Stephen's Lutheran Church. He claims this led to his "blacklisting" in the church and his inability to practice his profession.  The court rejected plaintiff's argument that it should decide the case using neutral principles of law, instead of dismissing it, saying in part:

His tort and breach of contract claims arose in the context of St. Stephen’s decision whether to retain plaintiff as its pastor and the LCMS and Reverend Maier’s decision whether to retain plaintiff as a minister on the LCMS synodical roster. Resolution of these claims would necessarily require the trial court to inquire into the propriety of those decisions and defendants’ conduct relative to those decisions, which clearly relate to internal church matters, including church discipline, church governance, and plaintiff’s employment as a Lutheran pastor. These issues would require the court to impermissibly stray into ecclesiastical polity.