Settlements Reached In New Jersey Mosque Zoning Cases

The Justice Department announced Tuesday that a settlement has been reached with Bernards Township, New Jersey in the the Justice Department's Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act lawsuit over the town's refusal to grant zoning approval for construction of a mosque by the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge. Under the agreement, the town will permit the mosque to be built.  It will also amend its zoning ordinances.  A $3.25 million settlement was also reached in a suit by the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge similarly charging RLUIPA violations, as well as violations of the 1st and 14th Amendments, in the Bernards Township's refusal to grant site plan approval. The Atlantic reports on the settlements.

Rule Under Review To Modify Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

The Office of Management and Budget reports that an Interim Final rule on Coverage Of Certain Preventive Services Under The Affordable Care Act is pending regulatory review.  The New York Times reports that this rule will relax the controversial requirements relating to contraceptive coverage for employees of religious non-profits.

Muslim Scholars Are Target of Taliban

A New York Times report (May 28) is titled Taliban Target: Scholars of Islam.  It recounts in part:

The scholars have long been targets, of one kind or another, in Afghanistan. Their words carry weight across many parts of society, and they are assiduously courted for their support — and frequently killed for their criticism.

Hundreds are believed to have been killed over the past 16 years of war, and not always by the Taliban. But there has been a definite uptick in the targeted killing of scholars — widely known as ulema — as the Taliban have intensified their offensives in the past two years, officials say.

It is being taken as a clear reminder of the weight the insurgents give not just to military victories but also to religious influence in their campaign to disrupt the government and seize territory.

Congressional Commission Holds Hearings on Countering Religious Violence

On May 24, the U.S. House of Representatives Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission held a hearing on Freedom of Belief: Countering Religious Violence.  A video of the hearing and transcripts of prepared remarks of members and witnesses are available on the Committee's website.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Samuel Moyn, Thomas Pink, John Finnis & Lorenzo Zucca, Christian Human Rights: A Debate, (King's Law Journal, Vol 28.1 (2017), p.1-50).
• Barry W. Bussey, Rights Inflation: Attempts to Redefine Marriage and the Freedom of Religion: The Case of Trinity Western University School of Law, (Regent University Law Review, Vol. 29, No. 197, 2017).
• Sepehr Shahshahani & Lawrence J. Liu, Religion and Judging on the Federal Courts of Appeals, (May 20, 2017).
• Christopher C. Lund, Religion is Special Enough, (Virginia Law Review, Vol. 103, p. 481, 2017).
• Howard Kislowicz, The Court and Freedom of Religion, ((2017) 78 S.C.L.R. (2d) 221).
• Adam Epstein, Michigan and Sports Law, (Journal of Law, Business & Ethics, Vol. 24, Forthcoming).
• Santiago Legarre & Gregory J. Mitchell, Secondary Effects and Public Morality, (40 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 320 (2017)).
• Courtney G. Joslin, The Gay Rights Canon and the Right to Nonmarriage, (97 Boston University Law Review 425 (2017)).
• Mohamed Badar & Masaki Nagata, Modern Extremist Groups and the Division of the World: A Critique from Islamic Perspective, (Arab Law Quarterly 31 (2017) Forthcoming).
• Mohamed Badar, Masaki Nagata & Tiphanie Tueni, The Radical Application of the Islamist Concept of Takfir, (Arab Law Quarterly 31 (2017) 132-160).

From SmartCILP:

• Heather M. Kolinsky, Situating the Corporation Within the Vulnerability Paradigm: What Impact Does Corporate Personhood Have on Vulnerability, Dependency, and Resilience, [Abstract], 25 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & Law 51-86 (2017).
• Patrick B. Grant, Islamic Law, International Law, and Non-International Armed Conflict in Syria, 35 Boston University International Law Journal 1-37 (2017).

No Ramadan Divorces In Palestinian Territories

According to a report today from Al Jazeera, Mahmud Habash, the chief judge of Palestinian Islamic courts in the West Bank and Gaza, has ordered judges to grant no divorces during Ramadan.  Only religious courts have jurisdiction over divorces in the Palestinian Authority.  Habash said that based on experience from previous years, some litigants make "quick and ill-considered decisions" after they have not eaten or smoked.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Debarr v. Clark, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76941 (D NV, May 19, 2017), a Nevada federal magistrate judge recommended that a Pagan inmatebe allowed o move ahead with his complaint that he was denied access to any outdoor area for the practice of his faith and that while in disciplinary segregation he could not participate in any Solstice holiday ceremonies.

In Davis v. Abercrombie, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77609 (D HI, May 22, 2017), an Hawaii federal district court gave final approval to the settlement in a class action by Native Hawaiian inmates who complained that they were denied access to religious items and to a spiritual advisor and group religious activities.

In Todd v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79852 (ED CA, May 23, 2017), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing on qualified immunity grounds religious exercise complaints by inmates who were members of the "Ecclesia Creatoris" religious organization which promotes the Creativity religion.  It was reasonable for officials to conclude that Creativity is not a "religion" for 1st Amendment purposes.

In Merrick v. Penzone, 2017 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 625 (AZ App., May 23, 2017), the Arizona Court of appeals affirmed dismissal of a suit by an inmate who is a member of the Fundamental American Christian Temple who was denied unmonitored, unrecorded telephone calls with his brother who was a church elder.

Ramadan Begins Tonight--Trump Issues Greetings

The Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this evening.  President Donald Trump today released a statement (full text) wishing all Muslims a joyful Ramadan. He said in part:

During this month of fasting from dawn to dusk, many Muslims in America and around the world will find meaning and inspiration in acts of charity and meditation that strengthen our communities.  At its core, the spirit of Ramadan strengthens awareness of our shared obligation to reject violence, to pursue peace, and to give to those in need who are suffering from poverty or conflict.

This year, the holiday begins as the world mourns the innocent victims of barbaric terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom and Egypt, acts of depravity that are directly contrary to the spirit of Ramadan.  Such acts only steel our resolve to defeat the terrorists and their perverted ideology.

Also, reflecting an increase in anti-Muslim activity around the country, the organization Muslim Advocates issued an arson alert to mosques throughout the United Sates.

One Pleads Guilty To Voter Fraud In Attempt To Get Approval For Townhouses For Hasidic Jews

As previously reported, the village of Bloomingburg, New York has been embroiled in a battle over whether an ultra-Orthodox Jewish community would expand into the town.  Real estate developer Kenneth Nakdimen and his associates sought to build a  396-unit townhouse development there to be marketed to Hasidic Jews.  They faced local opposition which the developers said was fueled by anti-Semitism.  As reported by the Wall Street Journal, the developers were ultimately indicted by the federal government for their voting fraud tactics in seeking to obtain approval for their project.  Yesterday the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York announced that Nakdimen has pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to corrupt the electoral process. The announcement describes the basis for the charges:

[B]y late 2013, the first of their real estate developments had met local opposition, and still remained under construction and uninhabitable.  When met with resistance, rather than seek to advance their real estate development project through legitimate means, NAKDIMEN and others instead decided to corrupt the democratic electoral process in Bloomingburg by falsely registering voters and paying bribes for voters who would help elect public officials favorable to their project.

....   NAKDIMEN and others took steps to cover up their scheme to register voters who did not actually live in Bloomingburg by, among other things, creating and back-dating false leases and placing items like toothbrushes and toothpaste in unoccupied apartments to make it seem as if the falsely registered voters lived there.

UPDATE: On June 6, the U.S. Attorney's office announced that a second defendant, Shalom Lamm, has now also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to corrupt the electoral process.

[Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Suit Charges Dearborn Pizza Store With Serving Pepperoni As Halal

Detroit Free Press reports on a class action lawsuit filed yesterday in a Michigan state trial court against Little Caesars claiming that the chain's pizza store in Dearborn placed pizza topped with pork-based pepperoni in boxes marked Halal.  The suit which seeks $100 million in damages says that plaintiff Mohamad Bazzi has encountered the problem twice, once in March and once this week. Plaintiff claims breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and fraud.  Bazzi's attorney says the suit was filed rapidly ahead of Ramadan which begins this evening so that other Muslims would not accidentally eat pork from the pizza outlet during the holy days.

3rd Circuit Clarifies Burden of Proof For Preliminary Injunction In 1st Amendment Cases

In Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, (3rd Cir., May 25, 2017), a suit challenging a city's ban on demonstrations within 20 feet of any abortion clinic property, the 3rd Circuit clarified the burden of proof requirement for a preliminary injunction in 1st Amendment cases:

...[A] movant for preliminary equitable relief must meet the threshold for the first two “most critical” factors: it must demonstrate that it can win on the merits (which requires a showing significantly better than negligible but not necessarily more likely than not) and that it is more likely than not to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. If these gateway factors are met, a court then considers the remaining two factors and determines in its sound discretion if all four factors, taken together, balance in favor of granting the requested preliminary relief.... “How strong a claim on the merits is enough depends on the balance of the harms: the more net harm an injunction can prevent, the weaker the plaintiff’s claim on the merits can be while still supporting some preliminary relief.” ...

In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs normally bear the burden of demonstrating a sufficient likelihood of prevailing on the merits. However, in First Amendment cases where “the Government bears the burden of proof on the ultimate question of [a statute’s] constitutionality, [plaintiffs] must be deemed likely to prevail [for the purpose of considering a preliminary injunction] unless the Government has shown that [plaintiffs’] proposed less restrictive alternatives are less effective than [the statute].”.... This is because “the burdens at the preliminary injunction stage track the burdens at trial,” and for First Amendment purposes they rest with the Government.

Suit Challenges Zoning Denial For Mosque

A suit was filed in a New Jersey federal district court yesterday claiming that the Bayonne (NJ) zoning board violated RLUIPA as well as the U.S. and New Jersey constitutions in denying a Muslim religious congregation zoning approval for construction of a mosque. The complaint (full text) in Bayonne Muslims v. City of  Bayonne, (D NJ, filed 5/25/2017) alleges in part:

Plaintiffs applied to the Zoning Board for routine variances, which were needed to convert a decrepit, abandoned, and trash-strewn warehouse on a blighted street into a vibrant community mosque. Plaintiffs then endured years of bigotry and hate crime from those opposed to the mosque. Ultimately, the Zoning Board capitulated to the community’s anti-Muslim animus and denied the application. It did so even though it had previously granted indistinguishable variances to Christian churches. The Zoning Board violated both federal and state law to achieve its desired outcome.

Jersey Journal reports on the lawsuit.

4th Circuit En Banc Upholds Preliminary Injunction Against Trump's Second Travel Ban Executive Order

Today the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc upheld (with a minor exception) the nationwide preliminary injunction entered by a Maryland federal district court barring enforcement of a major provision of President Trump's second travel ban Executive Order.  By a 10-3 vote, in a series of opinions spanning 205 pages, the Court of Appeals in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, (4th Cir., May 25, 2017), affirmed the award of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Section 2(c) of the Executive Order which imposes a 90-day suspension on entry into the country of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The Court however-- in a step that has little practical significance-- limited the injunction to various cabinet officers and departments and their officers, agents and employees, but lifted the injunction against to the President himself.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Judge Gregory (joined in full by 6 other judges and in part by 2 more (with one judge joining only in the judgment), focused on the Establishment Clause.  The Court said in part:

The question for this Court, distilled to its essential form, is whether the Constitution ... remains “a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace.” And if so, whether it protects Plaintiffs’ right to challenge an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.

Judge Keenan joined by Judge Thacker filed a concurring opinion indicating that they would also uphold the preliminary injunction because the President failed to make adequate finding as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) before he can exclude a group of aliens that entry of that group of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.

Judge Wynn filed a concurring opinion indicating that he would also find that the Executive Order exceeded the President's authority under the Immigration Act.  Judge Thacker also filed a concurring opinion, stating that he concurred even though he would not consider statements made by candidate Trump before he took the oath of office as relevant.

Judges Niemeyer, Shedd and Agee, each writing a dissenting opinion concurred in by the others. The opinions, among other things, objected to the consideration of campaign statements "to recast a later-issued executive order," and argued that plaintiffs lacked standing.

The Washington Post reporting on the decision notes:

All of the judges in the majority were placed on the court by Democratic presidents and the three dissenting judges ... were all nominated to the bench by Republican presidents.

UPDATE: Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Thursday that the government will seek review of the decision in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Suit Challenges School District's Anti-Islamophobia Program

Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund announced yesterday that it has filed a religious discrimination lawsuit in a California federal district court against the San Diego Unified School District.  The suit, filed on behalf of a group of parents, challenges an Anti-Islamophobia program instituted by the school district to combat bullying and harassment of Muslim students.  The lawsuit particularly objects to the school board's collaboration with CAIR, a group which plaintiffs say has ties to radical Islam.  The complaint alleges in part:

Under the guise of this anti-bullying program, Defendants have fallen in with [CAIR] to set up a subtle, discriminatory scheme that establishes Muslim students as the privileged religious group within the school community.  Consequently, students of other faiths are left on the outside looking in, vulnerable to religiously motivated bullying, while Muslim students enjoy an exclusive right to the School District’s benevolent protection.

Muslim Student Sues Claiming Grade Was Result of Religious Discrimination

NJ Advance Media reported yesterday on a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by a Union County College Muslim student.  Plaintiff Sahna ElBanna claims that her business professor, Toby Grodner, gave her an "F" in a course in which she earned A's on exams that count for 60% of the grade. The professor says ElBanna received F's on multimedia assignments that comprised the remaining 40% of her grade. ElBanna claims that Grodner made derogatory comments about Muslims in class-- using the terms "Muslim" and "terrorist" interchangeably, and questioning her about her religion.

Long Skirts, Title II vs. Title VII

In Jalal v. Lucille Roberts Health Clubs, Inc., (SD NY, May 22, 2017), a New York federal district court dismissed a suit brought by a Jewish woman against a health club which refused to allow her to wear a long skirt while using gym equipment.  In the suit, plaintiff Yosefa Jalal alleged that by refusing to allow her to dress as required by her religious beliefs, the health club violated the public accommodation provisions (Title II) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The court disagreed, saying in part:

Here, plaintiff fails to allege facts plausibly supporting a minimal inference of discriminatory motivation. Although plaintiff contends that she was treated differently than other Lucille Roberts members on the basis of her religion, the factual allegations only suggest that she was treated differently because she insisted on wearing an article of clothing that, according to defendant, was inappropriate gym attire.... Nowhere does the complaint allege that defendant selectively enforced its dress code against Jewish women.... There is no indication ... that claims grounded solely in disparate impact—and lacking any allegation of discriminatory intent—are cognizable under Title II.

Consumerist reports on the decision.

Meanwhile, JTA reported yesterday on a religious discrimination in employment lawsuit filed in New York state court.  Plaintiff Hadas Goldfarb, an Orthodox Jewish woman who was hired by New York Presbyterian Hospital as a paramedic, was dismissed when when she insisted on wearing a skirt instead of pants as required by the hospital's dress code.  Unlike the public accommodation section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the employment discrimination provisions (Title VII) require employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious exercise. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Trump In Israel Calls For End To Sectarian Conflict In Middle East

During his trip to the Middle East, yesterday President Trump delivered an address (full text) at the Israel Museum in which he framed a call for a political settlement in religious terms.  The President said in part:

Today, gathered with friends, I call upon all people -- Jews, Christians, Muslims, and every faith, every tribe, every creed -- to draw inspiration from this ancient city, to set aside our sectarian differences, to overcome oppression and hatred, and to give all children the freedom and hope and dignity written into our souls. 

Earlier this week, I spoke at a very historic summit in Saudi Arabia.  I was hosted by King Salman -- a very wise man.  There, I urged our friends in the Muslim world to join us in creating stability, safety and security.  And I was deeply encouraged by the desire of many leaders to join us in cooperation toward these shared and vital goals.  

Conflict cannot continue forever.  The only question is when nations will decide that they have had enough -- enough bloodshed, enough killing.  That historic summit represents a new opportunity for people throughout the Middle East to overcome sectarian and religious divisions, to extinguish the fires of extremism, and to find common ground and shared responsibility in making the future of this region so much better than it is right now.

Priest Sex Abuse Suit Filed Against Guam Archdiocese

On Monday, a 49-year old man filed suit in a Guam federal district court against the Catholic Archdiocese of Agana seeking $5 million in damages for sexual abuse he suffered in a Guam church in 1982 when he was an altar boy.  The offending priest, Fr. John Niland, died in 2009.  The complaint (full text) in Charfauros v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Agana, (D GU, filed 5/22/2017), alleges in part:

12. ... [D]isguising the scheme to have sexual access to young boys was the ritual of requiring altar boys to spend the night at the church rectory, ostensibly to facilitate preparation for the following morning church services.... These seemingly routine practices ... served the predatory priests with a steady supply of victims under the auspices and pretense of formal church protocol, which allowed the Church to continually operate a veritable harem of young boys who were readily available to pedophiles who utilized the stature of the church into deceiving the community to regard them as high-level officials.

13. The systematic and ongoing pattern of sexual abuse of young children was characteristic of an internal society within ... [the] Archdiocese ... whose norms were based on pedophilic conduct disguised by the rituals and pageantry of liturgical services ... which caused Catholic parishioners.to place the highest level of confidence and trust in the church and its clergy. This internal society of sexual corruption sustained itself through a conspiratorial arrangement between priests and higher officials in the Agana Archdiocese whereby they all understood and agreed to remain quiet about each others sexual abuse misconduct....

Pacific News Center reports on the lawsuit. As reported by Crux, last year Pope Francis in effect replaced Agana Archbishop Anthony Apuron after allegations that the Archbishop sexually abused altar boys in the 1960's and 1970's.

Church Awarded $1.35M For Loss Stemming From Overbroad Zoning Restriction

In Riverside Church v. City of  St.Michael, (D MN, May 22, 2017), a Minnesota federal district court awarded damages of $1,354,595 to a church which was prevented by city zoning ordinances from acquiring a vacant movie theater building and use it for worship services.  The court concluded that the church's free speech rights were infringed because the zoning ordinance, while addressing significant government interests relating to traffic control, was not narrowly tailored.  Ultimately the city amended its zoning ordinance to allow purchase of the theater building, but by then its purchase price had increased by $1.29 million, a price which the church could not afford to pay.  The court refused to award the church damages against the city for defamation. (See prior related posting.)

Texas Legislature Passes Conscience Protections For Adoption, Foster Care, Counseling Services

The Texas legislature yesterday gave final passage to HB 3859 (full text), a bill that prohibits any governmental agency from discriminating or taking adverse action against a child welfare service provider that refuses to provide adoption, foster care, counseling or other services that conflict with the agency's religious beliefs.  The bill, which now goes to the governor for signature, also protects agencies that place children with providers who will give the children a religious education. Where an agency refuses to serve a client, it must refer the client to, or to a listing of, other agencies that can serve them.  AP, reporting on the bill, says:

The private foster care and adoption organizations, which are paid by the state to place children with families, make up about 25 percent of the agencies working in Texas. Those groups say they face a threat of lawsuits for exercising their religious beliefs if they don’t get specific state legal protection.  Many Texas adoption agencies admit they don’t work with adoptive parents who are single, gay or non-Christian, and the bill could keep them from being sued.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]