California Pregnancy Clinic Requirement Violates State Constitution

In Scharpen Foundation, Inc. v. Harris, (CA Super. Ct., Oct 30, 2017), a California state trial court held that the state's Reproductive FACT Act violates the free speech protections of Art. I, Sec. 2 of the California Constitution. The challenged statute requires licensed pregnancy counseling clinics to post or provide to patients a notice on the existence of publicly-funded family planning services, including contraception and abortion. Applying strict scrutiny, the court said in part:

There is no question that the State has a legitimate regulatory interest in the practice of the healing arts.  In the midst of this contentious political dispute the State commands that specific State authored words be mouthed by the clinic at the very beginning of its relationship with those who come to it for guidance.... The statute interferes with both the right of the clinician to speak and with the right of the patient to hear what the clinician would say in the absence of State censorship....

It is entirely proper for the State to take its position supporting access to abortion.... But its ability to impress free citizens into State service in this political dispute cannot be absolute....

Last year the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the California statute against free speech and free exercise challenges raised under the U.S. Constitution. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing this week's state court decision.

2nd Circuit: Religious Court Lacks Standing To Challenge Stay of Its Proceedings

In Bais Din of Mechon L’Hoyroa v. Congregation Birchos Yosef, (2d Cir., Nov. 1, 2017), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a  district court's conclusion that a Jewish religious court lacked standing to challenge the application of the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provisions to proceedings in the religious court.  The 2nd Circuit said in part:

As the district court correctly concluded, the Bais Din failed to demonstrate that it suffered a pecuniary harm. Quite the opposite, the Bais Din did not even allege a pecuniary harm before the district court, claiming instead that the automatic stay inhibited the free exercise of religion by “preventing the Bais Din from issuing notices to or against” individuals who violate Jewish law’s prohibition on initiating proceedings in secular courts without prior permission from a rabbinical court. Whatever the merits of that claim, it does not reflect a pecuniary injury. Moreover, to the extent that the Bais Din seeks to vindicate a non-pecuniary injury, nothing in this or the district court’s opinion prevents it from filing a civil action.

Amicus Briefs In Masterpiece Cakeshop Now Available Online

The Masterpiece Cakeshop case will be argued before the Supreme Court on Dec. 5. Over 50 90 amicus briefs have been filed in the case. SCOTUSblog's case page has links to them, as well as to briefs of petitioner and respondent and to commentary on the case. The case pits the Colorado Civil Rights Commission against a baker who, for religious reasons, refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Bus Driver Can Move Ahead With Religious Objection To Fingerprinting

In Kaite v. Altoona Student Transportation, Inc., (WD PA, Oct. 30, 2017), a Pennsylvania federal district court allowed a school bus driver to proceed with her religious discrimination and retaliation claims against her employer.  A newly enacted state law required the driver to undergo a background check, including fingerprinting.  According to the court, plaintiff, a devout Christian, sought an accommodation because of her belief that fingerprinting is the "mark of the devil" which is forbidden by the Book of Revelation.  Defendant refused any accommodation and dismissed plaintiff.  Legal Intelligencer reports on the decision.

Barrett Confirmed For 7th Circuit After Controversy Over Her Religious Beliefs

The Hill reports that the U.S. Senate yesterday confirmed the nomination of Notre Dame Law Professor Amy Coney Barrett for a seat on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Three Democrats joined Republicans to approve the nomination by a vote of 55-43.  Barrett's nomination had become controversial because of her views on reproductive rights, abortion, LGBTQ rights, as well as her statement in a 1988 law review article urging Catholic judges to recuse themselves in capital cases because of Catholic teaching opposing capital punishment. (See prior posting.) After the Senate's confirmation vote, a spokesperson for The Catholic Association said:

Amy Coney Barrett's qualifications for the federal judiciary are undisputed, but abortion industry advocates continue their smear campaign by attacking Barrett's Catholic faith.  The full Senate rejected their attempt to hang a ‘Catholics need not apply’ sign outside the Senate chamber when it considers candidates to the judiciary.

7th Circuit Hears Arguments On Christmas Pageant Challenge

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Concord Community Schools. (Audio of oral arguments).  In the case, an Indiana federal district court upheld the constitutionality of a modified version of the annual Christmas Spectacular put on by an Indiana high school.  Plaintiffs had challenged the pageant under the Establishment Clause. The court had previously issued a preliminary injunction against the 2014 and proposed 2015 versions that included a live Nativity Scene and Bible passages. (See prior posting.)  Subsequently the court awarded nominal damages and a declaratory judgment as to the earlier versions. (See prior posting.)  Courthouse News Service reports in more detail on yesterday's oral arguments.

New Contraceptive Coverage Rules Challenged As Notre Dame Plans To End Coverage

As previously reported, the Trump Administration has issued Interim Final Rules that expand religious exemptions from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate.  The Administration has also settled many of the lawsuits challenging the contraceptive coverage requirement.  Indiana Public Media reports that Notre Dame University last week informed students and employees that after the end of the current plan year, health insurance policies obtained through the University will no longer cover contraceptives for birth control. Apparently plans will still cover contraceptives where necessary to treat medical conditions.

Yesterday, three Notre Dame students, an employee of an Illinois university and an employee of a church filed suit in an Indiana federal district court challenging the new Interim Rules.  The complaint (full text) in Shiraef v. Hargan, (ND IN, filed 10/31/2017), contends:

3. Bypassing the legally-required notice and comment process, the Rules were promulgated to take effect immediately and nullify existing regulations that took over six years to implement and involved no less than six rounds of notice-and-comment rulemaking, including consideration of over 725,000 comments.

4. The Rules and their issuance violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution including equal protection guarantees and the right to liberty, and the ACA.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Muslim Woman's Suit Over Search By Male Officer Is Dismissed

In Montgomery v. Town of Colonie, (ND NY, Oct. 30, 2017), a New York federal district court granted qualified immunity to a male police officer who conducted a pat-down search of a Muslim woman when she was arrested.  Dismissing this portion of plaintiff's claim for damages, the court said in part:

Montgomery does not cite a single authority holding that a police officer violates the First Amendment by performing a cross-gender pat-frisk of an observant Muslim.

The court however allowed plaintiff to move ahead with her Fourth Amendment and false imprisonment claims.

Court Blocks Trump's Memo On Transgender Enlistment And Service In Military

A D.C. federal district court yesterday issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the portions of President Trump's Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals that would have prevented enlistment and service by transgender persons.  In a 76-page decision in Jane Doe 1 v. Trump, (D DC, Oct. 30, 2017), the court said in part:

As a form of government action that classifies people based on their gender identity, and disfavors a class of historically persecuted and politically powerless individuals, the President’s directives are subject to a fairly searching form of scrutiny. Plaintiffs claim that the President’s directives cannot survive such scrutiny because they are not genuinely based on legitimate concerns regarding military effectiveness or budget constraints, but are instead driven by a desire to express disapproval of transgender people generally. The Court finds that a number of factors— including the sheer breadth of the exclusion ordered by the directives, the unusual circumstances surrounding the President’s announcement of them, the fact that the reasons given for them do not appear to be supported by any facts, and the recent rejection of those reasons by the military itself—strongly suggest that Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim is meritorious.

The court held plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Memorandum's provisions blocking funds for sex reassignment surgery. New York Times reports on the decision.

Catholic Nurse Sues Duke University Hospital Seeking Religious Accommodation

A lawsuit was filed last week against Duke University and the Duke University Health System by a Catholic emergency department nurse who claims that Duke University Hospital discriminated against her because she requested accommodation of her religious beliefs.  The complaint (full text) in Pedro v. Duke University, (MD NC, filed 10/27/2017), alleges in part:

7. Because of her Catholic faith, [plaintiff] objects to assisting in abortions, dispensing birth control and contraceptives, and receiving as well as administering vaccines. Ms. Pedro’s employer, Defendant Duke, discriminated against her because of these religious beliefs and practices.

8. Furthermore, after Ms. Pedro made known her religious beliefs and requested religious accommodations, Defendant Duke subjected her to a degrading series of actions designed to punish and retaliate against her for engaging in federally-protected activity.

Apparently the Hospital was willing to accommodate Pedro's objection to receiving vaccines, but not her objection to participating in abortions.

Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Township In Litigation With Indian Tribe Over Use of Prayer Grounds

In Mahwah, New Jersey, where most of the attention is on a lawsuit claiming that the township is attempting to keep out Orthodox Jews (see prior posting), NJ Advance Media reports on another trial under way also involving religious rights.  The township is attempting to force the Ramapough Lenape Indian Tribe to remove teepees and other structures the tribe erected on their 13.6 acre prayer ground on the Ramapo River at the base of a high-priced housing development. the tribe says the township is trying to criminalize its religious gatherings.  The township argues that the issue is zoning compliance in a conservation zone and flood plain. It says the tribe has created a camp ground that is not permitted under zoning regulations.

Egyptian Court Bans TV Show That Criticizes Traditional Sunni Doctrine

Yesterday Egypt's Administrative Court banned the broadcast of the TV show "With Islam."  As reported by Al-Ahram and Egypt Daily News, the show, hosted by Egyptian reformer Islam El-Beheiry, features video excerpts of talks by respected Salafi preachers followed by El-Beheiry's criticism of their statements.  The show appears on the privately-owned TV channel Al Qahera Wel Nas.  The suit was originally filed in 2015 by Al-Azhar Grand Imam Ahmed El-Tayeb who contended that El-Beheiry falsely criticized religious doctrines to make individuals question their beliefs. Yesterday;s court order bans showing of future as well as past episodes of With Islam, and also prohibits inviting El-Beheiry to appear on any other satellite TV channels.  In December 2015, El-Beheiry was sentenced to one year in prison for contempt of religion after he questioned the authenticity of certain Sunni religious texts. He was released one month early with a pardon from Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and his show resumed in May.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Michael J. T. McMillen, Enforceability of Certain Promises, Particularly Unilateral and Pre-Closing Promises: Secular and Shari'ah Concepts, (2017 Proceedings of Accounting and Auditing Organisation for Islamic Financial Institutions Shari'ah Board Conference).
• Ronald J. Colombo, An Antitrust Approach to Corporate Free Exercise Claims, (Volume 92.1 of the St. John’s Law Review, 2017).
• Elizabeth Heger Boyle, Shannon Golden & Wenjie Liao, The Catholic Church and International Law, (Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 13, pp. 395-411, 2017).
• Liam Elphick, Sexual Orientation and 'Gay Wedding Cake' Cases Under Australian Anti-Discrimination Legislation: A Fuller Approach to Religious Exemptions, (Adelaide Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2017).
• Shahbaz Ahmad Cheema & Zubair and Abbasi, Contribution of the Lahore High Court in the Development of Islamic Family Law in Pakistan, (October 21, 2017).
• Asif Khan & Maseeh Ullah, Judicial Patronage of ‘Honor Killings' in Pakistan: The Supreme Court's Persistent Adherence to the Doctrine of Grave and Sudden Provocation, (June 18, 2015).

Court Resolves Factional Religious Split Using "Neutral Principles" Approach

In Kelley v. Garuda, (Nassau Cty. NY Sup. Ct., Oct. 2, 2017), a New York trial court, deferring to resolutions passed by the Governing Body Commission of the International Society of Krishna Consciousness ("GBC") and applying neutral principles of law, resolved a factional theological split within the Freeport, New York ISKCON Temple. The court upheld a default judgment against defendants who had taken control of the Temple, saying in part:

Plaintiffs' purchased the property well before the Defendants' arrival and interference with the Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of the property. Prior to the 2005 "election" where Gupta and his adherents purportedly changed the leadership of the Freeport Temple, the Plaintiffs sufficiently established that all financial and ecclesiastical issues regarding the Freeport Temple were decided and/or approved by the GBC or its chosen delegates....

Further evidence of the Plaintiffs' ownership and control over the Freeport Temple is their constitution, the ISKCON Law Book, which creates an express trust in favor of the Society at large under the control of the GBC....

The Founder also established a Trust in the second Article of his Will which declared that each ISKCON temple would be held for the benefit of the ISKCON Society at large. The language of the Trust provision specifies that the GBC would continue to manage the ISKCON Society in perpetuity.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Abdullah v. Cohen, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174961 (D NJ, Oct. 23, 2017), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed without prejudice an inmate's suit alleging that hie was not on the Ramadan list and that his isolation in jail prevents him from practicing his religion.

In Green v. Frank Parish Detention Center, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175215 (WD LA, Oct. 20, 2017), a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175704, Sept. 19, 2017) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that group Jumah religious services are not offered on Fridays.

In Smith v. Drawbridge, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175014 (WD OK, Oct. 23, 2017), an Oklahoma federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175923,  Sept. 8, 2017) while dismissing a number of claims, allowed an Orthodox Jewish inmate to move ahead with his complaint that the chaplain consistently denied requests for religious accommodation as to food and various religious items and observances.

In Haslett v. Arnold, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175988 (SD IL, Oct. 24, 2017), an Illinois federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was not allowed to observe the Ramadan fast.

In Watkins v. Stogner, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176502 (D NV, Oct. 25, 2017), a Nevada federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a Muslim inmate's complaint over the manner in which inmates were permitted to celebrate Eid al-Fitr.  UPDATE: The court adopted the magistrate's recommendation, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212202 (Dec. 27, 2017).

In Trammell v. McDonnell, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177229 (CD CA, Oct. 25, 2017), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's complaint that during a one week period he was not provided with Ramadan meals or was provided them only after sunrise.

In Saif'ullah v. Cruzen, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177873  and Smith v. Cruzen, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178733 (ND CA, Oct. 26, 2017), a California federal district court dismissed inmates' complaints that on one evening during Ramadan Muslim inmates were interrupted and stopped from completing a congregational prayer session.

In Fisk v. Warren County Sheriff's Department, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178128 (ED TN, Oct. 27, 2017), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's claim that he was denied the things he needed to practice his religion, and dismissed his complaint that he was not permitted to attend his mother's funeral.

British Court Upholds Removal of Christian Social Work Student Over Facebook Comments

As reported by The Guardian and by a press release from Christian Concern, a British trial court judge yesterday upheld a decision by Sheffield University to remove graduate student Felix Ngole from his 2-year MA program in Social Work because of comments he posted on Facebook.  In 2015, commenting on the widely publicized case of Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, Ngole, a devout Christian, said: "same sex marriage is a sin whether we like it or not. It is God’s words and man’s sentiments would not change His words." Ngole argued that the University's action infringed his free expression rights.  High Court Judge Rowena Collins Rice ruled, however:

Public religious speech has to be looked at in a regulated context from the perspective of a public readership. Social workers have considerable power over the lives of vulnerable service users and trust is a precious professional commodity.

Mississippi Suit On Gay Marriage Recusals Is Reopened

In June, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of standing a challenge to Mississippi's broad Conscience Protection Act. (See prior posting.) In October, an en banc rehearing was denied.  In light of this, yesterday a Mississippi federal district court in Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, (SD MI, Oct. 27, 2017), issued an order (full text) reopening a challenge to the law insofar as it allows county clerks to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage.  The Order also authorized plaintiffs to serve interrogatories to determine how many Clerk's Offices have employees that have sought to recuse themselves, and how the recusals are handled. AP reports on the order.

Pence: US Will Fund Faith-Based Groups Instead of UN In Mid-East Relief

On Wednesday evening, Vice President Mike Pence spoke to the In Defense of Christians Solidarity Dinner in Washington, D.C. (full text of remarks).  He said in part:

In Egypt, we see the bombing of churches during Palm Sunday celebrations -- a day of hope transformed into a day of horror.

In Iraq, we see monasteries demolished, priests and monks beheaded, the two-millennia-old Christian tradition in Mosul clinging for survival.

In Syria, we see ancient communities burned to the ground, believers tortured for confessing Christ, and women and children sold into slavery.

Let me assure you tonight, President Trump and I see these crimes for what they are -- vile acts of persecution animated by hatred for Christians and the Gospel of Christ. And so too does this President know who and what has perpetrated these crimes, and he calls them by name -- radical Islamic terrorists....

Here’s the sad reality: The United Nations claims that more than 160 projects are in Christian areas, but for a third of those projects, there are no Christians to help. The believers in Nineveh, Iraq, have had less than 2 percent of their housing needs addressed, and the majority of Christians and Yazidis remain in shelters....

Our fellow Christians and all who are persecuted in the Middle East should not have to rely on multinational institutions when America can help them directly. And tonight, it is my privilege to announce that President Trump has ordered the State Department to stop funding ineffective relief efforts at the United Nations. And from this day forward, America will provide support directly to persecuted communities through USAID.

We will no longer rely on the United Nations alone to assist persecuted Christians and minorities in the wake of genocide and the atrocities of terrorist groups. The United States will work hand-in-hand from this day forward with faith-based groups and private organizations to help those who are persecuted for their faith.

Marcus Nominated For Department of Education Civil Rights Post

The White House yesterday announced that President Trump will nominate Kenneth L. Marcus as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department of Education  Marcus is president of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, an organization devoted to combating anti-Semitism on college campuses. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education:

Mr. Marcus, who is also a visiting professor of equality and justice at Baruch College of the City University of New York, served under President George W. Bush as acting assistant secretary for civil rights, leading the Office for Civil Rights, or OCR. Since leaving the department, Mr. Marcus has been an outspoken critic of anti-Semitism on campuses. He previously served as director of the Initiative on Anti-Semitism at the Institute for Marcus Jewish and Community Research, in San Francisco.

Wedding Invite Designers Lose Challenge To Public Accommodation Law

In Brush & Nib Studio L.C. v. City of Phoenix, (AZ Super. Ct., Oct. 25, 2017). an Arizona trial court rejected challenges by a studio that creates custom wedding invitation and wedding products to the city of Phoenix's public accommodation anti-discrimination law.  Plaintiffs, because of the Christian religious beliefs, intend to refuse to produce custom designed products for same-sex couples,  The court rejected plaintiffs' claim that this violates their free speech rights under the Arizona Constitution, concluding that any impact on speech is merely an incidental, content-neutral impact of an ordinance directed at combating discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  The law survives the intermediate level scrutiny applied in such cases.  The court also rejected plaintiffs' claim under the state's Free Exercise of Religion Act, saying in part:

Nothing about the ordinance has prevented the Plaintiffs from participating in the customs of their religious beliefs or has burdened the practice of their religion in any way.

In a press release, ADF says that an appeal is planned.  The press release also contains links to various pleadings in the case.  Arizona Republic reports on the decision.