Organization Launches Annual "Friend or Foe Christmas" Campaign

The advocacy organization Liberty Counsel announced yesterday that it is launching its 15th annual "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign."  Its campaign attempts to counter removal of the celebration of Christmas in schools, on public property and by retailers.  It has made available a Legal Memorandum on Public Celebration of Religious Holidays.

Indonesian Constitutional Court Requires Recognition of Indigenous Religions

According to an AP report, yesterday Indonesia's Constitutional Court handed down a ruling that will require recognition of adherents of the country's indigenous religions.  In the past, Indonesian law has required citizens in obtaining an identity card to select one of six religions-- Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism or Confucianism.  If they selected none of these, they risked prosecution under Indonesia's blasphemy law for being an atheist. Yesterday's ruling concluded that this arrangement is discriminatory.  According to the Jakarta Globe: "The Court recommended the creation of a seventh category – 'believers of the faith,' or penghayat kepercayaan.a'"

Suit Challenges Quebec's New Anti-Niqab Law

As announced by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, a suit was filed in a Quebec Superior Court yesterday challenging the constitutionality of Sec. 10 of Quebec's recently enacted Religious Neutrality Law (see prior posting).  The law provides that public sector employees in carrying out their functions may not cover their faces, and that private citizens must have their faces uncovered when receiving public services.  The complaint (full text) in National Council of Canadian Muslims v. Attorney General of Quebec, (Que. Super., filed 11/7/2017) contends that Sec. 10 of the violates freedom of religion and equality protections of the Quebec and Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms.  It asserts that the Act's requirement particularly impacts Muslim women.

Notre Dame, In About Face, Will Continue Contraceptive Coverage Under Accommodation Rules

Reversing an announcement made last month (see prior posting), Notre Dame University yesterday told employees that they will continue to receive health insurance contraceptive coverage.  Under accommodation rules developed by the Obama Administration, the coverage is provided without cost by the insurance company directly to employees, without Notre Dame paying for it.  As reported by AP, the university thought that its insurer would end the no-cost coverage now that changes in Affordable Care Act rules allow religious non-profits to opt out of objectionable coverage. However the insurer has indicated that it will continue to provide the coverage.  A Notre Dame spokesman said:

Recognizing ... the plurality of religious and other convictions among its employees, [the University] will not interfere with the provision of contraceptives that will be administered and funded independently of the University.

In a similar reversal, Notre Dame also told students yesterday that after August they will still be able to obtain contraceptive coverage by electing it separately through their student health plan.

UPDATE: Since Notre Dame has a self-insured plan, references to "insurer" should be read as a reference to the third party administrator and benefits manager.  Sycamore Trust, an alumni group dedicated to preserving Notre Dame's Catholic identity strongly criticized the university's action.

6th Circuit Dismisses Challenge To Michigan Procedures For Vaccination Exemption

In Nikolao v. Lyon, (6th Cir., Nov. 7, 2017), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered dismissal of a challenge to Michigan's procedures for granting school children a religious exemption from vaccination requirements. In order to obtain an exemption, a parent is required to visit the local health department and explain the basis for the objection.  A health worker must certify that the parent has received education on the benefits of immunizations and the risks involved in not receiving them.  Also the state has published a series of "Waiver Notes" containing responses to parental objections, including religious objections.  The court held that plaintiff, a mother who asserted her Catholic religious beliefs as the basis for the request, lacked standing to raise a free exercise claim, saying in part:

While Nikolao has presented facts suggesting that she was exposed to religious information with which she did not agree, she has given no indication that the information coerced her into doing or not doing anything. Nikolao went to the WCDH to receive a vaccination exemption and left with one.

The court found that plaintiff did have standing to assert an Establishment Clause claim, but concluded that no Establishment Clause violation was shown, saying in part:

The Certification Rule only requires local health workers to have a conversation with objecting parents.... As part of that conversation, the state may offer its own take on a parent’s objections. But the Certification Rule does not allow state officials to withhold an exemption based on the legitimacy of those objections. Were that the case, the outcome here may very well be different....

Similarly, the Religious Waiver Note does not violate the Establishment Clause. The Note outlines a health department worker’s available responses to religious objections concerning vaccination. To be sure, this document contains information about specific religions.... But, again, the purpose of providing this information is secular.

[Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

USDA Memo Gives Meat Packing Plants Broad Religious Speech Protection

ADF reported yesterday on a new Guidance Memorandum on First Amendment Policy issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Food Safety (full text), and a related Q&A webpage.  While the Guidance Memorandum appears to flow from President Trump's Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty issued in May (see prior posting), and a follow-on Memo from the Secretary of Agriculture, it also resolves a particular dispute relating to a Michigan meat-packing plant. Federal meat inspectors working at the plant had removed an article placed on the plant's break room table that expressed religious views opposed to same-sex marriage.  Apparently a USDA official, invoking an Obama-era Policy Statement on sexual harassment,  had threatened to withdraw all its inspectors if the article reappeared.  The new Guidance Memorandum gives broad permission for employees and supervisors at meat plants to express religious views, saying in part:

Employees are permitted to engage in religious expression directed at fellow employees and may attempt to persuade other employees of the correctness of their views.  Religious views should be treated the same as any other comparable speech not involving religion. Proselytizing is as entitled to constitutional protection as any other form of speech.

Supervisors are also free to engage in speech about religion.  While supervisors may not impose unfair work conditions on employees who do not share their religious beliefs, their personal views concerning religion are still protected by the First Amendment.  As a result, supervisors may also express their sincere religious views without fear of sanctions.

Some employers in facilities that are inspected by USDA may wish to display religious icons, religious pamphlets, or faith-based messages in publicly available work areas or on public websites.  Others may support employee religious organizations and openly express their own religious beliefs or practices in the workplace.  USDA employees must act to avoid the limiting or chilling of protected speech.

The Guidance Memorandum adds that USDA employees who believe they are subject to discrimination, harassment or intimidation may still exercise their rights.

University's Anti-Harassment Policy Upheld Over Prof's Free Speech Claims

In Board of Trustees of Purdue University v. Eisenstein, (IN App., Oct. 30, 2017), and Indiana Court of Appeals held that a trial court should have dismissed a lawsuit brought by an associate professor at Purdue University Calumet against the university, its board of trustees and several of its faculty members.  Associate Professor Maurice Eisenstein was accused by several students and faculty of making anti-Muslim and anti-Black statements in his Introduction to Judaism class and in Facebook postings.  A number of students and faculty, as well as the Muslim Student Association, filed harassment complaints against Eisenstein.  Subsequently Eisenstein made derogatory comments to two of the faculty who had complained, and they filed additional charges of retaliation.  The university ultimately upheld only the retaliation claims.  Eisenstein then sued claiming, among other things, that the university's retaliation policy is unconstitutionally vague and that his free speech rights were infringed. He also alleged breach of contract and other claims. In a 42-page opinion, the court rejected Eisenstein's claims on a number of grounds.  Inside Higher Ed reports on the decision.

Canada's Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Ecclesiastical Abstention Case

On Nov. 2, the Supreme Court of Canada heard oral argument (video of full oral arguments) in Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Wall.  Links to the briefs of the parties and a number of intervenors are also available online.  ReligiousLiberty.tv reports on the case.  In the case, the Alberta Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Canadian civil courts have jurisdiction to review a formal decision by a Jehovah's Witness congregation to disfellowship one of its members. (See prior posting.)  [Thanks to Michael Peabody for the lead.]

Trump Sends Holiday Greetings To Sikhs

On Nov. 4, the White House released a statement (full text) from President Trump sending "warm wishes to Sikh Americans and Sikhs around the world as they celebrate the birth anniversary of Guru Nanak Devji, the founder and first guru of Sikhism."

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Scott Skinner-Thompson, The First Queer Right, (Michigan Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Michael A. Helfand, Implied Consent: A Primer and a Defense, (Connecticut Law Review, Vol. 50, Forthcoming).
• Yinka Olomojobi, Explaining the Osmosis of Identity Threats and Religious Violence, (October 31, 2017).
• Anna Su, Varieties of Burden in Religious Accommodations, (October 27, 2017).
• Lisa Mathews, Hobby Lobby and Hobbs to the Rescue: Clarifying Rluipa’s Confusing Substantial Burden Test for Land-Use Cases, (George Mason Law Review, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2017).
• Maureen Johnson, Trickle-Down Bullying and the Truly Great American Response: Can Responsible Rhetoric in Judicial Advocacy and Decision-Making Help Heal the Divisiveness of the Trump Presidency?, (25:4 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 445 (2017)).
• Shahbaz Ahmad Cheema, Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law in Pakistani Courts: Undoing/Unraveling the Colonial Enterprise?, (October 21, 2017).

From SmartCILP:

• Milena Sterio, Individual Criminal Responsibility for the Destruction of Religious and Historic Buildings: The Al Mahdi Case, 49 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 63-73 (2017).

Recent and Forthcoming Books:

• Michele F. Margolis,  From Politics to the Pews: How Partisanship and the Political Environment Shape Religious Identity, (Univ. of Chicago Press, (June 2018).
• Rumee Ahmed, Sharia Compliant: A User's Guide to Hacking Islamic Law, (Stanford Univ. Press, May 2018).
• Matthew Bowman, Christian: The Politics of a Word in America, (Harvard Univ. Press, April 2018).
• Martyn Frampton, The Muslim Brotherhood and the West: A History of Enmity and Engagement, (Belknap Press, Feb. 2018).
• Stephen E. Strang, God and Donald Trump, (Charisma House, Nov. 2017).
• Murat Akan, The Politics of Secularism: Religion, Diversity, and Institutional Change in France and Turkey, (Columbia Univ. Press, Sept. 2017).
• Ahmad Atif Ahmad, Islamic Law: Cases, Authorities and Worldview, (Bloomsbury Publishing, May 2017).

Citizenship Applicant Challenges "So Help Me God" In Naturalization Oath

Represented by activist Michael Newdow, a French citizen who is a permanent U.S. resident living in Massachusetts filed suit last week challenging the inclusion of the phrase "so held me God" in the Naturalization Oath. The complaint (full text) in Perrier-Bilbo v. Congress of the United States, (D MA, filed 11/2/2017), contends that the presence of these words in the oath violates the Establishment Clause, free exercise clause, RFRA, as well as plaitiff's due process and equal protection rights.  The citizenship application by Plaintiff, who is an atheist, was approved in 2009.  When she objected to the form of the oath at that time, was told that she could either participate in the oath ceremony and omit the “so help me God” language, or schedule a private oath ceremony where the government would not use that phrase. Neither of those alternatives are acceptable to her.  Her complaint contends in part:

By its very nature, an oath that concludes “so help me God” is asserting that God exists..... Moreover, even if the current oath were constitutional, the government of the United States has rendered Plaintiff, on the basis of her sincerely held religious beliefs, unable to take the oath that all others take. This is unfair, demeaning and improper. Plaintiff is unwilling to start her new life as an American citizen in some second-class status solely because she chooses to follow her religious precepts. Under the principles of equal protection, she demands the right to experience the elation, the pride, the sense of camaraderie, and the sense of belonging, which comes from joining her fellow new citizens as an equal participant in the naturalization oath ceremony.

Sacramento Bee reports on the lawsuit.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Bethel v. Jenkins, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22061 (6th Cir., Sept. 22, 2017), the 6th Circuit held that a district court correctly dismissed an Establishment Clause challenge, but should not have dismissed a free speech and procedural due process challenge, to a policy that barred inmate from receiving printed material ordered by a third party even directly from an approved vendor.

In Hargrove v. Holley, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180284 (SD OH, Oct. 31, 2017), an Ohio federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal of an inmate's claim that compelled schooling without an Islamic curriculum violates his free exercise rights.

In Harris v. Cooper, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181249 (ND CA, Nov. 1, 2017), a California federal magistrate judge allowed an inmate to move ahead against certain defendants with his claim that in a cell search his religious materials were confiscated as retaliation and part of a conspiracy to deny him parole because he is a Muslim.

In Maciejka v. Williams, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182842 (SD L, Nov. 2, 2017), a Florida federal magistrate judge recommended ordering plaintiff, a former inmate, to file an amended complaint if he wishes to move ahead with his rambling allegations that while confined he was kept from attending Catholic religious services, and could not celebrate holidays, see chaplains or priests or keep religious publications and religious items such as a rosary and scapular.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Bar School Administrator's Contract Claim

In Saint Augustine School v. Cropper, (KY Sup. Ct., Nov. 2, 2017), the Kentucky Supreme Court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not prevent the former lay administrator of a Catholic elementary school from asserting a breach-of-contract claim, saying in part:

Saint Augustine's justification for the Cropper's dismissal stems from declining student enrollment and shrinking revenues. No matter the extent of Cropper's involvement in the religious life of Saint Augustine; adjudicating her damages claim for breach of her employment contract does not require the secular court's "wading into doctrinal waters"; it is simply the termination of the lay administrator at a parochial school. Even if Cropper had been a prominent actor in the religious life of the community, unless Saint Augustine- fired her for reasons associated with the application of church doctrine or governance, the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine would not apply.

In the case, the school had specifically disclaimed reliance on the ministerial exception defense.

Chabad Gets Partial Win Under RLUIPA In Long-Running Suit

In a case that has wound its way through the courts for nearly ten years, this week a Connecticut federal district court gave a partial victory to the Orthodox Jewish Chabad organization which is seeking to expand a residential building it purchased in an area zoned as an Historic District.  In Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County, Inc. v. Borough of Litchfield, Connecticut, (D CT, Nov. 1, 2017), a Connecticut federal district court held that the Lichtfield Historic District Commission's denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the planned expansion placed a substantial burden on the religious exercise of Chabad in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  However, the court concluded that Chabad needs to submit revised plans that eliminates the portion of the expansion that would serve as a residence for the rabbi. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Dan Dalton for the lead.]

Pakistan Court Fines and Jails Husband For Polygamous Marriage Without Wife's Consent

According to Deutsche Welle, for the first time a trial court in Pakistan has sided with the woman in a polygamy case.  A trial court in Lahore sentenced Shahzad Saqib to 6 months in jail and a fine equivalent to $1900 (US) for violating Pakistan's 2015 family law that requires the exiting wife's approval for a man to take a second wife. (Background). The court rejected the husband's argument that he did not need consent because Islam permits a man to have up to four wives.

Canada's Supreme Court Rejects Aboriginal Tribe's Religious Objection To Ski Resort

In Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), (Sup. Ct. Canada, Nov. 2, 2017), the Supreme Court of Canada rejected a claim by the aboriginal Ktunaxa Nation that government approval for the development of a ski resort on land they considered sacred would violate their constitutional right to freedom of religion under Section 2(a) of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as their Aboriginal treaty rights under Section 35 of the Constitution Act.  Chief Justice McLachlin, writing for 7 Justices held (as summarized by the court):

... the Ktunaxa are not seeking protection for the freedom to believe in Grizzly Bear Spirit or to pursue practices related to it. Rather, they seek to protect the presence of Grizzly Bear Spirit itself and the subjective spiritual meaning they derive from it. This is a novel claim that would extend s. 2(a) beyond its scope and would put deeply held personal beliefs under judicial scrutiny. The state’s duty under s. 2(a) is not to protect the object of beliefs or the spiritual focal point of worship, such as Grizzly Bear Spirit. Rather, the state’s duty is to protect everyone’s freedom to hold such beliefs and to manifest them in worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.

Justice Moldaver, writing for 2 Justices, found a substantial interference with religious beliefs, but concluded that it was justified as a proportionate balancing between the Ktunaxa’s s. 2(a) Charter right and the Minister’s statutory objectives. The court summarized their conclusion as to infringement of religious liberty:

... the Ktunaxa sincerely believe that Grizzly Bear Spirit inhabits Qat’muk, a body of sacred land in their religion, and that the Minister’s decision to approve the ski resort would sever their connection to Qat’muk and to Grizzly Bear Spirit. As a result, the Ktunaxa would no longer receive spiritual guidance and assistance from Grizzly Bear Spirit. Their religious beliefs in Grizzly Bear Spirit would become entirely devoid of religious significance, and accordingly, their prayers, ceremonies, and rituals associated with Grizzly Bear Spirit would become nothing more than empty words and hollow gestures. Moreover, without their spiritual connection to Qat’muk and to Grizzly Bear Spirit, the Ktunaxa would be unable to pass on their beliefs and practices to future generations. 

Lawyer's Daily has a lengthy report on the decision.

New Tax Bill Would Allow "529 Plans" For Parochial School Tuition

The Republican tax bill (full text) introduced yesterday (see prior posting) would allow parents to set up "529 Plans" for up to $10,000 per year of elementary and secondary school tuition, including tuition at religious schools. (Section 1202).  529 Plans, currently limited to saving for college expenses, are a method of earning tax-free income on educational savings.  The bill also allows a Section 529 plan to be set up for an "unborn child," defined in the proposal as a "child in utero," which is in turn defined in the bill as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Republican Tax Bill Would End Johnson Amendment Ban On Partisan Sermons

As reported by CBS, House Republicans yesterday released their proposed tax reduction plan.  The bill (full text) titled "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" includes a limited change in the Johnson Amendment that would allow sermons that endorse specific candidates. The Johnson Amendment prohibits Section 501(c)(3) non-profits from participating in partisan political campaigns.  Yesterday's proposal (Sec. 5201) would provide a limited exceptions to that ban as it applies to churches (and their integrated auxiliaries and conventions and associations of churches).  Here is the relevant portion of the proposed language in the bill:

... an organization described in section 508(c)(1)(A) shall not fail to be treated as organized and operated exclusively for a religious purpose, nor shall it be deemed to have participated in, or intervened in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, solely because of the content of any homily, sermon, teaching, dialectic, or other presentation made during religious services or gatherings, but only if the preparation and presentation of such content— (A) is in the ordinary course of the organization’s regular and customary activities in carrying out its exempt purpose, and (B) results in the organization incurring not more than de minimis incremental expenses.

Orthodox Jews In Canada Challenge Brain Death As End-of-Life Test

According to the National Post, in the Canadian city of Toronto an Orthodox Jewish family has filed suit claiming that under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms they should be able to require a hospital to continue to treat their 25-year old son who was declared brain dead.  The family says that their religious beliefs reject the concept of brain death in favor of the end of heart beat as the test.  The court ordered the patent to temporarily be kept on life support while the case is pending.

Louisiana Governor Exceeded Authority In Expanding Non-Discrimination Protections

In Louisiana Department of Justice v. Edwards, (LA App, Nov. 1, 2017), a Louisiana state appeals court held that Louisiana Governor John Edwards exceeded his authority when he issued an Executive Order that extended non-discrimination provisions for state contracts and state employment to include sexual orientation and gender identity.  the court said in part:

[T]he Governor's Executive Order constituted an unconstitutional interference with the authority vested solely in the legislative branch of our state government by expanding the protections that currently exist in anti-discrimination laws rather than directing the faithful execution of the existing anti-discrimination laws of this state.

The Times-Picayune reports on the decision.