Senate's Bipartisan Budget Agreement Will Assure FEMA Assistance For Houses of Worship

The Bipartisan Budget Agreement (full text) which will be voted on today by the Senate (CNN report) includes provisions assuring that houses of worship will be able to receive disaster assistance from FEMA. The Stafford Act, Sec. 42 USC  Sec. 5172 allows federal assistance for repair or replacement of non-profit facilities damaged or destroyed by major disasters.  However, until a recent policy change by FEMA, houses of worship were excluded. (See prior posting.)  The bipartisan budget bill (Sec. 20604 at pg. 48) adds the following:

SEC. 20604. (a) DEFINITION OF PRIVATE NON PROFIT FACILITY.—

Section 102(11)(B) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(11)(B)) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘private nonprofit facility’ means private nonprofit educational (without regard to the religious character of the facility), utility, irrigation, emergency, medical, rehabilitational, and temporary or permanent custodial care facilities (including those for the aged and disabled) and facilities on Indian reservations, as defined by the President.

‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL FACILITIES.—In addition to the facilities described in subparagraph (A), the term ‘private nonprofit facility’ includes any private nonprofit facility that provides essential social services to the general public (including museums, zoos, performing arts facilities, community arts centers, community centers, libraries, homeless shelters, senior citizen centers, rehabilitation facilities, shelter workshops, broadcasting facilities, houses of worship, and facilities that provide health and safety services of a governmental nature), as defined by the President. No house of worship may be excluded from this definition because leadership or membership in the organization operating the house of worship is limited to persons who share a religious faith or practice.’’.

(b) REPAIR, RESTORATION, AND REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED FACILITIES.—Section 406(a)(3) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(C) RELIGIOUS FACILITIES.—A church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other house of worship, educational facility, or any other private nonprofit facility, shall be eligible for contributions under paragraph (1)(B), without regard to the religious character of the facility or the primary religious use of the facility. No house of worship, educational facility, or any other private nonprofit facility may be excluded from receiving contributions under paragraph (1)(B) because leadership or membership in the organization operating the house of worship is limited to persons who share a religious faith or practice.’’. 

Pakistani Court Sentences 31 In Lynching of Student Falsely Accused of Blashpemy

Agence France-Presse today reports that a court in Pakistan has sentenced one person to death, five others to life in prison and 25 to three years in prison in the lynching of a student who was falsely accused of blasphemy.  26 others were acquitted. According to the report:

Mashal Khan, 23, was stripped, beaten and shot by a gang made up mostly of students last April before being thrown from the second floor of his dormitory at Abdul Wali Khan University in the northwestern city of Mardan....

Around two thousand people gathered at the main entrance of Mardan city, Khan's hometown, showering the acquitted students with flowers, chanting slogans against the provincial government and demanding the release of those convicted.

Louisiana School District Sued Over Prayers and Proselytizing

Four parents yesterday filed a federal lawsuit against the Bossier Parish, Louisiana school board alleging widespread Establishment Clause violations.  The complaint (full text) in Does 1-4 v. Bossier Parish School Board, (WD LA, Feb. 7, 2018) alleges in part:

3. School officials throughout the Bossier Parish School System regularly deliver or promote the delivery of Christian prayers at school-sponsored events.  Prayers begin and often end graduation ceremonies, sporting events, sports teams’ practices and banquets, pep rallies, and student-council meetings. Many of these school-sponsored events are also held in churches, including within the sanctuary or other rooms bearing religious iconography, thus creating an atmosphere closer to Sunday school than to public school.

 4. What is more, some Bossier Parish teachers proselytize during class, pray aloud for students, require young students to memorize sectarian prayers, and tell students of all religious backgrounds that to be a good person one be Christian.  Bossier Parish teachers and administrators have also placed religious displays in their classrooms and offices, advertised events sponsored by local churches, and incorporated religious teachings, beliefs, or doctrine, like Creationism, into the curriculum. Further, some Bossier Parish teachers, staff, and administrators have endorsed and conferred special favors on sectarian religious clubs and have developed practices that expose the private beliefs of students who do not wish to participate in these organizations, subjecting these children to coercive pressure to join, and ostracization by their classmates if they do not. 

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

EEOC Wins Settlement of Religious Accommodation Lawsuit

In a January 30 press release, the EEOC announced that the logistics company  XPO Last Mile, Inc. has settled a religious discrimination suit filed by the agency.  The company will pay $94,541 in monetary relief to a job applicant whose job offer was rescinded when he informed the company that he needed to start work one day later than scheduled because of his observance of the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah.  The company also entered a 3-year consent decree preventing unlawful denial of religious accommodation to employees.

Congress Holds Hearing On Preventing Mass Atrocities

Yesterday, Congress' Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission held a hearing on prevention of mass atrocities around the world. Transcripts of prepared statements by a number of witnesses and a video of the entire hearing are available on the Commission's website.  In his opening statement, Commission co-chairman James McGovern said in part:

We are persuaded that atrocities are not the product of “ancient” ethnic or religious hatreds but rather of conscious, strategic decisions by ruling elites and non-state actors to achieve specific ends. Those actors need a reason to commit atrocities, and the means and opportunity to do so. The issue becomes how to change their strategic calculus.

We think impunity is one of the elements in that strategic calculus. If the perpetrators enjoy impunity, this may be seen as a “green light” to expand a genocidal or mass atrocity campaign.

California Baker May Refuse To Create Cake For Same-Sex Wedding

A California state trial court has held that a bakery owner has the right to refuse to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple when the owner has religious objections to same-sex marriage. The court pointed out:

The Unruh Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, as well as sexual orientation.

The bakery had arranged to refer orders from same-sex couples to a competing bakery that has no objections. In Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Miller, (CA Super., Feb. 5, 2018), the court said in part:

The right of freedom of thought guaranteed by the First Amendment includes the right to speak, and the right to refrain from speaking. Sometimes the most profound protest is silence....

No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification.

The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.

The Bakersfield Californian reports on the decision.

Israeli Rabbinical Judges Immune In State Court At Suggestion of State Department

In Ben-Hiam v. Edri, (NJ App., Feb. 5, 2018), a New Jersey appellate court held that a State Department "suggestion of immunity" in a suit against foreign officials is binding on New Jersey courts when the State Department has found that the foreign officials were acting within the scope of their authority for a foreign sovereign.  At issue is a suit brought in New Jersey against six Israeli rabbinical judges and an official of the Rabbinical Religious Courts Administration of Israel.  The suit grew out of a divorce and child custody dispute filed in Israeli courts by a couple who lived in New Jersey, but were Israeli citizens who were married in Israel and had traveled to Israel when the divorce action was filed.  While the Israeli litigation was pending, the husband (plaintiff in this case) returned to the United States.  Competing custody rulings for the couple's daughter were issued in the U.S. and Israel. The Israeli rabbinical court awarded custody of the daughter to the mother, but was unable to grant a divorce because the husband refused to grant the wife a get (Jewish divorce document).

What happened next is explained by the New Jersey court:

Israeli law gives rabbinical courts the authority to issue certain sanctions to pressure a nonconsenting spouse to give consent to a get. Accordingly, to compel plaintiff to consent to the get, the rabbinical court issued a series of escalating sanctions against plaintiff. Ultimately, the rabbinical court issued an order finding that under Jewish law, plaintiff's refusal was criminal and that Jewish persons must avoid dealing with plaintiff. That rabbinical court order was sent to plaintiff's rabbi in New Jersey, and was published on several websites.

In April 2015, plaintiff filed a civil complaint ... in New Jersey. Specifically, plaintiff contended that defendants aided and abetted in the kidnapping of his daughter, defamed him, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him.

European Court Upholds Company's Religiously Objectionable Ads

In Case of Sekmadienis Ltd. v. Lithuania, (ECHR, Jan. 30, 2018), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Lithuania's State Consumer Rights Protection Authority violated a clothing company's freedom of expression when it imposed a fine because of a series of the company's ads that were seen as offending Christians. The Economist, reporting on the decision, described the ads:

The case refers to a Kalinkin campaign in 2012 which featured a bare-chested young man and a woman, both with halos: the man was sporting jeans and tattoos, and the female figure wore a white dress with a string of beads. The captions consisted of lines such as: “Jesus, what trousers!”, “Dear Mary, what a dress!” and “Jesus, Mary, what are you wearing?”

The European Court concluded that Lithuanian courts "failed to strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the protection of public morals and the rights of religious people, and, on the other hand, the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression."  The Court issued a press release summarizing the decision. Chamber judgments may be appealed to the Grand Chamber.

Denial of Spousal Health Benefits Because of Religious-Only Ceremony May Violate Equal Protection Clause

In Ali v. Cooper, (ND CA, Jan. 30, 2018), a California federal district court refused to dismiss an equal protection claim by an employee of the Alameda Housing Authority (AHA) after her husband's health insurance coverage was terminated.  The action was taken by the Executive Director (Cooper) and Director of Human Resources (Basta) because the couple were married in a Muslim solemnization ceremony without a civil marriage certificate. Plaintiff claims that the two defendants were motivated by religious animus in singling her out and invoking a rarely used obscure policy to deny coverage. The court said in part:

Plaintiff adequately states a claim for intentional discrimination on the basis of her religion under the Equal Protection Clause against Defendants Cooper and Basta. This claim, however, is inadequately pled against the AHA ... because Plaintiff does not allege that the official marriage-certificate policy itself was motivated by animus, but rather, that the Individual Defendants’ enforcement of the policy against her was motivated by animus....

There may be an argument that Defendant’s marriage-certificate policy might not be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest if it fails to recognize a marriage that lacks a civil certificate but is nevertheless legally valid. At this time, however, Plaintiff has not alleged that her marriage was legally-valid.... Additionally, Plaintiff has not alleged that the marriage-certificate policy burdens a sincerely held religious belief. Thus, at this time, this First Amendment theory is inadequately pled.

Challenges To Placement On Terrorist Watch List Are Dismissed

In Amiri v. Kelly, (ED MI, Jan. 30, 2018), a Michigan federal district court dismissed claims challenging denial of a visa to a British national and placement of him and his wife (a permanent U.S. resident who is an Iranian national and a British citizen) on a terrorist watch list.  Plaintiffs claim that the data bases used by the government in making these decisions contain unsubstantiated information based on plaintiffs' imputed Muslim religious beliefs.  In rejecting plaintiffs' 1st Amendment challenge, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment, as they have identified no government action with a non-secular purpose that has a principal effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, or that results in excessive government entanglement with religion..... Plaintiffs also fail to state a claim under the free exercise clause. They do not allege that they have been compelled to engage in a practice that violates their religious convictions, refrain from doing an act required by their religious convictions, or affirm or deny a belief contrary to their religious convictions. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not claim to be Muslim, but rather accuse Defendants of presuming they are Muslim.... 

Plaintiffs also fail to state an equal protection claim as they fail to allege that they have been treated differently than similarly situated individuals of a different nationality....  Nor do they allege that they are treated differently based on their religion, as they do not claim to be Muslim.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Michalski v. Semple, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13382 (D CT, Jan. 28, 2018), a Connecticut federal district court allowed a Native American inmate t move ahead with his complaint that officials refused to provide adequate winter clothing during his smudging times. It also permitted adding of a defendant to his complaint over denial of smudging.

In Stoltzfus v. Hutchins, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14539 (SD IN, Jan. 30, 2018), an Indiana federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that he was denied access to a Bible.

In Slater v. Askew, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14757 (MD AL, Jan. 30, 2018), an Alabama federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies a Muslim inmate's complaint regarding wearing a beard, religious services and classes, religious mail, religious ID cards and other religious items.  UPDATE: The court adopted the recommendation at 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30940 (Feb. 27, 2018).

In Staples v. Bellafonte, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14950 (D NJ, Jan. 26, 2018), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed an inmate's free exercise and religious discrimination claims against a county jail.

In Wright v. Stallone, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15732 (ND NY, Jan. 31, 2018), a New York federal district court issued a preliminary injunction allowing a Muslim inmate to engage in individual demonstrable prayer during outdoor recreation, but denied a preliminary injunction as to group prayer.

In Pouncil v. Sherman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15961 (ED CA, Jan.31, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was denied meals on one night of Ramadan.

Recent Articles of Interest [UPDATED]

From SSRN:

• Engy Abdelkader, Humanitarian Islam, (Pace International Law Review, (Forthcoming).
• Teresa Stanton Collett, Government Schools, Parental Rights, and the Perversion of Catholic Morality, (Acton Institute's Markets and Morality (2018, Forthcoming)).
• Andrew J. Haile, Reconsidering Selective Conscientious Objection, (January 31, 2018).
• Rachel Sklar, Holocaust-Era Art Restitution Claims: Is the HEAR Act a Game Changer?, (12 Revista de Derecho Privado 159 (2017)).
• Wendy E. Parmet & Jason A. Smith, Free Speech and Public Health: Unraveling the Commercial-Professional Speech Paradox, (Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 78, No. 4, pp. 887-915 (2017)).
• Kristi L. Bowman, A Counterfactual History of Transgender Students' Rights, (Journal of Constitutional Law Online, Vol. 20, 2017).
• Nan D. Hunter, Varieties of Constitutional Experience: Direct Democracy and the Marriage Equality Campaign, (UCLA Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Kathryn Chan, Chapter 3 - Public Benefit and the Substantive Public Law-Private Law Divide, (Kathryn Chan, The Public-Private Nature of Charity Law (Oxford: Hart Bloomsbury, 2016)).

From SmartCILP:

• Leonard M. Niehoff & Deeva Shah, The Resilience of Noxious Doctrine: The 2016 Election, the Marketplace of Ideas, and the Obstinacy of Bias, 22 Michigan Journal of Race & Law 243-271 (2017).
• Richard H. Fallon Jr., Tiers for the Establishment Clause, 166 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 59-127 (2017).
• Law & Religion. Articles by William A. Galston, Kenneth Einar Himma, Andrew Koppelman, Samuel C. Rickless, Maimon Schwarzschild, William Voegeli, Larry Alexander, 54 San Diego Law Review 197-341 (2017).
• Gerard V. Bradley, Today's Challenges to Religious Liberty in Historical Perspective, 21 Texas Review of Law & Politics 341-376 (2017).
• Justin E. Butterfield & Stephanie N. Taub, The Jurisprudence of the Body: Conscience Rights in the Use of the Sword, Scalpel, and Syringe, 21 Texas Review of Law & Politics 409-421 (2017).
• James A. Davids, Religious Colleges' Employment Rights Under the "Ministerial Exception" and When Disciplining an Employee for Sexually Related Conduct, 21 Texas Review of Law & Politics 423-476 (2017).
• Kevin Pybas, Justice Stevens's Religion Clause Jurisprudence and His Sympathetic Interpreters: A Critique, 21 Texas Review of Law & Politics 519-563 (2017).

Ministerial Exception Does Not Apply When Defendant Is Not Plaintiff's Employer

In McRaney v. North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Inc., (ND MS, Jan. 18, 2018), a Mississippi federal district court rejected ministerial exception and ecclesiastical abstention defenses in a suit alleging intentional interference with business relationships, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. At issue was the termination of plaintiff, the executive director of the General Mission Board of the Baptist Convention for Maryland/ Delaware, at the insistence of defendant NAMB. The court held that the ministerial exception doctrine does not apply when the defendant in a lawsuit is not the employer of plaintiff. The court also held that adjudicating plaintiff's claims will not necessarily involve examination of church doctrine or internal church governance. The Message reports on the decision.

Court Stays Removal Of 50 Indonesian Christians Living In New Hampshire

In Devitri v. Cronen, (D MA, Feb. 1, 2018), a Massachusetts federal district court stayed the deportation of 50 Indonesian Christians living in New Hampshire while they seek to reopen their cases based on changed country conditions. The Indonesians, who had orders of removal issued against them, had been living under a 2010 humanitarian program called "Operation Indonesian Surrender." Last summer the government terminated the program and told petitioners that they would need to return to Indonesia within 60 days.  Petitioners say they are likely to face persecution or torture in Indonesia because of their Christian faith. AP reports on the decision.

Suit Alleges Harassing Stake Out of Jewish Religious Services By Zoning Officials

A Jan. 24 story by GannettNJ reports on a lawsuit filed by Jackson, NJ resident Isaac Tawil who alleges that Township Council Vice President Rob Nixon has prompted zoning code enforcement officers to stake out his home on Friday evenings to observe Jewish religious services there.  The lawsuit alleges that "The repeated presence of these officers had a chilling effect, was intimidating and became a form of harassment."  The suit was filed in the context of increasing tensions between longtime residents and the growing Orthodox Jewish community that is moving into the Township.

Settlement Reached In NJ Mosque Zoning Lawsuit

Jersey Journal reported last week that a settlement has been reached in Bayonne Muslims v. City of  Bayonne, a RLUIPA lawsuit filed in New Jersey federal district court last May. (See prior posting.) Under the settlement, construction of a community center and mosque will be approved by Bayonne's Zoning Board after a revised application is filed and a public meeting is held.  The city will also pay $280,000 for plaintiff's attorneys' fees and an additional $120,000 in damages.

UPDATE: AP reported (March 13) that the Bayonne zoning board gave final approval to the project.

Most of Church Director's Claims Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Kelly v. St. Luke Community United Methodist Church, (TX App., Feb. 1, 2018), a Texas state appellate court applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss most of the claims brought by a fired church Director of Operations. The court said in part:

the substance of Kelly’s claims for negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, age and sex discrimination, and  defamatory statements published within the church community relates to internal matters of church governance and each of those claims is “inextricably intertwined” with those internal matters.... While the elements of those claims can be ascertained using secular principles, the application of those principles to impose civil liability on appellees would impinge upon the church’s ability to manage its internal affairs.

However the court allowed plaintiff to move ahead with her  defamation claim based on statements published to persons outside the church.

DC Appeals Court Remands In Controversy Over Outreach To GW Jewish Students

In Steiner v. American Friends of Lubavitch (Chabad), (DC Ct. App., Feb. 1, 2018), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals found no absolute bar to enforcement of a non-compete clause in a contract of a Chabad rabbi who had been popular with Jewish students at George Washington University. However the court held that the trial court had enforced the clause too broadly.  At issue are tensions that have extended for many years between the Chabad organization and Rabbi Yehuda Steiner who had been employed to engage in campus outreach for Chabad.  After Steiner was fired, he continued his religious outreach to students. The Chabad organization brought a breach of contract action. The trial court applied the doctrine of equitable reformation to issue an injunction against Steiner, but limited non-competition to two years, to serving currently enrolled students, and to an area within one mile from campus. In this appeal, the court held:

Here, neither the noncompete as originally drafted nor the clause as reformed in the trial court‘s modified preliminary injunction contains terms that would require religious interpretation and therefore preclude a civil court‘s review of this dispute.

However the appellate court held that the trial court's injunction was too broad insofar as it limits activities that Rabbi Steiner and his wife can continue in their personal capacities, rather than through a competing organization. the court added:

More than 100 GW students signed a petition attesting to the special personal relationship they shared with their religious leader, Rabbi Steiner.  In such circumstances, the public interest may bear on the level of scrutiny we will apply to a decision to judicially modify a restrictive covenant.....

In this same vein, the profession of religious minister or rabbi is unique in that the tasks performed in an employment context overlap to a large extent with actions such a professional might undertake in his or her free time, without expectation of payment, as a member of the community engaging in religious practice or dialogue. It is thus imperative that an employer wishing to prohibit certain behavior post-termination narrowly tailor with specific language a restrictive covenant....

The court also remanded for clarification of a non-interference provision, and for a determination of whether the non-compete applies to Rabbi Steiner's wife as well.

Negligent Hiring Suit Against Catholic Diocese May Proceed

In Doe v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 2018 Conn. Super. LEXIS 45 (CT Super. Ct., Jan. 5, 2018), a Connecticut trial court refused to dismiss a suit alleging childhood sexual abuse of plaintiff at a Catholic school. The court said in part:

[P]laintiff has alleged negligent hiring and supervision of Brother Paul in his role as a school administrator, executive director, and teacher. Even if the plaintiff had alleged that Brother Paul was a priest ..., the "theological perceptions" of Brother Paul are irrelevant for the purposes of his fitness for ministry. Instead, any determination of whether the defendants evaluated Brother Paul's fitness for acting as a priest and teacher at the Academy center on his criminal conduct and/or propensity for the same.... [B]ecause the plaintiff has broadly alleged a secular negligent hiring and supervision claim as to Brother Paul's role as a school administrator, executive director, and teacher, the defendants' motion to dismiss ... is denied.

Court Enjoins Kansas Anti-Israel Boycott Law

In Koontz v. Watson, (D KA, Jan 30, 2018), a Kansas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring Kansas form enforcing Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75-3740f(a).  The law requires all state contractors to certify that they are not engaged in a boycott of Israel. The law was challenged by a teacher who is a member of the Mennonite church who wants to participate as a teacher trainer in the state's Math and Science Partnership program.  The court, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1982 decision in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., concluded that the law infringes plaintiff's free speech rights:

Ms. Koontz, other members of the Mennonite Church, and others have “banded together” to express, collectively, their dissatisfaction with Israel and to influence governmental action.... She and others participating in this boycott of Israel seek to amplify their voices to influence change, as did the boycotters in Claiborne. The court concludes that plaintiff has carried her burden on the current motion to establish that she and others are engaged in protected activity.

The ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision, and has links to other documents in the case.