Religion Clause

Thursday, March 08, 2018

Canadian Agency Violates Foster Parents' Rights By Insisting They Say Easter Bunny Is Real

Canadian Press reports that an Ontario Superior Court judge ruled this week that a Christian couple's religious beliefs were infringed in violation of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms when the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton removed two foster children from their home. The action closing their foster home came after a social worker insisted that the couple tell the two young girls that the Easter Bunny is real. Foster parents Frances and Derek Baars say that doing so would violate their religious beliefs. The court wrote in part:

There is ample evidence to support the fact that the children were removed because the Baars refused to either tell or imply that the Easter Bunny was delivering chocolate to the Baars' home. I am more than satisfied that the society actions interfered substantially with the Baars' religious beliefs.

Suit Challenges City's Forcing of Homeless Into Faith-Based Shelters

In Amarillo, Texas, an advocate for the homeless has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the city's attempts to move homeless individuals from a tent city known as Christ Church Camp of New Beginnings to traditional homeless shelters. The complaint (full text) in Donelson v. City of Amarillo, (ND TX, filed 2/28/ 2018), contends in part that the city has violated the Establishment Clause by forcing people into faith-based shelters. Texas Observer reports on the lawsuit.

Christian Student Group Sues Over Decertification

The InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at Wayne State University has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the University's action removing its status as a recognized student organization. The complaint (full text) in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/ USA v. Board of Governors of Wayne State University, (WD MI, filed 3/6/2018), alleges that the action was taken against it because of the organization's requirements that its leadership share its Christian faith and affirm the group's statement of faith. The university contends that this violates its non-discrimination policy. InterVarsity has operated on Wayne State's campus for 75 years. the complaint claims that the University's action violates various federal and state constitutional and statutory provision. Detroit News reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: According to a press release from Becket, two days after the suit was filed the University reinstated InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, at least temporarily.

6th Circuit: Funeral Home Violated Title VII By Firing Transgender Employee

In EEOC v. R.G & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., (6th Cir., March 7, 2018), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a Title VII religious discrimination suit against a Michigan funeral home that fired Aimee Stephens, a transgender employee (funeral director/embalmer) who was in the process of transitioning from male to female. In a 49-page opinion, the court held first that Stephens was illegally fired because of her failure to conform to sex stereotypes. The funeral home owner decided to fire Stephens "because Stephens was 'no longer going to represent himself as a man' and 'wanted to dress as a woman'."

The court also held that:

discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status violates Title VII.

Moving to defenses raised by the funeral home, including its defense under RFRA which the district court had relied upon, the court held:

the Funeral Home does not qualify for the ministerial exception to Title VII; the Funeral Home’s religious exercise would not be substantially burdened by continuing to employ Stephens without discriminating against her on the basis of sex stereotypes; the EEOC has established that it has a compelling interest in ensuring the Funeral Home complies with Title VII; and enforcement of Title VII is necessarily the least restrictive way to achieve that compelling interest.

Explaining its rejection of defendant's claim of a substantial burden under RFRA, the court said in part:

...simply permitting Stephens to wear attire that reflects a conception of gender that is at odds with Rost’s religious beliefs is not a substantial burden under RFRA. We presume that the “line [Rost] draw[s]”—namely, that permitting Stephens to represent herself as a woman would cause him to “violate God’s commands” because it would make him “directly involved in supporting the idea that sex is a changeable social construct rather than an immutable God-given gift,” ... —constitutes “an honest conviction.”... But we hold that, as a matter of law, tolerating Stephens’s understanding of her sex and gender identity is not tantamount to supporting it.

Slate reports on the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk and Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Wednesday, March 07, 2018

Suit Filed Over Assets of Michigan-Based Communal Sect

The Detroit News this morning reports on a lawsuit that has been filed in an Oakland County, Michigan trial court over millions of dollars of assets of the Israelite House of David (IHOD). IHOD was a communal religious sect created in 1903 and based in Benton Harbor, Michigan. Members of the sect were required to remain celibate, and apparently only three members of the sect (one of whom is very ill) remain. The suit was filed by Charles Ferrel who lives in Hawaii and was excommunicated-- he says wrongfully-- five years ago. He alleges that defendants (two of the remaining members) have taken $50 million in assets from IHOD. The sect's assets are located in Michigan, Hawaii and Australia, Australia was envisioned by the sect as the place where its members would relocate when the world collapsed as predicted in the Book of Revelation. In the suit, plaintiff seeks reinstatement as a member and control of the assets. Alternatively he asks that the assets be turned over to the state of Michigan for it to dispose of them according to law.

British Court Issues FGM Protection Order To Protect 1-Year Old

According to the Manchester Evening News this week, a Family Court judge in Manchester, England has entered an "FGM protection order" at the request of social workers. The order prohibits a 1-year old girl's family from flying the child back to India, their country of origin, for purposes of female genital mutilation. The child's three older sisters had previously been flown to India for the procedure. FGM protection orders have been available from British judges for about three years. (Background on obtaining an FGM Order).

Justice Department Sues Over County Nursing Home's Procedure For Obtaining Flu Shot Exemption

The Justice Department announced yesterday that it has filed a religious discrimination suit against a Wisconsin county because of the religious accommodation policy of a county-owned nursing home. The complaint (full text) in United States v. Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, (ED WI, filed 3/6/2018), challenges the nursing home's requirement that a religious exemption for staff from the requirement to obtain a flu shot is available only if the staff member furnishes a letter from his or her clergy leader. Nursing assistant Barnell Williams sought a religious exemption, but was not affiliated with any church or organized religion. She based her religious objection on her own interpretation of the Bible. She agreed to receive a flu shot in order to preserve her job. However, according to the complaint:

Williams suffered severe emotional distress from receiving the flu shot in violation of her religious beliefs, including withdrawing from work and her personal life, suffering from sleep problems, anxiety, and fear of “going to Hell” because she had disobeyed the Bible by receiving the shot. These deep emotional problems stemming from having to take the flu shot have plagued Williams to the present.

Tuesday, March 06, 2018

Malaysia's Federal Court Says Conversions To Christianity Are For Sharia Courts

In Malaysia last week, the Malaysian Federal Court dismissed appeals by four women who seek to have their names and religious affiliation changed on their national identity cards-- from Muslim to Christian. Three of the women were originally Christians, but embraced Islam when they married Muslim men. Now they are divorced and wish to re-embrace Christianity. The fourth woman is a convert from Islam to Christianity. According to World Watch Monitor, the country's highest civil court held that jurisdiction over these cases is only in the Syariah Courts, even though the Sarawak Shariah Court Ordinance 2001 has no provision for leaving Islam. CBNNews yesterday further explained the implications of this holding:

In the past, Sharia courts have not allowed conversion from the Islamic faith.

Christian groups said they'll request Sarawak legislators to amend state law to allow conversion. In response, several Islamic groups said they plan to counter Christian conversion efforts by sending more Muslims into the state.

Located in Malaysia's east, Sarawak is about 40 percent Christian. Most Christians are Chinese ethnics. Overall, Christians are about nine percent of the Malaysia population while Muslims are about 61 percent. Leaving Islam is unthinkable for most ethnic Malays who believe to be Malay is to be Muslim.

Missouri Abortion Restriction Challenged In New Suit By Satanic Temple Member

A suit filed last week in a Missouri federal district court by a member of The Satanic Temple challenges Missouri's restrictions on abortion as a violation of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The complaint (full text) in Doe v. Greitens, (ED MO,filed 2/28/2018), focuses on the requirements in Missouri law that a woman seeking an abortion be furnished a booklet that states in part that life begins at conception and an abortion will terminate the life of a living human being. It also challenges Missouri's 72-hour waiting period and the requirement that the woman be given the opportunity to view an active ultrasound. The complaint says that plaintiff does not believe that life begins at conception and holds the religious belief that she alone can decide whether to remove human tissue from her body, according to the best scientific understanding of the world.

As previously reported, the Missouri Supreme Court in January heard oral arguments in a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenge by The Satanic Temple to the same abortion restrictions. As reported by Friendly Atheist blog, one of the purposes of the new lawsuit is to undercut a mootness argument in the Missouri Supreme Court. The lower court dismissed the lawsuit because the plaintiff was no longer pregnant. The new suit is presumably intended to show that this challenge is one that is within the exception for controversies that are capable of repetition but evade review.

Destruction of Native American Burial Site Did Not Violate RFRA

In Slockish v U.S. Federal Highway Administration, (D OR, March 2, 2018), an Oregon federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a RFRA challenge to the destruction of sacred Native American burial grounds in widening a highway. Relying on Supreme Court and 9th Circuit precedent, the court held:

As in Lyng and Navajo Nation, plaintiffs contend that the sacred site at issue, which is located on federal land, has been desecrated and destroyed. Yet, as in those cases, plaintiffs have not established that they are being coerced to act contrary to their religious beliefs under the threat of sanctions or that a governmental benefit is being conditioned upon conduct that would violate their religious beliefs. Without these critical elements, plaintiffs cannot establish a substantial burden under the RFRA.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Monday, March 05, 2018

Sunday, March 04, 2018

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Abdul-Aziz v. Lanigan, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30258 (D NJ, Feb. 26, 2018), a New Jersey federal district court, while dismissing some claims, allowed Muslim inmates to move ahead with a claim for prospective injunctive relief as to daily Halal meals.

In Fisher v. Schweitzer, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33166 (SD OH, March 1, 2018), an Ohio federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33457, Jan. 2, 2018) and dismissed an inmate's complaint that the warden stopped him from attending church as a way of punishing him for being the victim of an assault.

In Thomas v. Waugh, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33541 (ND NY, Feb. 28, 2018), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended allowing plaintiff, an African American of the Jewish-Hebrew faith, to proceed with his 1st Amendment free exercise claim growing out of the refusal by authorities to allow him to wear a tam as an alternative form of Jewish head covering. UPDATE: The magistrate's recommendation was adopted by the court at 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50282, March 27, 2018.

In Moore v. Jay, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34078 (WD OK, March 2, 2018),an Oklahoma federal district court refused at this point to dismiss a suit by a Muslim inmate who alleged that while he agreed to accept kosher food in place of halal food, he was intentionally deceived about the kosher status of the meals he was served.

Saturday, March 03, 2018

Inmate Is Not "Employee" Under Title VII

A Texas federal magistrate's decision in Smith v. Gonzales, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31836 (ND TX, Feb. 2, 2018), adopted by the court at 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30160 (Feb. 26, 2018), rejected a Title VII religious discrimination claim filed by a state prison inmate. Plaintiff David Wayne Smith alleged religious discrimination because he was required to work in his prison job on the Sabbath. The court, relying in part on a 1986 EEOC opinion, held that the inmate is not an "employee" for purposes of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Alabama Judicial Ethics Provision Enjoined In Part

In Parker v. Judicial Inquiry Commission of the State of Alabama, (MD AL, March 2, 2018), an Alabama federal district court held that a provision in Alabama's Canon of Judicial Ethics, because of its breadth, violates the free speech provisions of the 1st Amendment. At issue was the provision that: "A judge should abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court...." A complaint had been filed against Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker over his comments on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision on an earlier Alabama Supreme Court order barring probate judges from issuing licenses for same-sex marriages. The court issued a preliminary injunction barring the Judicial Inquiry Commission

from enforcing Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics 3A(6) to the extent that it proscribes public comment by a judge about a pending or impending proceeding in a court outside the state of Alabama, [or] ... proscribes public comment by a judge that cannot reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a proceeding in Alabama.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

Friday, March 02, 2018

4th Circuit Denies En Banc Review On Bladensburg Cross

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a vote of 8-6, has denied an en banc rehearing on the constitutionality of the 40-foot high Bladensburg Cross that has stood for over 90 years at an intersection in Prince Georges County, Maryland. Last October a panel of the 4th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, held the Latin Cross, created as a World War I Veterans' Memorial, violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) Yesterday in American Humanist Association v. Maryland- National Capital Park Planning Commission, (4th Cir., March 1, 2018), the full court's denial of review was accompanied by 4 separate opinions-- one a concurring opinion and 3 dissenting opinions.

Judge Wynn's concurring opinion said in part:

To allow this Court to circumscribe the Bladensburg Cross’s meaning and power, as the Commission and its amici request, would empower this Court to diminish the Latin cross’s many years of accrued religious symbolism, and thereby amount to the state degradation of religion that the Framers feared and sought to proscribe. Indeed, were this Court to accept that the Latin cross’s predominantly sectarian meaning could be overcome by a plaque, a small secular symbol, and four engraved words, as the Commission maintains, we would necessarily grant the government—and the judiciary, in particular—broad latitude to define and shape religious belief and meaning. Surely, the Constitution does not contemplate endowing the government with such extraordinary power to determine and prescribe individual citizens’ religious beliefs and religious communities’ joint understandings, appreciations, and teachings.

Judge Wilkinson's dissent, joined by Chief Judge Gregory and Judge Agee, said in part:

The dead cannot speak for themselves. But may the living hear their silence. We should take care not to traverse too casually the line that separates us from our ancestors and that will soon enough separate us from our descendants. The present has many good ways of imprinting its values and sensibilities upon society. But to roil needlessly the dead with the controversies of the living does not pay their deeds or their time respect.

This memorial and this cross have stood for almost one full century. Life and change flow by the small park in the form of impatient cars and trucks. That is disturbance enough. Veterans Memorial Park may not be Arlington National Cemetery, but it is the next thing to it. I would let the cross remain and let those honored rest in peace.

Washington Post, reporting on the decision, says that the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

St. Cloud Diocese To File For Bankruptcy

The Diocese of St. Cloud, Minnesota announced this week that it is planning to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization in response to 74 claims filed against it for past sexual abuse of minors. The claims came after the state legislature in 2013 created a 3-year window for abuse suits from past years. According to the Star-Tribune, this will be the fourth Minnesota Catholic institution to file for bankruptcy.

Tunisian Court Rejects Imams' Challenge To LGBTQ Radio Station

Slate reports on a Feb. 14 decision by a court in Tunisia dismissing a lawsuit filed by a union representing imams. The suit asked the court to request the Tunisian Internet Agency to block access to the online LGBTQ radio station Shams Rad. Petitioners argued that the station threatens "social and family values." The court ruled that the union lacks standing to bring the suit, and that the radio station had not violated the rights of others.

Controversial Bill In Iceland Would Criminalize Muslim and Jewish Circumcision Practices

The New York Times this week reported on the controversy in Iceland over a bill introduced in the country's Parliament last month that would make circumcision of young boys for non-medial reasons illegal. The bill, which would impose a penalty of up to 6 years in prison for violation, was introduced by four political parties and is backed by many doctors and nurses in Iceland. According to the Times:

[O]rganizations representing Muslims and Jews, which practice male circumcision as a matter of religious tradition, are questioning the lawmakers’ motives. The Roman Catholic Church in the European Union has also objected that the legislation is an attack on religious freedom.....

The bill is perceived as an anti-immigration issue directed against Muslims, Rabbi [Pinchas] Goldschmidt [President of the Conference of European Rabbis] said, and "we the Jews are the collateral damage."

It is "basically saying that Jews are not anymore welcome in Iceland," he said.

Thursday, March 01, 2018

Trump's Remarks As Rev. Billy Graham's Body Lies In State At Capitol

President Trump delivered remarks (full text) yesterday at the U.S. Capitol as Rev. Billy Graham's body was laid in state there. He said in part:

Around us stand the statues of heroes who led the nation in prayer during the great and difficult times, from Washington to Lincoln to Eisenhower to King.

And, today, in the center of this great chamber lies legendary Billy Graham, an ambassador for Christ who reminded the world of the power of prayer and the gift of God’s grace.

Today we honor him as only three private citizens before him have been so honored.

New Report On 2017 Anti-Semitic Incidents

The ADL this week released its 2017 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents. The report summarizes its major findings in part as follows:

ADL identified 1,986 anti-Semitic incidents perpetrated throughout the United States in 2017. This is an increase of 57% over the 1,267 incidents reported in 2016. For the first time since at least 2010, an incident occurred in every US state. The states with the highest numbers of incidents were New York (380 incidents), California (268 incidents), New Jersey (208 incidents), Massachusetts (177), Florida (98), and Pennsylvania (96). These states combined made up more than half (62%)of the total number of incidents. The number of incidents tends to correlate with large Jewish populations.

Wall Street Journal reports on the new data. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

European Court Says Psychiatric Patient's Religious Rights Were Infringed

In a Chamber Judgment in Mockute v. Lithuania, (ECHR, Feb. 27, 2018), the European Court of Human Rights held that a Lithuanian woman's privacy and religious exercise rights were violated by the psychiatric hospital to which she had been admitted. The facts were summarized by the dissenting opinion:

In 2003 the applicant, who at the time was 30 years old and had a long history of mental problems, after a mental breakdown was forcibly placed in a psychiatric hospital, where she spent 52 days. While being held there, psychiatrists disclosed information about the applicant's health and private life to a journalist as well as information about her health and treatment to her mother. In a subsequent television programme, parts of this information were released. The applicant furthermore claimed that the regime at the psychiatric hospital did not allow her to practise the religion of the Ojas Meditation Centre, the Lithuanian branch of the Osho religious movement, and that the psychiatrists had worked on her to convince her to be critical of her non-traditional religion.

The court held by a unanimous vote that her privacy rights under the European Convention on Human Rights were violated, and by a vote of 5-2 that her religious exercise rights were infringed. The Court's press release on the case describes the holding on religious freedom:

[T]wo factors were decisive in concluding that there had been an interference with her right to freedom of religion. First, she had been held unlawfully at the hospital for more than 50 days and had for the most part been under a very strict regime, such that she had been unable either to practise meditation or to visit the Osjo Meditation Centre. Second, the doctors had tried to “correct” her to persuade her to abandon her religion, which they considered as “fictitious”, and she had felt constrained to obey them, even on pain of receiving a diagnosis which would have made her unemployable.

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

Mennonite Woman Jailed For Contempt For Refusal To Testify In Capital Case

CBS4 reports that in Arapahoe County, Colorado, a Mennonite woman has been held in contempt and remanded to jail for refusing to testify for the prosecution in the challenge to a conviction by Robert Ray who was sentenced to death for murder. Ray is claiming inadequate representation at trial. The woman, Greta Lindecrantz, was an investigator for the defense in the original trial. Prosecutors want her to testify to show the adequacy of Ray's lawyers. However Lindecrantz says that her religious beliefs prohibit her from participating in the killing of another person, and that is what prosecutors are asking her to do.

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

USCIRF Criticizes Treatment of Iranian Christians Seeking US Asylum

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a press release last week calling attention to some 100 Iranian Christians who have been waiting in Vienna for over a year seeking asylum in the United States under the special provisions of the Lautenberg Amendment. That law gives higher priority for refugee status to Iranian religious minorities, including Christians, Zoroastrians and Baha’is. USCIRF says that recent reports indicate these individuals have been denied asylum and could be returned to Iran where they may face discrimination or persecution.

Brazilian Court Rejects Censorship of Play Depicting Jesus As Trans Woman

In Brazil last week, the São Paulo Court of Justice (the highest state court) lifted an emergency injunction that had been issued by a local court banning further performances of the play "The Gospel According to Jesus, Queen of Heaven." The art news site Hyperallergic reports on developments. The play is a one-woman show that depicts Jesus living in the present as a trans woman. The controversial show was described by the lower court as "disrespectful to a religion," "aggressive," and of an "extremely low intellectual level." The appellate court, however, held that the injunction was unconstitutional censorship that effectively forbids artistic activity.

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Religious Organizations Challenge City's New Anti-Discrimination Law

Five churches and a Christian radio station filed suit last week in a Wisconsin state trial court challenging a De Pere city anti-discrimination ordinance that does not clearly exempt religious organizations. The complaint (full text) in Hope Lutheran Church v. City of De Pere, (WI Cir. Ct., filed 2/22/2018) says that the city has not been willing to assure churches and religious organizations that they will be exempt from the employment and public accommodation provisions of the law that takes effect next month. The complaint contends:

As a result, the ordinance is likely to be imposed on churches and other religious organizations in a manner that would mandate government orthodoxy in core religious functions, communication, and conduct.

While the law does permit religious organizations to hire on the basis of religion, it does not exempt them from prohibitions on hiring on the basis of sex, marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity. Fox 11 News reports on the law suit.

Another 3rd Travel Ban Cert. Petition Filed

As previously reported, last month the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Trump v. Hawaii, a challenge to the third version of President Trump's travel ban. In light of that, plaintiffs who were largely successful in a similar challenge in the 4th Circuit (see prior posting) have now filed a petition for certiorari (full text) with the Supreme Court, telling the Court:

The court of appeals denied the cross-appeal below, which argued that the preliminary injunction should not have been limited to individuals with a bona fide relationship with a U.S. person or entity. This petition seeks certiorari on that question, which is not presented in Hawai‘i. In addition, this petition raises the same four questions already before the Court in Hawai‘i, and requests that the cases be consolidated once again.

Muslim Advocates issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

Satanic Temple Sues City Over Invocation Policy

The Satanic Temple last week filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Scottsdale, AZ, challenging on federal and state constitutional grounds the invocation practices of the city. The complaint (full text) in The Satanic Temple v. City of Scottsdale, Arizona, (D AZ, filed 2/23/2018), alleges that City Council meetings are regularly opened by prayers delivered only by members of Judeo-Christian faiths. An invocation originally scheduled to be given by a member of the Satanic Temple was cancelled, using the allegedly pretextual reason of connection to the community. Subsequently the mayor touted stopping the Satanists in an election pamphlet. The Scottsdale Independent reports on the lawsuit.

2nd Circuit En Banc: Title VII Covers Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In a 10-3 en banc decision yesterday, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, overturning prior 2nd Circuit precedent, held that "sexual orientation discrimination constitutes a form of discrimination 'because of . . . sex,' in violation of Title VII" of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., (2d Cir., Feb. 26, 2018), Chief Judge Katzmann filed the majority opinion which concluded that (1) sexual orientation discrimination is motivated in part by sex and thus is a subset of sex discrimination; (2) sexual orientation discrimination involves gender stereotyping; and (3) sexual orientation discrimination involves associational discrimination. Only four other judges joined this opinion in full.

Judge Pooler, without a separate opinion, joined the gender stereotyping and associational discrimination rationales. In concurring opinions, Judge Jacobs and Judge Sack agreed only with the associational discrimination approach. Judge Cabranes concurred only in the judgment, saying sexual orientation is a function of sex. Judge Lohier concurred on the basis of the majority's textualist approach.
Judges Lynch, Livingston and Raggi dissented based largely on legislative history and the intent of the drafters of Title VII.

In the case, the Justice Department and the EEOC had filed amicus briefs taking opposite positions from each other. (See prior posting.) AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Monday, February 26, 2018

Sunday, February 25, 2018

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Dunham v. Wainwright, (5th Cir., Feb. 22, 2018), the 5th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an inmate's complaint that limits on the number of letters he can send at state expense interferes with his right to send correspondence to religious organizations.

In Jordan v. Commonwealth, (VA Sup. Ct., Feb. 22, 2018), the Virginia Supreme Court upheld a lower court's refusal to allow an inmate to change his name after he underwent a religious conversion. The inmate conceded that the denial would not hinder his free exercise of religion.

In Gillen v. Parker, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26881 (MD TN, Feb. 20, 2018), a Tennessee federal magistrate judge recommended upholding a prison's requirement that Musliim inmates must register their religion in order to participate in Ramadan and Eid al-Fitr celebrations.

In Clemens v. Warden, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27146 (ED PA, Feb. 20, 2018), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that one of his two Bibles was confiscated.

In Dawdy v. Allen, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27207 (ED MO, Feb. 21, 2018), a Missouri federal district court allowed a Jewish inmate to move ahead with a variety of complaints regarding the availability of kosher meals on holidays and the Sabbath; the requirement that there be 5 members for a religious community to have access to materials and services; and the denial of canteen funds for Jewish needs.

In Thomas v. Lakin, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27576 (SD IL, Feb. 21, 2018), an Illinois federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27639, Jan. 22, 2018) and dismissed as moot an inmate's complaint that his requests for a copy of the Qur'an, a prayer mat, religious services, and a religious diet were denied.

In Hartney v. Butcher, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28765 (SD TX, Feb. 21, 2018), a Texas federal district court dismissed a Native American inmate's complaint that some of his religious articles were confiscated.

In Hearns v. Gonzales, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28959 (ED CA, Feb. 22, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge allowed a Muslim former inmate to move ahead with his retaliation and free exercise claims growing out of a correctional officer's pouring bleach on, and confiscating, his prayer rug.

New Jersey Limit On Activities of Religious Cemeteries Is Upheld

In Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark v. Christie, (D NJ, Feb. 23, 2018), a New Jersey federal district court rejected due process and equal protection challenges to a 2015 New Jersey law that prohibits private religious cemeteries from selling headstones, vaults and monuments. The law was enacted to extend to religious ceremonies the separation of industries law that previously applied only to non-religious cemeteries. AP reports on the decision.

Christian Leaders Close Church of Holy Sepulcher In Protest of Israeli Tax and Land Policies

Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Armenian church leaders have closed the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (believed to be the site of Jesus' crucifixion and burial) in Jerusalem in protest of two legal moves by Israeli government officials. YNet News today describes the disputed actions:

As part of a battle with Finance Ministry over budgets to the capital, the Jerusalem Municipality informed the Finance, Interior and Foreign ministry and the Prime Minister's Office that it had started collecting property tax debts of more than NIS 650 million from some 887 properties across the city which belong to churches and United Nations institutions.

Municipality officials said these properties did not include houses of worship, which are exempt from paying property taxes by law, but rather properties used for non-prayer activities, including commercial activities.

Churches are exempt from paying property taxes as part of an agreement with the state, but the Jerusalem Municipality says it is not being compensated by the state for the money it is losing by not collecting these taxes.

Later on Sunday, an Israeli cabinet committee is due to consider a bill that would allow the state to expropriate land in Jerusalem sold by churches to private real estate firms in recent years.

The stated aim of the bill is to protect homeowners against the possibility that private companies will not extend their leases. The churches, major landowners in the city, say such a law would make it harder for them to find buyers for their land.

A statement from church leaders calls the moves a "systematic and unprecedented attack against Christians in the Holy Land."

Saturday, February 24, 2018

State Appeals Court Rejects Religious Defense By B&B That Rejected Lesbian Couple

In Cervelli v. Aloha Bed & Breakfast, (HI App., Feb. 23, 2018), a Hawaii sate appeals court held that a 3-room bed & breakfast violated the state's public accommodation law when the B&B owner refused on religious grounds to accept a room reservation from a lesbian couple. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The court held that an exemption in a separate housing discrimination statute for small rooming houses does not apply to the public accommodation law. The court also rejected defendant's state and federal constitutional privacy and free exercise defenses, finding that the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations. Hawaii News Now reports on the decision.

Court Says Enforcing Contraceptive Mandate Against Christian College Violates RFRA

Last October, the Trump Administration issued Interim Final Rules that expanded exemptions from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate for organizations, colleges and businesses that have religious or moral objections to furnishing coverage for employees (or enrolled students), as well as for employees who object to having such coverage. (See prior posting.) Shortly thereafter, the government entered settlement agreements in at least 13 cases conceding that the mandate imposes a substantial burden on plaintiffs’ exercise of religion and, thus, cannot be legally enforced against them under RFRA. (See prior posting). In December, two separate federal district courts issued nationwide preliminary injunctions against enforcement of the Trump Administration's expanded exemptions. (See prior postings 1, 2).

Now this week in Wheaton College v. Azar, (ND IL, Feb. 22, 2018), an Illinois federal district court granted Wheaton College a permanent injunction barring enforcement against it of the contraceptive coverage mandate to the extent that the mandate violates Wheaton College's conscience. Wheaton is a Christian liberal arts college. The court's decision came after the government conceded that enforcement of the mandate against the college would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Friday, February 23, 2018

Christian Group Challenges College's Speech Zone Policy

A lawsuit was filed this week in a Georgia federal district court by a Christian apologetics club against administrators of Kennesaw State University challenging the school's speech zone policy. The complaint (full text) in Ratio Christi of Kennesaw State University v. Olens, (ND GA, filed 2/20/2018) complains that the school would not allow the group to set up a pro-life display on the Campus Green. Instead it limited the display to a small area set aside as a "speech zone." The suit alleges in part:

Defendants prohibit individual students from reserving space on campus and require registered student organizations (“RSO”) to submit reservation requests between three and thirty days in advance.... These policies give KSU officials unbridled discretion, both over whether to grant, deny, or modify an RSO’s reservation request and over whether and how much to charge in security fees, and they quarantine any expressive activities KSU officials deem “controversial” to the small, less accessible “speech zone.”

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

College Coach Sues Alleging He Was Not Hired Because of His Jewish Heritage

A Title VII lawsuit was filed in Louisiana federal district court this week by a former assistant football coach at the Baptist-affiliated Louisiana College. Plaintiff Joshua Bonadona, whose mother is Jewish, was raised in the Jewish religion. He converted to Christianity while a student at Louisiana College, and was employed as an assistant football coach there for two years after he graduated. He then went to Southeast Missouri State University for graduate work combined with a coaching position. Two years after that he applied for an Assistant Coach opening that had arisen back at Louisiana College. The complaint (full text) in Bonadona v. Louisiana College, (WD LA, filed 2/21/2018), alleges that Bonadona received assurances from Louisiana College's head coach that he would be hired for the position. In reliance on that he resigned his Southeast Missouri position. However Louisiana College president, Dr. Rick Brewer, vetoed the hiring because of Bonadona's "Jewish blood." The lawsuit contends:

People of Jewish heritage are protected as a distinct race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sharre Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615 (1987). As such, employment discrimination against an individual based upon his Jewish ethnic heritage is prohibited under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2.

Yahoo Sports and the Bayou Brief report on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: Louisiana College issued a statement denying allegations in the lawsuit.

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Americans United Names New Executive Director

Americans United for Separation of Church and State announced yesterday that Rachel K. Laser has been appointed its new Executive Director. Laser has had extensive experience in non-profit advocacy, having worked for Planned Parenthood, the National Women’s Law Center, Third Way and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. She succeeds Rev. Barry W. Lynn who retired last year after 25 years as AU's leader. Washington Post carries an extensive article on Laser's appointment. [Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]

Supreme Court Defines Prisoner Contributions To Attorney Fee Awards

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in Murphy v. Smith, (Sup. Ct., Feb. 21, 2018), in a 5-4 decision, decided on the proper interpretation of a statutory provision relating to award of attorneys' fees in damage actions by prisoners, including actions alleging a violation of an inmate's First Amendment free exercise rights. At issue is the provision in 42 USC § 1997e(d) relating to the amount an inmate must contribute out of his or her recovery toward attorneys' fees when the inmate has been awarded such fees. The majority, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch, held that the statutory reference to the inmate's contribution of up to 25% of the monetary judgment toward satisfying the award does not give the trial court discretion to require less than 25%. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ginsberg, Breyer and Kagan, dissented arguing that the statute permits the exercise of discretion in determining the percentage (up to 25%) of a judgment that must be applied toward an attorneys' fee award.

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Rev. Billy Graham Dies At Age 99

The New York Times chronicling his life, reports this morning:

The Rev. Billy Graham, a North Carolina farmer’s son who preached to millions in stadium events he called crusades, becoming a pastor to presidents and the nation’s best-known Christian evangelist for more than 60 years, died on Wednesday at his home. He was 99.

Suit Challenges Ban On Lesbian Foster Parents In Federally Funded Refugee Program

A lawsuit was filed yesterday against the federal government and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops challenging discrimination against same-sex couples in administration of the Unaccompanied Refugee Minor Program and the Unaccompanied Alien Children Program. The complaint (full text) in Marouf v. Azar, (D DC, filed 2/20/2018), alleges that various federal agencies use taxpayer funds to finance grants to the USCCB to implement these programs based on impermissible religious criteria. Plaintiffs, a lesbian couple, were told by Catholic Charities of Fort Worth, a sub-grantee of USCCB, that they did not qualify to become foster parents of an unaccompanied refugee child. An official of the organization told them that foster parents must "mirror the holy family." The complaint alleges in part:

By working to ensure that none of the children for which they are responsible are placed in homes of same-sex spouses based on USCCB’s religious beliefs, USCCB and its sub-grantees not only discriminate against same-sex spouses, but also effectively erase the non-Catholic identities and beliefs of many of the unaccompanied refugee children for which they are responsible. This conduct potentially increases those children’s alienation and vulnerability, while denying them access to loving homes that could serve them best—all at federal taxpayers’ expense.

Lambda Legal issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Washington Post reports on the filing of the suit.

Injunction Against Serving As Temple Director Upheld

In Sikh Temple Turlock, California v. Chahal, (CA App, Feb 20, 2018), a California state appeals court upheld the trial court's resolution of a governance dispute between two factions in a Sikh Temple. As described by the court:

Following a bench trial, the [trial] court found the election of the First Board was valid. The court further concluded the April 2013 election did not occur and that appellants took control of the Temple by usurpation. Accordingly, the trial court reinstated the First Board and ordered that a judicially supervised election take place. The court also enjoined five of the appellants from serving as officers or directors of the Temple for five years.

The appeals court rejected challenges to the trial court's decision, including a a free exercise challenge to the 5-year injunction. The court said in part:

Appellants submitted evidence that a Sikh has a general obligation to perform selfless service. However, there was no testimony that serving on the board is itself a religious act, constitutes a religious practice, or is required to satisfy the seva obligation. In fact, the evidence suggests otherwise.... Thus, appellants’ claim that the ban infringes on the free exercise of their religion has no support in the record.

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Christmas As Legal Holiday Does Not Violate County Employee's Rights

In Edelstein v. Stephens, (SD OH, Feb. 16, 2018), a Ohio federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing many of the claims of a state court staff attorney/magistrate who was fired after she requested eight days off for Jewish holidays. One of plaintiff's claims was that the county violated her free exercise and equal protection rights by designating Christmas as a legal holiday without similarly protecting the rights of non-Christians to celebrate their holidays. The court said in part:

Butler County's policy establishing Christmas as a paid legal holiday for county employees is a neutral law that does not discriminate against a particular religion or set of religious beliefs or prohibit any conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons.... The Sixth Circuit has acknowledged that because there are "legitimate secular purposes for establishing Christmas as a legal public holiday," it follows that the establishment of Christmas day as a legal public holiday neither violates an individual's fundamental rights nor discriminates against her based on her religion.

The Butler County Journal-News reports on the decision.

"Parody Marriage" Bills Are Newest Attempt To Challenge To Same-Sex Marriage

A bill titled Marriage and Constitution Restoration Act (H 4949) was introduced into the South Carolina legislature last week (Feb. 15). A similar bill with the same title (HB 0167) was received for introduction in the Wyoming legislature on Feb. 14. Taking a new approach to challenging same-sex marriage, the bills define marriage that does not involve one man and one woman as "parody marriage." The bills then declare that parody marriages, as well as treating sexual orientation as a suspect class, violate the Establishment Clause because they are part of the religion of Secular Humanism. They declare, on the other hand, that marriages between one man and one woman are secular because they arise "out of the nature of things" and are "natural, neutral and noncontroversial." According to the Charleston City Paper, the bills in both states were written with the advice of Chris Sevier. Sevier has gained notice by filing lawsuits seeking to have his marriage to his computer recognized--- suits filed in an attempt to discredit non-traditional marriages. (See prior posting.)

Monday, February 19, 2018

Sunday, February 18, 2018

Mother Held In Contempt For Ignoring Custody Order Giving Father Control of Religious Decisions

The Charlotte Observer last week reported that a North Carolina state Superior Court judge has upheld a contempt conviction of 36-year old Kendra Stocks for disobeying a court order regarding custody of her daughter. One day after a district court judge gave full custody, specifically including decisions concerning religion, of Stocks' 3-year old daughter to the child's father, Stocks went ahead with a previously-planned baptism of the child. She did not inform the father of the planned ceremony; he learned of it through Stocks' Facebook postings. The Superior Court reduced Stocks contempt sentence from ten to seven days. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Mikell v. Folino, (3d Cir., Feb. 13, 2018), the 3rd Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an inmate's complaint that he did not receive Ramadan meals.

In Corbett v. Annucci, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24291 (SD NY, Feb. 13, 2018), a New York federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with claims for injunctive relief alleging that he did not receive Halal meals.

In Jones v. Annucci, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24359 (SD NY, Feb. 13, 2018), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was required to change his religious registration from Islam to Shia before he could participate in Shia religious events.

In Thomas v. Slusher, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25916 (ND OH, Feb. 16, 2018), an Ohio federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was transferred out of the faith-based prison unit.

In Woods v. Paramo, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25989 (SD CA, Feb. 15, 2018), a California federal court allowed an inmate to move ahead with his suit challenging delays in providing a kosher diet when he is transferred for extensive periods.

Saturday, February 17, 2018

No Free Exercise Defense To Charge of Attending Cockfight

In United States v. Cruz, (SD NY, Feb. 15, 2018), a New York federal magistrate judge rejected a Free Exercise defense to a charge of knowingly attending a cockfight in violation of 7 USC §2156. The court said in part:

Here, Cruz has failed to make a showing that the act of engaging in animal fighting ventures stems from sincerely held beliefs that are religious in nature. Although Cruz continually refers to the “God given” dominion of man over animals, he does not identify any specific religious tenets or practices that are burdened by the statute. Nor does he identify any religion or denomination from which his beliefs derive. Indeed, in “attest[ing] to the importance of the God given rights of the American farmer,” Cruz cites quotations in which the founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin, exalted agriculture.... This suggests that Cruz’s beliefs are philosophical or political in nature.

Friday, February 16, 2018

Ohio Court Gives Custody of Transgender Teen To Grandparents

CNN reports that an Ohio trial court judge today gave custody of a 17-year old transgender male to his grandparents after his parents sought to bar the hormonal transition treatment strongly recommended by the youth's medical team. Grandparents will now be able to make medical decisions for the teen. The parents argued that the teen was not old enough to make such a consequential decision. A county prosecutor contended that the parents objected because of their religious beliefs. Court testimony revealed that the parents, in addition to opposing treatment, refused to call the youth by his chosen name, triggering suicidal feelings in him.

EEOC Sues Over Accommodation For Religious Objection To Flu Vaccine

The EEOC announced this week that it has filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against the Owossso, Michigan based Memorial Healthcare. The company revoked its job offer to Yvonne Bair to work as a medical transcriptionist after she objected on religious grounds to receiving an influenza shot or spray immunization. Memorial refused her suggested accommodation of allowing her to wear a mask, even though company policy allowed masks as an alternative for those who cannot take a vaccine for other reasons. MarketWatch reports on the lawsuit.

Thursday, February 15, 2018

4th Circuit En Banc Says Trump's Third Travel Ban Violates Establishment Clause

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc today, in opinions spanning 285 pages, affirmed a Maryland federal district court's grant of a preliminary injunction against the Proclamation setting out the third version of President Trump's travel ban. In International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, (4th Cir. en banc, Feb. 15, 2018), the court by a vote of 9-4 held that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim. Chief Judge Gregory's majority opinion said in part:

[H]ere the Government’s proffered rationale for the Proclamation lies at odds with the statements of the President himself. Plaintiffs here do not just plausibly allege with particularity that the Proclamation’s purpose is driven by anti-Muslim bias, they offer undisputed evidence of such bias: the words of the President. This evidence includes President Trump’s disparaging comments and tweets regarding Muslims; his repeated proposals to ban Muslims from entering the United States; his subsequent explanation that he would effectuate this “Muslim” ban by targeting “territories” instead of Muslims directly; the issuance of EO-1 and EO-2, addressed only to majority-Muslim nations; and finally the issuance of the Proclamation, which not only closely tracks EO-1 and EO-2, but which President Trump and his advisors described as having the same goal as EO-1 and EO-2.....

While the majority ultimately concluded that it would not rely on President Trump's pre-election statements in reaching its conclusion, it nevertheless indicated that it would have been permissible to do so:

Perhaps in implicit recognition of the rawness of the religious animus in the President’s pre-election statements, the Government urges us to disregard them. This is a difficult argument to make given that the President and his advisors have repeatedly relied on these pre-election statements to explain the President’s post-election actions related to the travel ban.... [I]n McCreary, the Supreme Court reminded us that “the world is not made brand new every morning.” .... Because “reasonable observers have reasonable memories,” these statements certainly provide relevant context when examining the purpose of the Proclamation.

The majority concluded:

In sum, the face of the Proclamation, read in the context of President Trump’s official statements, fails to demonstrate a primarily secular purpose. To the objective observer, the Proclamation continues to exhibit a primarily religious anti-Muslim objective. Our constitutional system creates a strong presumption of legitimacy for presidential action and we often defer to the political branches on issues related to immigration and national security. But the disposition in this case is compelled by the highly unusual facts here. Plaintiffs offer undisputed evidence that the President of the United States has openly and often expressed his desire to ban those of Islamic faith from entering the United States. The Proclamation is thus not only a likely Establishment Clause violation, but also strikes at the basic notion that the government may not act based on “religious animosity.”

Six of the judges would have also found a likelihood of success on at least some of plaintiffs' statutory challenges to the Proclamation. Four concurring opinions and two dissenting opinions were also filed. Pursuant to an earlier U.S. Supreme Court order, the court stayed the injunction pending a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. Richmond Times-Dispatch reports on today's decision.

NY Governor Issues Executive Order Barring State Contracts With Entities That Fail To Address Discrimination

Earlier this month (Feb. 3), New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued an Executive Order (full text) directing all state agencies and departments to amend their procurement procedures to prevent entering into contracts "with entities that have institutional policies or practices that fail to address the harassment and discrimination of individuals on the basis of their age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, sex, marital status, disability, or other protected basis." State departments and agencies must include non-discrimination provisions in all contracts for goods, services, technology or construction. In a press release announcing the Executive Order, the governor's office said in part:

The Trump administration has banned transgender people from serving in the U.S. Military, removed guidance nationwide that helped protect young transgender students at school, and completely removed the LGBTQ community from the National Survey of Older Americans. Additionally, in October 2017, the federal government rescinded a contraceptive coverage mandate under the Affordable Car Act. This action has permitted employers and organizations to claim broad exemptions from nondiscrimination laws, which has increased the vulnerability of LGBTQ rights.

Following these actions, which perpetuate and tolerate discrimination and taken this nation in the wrong direction, New York is once again stepping up to ensure the rights of individuals across the state are protected.

The Director of Public Policy of the Archdiocese of New York strongly criticized the new Executive Order, saying in part:

the target of this new action is the very existence of religious agencies, and the intent is to suppress any deviation from the new orthodoxy of gender and sexual ideology.

LifeSite News reports further on these developments.

Murder Convictions Reversed Because Jehovah's Witness Juror Excluded

In Pacchiana v. State of Florida, (FL App., Feb. 14, 2018), a Florida appeals court reversed and remanded for a new trial the murder conviction of defendant. In companion decisions the convictions of Pacchiana's co-defendants were also reversed: Michael Bilotti v. Florida and in Christin Bilotti v. Florida .

In the case, defense counsel raised a Batson challenge to the state's peremptory strike of an African American member of the jury pool. The state responded that its race-neutral reason for the challenge was that the juror is a Jehovah's Witness. The prosecution urged that members of that religion often believe that only God judges and they cannot judge. In the court's primary opinion, Judge Levine wrote:

the state did not provide a “legitimate” race-neutral reason..... During voir dire, the potential juror stated that she would follow the law and gave no indication that she would allow her status as a Jehovah’s Witness to affect her decisionmaking at all. In moving to strike her, the state merely relied on the juror’s membership in a religion without any testimony that it would actually affect her service as a juror, speculating that “any” practicing Jehovah’s Witness would refuse to sit in judgment of others.

Judge Levine went on to conclude that even if this was a valid religion-based challenge, Batson should be extended to religion-based peremptory challenges, as well as racial ones. He also concluded that:

striking a potential juror from jury service based solely on membership in a religion, no matter what the juror says during voir dire, is an impermissible “religious test” in violation of the United States and Florida Constitutions.

Chief Judge Gerber concurred only in part, concluding that religion is a race-neutral response to a Batson challenge. However he agreed with Judge Levine's other conclusions that made this an impermissible religion-based challenge. Judge May dissented, concluding that Batson should not be extended to religion-based challenges. She also concluded that there were sufficient additional reasons given for the challenge to make it race-neutral. However in co-defendant Christin Bilotti's case, she would remand for resentencing. The Sun Sentinel reports on the decision.

City Considering Crowdfunding To Pay Ten Commandments Litigation Costs

The Farmington Daily Times reports that the city of Bloomfield, New Mexico may take an unusual approach to paying the $700,000 attorneys' fees of the successful plaintiffs who sued it over a Ten Commandments monument. It is considering using an online crowdfunding site to raise the funds. While Alliance Defending Freedom represented the city without charge in the litigation, now that the city has finally lost after a denial of review by the Supreme Court, it must pay the ACLU for the cost of representing plaintiffs in the litigation. The amounts will have to come from the city's general funds if its crowdfunding initiative is unsuccessful.

Cert. Filed In Episcopal Church Property Dispute

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed last week with the U.S. Supreme Court in Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina v. The Episcopal Church, (cert. filed 2/9/2018). In the case, the 5-member South Carolina Supreme Court in 5 separate opinions spanning 77 pages resolved a property dispute that arose after a split in the Episcopal Church in South Carolina. (See prior posting.) The question presented in the cert petition is:

Whether the "neutral principles of law" approach to resolving church property disputes requires court to recognize a trust on church property even if the alleged trust does not comply with the State's ordinary trust and property law.

Anglican Curmudgeon blog discusses the cert. petition at length. [Thanks to Don Nichol for the lead.]

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

7th Circuit: Hebrew Teacher Covered By "Ministerial Exception" Doctrine

In Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc., (7th Cir., Feb. 13, 2018), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ministerial exception applies to prevent a former Hebrew teacher in a Jewish day school from suing for her firing in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Plaintiff taught first and second graders. In concluding that plaintiff should be classified as a "ministerial" employee, the court said in part:

... it is sufficient that the school clearly intended for her role to be connected to the school’s Jewish mission.... Milwaukee Jewish Day School expected Grussgott to follow its expressly religious mission and to teach the Tal Am curriculum, which is designed to “develop Jewish knowledge and identity in [its] learners.”.... This, combined with the importance of Grussgott’s Judaic teaching experience in her being hired, confirms that the school expected her to play an important role in “transmitting the [Jewish] faith to the next generation.”.... Even if Grussgott did not know this, the purpose of the ministerial exception is to allow religious employers the freedom to hire and fire those with the ability to shape the practice of their faith. Thus, it is the school’s expectation—that Grussgott would convey religious teachings to her students— that matters.

Valentine's Day Remains Controversial In Some Conservative Muslim and Hindu Areas

Again this year, Valentine's Day is countering opposition from conservative religious leaders in some nations. Voice of America reports that Pakistan's Electronic Media Regulatory Authority sent instructions to radio and television stations based on a ruling last year by the Islamabad High Court that Valentine's Day is un-Islamic, spreading immorality, nudity and indecency. PEMRA told its licensees:

Respondents are directed to ensure that nothing about the celebrations of Valentine's Day and its promotion is spread on the Electronic and Print media," PEMRA's directive stated. "No event shall be held on an official level and at any public place. PEMRA is directed to ensure that all the TV channels shall stop the promotion of Valentine's Day forthwith."

Meanwhile, the Indonesian province of South Sulawesi has also continued its ban of the celebration of Valentine's Day. (Jakarta Post). And in the Indian state of Karnataka, Shri Ram Sena pro-Hindu activists have been burning Valentines in effigy, claiming Valentine's Day as anti-Hindu. (MeriNews). Arab News reports however that Valentine's Day has become one of the most celebrated events in Egypt.

DOE No Longer Investigating Transgender Bathroom Access Complaints

The Department of Education yesterday confirmed that it is no longer investigating civil rights complaints from transgender students who are not allowed to use restrooms that conform to their gender identity. CNN reports that the Department, implementing its prior withdrawal of Guidance documents issued by the Obama administration, now takes the position that Title IX bars discrimination on the basis of sex, but not on the basis of gender identity. A spokesperson said that Title IX does bar discrimination against transgender students based on sex-based stereotypes, but that longstanding regulations provide that sex-segregated bathrooms are not discriminatory.

Some Allegations About CAIR Stricken From Complaint

In Citizens for Quality Education San Diego v. San Diego Unified School District, (SD CA, Feb. 12, 2018), a California federal district court granted a motion by defendants to strike from plaintiffs' complaint certain allegations regarding the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The motion was filed in a suit alleging that the San Diego school district's anti-Islamophobia initiative is a "discriminatory scheme that establishes Muslim students as the privileged religious group within the school community." The court held that seven allegations claiming a relationship between CAIR and terrorism should be stricken as "impertinent, immaterial, and scandalous." The court however refused to strike claims relating to CAIR’s views on Israel and Judaism.

Limits On Krishna Lunch Program Upheld

In Krishna Lunch of Southern California, Inc. v. Gordon, (CD CA, Feb. 9, 2018), a California federal district court dismissed a challenge by a Krishna consciousness organization to a UCLA rule that limits it to holding four event per year on the campus. The organization, Krishna Lunch, wants to offer a lunch program with sanctified food (prasada) 2 or 3 times per week. The court rejected free exercise, free speech and expressive association challenges to the limitation. In rejecting plaintiff's expressive conduct claim, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs’ lunch program ... is afforded First Amendment protection only if there is an intent to convey a particularized message and a great likelihood that message would be understood by those who view it....

The Court previously concluded that Plaintiffs failed to allege a great likelihood their pro-animal/antimeat message would easily be understood by those who view it. They still have not done so....

... [T]he fact that the Assigned Area (the location where Plaintiffs would conduct prasada) is regularly used by groups for which food distribution is common ... makes it highly unlikely that the ordinary viewer would glean a particularized message from Plaintiffs’ lunch program.

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

EEOC Obtains Settlement In Religious Discrimination Suit

In a press release last week, the EEOC announced that Decostar Industries, Inc., a Georgia-based auto supplier, has settled a religious discrimination lawsuit filed against it by the EEOC. The company refused to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs that prevented her from working between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday. The company will pay the employee damages of $38,500 and has entered a 2-year consent decree which, among other things, requires it to adopt a new religious accommodation policy.

White House Proposed Budget Promotes School Choice

The White House yesterday released its proposed Fiscal Year 2019 Budget (full text). The Budget includes an increase in Department of Education funding for private (as well as public) school choice, described in part as follows:

The Budget invests $1.1 billion in school choice programs to expand the range of high-quality public and private school options for students, putting more decision-making power in the hands of parents and families. This investment serves as a down payment toward achieving the President’s goal of an annual Federal investment of $20 billion—for a total of an estimated $100 billion when including matching State and local funds—in school choice funding. The Budget requests $500 million to establish a new school choice grant program to support a wide range of innovative approaches to school choice. These include expanding existing private school choice programs to serve more low-income and at-risk students, developing new private school choice models, or supporting school districts’ efforts to adopt student-based budgeting and open enrollment policies that enable Federal, State and local funding to follow the student to the public school of his or her choice....

Americans United issued a press release criticizing school voucher programs, saying in part:

Vouchers divert desperately needed resources away from the public school system, which educates 90 percent of our students, to fund the education of a few voucher students in private, religious schools. Voucher programs are an ineffective and damaging education policy: they do not improve – and can even lead to declines in – student achievement. They also lack accountability to taxpayers, deprive students of civil rights protections and often provide students with fewer resources than they would have in public schools.

Vouchers violate the religious freedom of both taxpayers and religious schools. The government should not compel any citizen to furnish funds in support of a religion with which he or she disagrees – or even a religion with which he or she does agree. Vouchers also threaten the religious liberty and autonomy of religious schools, as vouchers open them up to government audits, monitoring, control and interference from which they would otherwise be exempt.

Monday, February 12, 2018

European Court Upholds Conviction For Inciting Hatred

In Smajić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, (ECHR, Jan. 16, 2018), a 3-judge panel of the European Court of Human Rights rejected a claim by a a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina that his free expression rights were infringed when he was convicted of inciting national, racial and religious hatred, discord or intolerance. Applicant had posted online action that should be taken by Bosniac citizens of the Brčko District in the event of war and secession of Republika Srpska (one of the two constituent entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina). According to the court:

The applicant had used expressions which were highly insulting to members of an ethnic group, such as “this stinking Christmas”, “get rid of the danger behind our backs”, “the city centre should then be slowly cleansed” and “Serbs who came from different shitholes live there”.

Rejecting applicant's argument that his conviction violated Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court said in part:

31. The Court notes that the applicant’s conviction amounted to an “interference” with his right to freedom of expression. An interference contravenes Article 10 of the Convention unless it is “prescribed by law”, pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 10, and is “necessary in a democratic society” for achieving such an aim or aims.

32. The interference in the present case was prescribed by law; namely, it was based on Article 160 § 1 of the 2003 BD Criminal Code... Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that it pursued at least one of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 10 § 2 – namely the protection of the reputation and rights of others.

33. The Court reiterates that freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to Article 10 § 2, it applies not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no “democratic society”. As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, but these must be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly....