Suit Charges Neighborhood With Discrimination Against Hasidic Jews

A religious discrimination lawsuit was filed two weeks ago in a New York federal district court by a number of Hasidic Jews who currently live, have lived, or wish to live in the Woodbury, New York neighborhood of Highland Lake Estates. The complaint (full text) in Stern v. Highland Lake Homeowners Association, (SD NY, filed 5/24.2018) alleges that the Homeowners Association and many of its members have taken actions to discourage more Hasidic Jews from moving into the area and making those who already live there feel unwelcome. The suit seeks $7.5 million in damages.  The Times Herald-Record reports on the lawsuit.

State Department Issues 2017 Report On International Religious Freedom

On May 29, the State Department released its 2017 Report on International Religious Freedom (full text).  In releasing the report, Secretary of State Pompeo said in part:

This report demonstrates the hard work of American diplomats to protect American and universal values. I’m proud of my team in completing this report. The release of the 2017 International Religious Freedom Report is critical to our mission to defend religious liberty. It brings to light the state of religious freedom all over the world. It documents, across 200 countries and territories, reports of violations and abuses committed by governments, terrorist groups, and individuals so that we may work together to solve them....

The world has made important strides, but we still have a lot of work to do. In that regard, I am pleased to announce that the United States will host the first ever Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom at the Department of State on July 25th and 26th of this year.

Canada's Supreme Court: No Right To Fairness Review of Church Tribunal Decision

In Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Wall, (Can. Sup. Ct., May 31, 2018), Canada's Supreme Court rejected a challenge by a Jehovah's Witness that the church's Judicial Committee breached principles of natural justice and its duty of fairness in disfellowshipping him for sinful behavior.  He argued that the disfellowshipping caused other Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse to become clients of his real estate business. The court held:

[T]here is no free standing right to procedural fairness with respect to decisions taken by voluntary associations. Jurisdiction cannot be established on the sole basis that there is an alleged breach of natural justice or that the complainant has exhausted the organization’s internal processes. Jurisdiction depends on the presence of a legal right which a party seeks to have vindicated. Only where this is so can the courts consider an association’s adherence to its own procedures and (in certain circumstances) the fairness of those procedures.

The court also held that the issue is not justiciable, saying that "courts will not consider the merits of a religious tenet".  A press release by the court summarizes the decision. [Thanks to Nima Nematollahi for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Idaho Invalidation of Pregnant Women's Living Wills

Suit was filed in an Idaho federal district court last week challenging the constitutionality of an Idaho statute that invalidates a woman's health care advance directive if the woman is pregnant.  The complaint (full text) in Almerico v. Denney, (D ID, filed 5/31/2018) alleges in part:

That law improperly infringes on the right to privacy in making medical decisions and subjects women of child bearing age to unequal and demeaning treatment in multiple ways. First, the law on its face eliminates the right of a woman who has been diagnosed as pregnant to have her express decisions about medical treatment, including whether to request or decline life-sustaining measures, honored by her health care providers. Second, the law renders ineffective the right of a woman who has been diagnosed as pregnant to designate her health care agent. Third, because of the law, the effectiveness of the health care directives of all women of childbearing age in Idaho is thrown into question until each woman’s pregnancy status is determined. Additionally, Defendants have exceeded the statute’s mandate by publicly stating that not only will the health care directives of women who have been diagnosed as pregnant be rendered null and void, but they will be forced to receive life-sustaining treatment for the duration of their pregnancies.

Objections To Child's Vaccination Were Not Genuine Religious Beliefs

In Miller v. Dicherry, (LA App, May 29, 2018), a Louisiana state appellate court rejected objections of a mother, who was the domiciliary parent under a joint custody decree, to having her child vaccinated.  The mother argued that she had a First Amendment right to refuse routine vaccinations for her child on religious grounds.  The court held that the mother's objections did not stem from a genuinely held religious beliefs.  It upheld the trial court's grant of authority to the child's father to make the medical decision that the child be vaccinated.  The court said in part:

[T]he trial court found that Ms. Dicharry's "reluctance to have her child vaccinated arises from a personal, moral, or cultural feeling against vaccination for her minor child." The trial court found that "[ t]hese views and feelings are more in the nature of a secular philosophy than a religious belief." Considering the record, we find no manifest error in the trial court's factual determinations.

Settlement Reached In Minnesota Catholic Diocese Bankruptcy

The National Catholic Reporter last week detailed a $210 million settlement with over 400 sexual abuse victims reached by the Diocese of St. Paul- Minneapolis in its bankruptcy reorganization.  $170 million will come from insurers, and $40 million will be paid by the archdiocese and parishes.  It is the largest settlement reached so far in any of the Catholic diocese bankruptcy cases around the country. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk and Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Four USCIRF Appointments Announced

In a May 22 press release, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom announced four recent appointments to the Commission. Kristina Arriaga, previously the executive director of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, was reappointed by House Speaker Paul Ryan.  President Trump has recently appointed Gary L. Bauer, president of American Values; Nadine Maenza, executive director of Patriot Voices; and Johnnie Moore, CEO of The KAIROS Company.

Challenge May Proceed Against School Policy of Disciplining Students Who Refuse To Recite Pledge

In Arceneaux v. Klein Independent School District, (SD TX, May 22, 2018), a Texas federal district court allowed a high school student to move ahead with her free speech, free exercise, and equal protection challenges to a school policy of disciplining and harassing students for sitting during the Pledge of Allegiance.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Perry Dane, Jury Nullification: Features, Bugs, and the Possibility of Granular Law, (Journal of Law Culture and the Humanities, Forthcoming).
• Stephen R. Munzer, Examining Nontherapeutic Circumcision, (28 Health Matrix 1 (2018)).
• Leora F. Eisenstadt, Enemy and Ally: Religion in Loving v. Virginia and Beyond, (Fordham Law Review, Vol. 86, No. 2659, 2018).
• Prakash Shah, Secularism's Threat to Tradition: A Reading of Europe, India and the Limits of Secularism, (Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 277/2018).
• Paul Barker, Vocation, Expressive Conduct, and Religious Liberty, (January 16, 2018).
• Abadir Ibrahim, Religion-State Identification and Religious Freedom in Ethiopia, (Pieter Coertzen, M. Christian Green, and Len Hansen (eds.) Religious Freedom and Religious Pluralism in Africa: Prospects and Limitations (2016)).
• Nuna Zekić, An Open and Diverse European Union?, (Tilburg Law Review, 22 (2017), 259-266).
• Dallan Flake, Religion as Key to Protecting Transgender Employees From Discrimination, (May 15, 2018).
• Johnny Rex Buckles, Unashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: On Public Policy and Public Service by Evangelicals, (41 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 813 (2018)).
• Blaine Hutchison, Protecting Religious Pluralism: How the Liberty that Supports Same-Sex Marriage Protects Religious Convictions, (Regent University Law Review, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2018).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Abdel-Hameed M. Bashir, Reducing Poverty and Income Inequalities: Current Approaches and Islamic Perspective, (Journal of King Abdulaziz University: Islamic Economics, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2018).
• Samantha Bielen, Peter Grajzl & Wim Marneffe, Blame Based on One's Name? Extralegal Disparities in Criminal Conviction and Sentencing, (May 26, 2018).
• Tanya Monforte, Broad Strokes and Bright Lines: A Reconsideration of Shari'a Based Reservations, (May 8, 2018).
• Fajiri Muhammadin & Hanindito Danusatya, De-Secularizing Legal Education in Indonesian Non-Islamic Law Schools: Examining the ‘Introduction to Jurisprudence’ Textbooks on the ‘Norm Classification’ Chapter, (Ulul Albab: Jurnal Studi dan Pemikiran Hukum Islam, Vol. 1, No. 2 (2018)).
• Munawar Iqbal, Poverty, Inequalities and the Perceptions on Distributive Justice, (Journal of King Abdulaziz University: Islamic Economics, Vol. 31, No. 1, January 2018).
• Asad Zaman, An Islamic Approach to Inequality and Poverty, (Journal of King Abdulaziz University: Islamic Economics, Vol. 31, No. 1, January 2018).
• Aaron Z. Pitluck & Adhikari Shikshya, Islamic Banking and Finance in the Global North: Secular Incubators, Elementary Accommodation and Strategic Negligence, (in Mark Woodward and Ronald Lukens-Bull (eds). Handbook of Contemporary Islam and Muslim Lives. Springer, Forthcoming).
• Salman Syed Ali, Issues Involved in the Proposal of ‘A Global Currency to Stabilize the Monetary System, (Journal of King Abdulaziz University: Islamic Economics, Vol. 30, No. 2, July 2017).
• Ihsan Yilmaz, Semi-Official Turkish Muslim Legal Pluralism: Encounters between Secular Official Law and Unofficial Shari’a, (in A. Possamai et al. (eds.), The Sociology of Shari’a: Case Studies from around the World, Boundaries of Religious Freedom: Regulating Religion in Diverse Societies (2015)).

Veteran Has Standing to Challenge Therapist Bill As Establishment Clause Violation

In Copas v. Haslam, (MD TN, May 25, 2018), a Tennessee federal district court held that a gay Army veteran, who also holds a degree in counseling, has standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to a Tennessee law that permits therapists to refuse to serve LGBT clients when doing so would violate the therapist's religious beliefs. Plaintiff suffers from PTSD and Chronic Adjustment disorder, and has sought therapy in the past. The court held that plaintiff's claim that he has been marginalized and "made to feel ostracized and
unworthy as a non-adherent to the religiously-based, anti-LGBT preference" in the law is a sufficiently concrete injury to grant standing.  It also held that he has been sufficiently personally injured by the law to satisfy Article III standing requirements for his Establishment Clause claim.  The court however dismissed several equal protection claims made by plaintiff.

Church Sued By Manager of Its Event Space Over LGBTQ Access

A suit seeking $2.375 million in damages against a Portland, Oregon Catholic church was filed in an Oregon state court two weeks ago by a company which alleges that its business relationship with the church was wrongfully terminated.  The complaint (full text) in Holiday Investors, Inc. v. Holy Rosary Church of  Portland, Oregon, Inc., (Cir. Ct., filed 5/22/2018), alleges that plaintiff contracted to operate the Ambridge Event Center, a social hall owned by the church.  Under a morals clause in its contract with the church, plaintiff was not permitted to rent out the event center to persons or organizations affiliated with the LGBTQ community.  When plaintiff, pursuant to this requirement, refused to rent space to an African-American LGBTQ support group for its annual party, it suffered extensive negative publicity.  In an attempt to rehabilitate its reputation, plaintiff, among other things, hired an openly gay man as its events coordinator.  This resulted in the church terminating its contract with plaintiff. Plaintiff sued alleging breach of contract and violation of state anti-discrimination laws.  The Oregonian reports on the lawsuit and sets out further background.  [Thanks to Dusty Hoesly for the lead.]

Supreme Court In Narrow Decision Reverses Order Against Wedding Cake Baker

Today, by a vote of 7-2, the U.S. Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, (Sup. Ct., June 4, 2018), reversed on narrow grounds a Colorado appellate court's decision upholding the state Civil Rights Commission's cease and desist order against a baker who refused on religious grounds to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  The Supreme Court's majority decision, written by Justice Kennedy, focused on what was seen as the unfairness of the hearing provided to the baker by the Commission, and the difference between this case and the approach in others decided by the Commission:

The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.

In reaching that conclusion, the Court acknowledged the difficulties involved in deciding the broader issues posed by the case:

The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise of protected speech. This is an instructive example, however, of the proposition that the application of constitutional freedoms in new contexts can deepen our understanding of their meaning.

One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker’s refusal to provide service. If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage—for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning—that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all.... 

The same difficulties arise in determining whether a baker has a valid free exercise claim. A baker’s refusal to attend the wedding to ensure that the cake is cut the right way, or a refusal to put certain religious words or decorations on the cake, or even a refusal to sell a cake that has been baked for the public generally but includes certain religious words or symbols on it are just three examples of  possibilities that seem all but endless.

Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Breyer.  Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Alito.  Justice Thomas filed a opinion concurring in part, joined by Justice Gorsuch.

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, filed a dissenting opinion arguing that there was not sufficient evidence of unfair hostility by the Commission to the baker's religious beliefs.

Politico reports on the decision, as does SCOTUSblog.

6th and 7th Circuits Reject Challenge To "In God We Trust" On Currency

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision rejected claims by a group of plaintiffs-- atheists, humanists and one Jewish plaintiff-- that statutes requiring placing of the national motto, In God We Trust, on currency violates RFRA, as well as protections of free speech, free exercise and equal protection.  In Doe v. Congress of the United States, (6th Cir., May 29, 2018), the majority said in part:

Plaintiffs’ allegations indicate that at least some legislators who voted to enact the currency statutes intended to promote a Christian monotheistic message. However, intent to promote one religion is not necessarily intent to suppress another; Plaintiffs’ allegations do not show a specific governmental intent to infringe upon, restrict, or suppress other religious beliefs. Plaintiffs argue that the currency statutes nonetheless effect suppression of Atheist beliefs by requiring the Government to constantly spread speech that is akin to “Atheists Are Wrong.” But the incidental effect of suppression is permissible under the Free Exercise Clause absent restrictive intent: The laws must have been “enacted because of, not merely in spite of their suppression.”

Judge Moore, dissenting in part, contended that:

All but four of the plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded factual allegations demonstrating that the inscription substantially burdens their religion and have thus pleaded a plausible violation of RFRA....

[T]he thirty-nine plaintiffs who allege that they are required to utilize coins and cash on a regular basis have sufficiently alleged that they face an untenable choice between violating their religious beliefs or being excluded “from full participation in the economic life of the Nation,”

In Mayle v. United States, (7th Cir., May 31, 2018), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that neither the Establishment clause nor RFRA, nor the free speech clause, is violated by the printing the national motto, "In God We Trust", on currency, saying in part:

The inclusion of the motto on currency is similar to other ways in which secular symbols give a nod to the nation’s religious heritage.

In rejecting the claim of plaintiff Kenneth Mayle, an adherent of non-theistic Satanism, the court said in part:

Mayle argues that having the motto printed on currency forces him to choose between using cash, a necessary part of life, and violating his sincerely held religious beliefs. Using the currency makes him feel “guilt, shame and above all else fear,” and those feelings, he contends, qualify as a substantial burden. He likens himself to a fundamentalist Christian baker who would be forced to endorse gay marriage—a practice that violates his religious beliefs—by selling a couple a wedding cake. This term the Supreme Court is considering that baker’s case.... No matter how that case is decided, however, no reasonable person would believe that using currency has religious significance....  [B]ecause using money is not a religious exercise, and the motto has secular as well as religious significance, Mayle has not plausibly alleged that the motto’s placement on currency increases the burden on practicing Satanism.... Mayle’s feelings are not insignificant, but the burden he experiences is not substantial.

FACEA's Protection of Churches Does Not Violate Commerce Clause

In Zhang v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance, (ED NY, May 30, 2018), a New York federal district court held that Congress did not exceed its commerce clause powers in passing the portion of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act that protects against interference with access to places of religious worship. the court said in part:

Religion, even when non-profit, is deeply rooted in interstate commerce. It comprises a sizable portion of the United States economy. Houses of religious worship offer numerous valuable services to their congregates, support a large number of personnel, take in and expend considerable funds, own large tracts of land, and receive free municipal services, such as schooling assistance, roads, and police protection. Huge religious educational institutions operating over the internet draw students and billions of dollars in revenue from all over the country. Religion substantially contributes to our gross national product. Congress could reasonably have concluded that violence and intimidation to keep people out of houses of worship would substantially adversely affect interstate commerce. FACEA is constitutional in its design to protect that national commerce.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

City Violated Establishment Clause By Sponsoring Prayer Vigil

In Rojas v. City of Ocala, (MD FL, May 24, 2018), a Florida federal district court held that the City of Ocala, Florida and its police chief violated the Establishment Clause when they organized and promoted a prayer vigil in response to a shooting spree plaguing the city.  The vigil resulted from attempts to involve the faith community in encouraging witnesses to cooperate in investigation of the shootings. the court, however, held that the mayor was not liable merely for failing to intervene to prevent the vigil. Ocala Star Banner reports on the decision.

Iowa Supreme Court Dismisses Negligence, But Not Negligent Supervision, Claims Against Church Elders

In Bandstra v. Covenant Reformed Church, (IA Sup. Ct., filed 6/1/2018), the Iowas Supreme Court held that the 1st Amendment and parallel state constitutional provisions bar negligence claims against elders of the church for their response to disclosure that the church's pastor was having sexual relations with several women he was counseling.  The court said in part:

Following [the pastor's] resignation, the elders sought to help the congregation move forward and heal. The means by which they chose to counsel and advise the congregation is outside the purview of the government. Plaintiffs argue “a reasonable church would seek assistance for parishioners and not label victims ‘adulteresses.’ ” Yet, that is precisely the type of determination that the Religion Clauses prohibit.... A court cannot dictate what teachings and services a church offers its parishioners. Nor can we disapprove of the elders deciding, pursuant to their duty as religious authorities, that the women would be best healed by simply confessing their “sins.”

However the court allowed one of the plaintiffs to move ahead with a negligent supervision claim, holding:

While the decision whether to invite certain speakers, or use certain rhetoric, is protected religious decision-making, reasonable supervision of an employee is a principle of tort law that applies neutrally to all employers. Further, the Church confirmed during oral argument that the Church’s supervision, or lack thereof, was not grounded in any religious doctrine or teachings.

It also held that the trial court properly dismissed a number of defamation claims. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Arkansas Capitol Ten Commandments Monument

Suit was filed last month challenging the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument erected on the Arkansas state capitol grounds.  The complaint (full text) in Orsi v. Martin, (ED AR, filed 5/23/2018), alleges that the monument violates the Establishment Clause.  A press release from the American Humanist Association explains:

A similar monument was installed at the state capitol last year, only to be destroyed just hours after it was installed. The individual accused of destroying the display was subsequently found unfit to stand trial. Proponents of the display, led by state senator Jason Rapert, immediately began raising money for a replacement. Senator Rapert has publicly stated, “I am guilty as charged for supporting the Ten Commandments and… take full responsibility for being so bold as to believe that our state and our nation would be better off if people simply honored, followed and adhered to the Ten Commandments given by God Himself to Moses on Mt. Sinai.”  Rapert’s effort reportedly raised $85,000, which will provide a protective barrier around the new display.

NOTE TO READERS: RELIGION CLAUSE WILL BE ON A PUBLICATION BREAK

There will be sporadic or no postings on Religion Clause Blog between May 19 and June 4.  Look for Religion Clause to return with regular postings beginning June 5.

Wisconsin Supreme Court, Splitting Equally, Upholds Protection of Indian Graves

In Wingra Redi-Mix, Inc. v. State Historical Society of Wisconsin, (WI Sup. Ct., May 22, 2018), the Wisconsin Supreme Court  divided equally, 3-3, in a challenge to a concrete company that was seeking a permit to allow it to dig up Indian burial mounds located in its quarry.  The vote has the effect of affirming the appeals court opinion which upheld the State Historical Society's denial of a permit. An AP report has more on the decision and its background.

Michigan Civil Rights Commission Says Existing Law Covers LGBT Discrimination

The Detroit Free Press reports that at its meeting today, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission, by a vote of 5-0-1, agreed to expand its interpretation of the state's Larsen Civil Rights Act to cover discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.  The Commission will treat discrimination on these grounds in employment, education, housing, real estate, public accommodations and public service as violations of the existing law. The Commission will begin accepting complaints reflecting this new interpretation starting tomorrow.  The state attorney general's office, however, takes the position that this kind of expansion of coverage required legislative action.