Russian Court Liberalizes Allowed Religious Use of Residences

Forum 18 reports this week on a November 2019 decision by Russia's Constitutional Court liberalizing the permissible religious uses of buildings that are zoned for residential purposes. The report explains:

The case followed a fine imposed on Olga Glamozdinova, a Seventh-day Adventist in Rostov Region, for granting free use of a room in her house to her Church and allowing them to use it as its legal address, when the land is designated for personal part-time crop cultivation. This land use permits the construction of a dwelling, but not of a religious building.

Glamozdinova argued that the house is also occupied as a dwelling by an acquaintance who also tends the crops on the plot, and the congregation uses the room for only four hours per week. The fine was upheld on appeal at both district and regional courts, but the Constitutional Court has now ruled that Glamozdinova's fine is subject to review because the law had been incorrectly applied in her case....

The Court stated, however, that religious use of residential premises must take into account the rights and legitimate interests of residents and neighbours, and the requirements of health and safety and environmental protection legislation. The Court also stated that it would be "unacceptable" for a dwelling to lose the features of residential premises and acquire those of a religious or administrative building....

This November 2019 Constitutional Court ruling may lead to fewer fines being imposed on religious organisations and individuals, but this will depend on Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography (Rosreestr) and other officials....

Cert. Denied In Boise Ban On Sleeping Outdoors

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Boise, ID v. Martin, (Docket No. 19-247, certiorari denied 12/16/2019). (Order List.) In the case the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ban on cruel and unusual punishment in the 8th Amendment bars a city from criminalizing sleeping outdoors on public property when homeless people have no option to sleep indoors, including where their access to a shelter is conditioned on their participating in religious programs. (See prior posting.) Los Angeles Times has an Opinion piece on the case.

WAPO: IRS Whistleblower Says Mormon Church Misled Regarding Charitable Accounts

The Washington Post reports today:

A former investment manager alleges in a whistleblower complaint to the Internal Revenue Service that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has amassed about $100 billion in accounts intended for charitable purposes, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Washington Post.

The confidential document, received by the IRS on Nov. 21, accuses church leaders of misleading members — and possibly breaching federal tax rules — by stockpiling their surplus donations instead of using them for charitable works. It also accuses church leaders of using the tax-exempt donations to prop up a pair of businesses.

Judge Who Refused To Perform Same-Sex Ceremonies Sues Over Reprimand

As previously reported, in November the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a Public Warning to Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley because of her refusal to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Now a lawsuit has been filled challenging the Commission's action.  The complaint (full text) in Hensley v. Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 12/16/2019) contends that the Commission's action violates Judge Hensley's rights under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The complaint also seeks a class-wide declaratory judgment. Fox 44 News reports on the lawsuit.

Cert. Denied In Suit Against Priest Over Baptism Ritual

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Fermin v. Priest of St, Mary- Marfa, Texas, (Docket No. 19-471, certiorari denied 12/16/2019) (Order List). In the case, the U.S, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (full text of opinion) affirmed the dismissal of a suit in which a Texas man claimed that an unnamed priest used a crucifix during his baptism in 1925 "in violation of God's law" (including the Second Commandment's prohibition of idolatry).

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Seth Barrett Tillman, A Religious Test in America?: New Sources on the 1809 Motion to Vacate Jacob Henry's North Carolina State Legislative Seat, (November 25, 2019).
• Daniel P. Tokaji Denying Systemic Equality: The Last Words of the Kennedy Court, (December 9, 2019), 13 Harvard Law & Policy Review 539 (2019).
• Maritza Black, Adjudicating the Religious Beliefs of an Asylum Seekers: When the ‘Well-Founded Fear’ Standard Leads Courts Astray, (November 24, 2019).
• Engy Abdelkader, Myanmar: The Rohingya Crises as an Analytic Lens to Understanding Violent Extremism, (Handbook on the Dynamics of Violent Extremism, Extremist Groups and State Fragility, Routledge, Forthcoming).
• Leonid Sykiainen, FIQH as a Source of Contemporary Law in Arab Countries, (Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP 92/LAW/2019).
• Aina-Obe Shamsuddin Bolatito, Islamic Fiqh (Jurisprudence) and Public Life: A Conundrum, (December 11, 2019).
• Kyriaki Topidi, Words that Hurt (1): Normative and Institutional Considerations in the Regulation of Hate Speech in Europe, (ECMI Working Paper n.118 (2019)).
• Kyriaki Topidi, Words that Hurt (2): National and International Perspectives on Hate Speech Regulation, (ECMI Working Paper Series n. 119 (2019)).
• Rochelle Rolston, Addressing Hate Crime in New Zealand: A Separate Offence?, (Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Paper, Student/Alumni Paper No. 45/2019).
• Jens Ihlow & Jens Carsten Jackwerth, Stock Market Performance of Jewish Firms During the Third Reich, (December 9, 2019).

Recent Publications:

• Steven H. Sholk, A Guide to Election Year Activities of Section 501(c)(3) Organizations, (Updated 2019 version, PLI Course Handbook).

Lighting Regulations Limiting Use of Catholic School's Baseball Field Do Not Violate RLUIPA

In Marianist Province of the United States v. City of Kirkwood, (8th Cir., Dec. 13, 2019), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim by Vianney High School in Kirkwood, Missouri that the city's lighting and sound regulations which limit use of its baseball field at night violate its rights under RLUIPA and state law.  The court said in part:

Vianney asserts that various forms of religious exercise “motivate the school’s use” of its baseball field at night. The school emphasizes that athletics is part of the “formation of young men” in the Catholic Marianist tradition and that nighttime sports games allow it to reach out to the community and engage in religious fellowship.... Assuming Vianney’s uses of its baseball field at night ... constitute religious exercise, we examine its claim that the regulations substantially burden this exercise.

Vianney has not demonstrated that its religious exercise is substantially burdened, rather than merely inconvenienced, by its inability to use its baseball field at night.

The court also rejected the school's RLUIPA "equal terms" claim, and held that its state law claims should be dismissed as well.

5th Circuit Strikes Down Mississippi's Anti-Abortion Law

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday struck down a Mississippi statute that prohibits abortions, with limited exceptions, after 15 weeks' gestational age.  In Jackson Women's Health Organization v. Dobbs, (5th Cir., Dec. 13, 2019), Judge Higginbotham writing for himself and Judge Dennis said in part:

In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability. States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right, but they may not ban abortions. The law at issue is a ban. Thus, we affirm the district court’s invalidation of the law, as well as its discovery rulings and its award of permanent injunctive relief.

Judge Ho filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, but criticizing the district court's opinion.  He said in part:

[W]hat distinguishes abortion from other matters of health care policy in America—and uniquely removes abortion policy from the democratic process established by our Founders—is Supreme Court precedent. The parties and amici therefore draw our attention not to what the Constitution says, but to what the Supreme Court has held.

A good faith reading of those precedents requires us to affirm..... I am nevertheless deeply troubled by how the district court handled this case. The opinion issued by the district court displays an alarming disrespect for the millions of Americans who believe that babies deserve legal protection during pregnancy as well as after birth, and that abortion is the immoral, tragic, and violent taking of innocent human life.

UPI reports on the decision.

Suit Filed Against Pharmacies That Refused To Fill Emergency Contraceptive Prescription

A suit was filed earlier this week in a Minnesota state trial court against two pharmacies and an individual pharmacist by a woman who was turned down at both pharmacies when she attempted to full a prescription  for ella-- a morning-after emergency contraceptive. The suit contends that defendants discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of sex, in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Act defines "sex" as including pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions. The complaint (full text) in Anderson v. Grand St. Paul CVS, LLC,(MN Dist. Ct., filed 12/9/2019) sets out the facts of plaintiff's discrimination claim:

[Anderson] had her doctor send [her prescription] to the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy. She acted quickly because any delay in obtaining emergency contraception increases the risk of pregnancy. The pharmacist on duty told her that he would be unable to fill her prescription because of his “beliefs.” He also warned her against trying Shopko, another pharmacy in the surrounding area. The pharmacist did not provide Anderson with any information about how she could get her prescription filled.

Anderson next tried a CVS pharmacy in Aitkin, Minnesota, a town roughly 20 miles away. The CVS pharmacist also indicated that she could not fill the prescription. The pharmacist then claimed that she called a pharmacist at the Walgreens in Brainerd Minnesota, who told her that they could not fill the prescription either. Anderson later confirmed with that Walgreens pharmacist that they did speak with a pharmacist from CVS, but that they had told the CVS pharmacist that Walgreens could fill the prescription.

Though Anderson finally found a pharmacy that was willing to fill her prescription, it was over fifty miles from her home. Meanwhile, a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota.  Given the increased risk of pregnancy from any delay in taking emergency contraception, Anderson drove over 100 miles round trip in the snowstorm in order to fill her prescription....

 NBC News reports on the lawsuit. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Church of Atheism Not A Charity Under Canadian Tax Law

In Church of Atheism of Central Canada v. Minister of National Revenue, (Canada Fed. Ct. App., Nov. 29, 2019), Canada's Federal Court of Appeal held that the Church of Atheism of Central Canada is not entitled to registration as a charity under Canada's Income Tax Act.

Because the Act does not define “charitable activities”, we must turn to the common law to answer this question. At common law, there are four recognized charitable purposes, the two relevant to this appeal being “the advancement of religion” and “certain other purposes beneficial to the community” ....

Turning therefore to section 2(a) of the Charter, the appellant is correct to point out that the courts have found that this section does protect the rights of atheists.... However, I find in this case that the Minister’s refusal to register the appellant as a charitable organization does not interfere in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial with the appellant’s members ability to practise their atheistic beliefs. The appellant can continue to carry out its purpose and its activities without charitable registration....

Law & Religion UK reports at greater length on the decision.

Appeals Court Refuses Temporary Injunction Against Quebec's Secularism Act

In Hak v. Attorney General of Quebec, (Quebec Ct. App., Dec. 12, 2019) (full text of opinion in French), the Quebec Court of Appeal, by a 2-1 vote, upheld a trial court's refusal to issue a temporary injunction against the enforcement of two provisions of the Secularism Act (Bill 21). The sections at issue bar teachers, as well as various other public employees and officials, from wearing religious symbols in carrying out their official duties, and prohibit various public employees from carrying out their functions with their face covered. The individual plaintiff in the case who is about to graduate as a teacher wants to wear her hijab while teaching French in an English elementary or high school.

Judge Belanger refused to grant the temporary injunction, saying in part:

What the Attorney General invokes in this case and with reason, that is the presumption that the legislation addresses the common good . At this stage of the proceedings, the Court must assume that the Act serves a valid public purpose. Unless it is clear that the law enacted is not intended to serve a public purpose, the courts must take it for granted.

It follows from this principle that the courts will not suspend legislation passed by a legislature without having made a full constitutional review. Accordingly, suspension orders are only issued in clear cases.

We must recognize that we are not in a clear case where we can say right now that the Act is unconstitutional, despite the presence of serious issues.

Judge Mainville would likewise refuse a temporary injunction, saying in part:

[W]hen, as here, questions arise about the relationship between the state and religions, on which deep differences may reasonably exist within a free and democratic society, there is a need for courts to act with caution and circumspection because of the diversity of approaches to these issues and the difficulty of forming a uniform understanding of the meaning of religion in society. The role and impact of religion in society, as well as the forms of public expression of religious belief, are not the same in different times and contexts. They vary according to changing sociological and ideological factors, national traditions and demands imposed by the protection of the rights and freedoms of others and the maintenance of public order in a given society. The conception of the religious symbolism and its place in the public space are not perceived in the same way by each society.The State Secularism Act is a striking example in Canada.

It should therefore be noted that many of the issues relating to the wearing of religious symbols by police officers, teachers, principals and judicial personnel in Quebec - including the legal issues that arise - are complex and do not lend themselves to summary analyzes on the basis of piecemeal evidence, as the appellants ask us to do in this case.....

At this stage of the judicial proceedings, a suspension of sections 6 and 8 of the State Secularity Act can not be contemplated since the Court must presume that the public interest is served by the maintenance in force of these provisions given the presumption of constitutional validity. 

Chief Justice Hesler would have granted a temporary injunction, saying in part:

To sum up, it appears at this stage that the risk of suffering irreparable harm has materialized for certain teachers, all of whom are women, who aspired to a career in teaching. The prejudice will remain for the others who, not wishing to abandon the wearing of a religious sign, will have to give up their choice of career, or even move out of Quebec....

Without prejudging the fate of the appeal, which will be heard in October 2020, it is better to uphold respect for fundamental rights during the proceedings, considering the obligation on the courts to enforce these rights, rather than to deprive people of their fundamental rights, even for a limited time. [All English translations are via Google Translate].

Montreal Gazette reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Review Sought In City Council Speech Limits At Meeting On Mosque

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed on Dec. 9 with the U.S. Supreme Court in Youkhanna v. City of Sterling Heights. In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected challenges to the manner in which the city of Sterling Heights, Michigan conducted a raucous city council meeting at which settlement of a RLUIPA lawsuit was being considered.  At issue was the city's settlement of a zoning dispute with backers of a mosque.  City Council placed limits on the scope of comments that citizens could make during the meeting, and eventually cleared the meeting room when the audience became disruptive. (See prior posting.)

Appeals Court Dismisses Suit To Enforce Board's Suspension of Church Pastor

In Stewart v. McCray, (IN App., Dec. 11, 2019), an Indiana state appellate court dismissed a suit seeking to enforce a suspension imposed by the Board of Directors of a Baptist church on its pastor. The trial court had found the pastor in contempt a the court's order enforcing the suspension.  As the court of appeals explained:

This matter stems from a years-long dispute between certain members of the congregation of the Canaan Baptist Church, in Elkhart, Indiana ... and its pastor, Reverend McNeal Stewart, III ... involving allegations that Rev. Stewart usurped the authority of the Church’s board of directors and disregarded the constitution and bylaws of the Church.....

The instant matter arises from Rev. Stewart’s suspension from his pastoral duties for his alleged failure to act in accordance with the Church’s Bylaws. Regardless of whether the parties, at times, failed to adhere to the Church’s Bylaws, at bottom, this is a dispute over the Church’s leadership. As such, this matter, at its core, is purely ecclesiastical and one which the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate.

Catholic School Principal's Retaliatory Discharge Claim Dismissed

In Rehfield v. Diocese of Joliet, (IL App., Dec. 10, 2019), an Illinois state appeals court dismissed a suit by the former principal of a Catholic school who contended that she was the victim of a retaliatory discharge. Her suit raised both common law and Whistleblower Act claims. Plaintiff's firing came after controversy over her contacting the police about a threatening phone call from a parent to the parish priest. In dismissing the suit, the court said in part:

[T]he ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applied to Rehfield’s claims. Further, since this case involved the Diocese’s subjective decision to terminate Rehfield’s employment and did not involve church charters, constitutions and bylaws, deeds, State statutes, or other evidence that would resolve the matter the same as it would a secular dispute, we decline to employ the neutral principals of law approach.... Last, because we find the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applied to Rehfield’s claims, we need not address ... whether claims for common law retaliatory discharge are available to contractual employees.

Trump Signs Executive Order On Title VI and Anti-Semitism

President Trump yesterday issued an Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism. The Order reads in part:

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance.  While Title VI does not cover discrimination based on religion, individuals who face discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin do not lose protection under Title VI for also being a member of a group that shares common religious practices.  Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin.

It shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI....

The Executive Order goes on to provide that in enforcing Title VI, executive departments shall consider the definition of anti Semitism adopted ... by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and "the 'Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism' identified by the IHRA, to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent."

The White House issued a Fact Sheet on the Order which, as reported by AP, was signed during a White House Hanukkah reception.

Methodist Parent Body Sues SMU Over Attempted Split From Church Control

Suit was filed last week in a Texas state trial court by the regional parent body of the Methodist Church against Southern Methodist University alleging that SMU last month filed invalid amendments to its Articles of Incorporation purporting to eliminate the parent body's control over SMU's board of trustees, over amendments to SMU's Articles of Incorporation, and over sale of SMU's property.  The complaint (full text) in South Central Jurisdictional Conference of the United Methodist Church v. Southern Methodist University, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 12/4/2019), alleges:

The November 2019 Articles make no mention of SCJC, much less any mention of the rights permanently guaranteed to SCJC by SMU’s governing documents. Instead, by deleting any mention of SCJC and its rights, the November 2019 Articles attempt to terminate all of SCJC’s rights and relationship with SMU without approval or authorization of SCJC for the amendment in Violation of SMU’s governing documents and the Trustees’ fiduciary duties to SCJC.

RNS, reporting on the lawsuit, says that the moves by SMU are "part of the latest fallout over the global denomination's decision earlier this year to strengthen language in its rulebook barring LGBTQ members from marriage and ordination."

New USCIRF Report on Apostasy, Blasphemy and Hate Speech Laws In Africa

Yesterday, he U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom released a 50-page report titled Apostasy, Blasphemy, and Hate Speech Laws in Africa: Implications for Freedom of Religion or Belief (full text of report). The Executive Summary reads in part:

The freedoms of opinion and expression and of religion or belief are intricately intertwined—where violations occur against one, there are often violations against the other. Although these human rights are protected under articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), states around the world continue to pass and enforce laws that restrict both freedoms. This paper provides a survey and analysis of speech restrictions in Africa that have, or may, limit FoRB. Laws that restrict apostasy (the public renunciation of one’s religion), blasphemy (the insult of a religion or religious objects or places), and hate speech (generally encompassing communication that prejudices a particular group based on race, religion, ethnicity, or other factor) all limit freedom of expression. Such laws also have unique implications for citizens’ abilities to express and practice their faith. These laws are prevalent throughout Africa, where at least 9 countries have apostasy laws, at least 25 criminalize blasphemy, and at least 29 have laws against hate speech.

Misunderstanding of RFRA Not A Defense To Willful Failure To File Tax Returns

The Oregonian reports that an Oregon federal district court yesterday found a tax protester guilty on four counts of willful failure to file tax returns.  The verdict came in a second trial on stipulated facts after defendant's first trial ended in a hung jury. The court ruled that while a good faith misunderstanding of the tax law is a defense to "willfulness", that defense was unavailable here. As reported by The Oregonian:

Bowman’s lawyer had argued during Bowman’s jury trial that Bowman’s reliance on another federal law, the Religious Freedom [Restoration] Act, led to his "good faith’' misunderstanding of his obligations under the federal tax code. The judge threw out that defense before Bowman’s second trial, ruling that any "good faith'' misunderstanding had to be of the tax code itself, not another law.

The court's ruling was presumably based on its reading of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Cheek v. United States (1991).  An appeal of the conviction is planned.

Court Dismisses Challenges To NY Repeal of Religious Exemption From Vaccination Requirement

In F.F. on behalf of her minor children v. State of New York, (Albany Cty NY Sup. Ct., Dec. 3, 2019), a New York state trial court upheld New York's repeal of the religious exemption to the state's compulsory vaccination requirement for school children.  The court rejected Free Exercise, Free Speech and Equal Protection challenges to the repeal.  The suit was brought by some 55 families of school children. In rejecting free exercise claims by plaintiffs, the parents of school children, the court rejected their argument that the object of the law was to target religion rather than protect public health.  The court went on to say in part:

[P]lainitffs most strenuous argument for applying strict scrutiny is that the repeal of the legislation was infected by statements made by individual legislators whose comments, they say, demonstrate unconstitutional hostility toward plaintiffs' sincerely held religious beliefs.  For this argument, Plaintiffs cite Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n., (138 S Ct 1719 [2018]), where the Supreme Court relied on the comments of individual members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which sanctioned a baker for his refusal to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple....

This Court declines to extend that part of the Supreme Court's analysis in Masterpiece Cakeshop, which probed the comments of individual members of a decision-making body to the collective decision-making of New York State's Legislature and Executive.... [I]n Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Court considered the remarks of a seven-member administrative body, not a state legislature.

The trial court had previously denied a preliminary injunction against the exemption repeal (see prior posting), and the state appellate court summarily affirmed that decision. Albany Times-Union reports on the trial court's latest decision.

Supreme Court Denies Review Of Kentucky Ultrasound Informed Consent Law

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in EMW Women’s Surgical Center v. Meier, (Docket No. 19-417, certiorari denied 12/9/2019). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, rejected a 1st Amendment free speech challenge to Kentucky's Ultrasound Informed Consent Law. The law requires a doctor to make the fetal heartbeat audible, and to display and describe ultrasound images, to a woman seeking an abortion. (See prior posting.) CNN reports on the Court's action.