Federal Court Refuses to Enjoin Distribution of Notice from Rabbinical Court

In Esses v. Rosen, (ED NY, Oct. 15, 2024), a New York federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction barring defendants from disseminating in plaintiff's neighborhood a rabbinical court's notice (a sieruv) that plaintiff has failed to respond to a summons from the rabbinical court. Plaintiff also asked that the seiruv be taken down or removed from places where it had been posted. Plaintiff alleged claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The court said in part:

While plaintiff does not dispute that she brought the claims in this case before a secular court rather than a religious one, she suggests that the seiruv is defamatory because it indicates that her doing so was “improper[].”  That statement is nowhere contained in the seiruv itself.  But even if the seiruv is read to convey that implication through its reference to plaintiff’s civil filing, the First Amendment would prevent this Court from second-guessing a religious court’s view of impropriety. ... 

Plaintiff next claims that the instructional document distributed with the seiruv is defamatory because it falsely conveys “that the rabbis of the beth din were encouraging social ostracism and shaming in this case.” ... In any event, the Establishment Clause would preclude this Court from finding defamation on that ground.  To decide whether the instructional document was true or false in its asserted characterization of plaintiff’s seiruv, the Court would be “called upon to inquire into the rules and customs governing rabbinical courts as they are utilized in the Orthodox Jewish religion,”

[Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

Australian Court Says Beth Din May Not Impose Religious Sanctions To Force Party To Appear

In Ulman v Live Group Pty Ltd., (New South Wales Ct. App., Dec. 20, 2018), the Court of Appeals of the Australian state of New South Wales held, in a 2-1 decision, that the rabbis and registrar of a Jewish religious court (Beth Din) were properly held in criminal contempt of a secular court for attempting to force adjudication of a commercial dispute in the Beth Din rather than in civil courts. The court however reduced the fines imposed for the contempt to a total of $25,000.  In the case, the Beth Din had informed the attorney representing the business being summoned to appear:

Unless by 5pm January 26 2017 the Beth Din hears from you on behalf of your client that he has recanted and that he acquiesces to the Beth Din process in accordance with Jewish Law, (which is indeed compatible with secular law), the following halachic sanctions will apply and the Synagogue/s where he prays will be informed accordingly.

1.   He will not be counted to a minyan.

2.   He will not be able to receive an aliyah to the Torah.

3.   He will not be offered any honour in the Synagogue.

J-Wire reports on the decision

2nd Circuit: Religious Court Lacks Standing To Challenge Stay of Its Proceedings

In Bais Din of Mechon L’Hoyroa v. Congregation Birchos Yosef, (2d Cir., Nov. 1, 2017), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a  district court's conclusion that a Jewish religious court lacked standing to challenge the application of the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provisions to proceedings in the religious court.  The 2nd Circuit said in part:

As the district court correctly concluded, the Bais Din failed to demonstrate that it suffered a pecuniary harm. Quite the opposite, the Bais Din did not even allege a pecuniary harm before the district court, claiming instead that the automatic stay inhibited the free exercise of religion by “preventing the Bais Din from issuing notices to or against” individuals who violate Jewish law’s prohibition on initiating proceedings in secular courts without prior permission from a rabbinical court. Whatever the merits of that claim, it does not reflect a pecuniary injury. Moreover, to the extent that the Bais Din seeks to vindicate a non-pecuniary injury, nothing in this or the district court’s opinion prevents it from filing a civil action.

Jewish Religious Court Lacks Standing To Appeal Bankruptcy Stay of Its Proceedings

As previously reported, last year a New York federal bankruptcy court held that the statutory automatic stay of proceedings against a debtor that is triggered by the filing of a petition in a bankruptcy reorganization applies to invalidate proceedings against a debtor and its principals brought in a Jewish religious court (bais din). In In re Congregation Birdchos Yosef, (SD NY, Sept. 27, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed for lack of standing an appeal of the bankruptcy court's decision brought by the Jewish religious court involved:

 Any effect on the Bais Din from that decision is indirect, seeks to challenge orders directed at third parties, and is insufficient to confer standing.....

Appellant argues that “[t]he Bais Din is a gatekeeper who ensure [sic] that community members can seek to enforce community standards and Jewish law,” and that the Bankruptcy Court’s Order enforcing the automatic stay “interferes with this function.”... This contention underscores the lack of any direct, financial impact the Bankruptcy Court’s Order has had – or could have – on the Bais Din....

That the Bais Din claims that its or its constituents’ constitutional right to the free exercise of religion was impaired by the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling does not give it standing.

Amicus Brief Filed In Appeal of Bankruptcy Stay of Jewish Religious Court Proceedings

As previously reported, in August a New York federal bankruptcy court held in the case of In re Congregation Birchos Yosef that the statutory automatic stay of proceedings against a debtor that is triggered by the filing of a petition in a bankruptcy reorganization applies to invalidate proceedings against a debtor and its principals in a Jewish religious court (beis din). That decision was appealed to the federal district court. Last week an interesting amicus brief (full text) was filed in that appeal by 3 well-known law professors and a former bankruptcy court judge urging reversal of the bankruptcy court's decision.  The 23-page brief argues in part:

given the intensely religious nature of the beis din proceeding, and the conceded inability of the beis din to enforce its rulings in any secular court, any effort by a bankruptcy tribunal to restrain the Bais Chinuch and other individuals from invoking the beis din as a parallel non-coercive forum of religious conscience violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (hereafter RFRA), and the Bankruptcy Code.

[Thanks to Max Raskin for the lead.]

D.C.'s Kesher Israel Wants Religous Court To Force Rabbi Out of Synagogue-Owned House

On Wednesday, Washington D.C.'s Kesher Israel Synagogue and its president instituted a suit in a Jewish religious court-- the Beth Din of America-- against the synagogue's former rabbi, Barry Freundel.  The rabbi was suspended without pay when he was arrested for planting a secret camera in the synagogue's mikveh to view women showering there. (See prior posting.) According to the Washington Post, the synagogue gave Freundel until January 1 to move out of the synagogue-owned house where he and his family had lived for many years.  Freundel however has refused to vacate the house.  His contract with the synagogue calls for any disputes to be resolved through a Beth Din.