Circuit Court Nominee Says Anti-Muslim Prejudice Derailed His Confirmation

On Monday, Adeel Mangi, President Biden's nominee to fill a vacancy on the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, submitted a letter (full text) to the President acknowledging that the Senate will not confirm his nomination. (See prior related posting.) Mangi would have been the first Muslim to sit on a federal Circuit Court.  In his lengthy letter, Mangi attributed his inability to obtain Senate confirmation largely to anti-Muslim prejudice. The letter reads in part:

I saw in America a country where I could succeed based on my professional skill, hard work, and character regardless of my faith or background....

When my nomination then came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I was prepared to answer any questions about my qualifications, philosophy, or legal issues. I received none. Instead, I was asked questions about Israel, whether I supported Hamas, and whether I celebrated the anniversary of 9-11. Even more revealing, however, was the tone. The underlying premise appeared to be that because I am Muslim, surely I support terrorism and celebrate 9-11.....

The pretext for these questions was that I had agreed to serve on an outside advisory panel for an academic center that was being established at a preeminent New Jersey Law School to combat bigotry and discrimination, including Islamophobia....

After Jewish groups came to my defense, these same attackers pivoted focus to a new absurdity, claiming that I supported the killing of police officers -- silently underpinned, in my view, by the notion that as a Muslim I surely support violence, including against law enforcement....

Resurgent efforts after the election towards confirmation were derailed by the deal in the Senate that denied all circuit nominees a vote....

 American Muslims are part of this nation's fabric and will not cower. This campaign was intended to make it intolerable for Muslims proud of their identity to serve this nation. It will fail. Our Constitution forbids religious tests for any Office of the United States and American Muslims will cherish that fundamental American value, even if others apply it only selectively....

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports on these developments.

Texas Man Sentenced To 37 Years in Muslim Hate Crime Murder

A Department of Justice press release reports that yesterday a Texas federal district court sentenced a defendant to 37 years in prison (with credit for time served before sentencing) for a mass shooting at a Dallas car repair business. Thirty-nine year old Anthony Paz Torres had pleaded guilty to five federal hate crime counts. DOJ explains:

 According to court documents, Torres admitted that a few days prior to the shooting, he went to Omar’s Wheels and Tires, made anti-Muslim comments, and pledged that he would come back. When he returned to the business on Dec. 24, 2015, Torres asked customers if they were Muslim. After being escorted back to his vehicle by Omar’s Wheels and Tires employees, Torres discharged his firearm in the direction of multiple employees and customers. Torres admitted that he killed one person and attempted to kill four other people at Omar’s Wheels and Tires because he believed that they were Muslim. 

Title VI Claims Against Universities Proliferate Since Israel-Gaza Conflict

As previously reported, in November 2023 the Department of Education issued a "Dear Colleague" letter in response to rising levels of antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents at schools and colleges since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and the Israeli response. The letter clarifies that even though Title VI does not specifically cover religious discrimination, many types of antisemitic and Islamophobic attacks fall under other types of discrimination covered by Title VI. The Forward yesterday reported that it has tracked 48 Title VI investigations by DOE's Office of Civil Rights filed since November charging higher education institutions with antisemitism, Islamophobia or similar discrimination, as well as ten lawsuits filed by private parties making similar contentions filed since then. It has published a detailed listing of all the investigations and cases it has tracked. The Forward explains:

When Ken Marcus took over the department’s civil rights office during the George W. Bush administration, he started looking for test cases for a new category of “shared ancestry” that would allow officials to investigate cases that touched on religion. He found one when a Sikh child in New Jersey was beaten by classmates who saw his turban and taunted him as “Osama,” a reference to the infamous Muslim terrorist.

Marcus believed that the discrimination wasn’t strictly religious in nature because the bullies weren’t intending to go after the boy’s Sikh identity. And it wasn’t obviously racial, either, since it was the turban that had drawn the bullies’ attention.

He authorized the department to investigate these types of cases under its authority to prohibit discrimination based on race or national origin, creating a new category called “shared ancestry.” Every subsequent administration has agreed that these cases fall under the department’s purview.

More controversial is the question of what, exactly, constitutes discrimination against Jews based on their shared ancestry. Marcus and many Jewish advocacy groups have taken the position that anti-Zionism — opposition to a Jewish state in Israel — is often antisemitic because many Jews identify with Israel as part of their shared ancestry.

White House Summarizes Recent Initiatives to Combat Antisemitism and Islamophobia at Schools and Colleges

The White House yesterday issued a Fact Sheet: Biden-⁠Harris Administration Takes Action to Address Alarming Rise of Reported Antisemitic and Islamophobic Events at Schools and on College Campuses.  It announces recent initiatives and updated resources from the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Homeland Security to counter the increase in antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents at schools and colleges since the October 7 Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel.

DOE Reminds Schools of Duty to Protect Against Antisemitic and Islamophobic Discrimination

The U.S. Department of Education's Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights issued a "Dear Colleague" letter on Tuesday in response to rising levels of antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents at schools and colleges since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel. (Press release). The letter (full text) says in part:

I write to remind colleges, universities, and schools that receive federal financial assistance of their legal responsibility under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations (Title VI) to provide all students a school environment free from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. It is your legal obligation under Title VI to address prohibited discrimination against students and others on your campus—including those who are or are perceived to be Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, Arab, or Palestinian—in the ways described in this letter....

Schools that receive federal financial assistance have a responsibility to address discrimination against Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Christian, and Buddhist students, or those of another religious group, when the discrimination involves racial, ethnic, or ancestral slurs or stereotypes; when the discrimination is based on a student’s skin color, physical features, or style of dress that reflects both ethnic and religious traditions; and when the discrimination is based on where a student came from or is perceived to have come from, including discrimination based on a student’s foreign accent; a student’s foreign name, including names commonly associated with particular shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics; or a student speaking a foreign language.

White House Will Develop National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia

The Whtie House announced yesterday that the Biden-Harris Administration will develop the first National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia in the United States. The announcement (full text) said in part:

For too long, Muslims in America, and those perceived to be Muslim, such as Arabs and Sikhs, have endured a disproportionate number of hate-fueled attacks and other discriminatory incidents. We all mourn the recent barbaric killing of Wadea Al-Fayoume, a 6-year-old Palestinian American Muslim boy, and the brutal attack on his mother in their home outside Chicago.

Today’s announcement is the latest step as part of President Biden’s directive last year to establish an interagency group to increase and better coordinate U.S. Government efforts to counter Islamophobia, Antisemitism, and related forms of bias and discrimination within the United States.

FBI Releases 2022 Hate Crime Statistics

The FBI yesterday released 2022 Crime Statistics, including data on hate crimes (Methodology)  (Data on Incidents). According to the FBI:

In 2022, law enforcement agency participation significantly increased ... with a population coverage of 91.7% submitting incident reports.... There were over 11,000 single-bias hate crime incidents.... [T]he top three bias categories ... were race/ethnicity/ancestry, religion, and sexual-orientation.

The FBI reported 2,042 incidents of religiously-motivated hate crimes. 1,122 of these were anti-Jewish. The next most numerous were 181 anti-Sikh incidents; 158 anti-Muslim and 107 anti-Catholic. President Biden issued a Statement (full text) on the Hate Crime Statistics, saying in part:

The data is a reminder that hate never goes away, it only hides. Any hate crime is a stain on the soul of America.

To those Americans worried about violence at home, as a result of the evil acts of terror perpetrated by Hamas in Israel, we see you. We hear you. And I have asked members of my team ... to prioritize the prevention and disruption of any emerging threats that could harm Jewish, Muslim, Arab American, or any other communities during this time. My Administration will continue to fight Antisemitism and Islamophobia.

8 Federal Agencies Clarify When Title VI Bars Discrimination Related to Religion

The White House announced yesterday that eight federal agencies have "clarified—for the first time in writing—that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits certain forms of antisemitic, Islamophobic, and related forms of discrimination in federally funded programs and activities."  The agency actions are seen as part of President Biden’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism.  Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act covers discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. It does not explicitly bar religious discrimination.  The agency Fact Sheets publicized by the White House each focuses on the kind of discrimination against persons of a particular religion that could come within the scope of Title VI. Here are the agencies' interpretations:

Department of Agriculture Fact Sheet; Department of Health and Human Services Fact Sheet; Department of Homeland Security Fact Sheet; Department of Housing and Urban Development Fact Sheet and Memorandum; Department of Interior Fact Sheet; Department of Labor Fact Sheet; Department of Treasury Fact Sheet; Department of Transportation Fact Sheet.

Prof's Suit Over Display of Prophet Muhammad Paintings Will Move Ahead In Federal Court On Religious Discrimination Claim

In López Prater v. Trustees of Hamline University of Minnesota, (D MN, Sept. 15, 2023), a Minnesota federal district court upheld defendant's removal to federal court of a suit initially filed against it in state court by an Adjunct Art Instructor at Hamline University whose teaching contract was not renewed after she showed slides of two classic paintings of the Prophet Muhammad in her World Art class. (See prior posting.) The court held that because many of plaintiff's allegations involve matters covered by the collective bargaining agreement, her state law claims are pre-empted by §301(a) of the federal Labor-Management Relations Act that creates a federal cause of action for "[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce."

The court went on to dismiss several of plaintiff's claims, but refused to dismiss her claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act for religious discrimination, saying in part:

Contrary to Hamline’s position, the Court finds that Ms. López Prater plausibly alleges that Hamline discriminated against her because she was not a Muslim or did not conform to a belief that certain Muslims share....

Ms. López Prater maintains that Hamline would not have labeled the act of showing the images “Islamophobic” if she were Muslim....

... [C]aselaw recognizes that an employer can discriminate against an employee if it acts on the preference of third parties such as customers or clients....  Therefore, Ms. López Prater alleging that Hamline discriminated against her by acting on the preferences of certain Muslim students and staff members is sufficient at this stage.

The court however dismissed plaintiff's reprisal claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, as well as her claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and her claims under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act. Volokh Conspiracy also reports on the decision.

8th Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of Federal Ban on Damaging Religious Real Property

In United States v. Hari, (8th Cir., May 10, 2023), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality under the Commerce Clause of 18 USC §247.  The statute bars damaging religious real property because of the religious character of the property, and bars obstructing a person's enjoyment of free exercise of religion by force or threat of force against them or against religious real property, when the person's conduct affects interstate commerce. The court said in part:

Here, the statute specifically requires that the offense “affects interstate or foreign commerce.” This “ensures, through a case-by-case inquiry, that each defendant’s [offense] affected interstate commerce.”

The court also upheld defendant's conviction under 18 USC § 924(c)(1) for carrying or using a destructive device during and in relation to any crime of violence.  The conduct for which defendant was convicted was described by the court:

In August 2017, Emily Hari loaded a pickup truck with a 20 pound pipe bomb, two assault rifles, and a sledgehammer and drove with two confederates from Illinois to the Dar al-Farooq Islamic Center in Bloomington, Minnesota. The trio smashed a window of the Imam’s office before the parishioners’ dawn prayer and threw gasoline, diesel fuel, and the pipe bomb inside. The bomb detonated. No one was injured; the building suffered fire and smoke damage. Hari and the others fled.

White House Hosts Eid Reception; Conducts Listening Session on Islamophobia

On Monday evening, President Biden spoke at a White House reception to celebrate Eid al-Fitr. (Full text of remarks). The President said in part:

We remember Muslim communities around the world that are enduring conflict, poverty, hunger, disease, and those that are displaced from their homes. And we recommit to the tireless work of building peace and standing up for the rights and dignity of all people.  All people. 

And we’re determined to confront all forms of hate, including Islamophobia, which is important to me.  (Applause.)  This is a priority for my administration, which is why I established an interagency task force to address attacks on Muslims and anti-Muslim bias and discrimination....

Muslims have been part of the United States from the very start.  Muslims fought along the patriots during the War for Independence. One of the first countries to recognize the United States as an independent nation was a Muslim country, Morocco.  (Applause.) 

Today, there are 3.5 million of you in the United States.  You come from different ethnicities, races, speak different languages, but you’re united all as Americans.

The White House also announced that on Tuesday:

Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff, White House Domestic Policy Advisor Ambassador Susan Rice, Deputy Homeland Security Advisor Joshua Geltzer, U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom Rashad Hussain, and Office of Public Engagement Director Stephen Benjamin hosted a listening session with Muslim community leaders to discuss efforts to counter Islamophobia....

White House Creates Inter-Agency Group to Counter Anitsemitism

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre yesterday announced the formation of an inter-agency anti-bias task force whose first priority is developing a national strategy to combat antisemitism.  Her Statement (full text) said in part:

The President is establishing an inter-agency group led by Domestic Policy Council staff and National Security Council staff to increase and better coordinate U.S. Government efforts to counter antisemitism, Islamophobia, and related forms of bias and discrimination within the United States. The President has tasked the inter-agency group, as its first order of business, to develop a national strategy to counter antisemitism. This strategy will raise understanding about antisemitism and the threat it poses to the Jewish community and all Americans, address antisemitic harassment and abuse both online and offline, seek to prevent antisemitic attacks and incidents, and encourage whole-of-society efforts to counter antisemitism and build a more inclusive nation.

The Hill reports on this development.

Scottish Court Awards Damages for Franklin Graham's Cancelled Event

 In Billy Graham Evangelistic Association v. Scottish Event Campus Limited, (Glascow Sheriff's Ct., Oct. 24, 2022), a trial court in Scotland concluded that a large arena in Scotland whose majority owner is the city of Glascow violated the Equality Act when it cancelled an appearance by evangelist Franklin Graham because of concern that he might make homophobic and Islamophobic comments during his appearance. The court awarded Graham's organization damages equivalent to $112,000(US). The court said in part:

The event was cancelled because of (a) the religious or philosophical beliefs of the pursuer and Franklin Graham as viewed by the defender and (b) the reaction by others to the religious or philosophical beliefs professed by the pursuer and/or Franklin Graham. Those objectors had included the defender’s principal shareholder, its sponsor, objectors on social media, some press, an MSP and persons representing contrasting religious views.

(See prior related posting.) Charlotte Observer and BBC News report on the decision.

Anti-Muslim Facebook Postings Are Subject To Pickering Balancing Test

In Hernandez v. City of Phoenix, (9th Cir., Aug. 5, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded to the district court a case in which the Phoenix police department had disciplined an employee for social media posts he made disparaging Muslims.  The district court had held that the posts did not address matters of public concern and so were not subject to the balancing test of Pickering v. Board of Education  that protects as free speech some statements by public employees which are objectionable to the public employer. The Court of Appeals disagreed, saying in part:

It is true that each of Hernandez’s posts expressed hostility toward, and sought to denigrate or mock, a major religious faith and its adherents. The Supreme Court has made clear, however, that “[t]he inappropriate or controversial character of a statement is irrelevant to the question whether it deals with a matter of public concern.”...

Having concluded that Hernandez’s Facebook posts constitute speech on matters of public concern at the first step of the Pickering balancing test, we would ordinarily proceed to the next step and assess whether the Phoenix Police Department has shown an adequate justification for punishing Hernandez’s otherwise protected speech. We cannot do so here, however, because the district court dismissed Hernandez’s First Amendment retaliation claim at the motion-to-dismiss stage.... Although it seems likely that Hernandez’s posts could impede the performance of his job duties and interfere with the Phoenix Police Department’s ability to effectively carry out its mission, no evidence of the actual or potential disruptive impact caused by Hernandez’s posts is properly before us at this stage of the proceedings....

In remanding the case, we do not mean to suggest that the Department will face a particularly onerous burden to justify disciplining Hernandez for his posts, given the comparatively low value of his speech.

Reuters reports on the decision.

CAIR Issues Report On Structural Islamophobia

Yesterday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) released a report titled Still Suspect: The Impact of Structural Islamophobia (full text).The Executive Summary says in part:

The title of this report is Still Suspect: The Impact of Structural Islamophobia. The word structural is significant in the understanding that Islamophobia has seeped into every part of our society. It has made its way into government institutions and the public sphere through laws and policies, political rhetoric, and other manifestations.  For example, in 2021, CAIR received a total of 6,720 complaints nationwide involving a range of issues including immigration and travel, discrimination, law enforcement and government overreach, hate and bias incidents, incarceree rights, school incidents, and anti-BDS/free speech. These complaints clearly indicate that government discrimination and bias continue to have a disproportionate effect on American Muslims and further demonstrate that our communities continue to be viewed with suspicion.

NY AG Orders Anti-Muslim Group To Stop Spying On The Muslim Community

 In an April 1 press release, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that the office's Civil Right Bureau has sent a Cease and Desist Notification (full text) to an "anti-Muslim hate group" warning it to stop its discriminatory surveillance of the Muslim community. The Notification says in part:

The New York State Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has reviewed reports alleging that your organization, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), used paid informants and infiltrators to spy on Muslim houses of worship, Muslim advocacy groups, and prominent Muslim leaders. You are advised that such conduct could violate the New York Civil Rights Law and other state and federal laws. You are hereby instructed to cease and desist any ongoing or contemplated unlawful espionage operations against Muslims and Muslim organizations within the State of New York. Discrimination has no place in New York. The OAG will use every tool at its disposal to protect Muslim New Yorkers against unlawful intimidation campaigns.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Virginia Muslim Politician Sues Over Lynching Threat

 A civil damage action for racial, religious and ethnic harassment in violation of Virginia Code § 8.01-42.1 was filed yesterday in federal district court by Qasim Rashid, a Virginia politician who is an Ahmadiyya Muslim and human rights activist.  Rashid sued Joseph Vandevere who used anonymous social media accounts to make violent threats, including the threat of lynching, against Rashid. The complaint (full text) in Rashid v. Vandevere, (ED VA, filed 5/19/2021), also alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress. In June 2020, Vandevere was sentenced in a criminal case to ten months in prison for making threats against Rashid. Muslim Advocates issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Scottish Court Lets Franklin Graham Move Ahead With Suit Over Cancelled Appearance

Last week, a Sheriff's Court in Scotland handed down an initial decision in a suit by evangelist Franklin Graham whose appearance at a large arena in Glasgow was cancelled by the arena operators after the Glasgow City Council complained that there was a potential for Graham to make homophobic and Islamophobic comments during his appearance.  In Billy Graham Evangelistic Association v. Scottish Event Campus Ltd., (Glasgow Sheriffdom, Feb. 16, 2021), the court held that it needed to hear evidence on Graham's claim that the cancellation of his event violated the Equality Act's prohibition on religious discrimination. Summarizing the arguments of the parties, the court said in part:

The defender’s case includes ... averments that there was potential for public order issues with the event....

The defender also avers... that "the staging of the event would bring the defender into disrepute and terminated the Contract on that basis. It did not terminate the event as a result of the religious views of the pursuer or Mr Franklin Graham."

Further ... the defender avers that: "It does not discriminate against any group or individual when deciding on whether to accept a booking. It was irrelevant to the defender that the pursuer was seeking to express religious views. The reason the Contract was terminated was due to the risk to the defender’s reputation arising from the risk of violent protests at a public event....

[However] The pursuer avers that the event was a forum for the proclamation of the Christian gospel in accordance with mainstream evangelical Christian teaching....

“The fact that the defender now avers that it does host a range of faith-based events to which it takes no objection – the defender offers as an example the annual conference of Jehovah’s Witnesses – shows precisely that the defender does operate a policy of discrimination against groups or individuals in that only those with views or religious positions which the defender deems to be ‘acceptable’ will be permitted to hire its premises.

Scottish Legal News reports on the decision. [Thanks to Frank Cranmer for the lead.]

Islamic Terrorism Unit In Course Does Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Sabra v. Maricopa County Community College District, (D AZ, Aug. 18, 2020), an Arizona federal district court dismissed a suit challenging the manner in which a community college faculty member taught a portion of a World Politics course. Plaintiffs contend that the instructor's primary message in teaching the Islamic Terrorism module of the course was disapproval of Islam.The court rejected both Establishment Clause and Free exercise challenges, saying in part:

Examining the course as a whole, a reasonable, objective observer would conclude that the teaching’s primary purpose was not the inhibition of religion. The offending component was only a part of one-sixth of the course and taught in the context of explaining terrorism. One aspect of terrorism is Islamic terrorism. Only in picking select quotes from the course can one describe the module as anti-Islam.... [T]he primary effect of Dr. Damask’s course is not the inhibition of the practice of Islam. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claims must be dismissed....

Mr. Sabra was not required to adopt the views expressed by Dr. Damask or the authors Dr. Damask cited to in his course, but only to demonstrate an understanding of the material taught. Dr. Damask’s course did not inhibit Mr. Sabra’s personal worship in any way. Instead, Mr. Sabra was simply exposed to “attitudes and outlooks at odds” with his own religious perspective.... Therefore, as a matter of law, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s allegations do not amount to a violation of the Free Exercise Clause by the Defendants....

[Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

German Court Rejects City's Ban On"Burkini"

Breibart News today reports:

The ban on the sharia-compliant swimwear known as the “burkini” has been overturned by the higher administrative court in the German federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate after a judge decided the ban violated the constitution.

The ban originated in the city of Koblenz and began on the 1st of January but was challenged by a Syrian asylum seeker who claimed that she required the swimwear for religious reasons and also needed to use the swimming pool because she suffers from back problems...

 According to the Higher Administrative Court, the ban violated the German constitution’s requirement for equal treatment. The city had argued that the burkini made it impossible to know whether or not those wearing them suffered from any hygienic issues or diseases....