Defendant Sentenced To 11 Years for Arson Attacks on Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Halls

Last Friday, a Washington federal district court sentenced 52-year-old Mikey Diamond Starrett to 11 years in prison followed by three years of supervised release for setting fire to three separate Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Halls and shooting into another Kingdom Hall. According to a Department of Justice press release, Starett pled guilty to four counts of violating the Church Arson Prevention Act and one count of using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. The U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington said:

Starrett’s attacks irrevocably destroyed the sense of safety and peace that a house of worship is supposed to provide, and caused severe, permanent harm to the Jehovah’s Witness community in Washington. These were not crimes against buildings, but a series of attacks against a community and a faith.

European Court Says Spain Violated Rights of Jehovah's Witness in Authorizing Blood Transfusion

In Case of Pindo Mulla v. Spain, (ECHR, Sept. 17, 2024), the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated by Spanish courts when they authorized a blood transfusion for a critically ill woman who, because of her beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness, had refused all blood transfusions. The court said in part:

181.  The Court fully appreciates that the actions taken in relation to the applicant on the day in question by the staff of both hospitals were motivated by the overriding concern to ensure the effective treatment of a patient who was under their care, in keeping with the most fundamental norm of the medical profession. It does not question their assessments regarding the severity of the applicant’s condition at the time, the urgency of the need to treat her, the medical options available in the circumstances, or that the applicant’s life was saved that day.

182.  However, the authorisation by the duty judge to proceed with whatever treatment was considered necessary resulted from a decision-making process that was affected by the omission of essential information about the documenting of the applicant’s wishes, which had been recorded in various forms and at various times in writing. Since neither the applicant nor anyone connected with her was aware of the decision taken by the duty judge, it was not possible, even in theory, to make good that omission. Neither this issue, nor the issue of her capacity to take a decision, were addressed in an adequate manner in the subsequent proceedings. In light of this, it cannot be said that the domestic system adequately responded to the applicant’s complaint that her wishes had been wrongly overruled....

183.  In the Court’s view, the shortcomings identified above ... indicate that the interference complained of was the result of a decision-making process which, as it operated in this case, did not afford sufficient respect for the applicant’s autonomy as protected by Article 8, which autonomy she wished to exercise in order to observe an important teaching of her religion.

Eight of the 17 judges dissented as to the damages awarded by the majority. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

British Columbia Court Says Jehovah's Witness Elders Must Submit Confidential Documents to Privacy Commissioner

In Vabuolas v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), (BC Sup. Ct., Jan. 8, 2024), the British Columbia Supreme Court upheld an order issued by the B.C. Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner over the objections raised by two elders of the Jehovah's Witness congregations. Petitioners claimed that the Order violated their rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the court explained:

Two former members of the Jehovah's Witnesses each sought disclosure from their former congregations of all records that include their personal information. The elders of the congregations refused, arguing that disclosure of confidential religious notes would be contrary to their religious beliefs....

[Under B.C. Personal Information Protection Act] Where an individual has made an access request to an organization for a copy of personal information about the individual held by the organization, and the individual is dissatisfied with the organization’s response to the access request, they may ask the Commissioner to conduct a review. This is what happened in this case....

Of particular concern to the petitioners is that the groups of elders who meet to determine membership must be able to discuss matters in confidence and without fear of having their confidential discussions disclosed. The petitioners are concerned that if the elders’ confidential communications are disclosed, they may be further disseminated for the purposes of mocking either the petitioners or elders, causing unnecessary embarrassment....

I am not satisfied that disclosure of the Disputed Records by the congregational elders to the Commissioner for review for the purpose of determining whether disclosure to the Applicants will be required would preclude the elders from continuing to follow their religious practices when weighing the rights of individuals to control over their personal information on the one hand and the religious freedom of the elders on the other. The Production Order represents a balancing of the competing interests, and I conclude that the infringement on the congregational elders’ religious freedoms that results from the Production Order is proportionate....

I conclude that while ss. 23(1)(a) and 38(1)(b) of PIPA infringe the petitioners’ rights under s. 2(a) of the Charter, those rights are limited in a manner that is reasonably justified in a free and democratic society.

CBC News reports on the decision.

Statutory Changes Allow Suit for Sex Abuse Against Jehovah's Witnesses Congregations

In C.P. v. Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, (NJ App., Nov. 15, 2023), a New Jersey appellate court affirmed a trial court's denial of summary judgement to Jehovah's Witnesses congregations and governing bodies. Plaintiff C.P. was sexually abused by Charles, her grandfather.  During the years the abuse was occurring, Charles also served as an elder at two Jehovah's Witnesses congregations.  In a 1994 lawsuit, plaintiff was awarded over $2.2 million in damages from her grandfather. Subsequently New Jersey's Charitable Immunity Act and statute of limitations were amended so that plaintiff could now sue the congregations involved, and this suit followed.  The court explained:

According to plaintiff, defendants knew Charles had engaged in sexual conduct with at least three minors—including herself—but did not discipline him and negligently retained him as an elder—a spiritual leader and mentor. Plaintiff claims defendants knew incidents of sexual abuse by their agents was prevalent within their organizations but nevertheless protected Charles and other sexual abusers from criminal prosecution through "mandated secrecy" policies and practices. Plaintiff also alleges defendants owed a "special duty" to protect her from her grandfather's sexual criminal acts because they held themselves out as "being able to provide a safe environment" for children. Ultimately, plaintiff contends Charles was disfellowshipped—excommunicated as a result of reports about and his admission to sexual misconduct, and therefore, defendants engaged in willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct.

Defendants claimed that the "entire controversy doctrine" and judicial estoppel bar the present suit. The court disagreed, saying in part:

As the trial court found, the two litigations involve separate claims. The 1994 action sought damages for harm directly inflicted by Charles; the 2021 action seeks damages from defendants for claims of negligent hiring and retention, alleging defendants knew and allowed Charles—a known child abuser—to serve as an elder in their church, exposing children to sexual molestation.

5th Circuit: Religious Objection to Medications Must Be Considered In Forcible Medication Determination

United States v. Harris, (5th Cir., Oct. 17, 2023), involved a defendant who was charged with threatening to assault a federal judge. Defendant was found incompetent to stand trial and was involuntarily hospitalized to determine whether it was likely that he will attain competency in the foreseeable future. The government sought to involuntarily medicate defendant who, as a Jehovah's Witness, had refused for religious reasons to take medications.  Under Supreme Court precedent (Sell v. United States), one of the factors to be considered in deciding whether involuntary medication is permissible is whether important governmental interests are at stake, taking into account that special circumstances may lessen the importance of that interest.  In the case the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that said in part:

If ... secular circumstances are important enough to lessen the Government’s interest in prosecution, ... we believe religious liberty must be at least as important....

Harris’s religious beliefs, combined with his lengthy detention and his potential civil confinement, thus lessen the Government’s interests under the first Sell factor.

We hasten to emphasize the limits in today’s holding. We do not hold that religious faith constitutes a get-out-of-jail-free card. We also do not hold that all religious objections eliminate the Government’s interests under the first Sell factor. We hold only that religious liberty can constitute a “special circumstance” under Sell,,,,

European Court: Finland May Require Jehovah's Witnesses to Obtain Consent Before Taking Notes on Those They Visit

In Jehovah's Witnesses v. Finland, (ECHR, May 9, 2023), the European Court of Human Rights held that Finland's data collection regulations did not infringe the religious freedom protected by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights of Jehovah's Witnesses who proselytized door-to-door.  At issue was notes taken by Jehovah's Witnesses in the course of their door-to-door preaching identifying those who did not wish to be visited again, and those who are deaf or spoke a foreign language so Witnesses who knew sign language or the relevant foreign language could visit in the future. Finland's Data Protection Ombudsman had held that this personal data could not be collected without the explicit consent of the person in question. Upholding that determination, the court said in part:

The relevant order had been based on the Personal Data Act in force at the time of the proceedings. That law was formulated with sufficient precision and aimed to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The Supreme Administrative Court had taken into account the fact that individuals whose personal data had been collected were entitled to trust that their data were not collected without their knowledge and consent. They also had a legitimate expectation, guaranteed by law, that they would have access to the data and, if necessary, the right to require that the data be corrected or deleted. Ensuring the rights of data subjects therefore inspired confidence rather than distrust in the applicant community’s activities. The consent requirement and the fact that it did not interfere with the core areas of the applicant community’s freedom of religion or freedom of expression had thus been proportionate.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

UK Supreme Court: Jehovah's Witness Organization Not Vicariously Liable for Rape by An Elder

In Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. BXB, (UK Sup. Ct., April 26, 2023), Britain's Supreme Court held that the Jehovah's Witnesses organization is not vicariously liable for the rape of a church member by an elder of the church.  The court said in part:

First, the rape was not committed while Mark Sewell was carrying out any activities as an elder on behalf of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He was at his own home and was not at the time engaged in performing any work connected with his role as an elder. So, eg, he was not conducting a bible class, he was not evangelising or giving pastoral care, he was not on premises of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the incident had nothing to do with any service or worship of the Jehovah Witnesses. The lack of direct connection to the role assigned to him as an elder makes these facts significantly different from the institutional sex abuse cases where, eg, as part of their jobs the [defendants] ... were living in the same institution as their victims....

Secondly, in contrast to the child sexual abuse cases, at the time of the rape, Mark Sewell was not exercising control over Mrs B because of his position as an elder. It was because of her close friendship with Mark Sewell and because she was seeking to provide emotional support to him, and not because Mark Sewell had control over her as an elder, that Mrs B went to the back room. The driving force behind their being together in the room at the time of the rape was their close personal friendship not Mark Sewell’s role as an elder. Put another way, the primary reason that the rape took place was not because Mark Sewell was abusing his position as an elder but because he was abusing his position as a close friend of Mrs B when she was trying to help him....

The Court issued a press release summarizing the decision.

9th Circuit: Jehovah's Witness' Suit Over State-Employee Loyalty Oath Is Remanded

In Bolden-Hardge v. Office of the California State Controller, (9th Cir., April 3, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a district court's dismissal of a suit by a Jehovah's Witness who challenged California's refusal to allow her to add a paragraph to the state-employee loyalty oath specifying that by signing it she is not giving up the right to exercise her religion which requires her primary loyalty be to God. Reversing dismissal of plaintiff's Title VII claims, the court said in part:

California’s apparent rationale for the oath requirement is to ensure that if an oath taker’s religion ever comes into conflict with the federal or state constitutions, religion must yield....

[T]o exempt the Controller’s Office from a federal accommodation requirement solely because the requested accommodation would violate state law would essentially permit states to legislate away any federal accommodation obligation....

Bolden-Hardge alleges a disparate impact... She contends that her religious beliefs are “consistent with [those] of other Jehovah’s Witnesses,” who also believe that their faith forbids them from swearing primary allegiance to any human government.... [T]his belief is in tension with the loyalty oath requirement....

The loyalty oath is a business necessity, the Controller’s Office argues, because public employees must be “committed to working within and promoting the fundamental rule of law while on the job.”... It asserts that allowing addenda that indicate an oath-taker’s primary loyalty to God would render the oath meaningless and undermine critical state interests. This assertion may well prove true and, if so, the Controller’s Office may be able to defeat Bolden-Hardge’s disparate impact claim at a later stage of the litigation. But this is not apparent from the face of her Complaint,,,,

European Court: Human Rights Convention Violated When French Authorities Failed to Assure Respect for Foster Child's Birth Religion

In Loste v. France, (ECHR, Nov. 3, 2022) (full text in French) (Press Release summary in English), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber judgment held that France's child welfare service violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it failed to assure that a Jehovah's Witness foster family was respecting the Muslim beliefs of its foster child's birth family. The Court's decision also dealt with a separate issue--French authorities' failure to protect the foster child from sexual abuse by her foster father. Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

Indictment Handed Down in 2018 Shooting of Jehovah's Witness Building

The Justice Department announced yesterday that a federal grand jury in Seattle, Washington has indicted Mikey Diamond Starrett, aka Michael Jason Layes, on one count of damaging religious property and one count of using a firearm during a crime of violence. According to the indictment, in May 2018 Starrett used a semi-automatic rifle to damage the Jehovah’s Witnesses Kingdom Hall of Yelm, Washington because of its religious character. He had also previously been charged with possession of an unregistered firearm.  If convicted, he faces a sentence of up to 20 years in prison on the charge of damaging religious property, plus up to ten years on the other charges. Last September, in U.S. v. Layes, (WD WA, Sept. 14, 2021), a federal magistrate judge ordered Starrett to be held in pre-trial detention.

European Court: Lithuania Should Have Provided Civilian Service Alternative To Jehovah's Witness

In Teliatnikov v. Lithuania, (ECHR, June 7, 2022), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Lithuania violated Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention On Human Rights when it refused to grant a Jehovah's Witness deacon alternative service under civilian control. The petitioner has religious objections to military service or any alternative service controlled, supervised or directed in any way by the military, or which supports military activity. Lithuania only provides alternative national defense service under military supervision. The court concluded:

the Court finds that the system in Lithuania failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of society and those of the applicant who has deeply and genuinely held beliefs.

The court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.

European Court Says Russia Violated Rights of Jehovah's Witnesses

In a 6-1 Chamber Judgment in Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, (ECHR, June 7, 2022), the European Court of Human Rights held that Russia's forced dissolution of Jehovah’s Witnesses religious organizations, banning of Jehovah's Witness religious literature and international website on charges of extremism, banning distribution of their religious magazines, criminal prosecution of individual Jehovah’s Witnesses, and confiscation of their property violate protections for freedom of religion, expression and assembly found in Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as other protections. The Court said in part:

152. The first ground for declaring the Taganrog LRO to be an “extremist” organisation was the charge that its texts stoked religious hatred by casting “traditional” Christian denominations in a negative light, undermining respect for their religious figures, urging people to leave those religions, and proclaiming the superiority of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses....

153.  The Court reiterates that preference for one’s own religion, the perception of it as unique and the only true one or as a “superior explanation of the universe” is a cornerstone of almost any religious system, as is the assessment of the other faiths as “false”, “wrong” or “not conducive to salvation”....  In the absence of expressions that seek to incite or justify violence or hatred based on religious intolerance, any religious entity or individual believers have the right to proclaim and defend their doctrine as the true and superior one and to engage in religious disputes and criticism seeking to prove the truth of one’s own and the falsity of others’ dogmas or beliefs....

154.  ... [I]n a pluralist and democratic society, those who exercise their right to freedom of religion ... cannot reasonably expect to be shielded from exposure to ideas that may offend, shock or disturb. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith.... Religious people may be genuinely offended by claims that others’ religion is superior to theirs. However, just because a remark may be perceived as offensive or insulting by particular individuals or groups does not mean that it constitutes “hate speech”....

The Court also issued a press release summarizing the lengthy opinion. 

European Court Upholds Custody Order Barring Father From Involving Daughter In Jehovah's Witness Practices

In T.C. v. Italy, (ECHR, May 19, 2022), the European Court of Human Rights in a 5-2 Chamber Judgment upheld an Italian court's order in a custody case in which an 8-year old's mother who was a nominal Catholic, and who had the daughter enrolled in catechism classes, objected to the girl's father involving her in his Jehovah's Witness religion.  The court ordered the father to refrain from actively involving the daughter in his religion. The European Court rejected the father's argument that the Italian court's order disproportionately interfered with his right to family life and his freedom of religion.  The European Court said in part:

[I]n the present case the domestic courts ... had regard above all to the child’s interests. The child’s interests lay primarily in the need to maintain and promote her development in an open and peaceful environment, reconciling as far as possible the rights and convictions of each of her parents.

... [I]nvolving E.[the daughter]  in the applicant’s religious practices would destabilise her in that she would be induced to abandon her Roman Catholic religious habits.... 

... [T[he contested measure had little influence on the applicant’s religious practices and was in any event aimed solely at resolving the conflict arising from the opposition between the two parents’ educational concepts, with a view to safeguarding the child’s best interests.

The Court also published a summary of its decision. Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

European Court Says Refusal To Register Jehovah's Witnesses Violates ECHR

In Christian Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in the NKR v. Armenia, (ECHR, March 22, 2022), the European Court of Human Rights held that refusal by Nagorno Karabakh to register Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious organization amounts to a violation by Armenia of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Satirical Videos Criticizing Jehovah's Witnesses Did Not Violate Copyrights

In In re: DMCA Section 512(h) Subpoena to YouTube (Google, Inc.), (SD NY, Jan. 18, 2022),a New York federal district court quashed a subpoena request under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act seeking the identity of an individual who allegedly infringed copyrights of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the organization that publishes Jehovah's Witness literature. At issue were satirical YouTube videos posted by a lapsed Jehovah's Witness, described by the court in part as follows:

Under the pseudonym of “Kevin McFree,” Movant publishes videos on YouTube featuring stop-frame Lego animations set in a fictitious village called “Dubtown” that satirize and criticize the practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The court concluded that because the YouTube postings amounted to fair use, there was no copyright infringement. The court said in part:

Movant’s other videos in his YouTube channel, like the Dubtown Video, all involve stop-frame Lego animations with titles that are derisive about the practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses.... It is well-established that “[a]mong the best recognized justifications for copying from another’s work is to provide comment on it or criticism of it.”

TorrentFreak reports at greater length on the case.

Suit Challenging Jehovah's Witness Beliefs Dismissed

In Gasparoff v. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania, (D AZ, Feb. 4, 2022), an Arizona federal district court dismissed a pro se complaint which attacked the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusions and asked the court "to determine if it is constitutional to use Amendment I in order to propagandize suicidal ideology under the guise of peaceful religious practice." The court said in part:

Plaintiff has no viable legal grounds to advance this case.... Federal Courts can not be arbiters of scriptural interpretation; controversies over religious principles fall outside this Court’s jurisdiction....  Furthermore, the Amended Complaint reflects that Plaintiff has no personal stake in this action, and therefore has no standing to litigate this case.

Utah Supreme Court: Lemon Test Is No Longer Controlling

In Williams v. Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses, Roy, Utah, (UT Sup. Ct., June 3, 2021), the Utah Supreme Court vacated the trial and appellate courts' dismissal of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Elders of a Jehovah's Witnesses church. At issue was the manner in which the Elders conducted an investigation of whether a 14-year old girl who was raped by a congregant was herself guilty of the sin of "porneia". The state Supreme Court said in part:

Although the conclusion reached by the district court and the court of appeals may ultimately prove to be the correct one, we note that in reaching that conclusion both courts relied on the excessive entanglement test established in Lemon. But ... Lemon has been overtaken by more recent Supreme Court cases.  Because the district court applied the excessive entanglement test from Lemon instead of the approach followed in these more recent cases, we vacate the district court‘s decision and remand for any additional proceedings necessary to adequately conduct the Supreme Court‘s current approach to the Establishment Clause.

... [T]he district court should focus on the particular issue at hand and look to history for guidance as to the correct application of the Establishment Clause.... [T]he court should identify ―an overarching set of principles and explain how those principles should be applied in this case.

Ogden Standard-Examiner reports on the decision. [Thanks to James Phillips for the lead.]

Supreme Court Denies Review In Cases Seeking To Overturn Hardison's Interpretation Of Title VII

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in two Title VII religious discrimination cases. (Order List). In both, petitioners were asking the Supreme Court to overturn its 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison which, interpreting the statutory term "undue hardship", allows an employer to refuse to accommodate an employee's religious requirements if doing so would impose  anything more than a de minimis cost. In Dalberiste v. GLE Associates, Inc. (Docket No. 19-1461, certiorari denied 4/5/2021), a Seventh Day Adventist sought a religious accommodation for his Sabbath observance. (SCOTUSblog case page.)  In Small v. Memphis Gas, Light & Water, (Docket No. 19-1388, certiorari denied      4/5/2021), a Jehovah's Witness employee sought scheduling accommodations that would allow him to attend church services. (SCOTUSblog case page). 

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, dissented from the denial of certiorari in the Small case, saying that the statutory interpretation involved there is out of step with subsequently adopted federal civil rights laws in other areas. Their opinion contends in part:

... Title VII’s right to religious exercise has become the odd man out. Alone among comparable statutorily protected civil rights, an employer may dispense with it nearly at whim. As this case illustrates, even subpar employees may wind up receiving more favorable treatment than highly performing employees who seek only to attend church.

Reuters reports on the Court's actions.

British Court Holds Jehovah's Witness Parent Body Vicariously Liable For Rape By Elder

 In Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. BXB,(EWCA, March 15, 22021), Britain's Court of Appeals upheld a trial court's conclusion that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and the Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses were vicariously liable for the rape of a woman congregant by a church elder. Justice Davies said in part:

Elders were integral to the organisation, the nature of their role was directly controlled by it and by its structure. The judge was entitled to conclude that the relationship between elders and the Jehovah's Witnesses was one that could be capable of giving rise to vicarious liability....

UK Human Rights blog has a long analysis of the decision.

USCIRF Issues New Report On Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has issued a report (full text) on The Global Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Report says in part:

The governments outlined in this report tend to target Jehovah’s Witnesses as “extremists” or because of their conscientious objection to military service. Those countries that persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses on the basis of vague extremism accusations, however, have failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that members of the community have ever been involved in any act of violence against the state or its citizens, or called for the overthrow of any such government. On the contrary, the group is doctrinally apolitical and pacifist, and the prosecution of its members as dangerous “extremists” demonstrates the capacity for abuse inherent in vague and sweeping anti-extremism legislation.