9th Circuit: California IDEA Rules Violate Free Exercise Clause

In Loffman v, California Department of Education, (9th Cir., Oct. 28, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a California federal district court's dismissal of a suit by the parents of a special needs child that challenges as a violation of the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses a portion of California's rules implementing the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In California, a private school may be certified as a NPS (non-public school offering special education programs) so long as the school is non-sectarian. When a local educational agency refers a child to an NPS, the state pays the child's full tuition there. However, religiously affiliated schools may not be certified as NPS's even if the curriculum offered to special needs children is secular. Here, plaintiffs wanted to send their children to an Orthodox Jewish school but obtain the benefits available from an NPS. The 9th Circuit said in part:

 ... [A]ny religiously affiliated school seeking to enter into an NPS contract in California must choose whether to maintain its religious affiliation or to serve as an NPS eligible for consideration ... in determining whether it may be in the best position to provide an IEP [individualized education program] for an individual child.  

Religious entities that are equally or better qualified than secular ones to provide special education and related services are disqualified solely because they are “owned, operated, controlled by, or formally affiliated with a religious group or sect, whatever might be the actual character of the education program or the primary purpose of the facility.”...

As we have previously recognized, a statutory scheme that requires a family to “forgo a sectarian education . . . in order to receive” special education benefits otherwise available in a private school setting imposes a “burden on their free exercise rights.”  ...

Parent Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged “that a government entity has burdened [their] sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy that is not ‘neutral’ or ‘generally applicable,’” so the focus “shifts to the defendant” to show that the challenged action survives strict scrutiny....

[E]ven if the State Appellee could demonstrate a compelling interest in neutrality here, it has failed to demonstrate that the nonsectarian requirement is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.  Thus, we conclude that the State Appellee fails to demonstrate that the nonsectarian requirement satisfies strict scrutiny.

National Catholic Register reports on the decision.

President Apologizes for Indian Boarding School Policies; Over Half of Schools Had Religious Affiliations

Yesterday, President Biden speaking at Gila Crossing Community School in Laveen Village, Arizona, issued a formal apology on behalf of the United States for the Federal Indian Boarding School Policies implemented between 1819 and 1969 to implement a policy of cultural assimilation. (Full text of President's remarks.) Investigative reports issued by the Department of Interior in 2022 and 2024 said in part:

Initial investigation results show that approximately 50 percent of Federal Indian boarding schools may have received support or involvement from a religious institution or organization, including funding, infrastructure, and personnel. As the U.S. Senate has recognized, funds from the 1819 Civilization Fund “were apportioned among those societies and individuals—usually missionary organizations—that had been prominent in the effort to ‘civilize’ the Indians.” The Federal Government at times paid religious institutions and organizations on a per capita basis for Indian children to enter the Federal Indian boarding schools that these institutions and organizations groups operated.

The reports disclose that of the 408 Indian Boarding Schools, 210 had a religious affiliation.  (List of religiously affiliated boarding schools.) 132 were Protestant; 77 were Catholic; and 5 had other religious affiliations.

President Biden in his remarks yesterday described the experience of Native American children at these schools:

Children would arrive at schools.  Their clothes taken off.  Their hair that they were told was sacred was chopped off.  Their names literally erased and replaced by a number or an English name....

Another survivor described what it was like at the boarding school, and I quote, “When I would talk in my Tribal language, I would get hit.  I lost my tongue.  They beat me every day.”

Children abused — emotionally, physically, and sexually abused.  Forced into hard labor.  Some put up for adoption without the consent of their birth parents.  Some left for dead in unmarked graves. 

And for those who did return home, they were wounded in body and in spirit — trauma and shame passed down through generations. 

West Virginia Governor Vetoes Vaccine Mandate Opt-Out for Parochial Schools

On Wednesday, West Virginia Governor Jim Justice vetoed House Bill 5105 which would have allowed private and parochial schools to opt out of the state's mandatory vaccination requirements for students. It also would have exempted full-time virtual public-school students from the immunization requirements unless they participate in activities that also involve other schools. In his Veto Letter (full text), the Governor says in part:

Since this legislation was passed, I have heard constant, strong opposition to this legislation from our State's medical community....

Additionally, we have heard from many private and parochial institutions all around the State, likewise requesting this bill be vetoed. We have heard from this community that they see this bill as purely divisive and, if signed into law, requiring consideration of adopting policies that will result in parents pulling their children from their schools.

AP reports on the Governor's action.

Negligence Claims Against Religious Boarding School Barred by Establishment Clause

In Drew v. Householder, (WD MO, Dec. 19, 2023), plaintiff sued Circle of Hope Boarding School, a fundamentalist Baptist school for girls, and its schoolmasters alleging that during the five years she was there she was subjected to sexual, physical and emotional abuse, and received inadequate and unaccredited formal instruction. She also alleged that the schoolmasters took $25,000 plus social security money from her. While allowing plaintiff to move ahead with several claims, the court dismissed, among others, her negligence claims, saying in part:

The Missouri Supreme Court has considered the extent to which judicial decision making may involve analysis of ecclesiastical matters without running afoul of the First Amendment’s establishment and free exercise clauses....

[A]llegations based in Missouri common law of negligence against religious institutions run afoul of the First Amendment, except in limited instances where the negligence allegation does not require interpretation of religious doctrine, policy, or interpretation.... It is plain neither of Plaintiff’s remaining negligence claims—Count Seven’s general negligence and Count Eight’s negligent supervision of students—falls into this narrow exception.... [N]egligent supervision claims against a religious institution violate the First Amendment because they require a court to evaluate “what the church ‘should know.’”... Likewise, general negligence claims against religious institutions violate the First Amendment, as it forces the court to consider how a reasonably prudent religious institution would act, thereby “excessively entangle[ing] itself in religious doctrine, policy, and administration.”...

... [T]his Court likewise finds that dismissal of Plaintiff’s negligence claims in Counts Six, Seven, Eight, and Eleven is appropriate also under the provisions of the Missouri Constitution declaring separation of church and state....

Exclusion of Parochial School Students from District's Extracurricular Activities Violates Free Exercise

In Religious Rights Foundation of PA v. State College Area School District, (MD PA, Dec. 1, 2023), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to dismiss a free exercise challenge to a school district's policy that allowed district students enrolled in a home school program or in a charter school to participate in the district's extracurricular activities, but did not allow parochial school students to participate.  The court said in part:

SCASD presents its policy as one prohibiting private students’ involvement in extracurricular programming and argues that by this definition its policy would be generally applicable. But by carving exemptions out of the definition of a policy, a defendant can make any policy appear generally applicable. This approach is clearly circular for the obvious reason that “every law applies to everything it applies to.” ...

Instead, the policy is more accurately stated at a broader level of generality—only students enrolled in SCASD may participate in its extracurricular activities. That general policy is subject to two categorical exemptions for charter-schooled and homeschooled students....

Where a regime refuses to exempt religious conduct but imposes a categorical exemption for secular conduct which threatens an analogous harm to the stated interest, it is a foregone conclusion that the regime is underinclusive. For if SCASD had a policy narrowly tailored to prevent overcrowding of its extracurricular programming, it would not have had the homeschool and charter school exemptions in the first place.....

Plaintiffs attend parochial schools as a form of religious exercise. Other students attend homeschool and charter school for their own reasons. Under the Free Exercise Clause, religious reasons for not attending public school must be considered at least as important as any secular reason. Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that SCASD’s failure to extend its exemption to students who do not attend its school for religious reasons offends the Free Exercise Clause, as it denies a government benefit on the basis of religious exercise through a law which is not generally applicable....

At one point in its opinion, the court added:

If SCASD proffers different justifications for its scheme of exemptions later in this litigation, such that strict scrutiny does not apply, it might succeed in defending the status quo. But such a justification must actually be grounded in some fact distinguishing homeschooled and charter-schooled students from parochially schooled students, in relation to the risks posed by allowing their participation.

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

Christian School Sues Vermont Challenging Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Rules

Suit was filed yesterday in a Vermont federal district court by a Christian school seeking to participate in the state's Town Tuitioning and Dual Enrollment Programs as well as in Vermont Principals' Association athletic competitions. It has been precluded from doing so because of rules banning it from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in order to participate. Two families whose children participate in athletics at the school are also plaintiffs. The complaint (full text) in Mid Vermont Christian School v. Bouchey, (D VT, filed 11/21.2023), alleges in part:

The State-through its Agency of Education ... and the Vermont Principal's Association ... requires religious schools like Mid Vermont Christian School ... to follow (and affirm compliance with) laws, rules, and policies that prevent those schools from operating consistently with their religious beliefs about sexuality and gender.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

6th Circuit: Kentucky Governor Had Qualified Immunity For Covid School-Closing Order

 In Pleasant View Baptist Church v. Beshear, (6th Cir., Aug. 14, 2023), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear had qualified immunity in a suit challenging his Covid order temporarily barring in-person classes at public and private schools. The suit was brought by a group of churches, private religious schools and parents alleging that the 2020 Covid order violated their free exercise rights (as well as parental rights to send their children to religious schools and  their right to freedom of association). Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief became moot when the orders were lifted. However, their claims for monetary damages did not. Affirming the district court's finding of qualified immunity, the appeals court said in part:

Neither this court’s nor the Supreme Court’s precedent clearly established that temporarily closing in-person learning at all elementary and secondary schools would violate the Free Exercise Clause when Governor Beshear issued EO 2020-969 on November 18, 2020. As the Governor points out, Plaintiffs have not provided this court with any cases denying a government official qualified immunity for their immediate public-health response to the COVID-19 pandemic.... Because the Governor issued EO 2020-969 in the midst of a vibrant debate on this constitutional issue, he is thus entitled to a qualified-immunity defense. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that a clearly established right existed at the time Governor Beshear issued EO 2020-969....

Judge Murphy filed a concurring opinion.

Suit Challenges Oklahoma's Approval of Catholic Charter School

Suit was filed yesterday in an Oklahoma state trial court challenging the decision of the state's Virtual Charter School Board to approve a Catholic-sponsored charter school that will be funded by the state. The 70-page complaint (full text) in OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, (OK Dist. Ct., filed 7/31/2023) alleges that the school's application indicated that the school's operation would violate numerous provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, and regulations of the Virtual Charter School Board. The complaint alleges in part:

St. Isidore submitted notarized statements that it would comply with antidiscrimination and other legal requirements only “to the extent required by law, including . . . religious exemptions . . . with priority given to the Catholic Church’s understanding of itself and its rights and obligations pursuant to the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”...

Because St. Isidore’s program requires students to submit to instruction in particular religious tenets, it is not actually open to children of all faiths and is instead discriminatory based on religion....

St. Isidore also will discriminate among prospective or enrolled students based on sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy outside of marriage, and sexual activity outside of marriage....

The Charter Schools Act requires charter schools to be “nonsectarian in [their] programs . . . and all other operations.”...

ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Parochial School Students Sue For Equal Access to District Extracurricular Activities

Suit was filed last week in a Pennsylvania federal district court on behalf of two parochial school students and their parents challenging a school district policy that allowed home school and charter school students to participate in the district's extracurricular and co-curricular activities but does not allow private and parochial school students the same right. The complaint (full text) in Religious Rights Foundation of Pa v. State College Area School District, (MD PA, filed 7/10/2023), contends that exclusion of religious parochial schools violates plaintiff's free exercise and equal protection rights. Penn Live reports on the lawsuit..

Christian Pre-School Challenges Exclusion from Colorado State Aid Program

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court challenging requirements that Colorado has imposed on pre-schools in order for them to participate and receive funding in the state's universal pre-school program. The complaint (full text) in Darren Patterson Christian Academy v. Roy, (D CO, filed 6/20/2023), alleges in part:

9.... [T]he Colorado Department of Early Childhood ... is requiring religious preschools like Darren Patterson Christian Academy to forgo their religious character, beliefs, and exercise to participate in UPK.

10. The Department does so through two provisions that prohibit discrimination against any person based on religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

11. So even though the school welcomes all families and children, these provisions would force it to hire employees who do not share its faith and to alter internal rules and policies that are based on the school’s religious beliefs about sexuality and gender, including those that relate to restroom usage, pronouns, dress codes, and student housing during school expeditions and field trips....

Plaintiff contends that the requirements violate its rights under the federal Constitiuion's Free Exercise, Free Speech and Equal Protection Clauses. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Oklahoma Approves U.S.'s First Publicly Funded Religious Charter School

 Politico and the Tulsa World report that yesterday the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board by a vote of 3-2 approved the application of the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School to become the country's first publicly-funded religious charter school.  Tulsa World explains that the deciding vote was cast by a Board member newly appointed only last Friday. According to Politico:

The split vote from the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board on Monday caps months of debate over government support for sectarian education that has divided the state’s educators and elected Republicans, including Gov. Kevin Stitt and Attorney General Gentner Drummond.

At issue is whether the requirement in the Oklahoma Constitution and the state's Charter Schools Act that public schools be non-sectarian violates the U.S. Constitution's free exercise clause. (See prior related posting.) Americans United says it is preparing to file suit to challenge the approval.

Christain School Sues Over "Poison Pill" Provisions That Exclude It from Maine's Tuition Payment Program

Suit was filed this week in a Maine federal district court by a Christian school challenging 2021 amendments to Maine's Human Rights Act that operate to exclude the school from participating in Maine's tuition payment program for students from districts without public high schools.  The motion for a preliminary injunction (full text) which was filed along with the complaint in Crosspoint Church v. Makin, (D ME, filed 3/27/2023), focuses on provisions in 5 MRSA §4602 that now require schools that participate in the tuition reimbursement program to comply with the sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination provisions. Religious schools that do not receive public funding are exempt from that provision. The law also now provides that "to the extent that an educational institution permits religious expression, it cannot discriminate between religions in so doing." Plaintiff characterizes these provisions as "poison pills" that prevent it from participating in the tuition payment program without violating its religious beliefs after the U.S. Supreme Court in Carson v. Makin upheld the right of sectarian schools to participate. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction based on violations of the Free Exercise, Free Speech and Establishment Clauses. Washington Times reports on the lawsuit.

Yeshivas Win Partial Victory In Challenge To New York's Substantial Equivalency Rules

In In re Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools v. Young, (Albany County Sup.  Ct., March 23, 2023), a New York state trial court gave a partial victory to Orthodox Jewish day schools (yeshivas) that are challenging the state's "substantial equivalency" regulations. The regulations require that students in non-public schools receive instruction in required subject areas that is substantially equivalent to instruction received by public school students in the same district. While the court rejected petitioners' constitutional challenges, it held that the Department of Education exceeded its authority in promulgating rules that require parents to withdraw their children from schools that do not meet the substantial equivalency standards and enroll them elsewhere, and which allow local school authorities to shut down schools that do not meet the required standards. The court said in part:

[T]the statutory scheme places the burden for ensuring a child's education squarely on the parent, not the school.... [T]he Compulsory Education Law does not authorize or contemplate the imposition of penalties or other consequences upon a nonpublic school that has been found not to provide substantially equivalent instruction.

... [T]the court finds that respondents lack authority to direct parents to completely unenroll their children from nonpublic schools that have been determined to fall short of meeting each and every substantial equivalency criteria, nor do respondents have authority to direct the closure of such schools. Rather, the parents should be given a reasonable opportunity to prove that the substantial equivalency requirements for their children's education are satisfied by instruction provided through a combination of sources. For example, parents should be permitted to supplement the education that their children receive at a nonpublic school with supplemental instruction that specifically addresses any identified deficiencies in that education, such as by providing supplemental home instruction in compliance with the home schooling regulations as set forth in 8 NYCRR 100.10. Therefore, if a student is found to be attending a school that is not deemed "substantially equivalent", the home schooling rules shall apply if the parent chooses to keep their child enrolled at that school. As such, the parent may submit a plan that utilizes said school along with supplemental education as needed to create a satisfactory Individualized Home Instruction Plan....

Hamodia reports on the decision. [Thank to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Jewish Teacher's Defamation Suit

In Hyman v. Rosenbaum Yeshiva of North Jersey, (NJ Super., Feb. 8, 2023), a New Jersey state appellate court held that the ministerial exception doctrine required dismissal of a defamation suit brought by a rabbi who was an elementary school Judaic studies teacher at an Orthodox Jewish school. An investigation by an outside law firm employed by the school concluded that the rabbi had inappropriately touched 5th and 6th grade female students in his classes. The school terminated the rabbi's employment and, after consulting halachic authorities, e-mailed a letter to school parents informing them that the rabbi was terminated because his conduct violated the Orthodox Jewish standards of conduct set out in the school's Staff Handbook. According to the court:

The letter was spread throughout the entire school community and similar Jewish communities. Additionally, plaintiff's picture appeared on Jewish websites such as "Frums Follies" and "Lost Messiah," and the allegations were disseminated by bloggers. As a result, plaintiff was allegedly branded as a pedophile among the Jewish community, which affected any possibility of him obtaining future employment in education.

In affirming the dismissal of the rabbi's defamation suit, the court concluded that the ministerial exception doctrine applies to more than just employment discrimination lawsuits.  It said in part:

We ... conclude that the ministerial exception applies to bar tort claims, provided (1) the injured party is a minister formerly employed by a religious institution and (2) the claims are related to the religious institution's employment decision.

Supreme Court Review Sought in Ministerial Exception Case

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last week in Faith Bible Chapel International v. Tucker, (cert. filed 2/3/2023).  In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by a vote of 6-4, denied en banc review of a panel decision which held that interlocutory appeals from the denial of a ministerial exception defense are not permitted. (See prior posting.) In the case, a former high school teacher and administrator/ chaplain contends that he was fired for opposing alleged racial discrimination by a Christian school. The petition for review frames the Questions Presented in part as follows:

Whether the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception” should be understood as an immunity from judicial interference in church employment decisions falling within the exception, or instead as a mere defense against liability. 

WORLD reports on the petition.  Becket Law has additional background on the case.

Australia Proposes New Antidiscrimination Requirements For Religious Educational Institutions

On January 27, the Australian Law Reform Commission released a 54-page Consultation Paper on Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws (full text). The Commission summarized the Paper in a press release:

The Australian Law Reform Commission seeks stakeholder submissions on proposals to change the way Commonwealth anti-discrimination law applies to religious schools and other educational institutions.

The Consultation Paper sets out four general propositions supported by 14 technical proposals for reform. If adopted, these would:

make discrimination against students on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status, or pregnancy in schools and other religious educational institutions unlawful, by removing exceptions currently available under federal law,

protect teachers and other school staff from discrimination on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status, or pregnancy, by removing similar exceptions, and

allow religious schools to maintain their religious character by permitting them to:

give preference to prospective staff on religious grounds where the teaching, observance, or practice of religion is a part of their role (and it is not discriminatory on other grounds); and

require all staff to respect the educational institution’s religious ethos.

Law and Religion Australia has more extensive reporting on the proposal.

Christian School Teacher Fired for Acceptance of LGBT Students Files Suit

Suit was filed this week in an Arizona federal district court by Adam McDorman, an English teacher who was fired by Valley Christian School for urging the school's principal, Josh LeSage, to show acceptance and understanding of a student who identifies as pansexual.  The complaint (full text) in McDorman v. Valley Christian Schools, (D AZ, filed 12/27/2022), alleges in part:

15. McDorman’s Christian faith and beliefs include acceptance and equality for all LGBT persons and do not tolerate discrimination or hostility against them....

19.  On November 1, 2021, during a staff meeting at which McDorman was present, LeSage said that all of VCS staff should have the same religious belief in the sinfulness of LGBT sexual orientation, and that anyone who did not agree was like a cancer that needed to be removed from the (VCS) organization....

The complaint alleges that McDorman's firing amounted to religious discrimination and retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices in violation of provisions of Title VII and Title IX. AZFamily News reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit: Religious School's Challenge to Covid Restrictions Is Moot

In Horizon Christian School v. Brown, (9th Cir., Nov. 17, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the free exercise and parental rights challenges to the Oregon governor's previous Covid restrictions on in-person school classes is moot. The claim for nominal damages does not prevent mootness because the suit against the governor in her official capacity is barred by the 11th Amendment. The court denied leave to amend plaintiffs' complaint because defendant had qualified immunity.  Judge O'Scannlain filed a concurring opinion saying that if there were not qualified immunity, he would hold that the governor's order impinged a fundamental constitutional right.

10th Circuit Denies En Banc Review in Ministerial Exception Case

In Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel International, (10th Cir., Nov. 15, 2022), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by a vote of 6-4, denied en banc review of a panel decision which held that interlocutory appeals from the denial of a ministerial exception defense are not permitted. In the case, a former high school teacher and administrator/ chaplain contends that he was fired for opposing alleged racial discrimination by a Christian school. Judge Ebel, joined by Judge McHugh, filed an opinion concurring in the denial of review, saying in part:

Our panel decision, then, is consistent with well-established lines of Supreme Court precedent. Our decision also does not create any circuit split. It appears that no other circuit has addressed the specific question presented here—whether a religious employer is entitled to an immediate appeal under Cohen from a district court’s interlocutory ruling denying the employer summary judgment on its affirmative ministerial exception defense because there are genuinely disputed issues of material fact as to whether the employee qualifies as a minister.

Judge Bacharach, joined by Judges Tymkovich and Eid, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

This appeal involves a religious body’s invocation of the collateral-order doctrine to appeal the denial of summary judgment on the ministerial exception. The panel majority rejected that effort, treating the ministerial exception like other affirmative defenses reviewed by appellate courts after final judgment. 

In my view, that treatment reflects a fundamental misconception of the ministerial exception. Though most defenses protect only against liability, the ministerial exception protects a religious body from the suit itself. Without that protection, religious bodies will inevitably incur protracted litigation over matters of religion. The stakes are exceptionally important for religious bodies deciding whom to hire or fire.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the decision.

Brooklyn Yeshiva Will Pay Additional $5 Million In Penalties for Lunch Program Fraud

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York announced on Monday that Central United Talmudic Academy, a yeshiva in Brooklyn, has entered a three-year deferred prosecution agreement under which it has agreed to pay $5 million in penalties for conspiracy to commit wire fraud.  This is in addition to $3 million in restitution it has already paid. The Announcement describes "several overlapping frauds" to which CUTA has admitted, saying in part:

According to admissions in the statement of facts and other public documents, between 2014 and 2016, CUTA received more than $3.2 million in reimbursement for a meal program that purported to feed students of the yeshiva.  The program was almost entirely fictitious.  Rather than feed its children, the School diverted the funding, including to subsidize parties for adults. To commit the crime, the School fabricated records and made dozens of sworn misrepresentations to government agencies.

During the investigation into the fictitious meal program, the investigative team uncovered evidence of other fraudulent conduct by the School and its employees.  In addition to the program fraud noted above, this included various payroll practices that enabled the School’s employees to commit benefit and tax fraud....

By underrepresenting its employees’ income, CUTA enabled its employees to obtain various public benefits—including health care and childcare—that would not have been available if the employees honestly reported their income.

Officials of the school have previously pleaded guilty and been sentenced for fraud. The Announcement was also posted in Yiddish on the website of the U.S. Attorney's Office. Gothamist reports on the agreement.