Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Jonas J Monast, Brian C. Murray & Jonathan B. Wiener, On Morals, Markets, and Climate Change: Exploring Pope Francis' Challenge, (Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 80, 2017).
• Jonathan F. Will, I. Glenn Cohen & Eli Y. Adashi, Personhood Seeking New Life with Republican Control, (Indiana Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Tara A. Smith, Religious Liberty or Religious License? Legal Schizophrenia and the Case against Exemptions, (Journal of Law and Politics, Vol. 32, Fall 2016).
• Tara A. Smith, What Good Is Religious Freedom? Locke, Rand, and the Non-Religious Case for Respecting It, (Arkansas Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 4, 2017).
• Michael J. Perry, A Global Political Morality: Human Rights, Democracy, and Constitutionalism, (Emory Legal Studies Research Paper 17-431 (2017)).
• Jonathan F. Will, Religion As a Controlling Interference in Medical Decision-Making by Minors, (October 19, 2016).
• Sarah Khanghahi, Thirty Years after Al-Khazraji: Revisiting Employment Discrimination Under Section 1981, (64 UCLA Law Review 794 (2017).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Atta Ul Mustafa, Proposed Procedural Amendments to Check Misuse of Blasphmey Laws in Pakistan, (July 4, 2016).
• Matthew S. Erie, The Traveling Waqf: Property, Religion, and Mobility Beyond China, (Islamic Law and Society, Vol. 25, (1-2, Special Issue on Waqfs) (February 2018)).
• Paul Johnson & Robert M. Vanderbeck, Sexual Orientation Equality and Religious Exceptionalism in the Law of the United Kingdom: The Role of the Church of England, (April 25, 2017).
• Dwight G. Newman, Ties that Bind: Religious Freedom and Communities (Introduction), (in Dwight Newman, ed., Religious Freedom and Communities (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2016)).
• Darren Rosenblum, Sex Quotas and Burkini Bans, (Tulane Law Review, Vol. 92, 2017).

From SmartCILP:

• Herman D. Hofman, For Richer or For Poorer: How Obergefell v. Hodges Affects the Tax-Exempt Status of Religious Organizations that Oppose Same-Sex Marriage, 52 Gonzaga Law Review 21-57 (2016/17).
• 2015 Richard J. Childress Memorial Lecture: Religious Freedom, Social Justice and Public Policy. Keynote lecture by Lawrence G. Sager; contributions by Christopher C. Lund, Matthew T. Bodie, Elizabeth Sepper, Jeffrey A. Redding and B. Jessie Hill. 60 St. Louis University Law Journal 585-710 (2016).

Michigan Federal District Court Preliminarily Enjoins Ban On Health Benefits to Domestic Partners--Claiming Title of First to Cite Windsor

In Bassett v. Snyder, (ED MI, June 28, 2013), a Michigan federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Michigan's Public Act 297 that prohibits public employers from providing medical and other fringe benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. Finding plaintiffs have standing, the court went on to hold that:

The plaintiffs have stated a viable and likely successful equal protection claim. They have provided strong evidence that the discriminatory classification established by Public Act 297 is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.

In reaching its conclusion, the court several times cited the then only 2-day old U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor which struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.  This makes it the first case to cite the Windsor opinion, proving inaccurate my earlier posting that awarded the first-to-cite distinction to another Michigan judge in a case denying dismissal of a challenge to Michigan's ban on adoptions by same-sex couples. ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision. [Thanks to Michael Worley for the lead.]

California Federal Judge Says Same-Sex Spouse of Court Employee Entitled To Health Insurance Coverage

On Tuesday in San Francisco (CA), federal district judge James Ware, acting as administrator of the federal district court's employee dispute resolution program, ruled that denying law clerk Christopher Nathan the right to enroll his same-sex spouse in the government's health insurance program violates the court's guarantee of a discrimination-free workplace. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Ware ordered reimbursement of Nathan for the cost of past and future private insurance for his spouse. The court's clerk, Richard Wieking, says that Ware's order is in conflict with a directive of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts requiring compliance with the Defense of Marriage Act.

Court Says Kentucky Clerk Cannot Refuse To Issue Marriage Licences

In Miller v. Davis, (ED KY, Aug. 12, 2015), a Kentucky federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis from continuing her policy of refusing to issue all marriage licenses because of her religious objections to issuing licences to same-sex couples.  The injunction enjoins Davis from applying the policy to future marriage license requests submitted by plaintiffs in the case.

Rejecting free exercise, free speech, religious test and Kentucky Religious Freedom Act arguments, the court held:

Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk.

The Kentucky ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.  AP reports on the decisionl  Davis immediately filed a Notice of Appeal (full text). [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Draft Executive Order Would Expand Free Exercise Protections

The Nation reported yesterday on a leaked copy of a draft Executive Order on Religious Freedom which is currently being circulated by the White House, saying:

The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act. 

The draft titled Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom is set out in full in The Nation report.  The Order provides in part:

“Religious organization” shall be construed broadly to encompass any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations, operated for a religious purpose, even if its purpose is not exclusively religious, and is not limited to houses of worship or tax-exempt organizations, or organizations controlled by or associated with a house of worship or a convention or association of churches.

Sec. 3 Religious Freedom Principles and Policymaking Criteria. All executive branch departments and agencies (“agencies”) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, adhere to the following principles and criteria when formulating and implementing regulations, actions, or policies:

(a) Religious freedom is not confined to religious organizations or limited to religious exercise that takes place in houses of worship or the home. It is guaranteed to persons of all faiths and extends to all activities of life.

(b) Persons and organizations do not forfeit their religious freedom when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts: or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments....

Minister Uses Invocation To Lobby Against Civil Union Bill

What are the appropriate limits on the content of an invocation opening a legislative session? The Newark Star-Ledger yesterday reported that Rev. Vincent Fields, pastor of Greater Works Ministries, offered a controversial prayer at the opening of the New Jersey Senate on Monday. Just as the Senate's Judiciary Committee approved legislation to allow gays and lesbians to form civil unions with the same rights as married couples, the minister in his invocation said: "We curse the spirit that would come to bring about same-sex marriage." Sen. Loretta Weinberg, sponsor of the civil union bill, said that it is inappropriate to use the invocation to lobby for or against legislation.

UPDATE: New Jersey Senate President Richard Codey said that Rev. Fields will not be invited back to deliver an invocation. In the past, Fields has also been criticized for not keeping his invocations non-sectarian. (Newark Star-Ledger, Dec. 13.)

Ohio Settles EEOC-Justice Suit On Employee Objections To Union Dues

Today the U.S. Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced a consent decree that resolves religious discrimination lawsuits against the state of Ohio, various state agencies and OCSEA (AFSCME, Local 11, AFL-CIO), a union that represents state employees. The suits alleged that the various defendants violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when they permitted members of churches that have historically opposed unionization to pay an amount equivalent to their union dues to charity, but refused to grant the same treatment to religious objectors who do not belong to these churches. They were required to pay a representation fee to the union. The suit arose out of an employee's religious objections to supporting OCSEA because the union had taken positions in favor of abortion rights and same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) EEOC Regional Attorney Jacqueline H. McNair said that the consent decree "will protect approximately 37,000 public employees covered by the State of Ohio’s collective bargaining agreement with the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association."

Religious Activists Protesting Social Service Cuts Arrested At Capitol

Today at the Cannon House Office Building, U.S. Capitol Police arrested 115 liberal religious activists who were part of a peaceful sit-in protesting a Republican budget bill that would cut $42 billion over five years from a range of federal programs, including health care for the poor and elderly and possibly child care, student loans and food stamps. Reuters today reported on the developments and indicated that also local prayer vigils were being planned for today in 32 states by "Call to Renewal," a network of churches and other religious organizations. UPDATE: An article syndicated by the Chicago Tribune reports on remarks at the rally by Christian activist, Rev. Jim Wallis.

Meanwhile, this morning the Washington Post ran an article asking: "Why in recent years have conservative Christians asserted their influence on efforts to relieve Third World debt, AIDS in Africa, strife in Sudan and international sex trafficking -- but remained on the sidelines while liberal Christians protest domestic spending cuts?" Conservative religious leaders answer that by arguing that it is a matter of priorities, saying their primary attention is focused on issues of abortion, same-sex marriage and seating judges who will back their position against those practices. Others, such as Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, focus on the responsibility of the private sector: "There is a [biblical] mandate to take care of the poor. There is no dispute of that fact," he said. "But it does not say government should do it. That's a shifting of responsibility."

Canada Enacts Law Permitting Gay Marriage, Protecting Religious Objections

Canada on Wednesday became the fourth country to officially recognize gay marriage as the Senate passed Bill C-38 (Washington Blade ) and the act received royal assent (RedNova News).

The new statute contains two provisions specifically protecting the religious freedom of those who object to gay unions: "officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs" and "no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom."

The full text and legislative history of the Act is available online.

New Petition To California Supreme Court Argues That Proposition 8 Must Still Be Enforced

While it has been widely assumed (see prior posting) that last month's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry reinstating a federal district court's injunction had the effect of legalizing same-sex marriage in California, a petition filed Friday with the California Supreme Court argues that this is not the case. (ADF press release). The petition and accompanying memorandum (full text) in Hollingsworth v. O'Connell, (CA Sup. Ct., filed 7/12/2013) seeks a writ of mandate ordering 58 county clerks to enforce Proposition 8. Petitioners, who were the official proponents of Proposition 8, argue in part in their filing with the California Supreme Court:

The Perry injunction is no bar to this outcome, for at least two reasons. First, that injunction does not require any county clerk to cease future enforcement of Proposition 8. The Perry court’s authority was limited to providing injunctive relief for the four plaintiffs in that case. Because those plaintiffs have recently been married, all relief due under that injunction has already been provided, and therefore none of the county clerks are required by that injunction to stop enforcing Proposition 8 in the future. Second, and alternatively, the Perry injunction does not require the 56 county clerks who were not defendants to that action to stop enforcing Proposition 8. The injunction purports to cover all persons under the supervision or control of the named state defendants. But none of those state officials have authority to supervise or control county clerks when issuing marriage licenses. Therefore, the Perry injunction does not bind the 56 county clerks not named as defendants in that case.

Justice Department Files Appellate Brief Defending DOMA

On Thursday, the federal government filed its much anticipated appellate brief (full text) in Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and a companion case defending the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, even though President Obama supports repeal of the law. A Massachusetts federal district court struck down the law last July, and the government appealed. (See prior posting.) The brief in the 1st Circuit appeal explains:

The Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Administration disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here. This longstanding and bipartisan tradition accords the respect appropriately due to a coequal branch of government and helps ensure that the Executive Branch will faithfully defend laws with which an Administration may disagree on policy grounds.

CBS News reports that the Justice Department consulted with gay rights groups to avoid arguments in its brief that are particularly offensive to gays and lesbians. The brief argues that DOMA "is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests" of maintaining a uniform status quo at the national level while states experiment with different approaches to same-sex marriage.

U.S. Bishops Create New Committee On Religious Liberty

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops announced last week that it has formed a new Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty "to address growing concerns over the erosion of freedom of religion in America." USCCB president Archbishop Timothy Dolan also sent a letter to fellow bishops informing them directly of the new Committee, saying:

The Framers of the Constitution themselves understood [religious liberty] ...  to be based on the norms inherent in Natural Law – namely, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."  This basic right, in its many and varied applications for Christians and people of faith, is now increasingly and in unprecedented ways under assault in America.

The new committee will be chaired by Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Among the pressing issues identified by the bishops are federal policies regarding reproductive health services, administration opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, the Justice Department's position on the "ministerial exception" doctrine, and the narrow religious exemptions in New York's same-sex marriage law.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Caitlin Millat, Race, Religion, and the Antiparallel, (American Journal of Law and Equality, Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 4776907 (2024).
• Danny Li, The Comstock Act's Equal Protection Problem, (April 26, 2024).
• Lawrence B. Solum, Original Public Meaning, (Michigan State Law Review, Vol. 2023, No. 807).
• Liz Tobin-Tyler, Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is: Maternal Health Policy After Dobbs, (Seton Hall Law Review, Vol. 53, 2023).
• Carlo A. Pedrioli, In re Marriage Cases, Same-Sex Marriage, and the California Supreme Court as Critical Social Movement Ally, (33 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J. 137 (2023)).
• Alberto Alemanno, Philanthropy’s Commitment With the Future, (in Futures Philanthropy: Aspirations in the 21st century. Anticipation for the common good, Copenhagen Institute for Future Studies and Philea, Brussels, March 2024).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Nicholas Stamates, The Legal Status of American Indians, South American Indians, and Alaska Natives under the Canon Law of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as seen through Papal Bull, Missions, Indian Boarding Schools, the Amazonian Synod, and Orthodox Autocephaly, (Indigenous Peoples' Journal of Law, Culture & Resistance, UCLA School of Law, Vol 10. (Forthcoming)).
• Abubakar Yusuf Mamud, Ummah: a Holistic Framework for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism in Nigeria, (March 16, 2024).
• Neil James Foster, Liability of a Bishop for Sexual Abuse Committed by Clergy: Bird v DP (A Pseudonym). (April 28, 2024).
• Tabrez Ebrahim, Islamic Intellectual Property, (Seton Hall Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 4, 2024).
• Craig B. Mousin, A Migrant 4 Life Journeys to the New Tower of Babel: Christianity and Immigration,  (Abrahamic Hospitality and Its Contemporary Implications, Ori Z. Soltes and Rachel Stern, eds., (NY: Fordham University Press, 2024)).
• Ebenezer Kojo Gyesi Mensah, Investigating International Criminal Law and Sovereignty Issues Surrounding the Prosecution of Heads of State for War Crimes and Genocide, (April 30, 2024).

From elsewhere:

• Special Issue: Theology and Jurisprudence, Australian Journal of Law & Religion, Volume 4 (2024).

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:
      Church-State and Religious Liberty:

• Diane Webber, Education as a Counterterrorism Tool and the Curious Case of the Texas School Book Resolution, (Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class, Forthcoming).
• Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, Religion, Land, and Rights, (Berkeley Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Law, Spring 2011).
• Iain T. Benson, That False Struggle between Believers and Non-Believers, (Oasis, Vol. 12, December 2010).
• Christoph Engel, Law as a Precondition for Religious Freedom, (MPI Collective Goods Preprint No. 2011/6, April 2011).
• Robert J. Miller, Christianity, American Indians, and the Doctrine of Discovery, (Remembering Jamestown: Hard Questions About Christian Mission, Amos Yong, Barbara Brown Zikmund, eds., Pickwick Publications, 2010).
• Nancy J. Kippenhan, Seeking Truth on the Other Side of the Wall: Greenleaf’s Evangelists Meet the Federal Rules, Naturalism, and Judas, (Liberty Law Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2010).
• Jeffrey Shulman, Epic Considerations: The Speech that the Supreme Court Would Not Hear in Snyder v. Phelps, (Cardozo Law Review de Novo, pp. 35-42, 2011).
• Richard Schragger, The Politics of Free Exercise After Employment Division v. Smith: Same-Sex Marriage, the 'War on Terror,' and Religious Freedom, (April 5, 2011).
• William A. Fischel, Do Amish One-Room Schools Make the Grade? The Dubious Data of Wisconsin v. Yoder, (March 31, 2011).

      Religious Law:

• Avishalom Westreich, Umdena as a Ground for Marriage Annulment: Between Mistaken Transaction (Kiddushei Ta‘ut) and Terminative Condition, (Jewish Law Association Studies, Vol. 20, pp. 330-352, 2010).
• Muhammad Munir, The Causes of War in Islam: Infidelity or the Defence of Faith?, (April 3, 2011).
• Omar Salah, Islamic Finance: Developments in the Sukuk Market, (Law and Financial Markets Review, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 507-517, September 2010).
• John J. Coughlin, Antinomianism and Legalism in Canon Law, (Contemporary Issues In Canon Law, Patricia M. Dugan, ed., Wilson and Lafleur, 2011).
• Qazi Irfan, Riba and Hadith of Six Commodities, (March 18, 2011).
• Geoffrey P. Miller, Law and Economics Versus Economic Analysis of Law, (NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 11-16, April 7, 2011).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Fatou Kine Camara and Abdourahmane Seck, Secularity and Freedom of Religion in Senegal: Between a Constitutional Rock and a Hard Reality, 2010 Brigham Young University Law Review 859-884.
• Hugo Leonel Ruano, In Search of New Believers: How the Guatemalan Religious Panorama Has Changed in Recent Decades, 2010 Brigham Young University Law Review 895-920.
• Paul Babie and Neville Rochow, Feels Like Deja Vu: Religious Freedom Under a Proposed Australian Bill of Rights, 2010 Brigham Young University Law Review 821-854.
• Tayseir M. Mandour, Islam and Religious Freedom: Role of Interfaith Dialogue in Promoting Global Peace, 2010 Brigham Young University Law Review 885-893.
• Kanak Bikram Thapa, Religion and Law in Nepal 2010 Brigham Young University Law Review 921-930.
• Ira C. Lupu, David Masci, Jesse R. Merriam, and Robert W. Tuttle, Churches in Court: The Legal Status of Religious Organizations in Civil Lawsuits, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, March 2011.

9th Circuit Issues Opinions on Standing, Recusal In Proposition 8 Challenge

Yesterday in Perry v. Schwarzenneger -- the challenge to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 that bars same-sex marriage-- the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued two opinions relating to standing of various intervenors. Judge Reinhardt filed a concurrence.  Rinehardt separately filed an opinion explaining his earlier decision to refuse to recuse himself in the case.

In the first per curiam opinion, the 9th Circuit found that that Imperial County, its Board of Supervisors and a Deputy Clerk all lacked standing to appeal the district court's order finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional.  In the second per curiam opinion, the 9th Circuit certified to the California Supreme Court the question of whether under California law "official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so."

Judge Reinhardt's concurrence attempted to explain why standing was a problem in the case, and expressed his frustration with the posture of the case. It said in part:

There can be little doubt that when the Plaintiffs filed this action their purpose was to establish that there was a constitutional right to gay marriage, and to do so by obtaining a decision of the Supreme Court to that effect. Yet ... the complaint they filed and the injunction they obtained determines only that Proposition 8 may not be enforced in two of California’s fifty-eight counties.... [I]t is clear that ... Plaintiffs could have obtained a statewide injunction had they filed an action against a broader set of defendants.... Why preeminent counsel and the major law firms of which they are a part failed to do that is a matter on which I will not speculate.

Next, the problem of standing would have been eliminated had the Governor or the Attorney General defended the initiative, as is ordinarily their obligation. Because they believed Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional, they did not do so here. Whether their decision not to defend the initiative was proper is a matter of some debate, although I sympathize with their view that in extraordinary circumstances they possess that right....

Imperial County, one of the counties that voted in favor of Proposition 8, sought to intervene, but for some unknown reason attempted to do so through a deputy clerk who asserted her own rights instead of through the Clerk.... Again, this was a most puzzling legal decision. While we have not ruled as to whether the Clerk would have had standing, we have held that a deputy clerk does not. There are forty-two counties that voted in favor of Proposition 8. Surely [proponents]... could have found a Clerk who would have presented the issue whether a Clerk rather than a deputy has standing.

Finally Judge Reinhardt filed a Memorandum explaining his earlier refusal to recuse himself. (See prior posting.) Reinhardt's wife is head of the Southern California chapter of the ACLU and in that role has been an outspoken opponent of Prop 8. Also the ACLU joined in two amicus briefs filed at the district court level in the case. Reinhardt said in part:

Proponents' contention that I should recuse myself due to my wife's opinions is based upon an outmoded conception of the relationship between spouses.... [H]er views regarding issues of public significance are her own, and cannot be imputed to me, no matter how prominently she expresses them....

The San Francisco Chronicle reports on the decisions.

3 New USCIRF Commissioners Appointed by House Speaker Johnson

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom is comprised of 9 Commissioners, 3 selected by the President, 2 selected by Congressional leaders of the President's party, and 4 selected by Congressional leaders of the other party. Commissioners are appointed for two-year terms.  Wednesday, the appointment of 3 Commissioners by Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was announced in the Congressional Record. The new Commissioners are Vicky Hartzler, Maureen Ferguson and Asif Mahmood.

Maureen Ferguson is a Senior Fellow with The Catholic Association and co-host of the radio show Conversations with Consequences. She is also on the Advisory Committee for the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame.

Asif Mahmood, who was born in Pakistan and received his medical education there, is a member of the Medical Board of California, is on the board of Hope of the Valley Rescue Mission, is on the California Democratic Party Central Committee and was an unsuccessful Democratic candidate for Congress from California in 2022. 

Vicky Hartzler, a conservative Christian, served 6 terms in Congress from Missouri before losing a bid for a Senate seat from Missouri in 2022. According to the Kansas City Star:

She rose to prominence in Missouri as face of the campaign to ban same-sex marriage in Missouri in 2004, traveling the state to support an amendment to the state’s constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman....

[In Congress] She sponsored bills to protect Christians persecuted in China and often signed on to legislation purporting to advance religious freedom. She also continued to push back against LGBTQ rights.

CLARIFICATION UPDATE: Sec. 6431 of the International Religious Freedom Act provides:

(ii) Three members of the Commission shall be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate, of which two of the members shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the leader in the Senate of the political party that is not the political party of the President, and of which one of the members shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the leader in the Senate of the other political party. (iii) Three members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of which two of the members shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the leader in the House of the political party that is not the political party of the President, and of which one of the members shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the leader in the House of the other political party.

Suit Challenging Indiana Anti-Discrimination Laws Moves Ahead

As reported by the Indianapolis Star, an Indiana state trial court judge is allowing a lawsuit filed by three conservative advocacy organizations to move ahead.  The suit challenges laws barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  The organizations assert that the laws infringe on their free exercise rights. The suit challenges the ordinances of four Indiana cities as well as the so-called "fix" to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act that prevents using RFRA to discriminate. The order (full text) in Indiana Family Institute, Inc. v. City of Carmel, Indiana, (IN Super. Ct., Nov. 16, 2016), however, requires plaintiffs to file an amended complaint adding the state of Indiana as a party. In a statement (press release), plaintiffs' counsel said:

Plaintiffs currently stand stripped of the heightened legal protection provided under RFRA and must host speakers and hire employees who advocate for same-sex marriage contrary to their religious beliefs. We believe in the constitutionally protected free-exercise of religion that affects people who advocate for traditional marriage, just as it protects all other religious beliefs.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Belinda Carpenter, Gordon Tait, Carol Quadrelli & Ian Thompson, Investigating Death: The Emotional and Cultural Challenges for Police, (Policing and Society, 26(6), pp. 698-712 (2015)).
• Neil James Foster, Churches and the Law of Sanctuary in Australia, (March 4, 2016).
• Neil James Foster, How Should Religious Marriage Celebrants Respond If Same Sex Marriage Is Introduced in Australia?, (September 25, 2015).
• Fabienne Bretscher, The Swiss Judiciary and International Human Rights Bodies: A Closer Look at Muslim Religious Practices in Public Schools, (June 14, 2016).
• Joel Nolette, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt: Judicial Review When the Court Wants To, (Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2016).
• Susan A. Bandes, Compassion and the Rule of Law, (International Journal of Law in Context vol. 13 issue 2 (2017 Forthcoming)).
• Eric Franklin, A More Charitable Charity: Administrative Necessity Provides an Opportunity to Promote Altruism in Charities, (December 14, 2016).

From SSRN (Islamic Law);

• Ibrahim Nuruddeen Muhammad, Waqf Based Philanthropy: A Definition and Obstacles to Waqf Knowledge Acquisition in North-Western Nigeria, (1st Kano Waqf International Conference (KWIC) (Dec. 2016).
• Sakirman MSI, Indonesia Islamic Law Study on Children Nasab,  (December 21, 2016).
• Avner M. Emon, Fiqh (A Historiography), (Fiqh: The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law, Edited by Anver M. Emon and Rumee Ahmed (2016)).
• Avner M. Emon, Ijtihad, (Ijtihad: The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law Edited by Anver M. Emon and Rumee Ahmed (2015).

From SmartCILP:

• Reza Afshari, LGBTs in the Islamic Republic of Iran. (Reviewing Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights in Iran: Analysis from Religious, Social, Legal and Cultural Perspectives, by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission), 38 Human Rights Quarterly 814-834 (2016).
• Nehaluddin Ahmad, Ahmad Masum & Abdul Mohaimin Ayus, Freedom of Religion and Apostasy: The Malaysian Experience, 38 Human Rights Quarterly 736-753 (2016).
• Jeffrey A. Herman, Resolving ERISA's "Church Plan" Problem, 31 A.B.A. Journal of Labor & Employment Law 231-256 (2016).
• B. Jessie Hill, The First Amendment and the Politics of Reproductive Health Care, 50 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 103-122 (2016).

Wedding Services Company Challenges Public Accommodation Non-Discrimination Ordinance

A Christian minister, Kristi Stokes, the owner of Covenant Weddings LLC, filed suit in an Ohio federal district court this week challenging the constitutionality of Cuyahoga County, Ohio's public accommodation ordinance (full text) which which makes it illegal for any public accommodation to

discriminate against, or treat differently any person except for reasons applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, military status, national origin, disability, age, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression...

The complaint (full text) in Covenant Weddings LLC v. Cuyahoga County, (ND OH, filed 7/22/2020) alleges in part:

The County ... cannot rescind religious liberty and free speech by relabelling them discrimination....

Through Covenant Weddings, Kristi personally officiates and writes custom homilies, vows, and prayers for weddings...

The Accommodations Clause forces Kristi to provide her wedding services for same-sex wedding ceremonies or for wedding ceremonies where a marrying individual identifies as the opposite sex and would require Kristi to proclaim messages and to participate in religious ceremonies that violate her religious beliefs, which she cannot do.... 

This undercuts Kristi’s message (expressed elsewhere in her social media accounts and wedding services) celebrating marriage between one man and one woman; harms Kristi’s reputation among her past and prospective clients; undermines her editorial control over what services she offers to the public; and adversely affects Kristi’s ability to share biblical truths about marriage with others....

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

University's Diversity Officer, Demoted For Anti-Gay Marriage Views, Loses Discrimination Lawsuit

In McCaskill v. Galludet University, (D DC, April 14, 2014), the District of Columbia federal district court dismissed a lawsuit brought by Angela McCaskill, Gallaudet University's former Chief Diversity Officer. The University placed McCaskill on administrative leave and eventually demoted her after it become known that at her church she had signed a petition to get a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage on the Maryland ballot. The University justified its action on the ground that McCaskill's ability to advocate for her constituents, particularly the university's gay community, had been compromised.  McCaskill brought the suit alleging discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, and political affiliation in violation of D.C.'s Human Rights Act; infliction of emotional distress; and defamation. In rejecting McCaskill's religious discrimination  claim, the court said in part:

Even if Gallaudet knew of her religious convictions or was aware that those convictions motivated her to sign the petition – a fact that remains hazy on the face of the Complaint – there is no factual allegation that her religion somehow prompted her suspension or demotion. ... [A]lthough it may be true that McCaskill signed the petition because she is a Christian ... the university cannot be guilty of discrimination on that basis.

Washington Business Journal reports on the decision.