Louis Farrakhan Sues Anti-Defamation League for $4.8 Billion

Suit was filed earlier this month in a New York federal district court by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan against the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center seeking $4.8 billion in damages. The suit alleges that defendants are interfering with Farrakhan's activities through labeling him as an antisemite. The complaint (full text) in Farrakhan v. Anti-Defamation League, (SD NY, filed 10/16/2023), alleges violations of the First Amendment's protections for freedom of association and free exercise of religion, as well as alleging causes of action for defamation. The complaint contends that the Anti-Defamation Leage is a "de facto, quasi-governmental actor", alleging in part:

 344.... [O]n or about December 20, 2022, the Defendant ADL submitted a demand letter directly to the Office of Management and Budget ... for funds it desired to be redirected from programs and services that benefit the average American citizen to its own coffers to be used as it sees fit....

345.Extraordinarily, that same demand letter brazenly commanded the OMB to allocate funds to other agencies and departments of the U.S. government that it, and/or its functionaries, would directly benefit from....

348.Based upon the regulations of the U.S. government, Defendant ADL’s fiscal appropriations demand made directly to the OMB incontrovertibly establishes it as a quasi-governmental agency....

More generally, the complaint says in part:

2. For nearly forty (40) years, the Anti-Defamation League ..., later joined by the Simon Wiesenthal Center ..., in violation of the rights and protections guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, have engaged in actions to hinder Minister Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam from continuing the Mission that Allah (God) gave to the Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad. 

3. That Mission, accepted by Minister Farrakhan, is to deliver the Truth that will correct the condition of spiritual, mental and moral death of the black man and woman of America that came as a result of the 310 years of chattel slavery and over 150 years of oppression and suppression, thereafter....

6. This lawsuit is to ensure that the abuse, misuse, and false use of the terms “anti-Semite,” “anti-Semitic,” and “antisemitism,” as falsely charged by the Defendants is permanently barred from being a tool to defame Plaintiffs and stifle the exercise of constitutional rights.

The Forward reports on the lawsuit.

Court Enjoins Enforcement of Kansas Abortion Disclosure and Waiting Period Requirements

 In Hodes & Nauser MDs PA v. Kobach, (KS Dist. Ct., Oct. 30, 2023), a Kansas state trial court in a 92-page opinion issued a temporary injunction barring enforcement of the abortion disclosure and waiting period requirements in Kansas Woman’s-Right-to-Know Act and its Medication Abortion Reversal Amendment. The court, relying on state constitutional provisions, said in part:

The Kansas Supreme Court has previously noted that trial courts face a “heavy task” when wrestling with these issues, and this Court concurs in the observation that no easy decisions exist on what may be one of the most divisive social issues of our modern history.... Inevitably, some likely will disagree or take issue with the interim conclusions reached herein on Plaintiffs’ motion for a Temporary Injunction, whether based upon specific moral, ethical, or spiritual concerns. However, such considerations are (and must be) separate and apart from this Court’s role in evaluating the potential constitutional encroachment (or lack thereof) of the State’s efforts to impose its authority under the auspices of police power, given our state Founding Father’s emphasis on (and the primacy of) the people’s inalienable natural rights. Those constitutional guarantees include the people’s rights to make their own decisions regarding their bodies, health, family formation, and family life-decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy—all of which are necessary corollaries to the right of bodily autonomy. Similarly, the right to freedom of speech, whether to speak or avoid compelled speech, is also a fundamental right that our state founders held dear and enshrined in the Bill of Rights, thus, it demands protection under a strict scrutiny standard in this case....

The Court has great respect for the deeply held beliefs on either side of this contentious issue. Nevertheless, the State’s capacity to legislate pursuant to its own moral scruples is necessarily curbed by the Kansas Constitution and its Bill of Rights. The State may pick a side and viewpoint, but in doing so, it may not trespass upon the natural inalienable rights of the people. In this case, the preliminary record before the Court demonstrates that the provisions at issue invade and unconstitutionally infringe upon Kansans’ fundamental rights under Section 1 and 11 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.

KWCH News reported on the decision.

Pennsylvania Legislature Repeals Ban on Public School Teachers Wearing Religious Garb or Insignia

Yesterday, the Pennsylvania legislature gave final passage to Senate Bill 84 (full text) which repeals Pennsylvania's ban on public school teachers wearing any religious garb or insignia in the classroom. According to Penn Live, Governor Josh Shapiro is expected to sign the bill when it reaches his desk. Pennsylvania is the only state that still has such a ban on its books. In Nichol v. Arin Intermediate Unit 28, (WD PA, June 25, 2003), a Pennsylvania federal district court, in a preliminary injunction action, held that the law likely violates the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment. After the decision, plaintiff was rehired and given back pay. (See Senate Memo on SB 84.)

British Court Rejects Muslim Mother's Objections to Child's Routine Vaccinations

 In WSP (A Child), Re (Vaccination: Religious Objection, (EWHC (Family), Oct. 23, 2023), a British trial court rejected a claim by a Muslim mother that her rights under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights were being violating when the state insisted on routine vaccinations for her 9-month old son who, because of the mother's mental health condition, was in custody of the state. According to the court, the mother contended:

 ... [T]he use of animal products or animal testing in the production of the vaccines means that some (but not all) Muslims consider their use to be 'haram' (forbidden).... She is concerned that, if vaccinated, WSP would suffer emotional or psychological harm. If he does something haram without repenting, 'this would take him out of the fold of Islam, as he would not have adhered to the rulings of God made for people'. It would be harmful for him to have to repent for something he had no control over.... He may feel guilty and confused. He may question why his mother or grandparents did not stop the immunisations. He may also question his religion and his place within the family and/ or community if he has not allowed the same religious observances as others....

The court concluded in part:

... [I]n the absence of cogent, objective evidence of harm to his welfare, the mother's objections on religious grounds do not otherwise outweigh WSP's welfare interests in receiving the vaccinations....  Her religious objections must be given respect.... However, those religious views do not carry more weight the more strongly they are held or the more forcefully they are expressed.... Given my conclusion that the welfare reasons the mother has put forward do not outweigh WSP's interests in receiving the vaccines, the fact of her objection, even on well-founded religious grounds and however strongly expressed, takes the matter no further. WSP's welfare is the paramount consideration and the mother's objection is inconsistent with his welfare. The fact her objection is founded on her religious beliefs does not constitute a trump card that overrides what is otherwise in his best interests.

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.                                                                                                              

Satanic Temple Lacks Standing to Challenge Indiana Abortion Ban

 In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Rokita, (SD IN, Oct. 23, 2023), an Indiana federal district court dismissed The Satanic Temple's challenge under Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the state's ban on abortions. The court dismissed for lack of standing, finding that TST failed to identify any of its members who are pregnant and has no clinic of its own operating in Indiana. Indiana's Attorney General issued a press release announcing the decision. Indiana Capital Chronicle reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Paul E. McGreal, Reforming the Ministerial Exception, (Villanova Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 1, 2024).
• Marc O. DeGirolami, Establishment as Tradition, (Yale Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Nicholas Aroney & Mark Fowler, Freedom of Association in Australia, (September 28, 2023).
• Ofra Bloch & Barak Medina, The Two Revolutions of Israel’s National Identity, (Israel Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Manal Totry-Jubran, Constitutionalising Israel’s Constitutional System, (Israel Law Review (2023) 1-14).
• Ronli Sifris, Abortion in Australia: Law, Policy, and the Advancement of Reproductive Rights, (Mary Ziegler (ed), Research Handbook on International Abortion Law (Edward Elgar, 2023)).
• Barak Medina, Legal Challenges of Mass Demonstrations: The Case of Israel, (September 24, 2023).
• Kevin C. Walsh, The Elevation of Reality over Restraint in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2023).
• Robert Post, Public Accommodations and the First Amendment: 303 Creative and "Pure Speech", (September 13, 2023).
• Michelle M. Wu, Book Bans, Abortion Laws, and Gender-Affirming Treatment: How Requiring Government Action to Pass a Faith-Neutral, Public Purpose Test Would Better Protect the Right to Religious Liberty, (September 25, 2023).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Symposium, About the Future of Religious Freedom, Iowa Law Review, Vol. 108, Issue 5 (Oct. 2022).
• Australian Journal of Law & Religion, Vol. 3 (2023).

President's Statement on 25th Anniversary of International Religious Freedom Act

On Friday, President Biden issued a Statement (full text) the 25th Anniversary of the International Religious Freedom Act. He said in part:

Here at home, we are facing a rising tide of antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of discrimination that are fueling violence and hate across our country. And, around the world, billions of people live in countries where they are either persecuted or prevented from freely choosing, practicing, teaching, or leaving their faith. That’s especially true for members of religious minority communities too often endure intimidation, violence, and unequal protection under the law, while also facing restrictions on their movement, constraints on their access to education and healthcare, and the fear that their children will be taken and their faith erased. We have seen attacks on Christians in some countries. And we also continue to see repressive governments and violent extremists reach across borders and to target groups for their beliefs—an abhorrent abuse of the human rights and dignity entitled to all people.

 The United States will continue to defend religious freedom, today and always.

[Corrected]. 

West Virginia School Settles Suit Over Religious Activities

The Freedom From Religion Foundation announced yesterday the settlement of a suit against a West Virginia school, its principal and a substitute teacher for scheduling and hosting an evangelical Christian revival as an assembly in the school auditorium during homeroom period in violation of the Establishment Clause.  Yesterday the parties jointly dismissed Mays v. Cabell County Board of Education, (SD WV, dismissed 10/26/2023).. According to FFRF:

As part of a settlement, the board agreed to amend its policies relating to religion in schools. The board voted on Oct. 17 to adopt the policy revisions. Significantly, those changes require annual training of teachers about religion in school. School administrators also are tasked with greater monitoring of school events. Finally, the policy provides greater detail to ensure that employees do not initiate or lead students in religious activities. [Full text of amended policy.]

The settlement also includes nominal damages and attorneys' fees of $175,000 paid by the school board's insurers. (See prior related posting.)

Tennessee Sues to Restore Title X Grant Without Making Abortion Referrals

Tennessee's Attorney General this week filed suit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services seeking to restore Tennessee's $7 million annual Title X family planning grant which had been cancelled because of the state's abortion referral policy.  The complaint (full text) in State of Tennessee v. Becerra, (ED TN, filed 10/24/2023), challenges the HHS rule that requires Title X grantees to furnish information and nondirective counseling on abortion if pregnant clients request it.  Tennessee was only willing to make referrals and provide counseling as to procedures that are legal in Tennessee,  HHS takes the position that where, as in Tennessee, abortion is outlawed, out-of-state referrals would be required. the suit contends that the HHS rule violates various provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. It asks the court, among other things, to:

Enjoin Defendants from withholding Title X funds from Tennessee for refusing to offer counseling and referrals (including out-of-state) for abortions that are otherwise illegal under Tennessee law.

Catholic World Report reports on the lawsuit.

Texas Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments from JP Sanctioned for Refusing to Perform Same-Sex Weddings

The Texas Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in Hensley v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, (TX Sup. Ct., Oct. 25, 2023). (Briefs filed in the case.) In the case, the state Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit challenging a public warning issued by the Commission on Judicial Conduct that concluded plaintiff, a justice of the peace, had cast doubt on her ability to act impartially toward LGBTQ litigants. Plaintiff refused to perform same-sex weddings, while continuing to perform weddings for heterosexual couples. She contended that the Commission on Judicial Conduct violated her rights under the Texas Religious Freedom Act. (See prior posting.)  The appeals court held that the suit was an impermissible collateral attack on the Commission's order. Texas Tribune reports on the oral arguments.

OK Supreme Court: Church Autonomy Doctrine Requires Dispute Over Disaffiliation to Be Dismissed

In Oklahoma Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church v. Timmons, (OK Sup. Ct., Oct. 24, 2023), the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that under the church autonomy doctrine, a state trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the temporary injunction it had entered in a dispute between the United Metodist Church and a local congregation, some of whose members wished to have the congregation disaffiliate from the parent body.  The initial vote by the Church of the Servant congregation fell slightly short of the number needed under United Methodist Book of Discipline to disaffiliate. The District Superintendent refused to exercise the discretion he had under Church rules to call another vote on the matter within a specified time period. The trial court concluded that the District Superintendent was biased against the congregation and ordered the parent body to allow a revote, even though it was beyond the time specified for it in the Book of Discipline.  The Supreme Court said in part: 

In ordering the temporary mandatory injunction in favor of Church of the Servant, Respondent found the church was likely to succeed on the merits and would be irreparably harmed without the injunction.... In so finding, the District Court interpretated the Book of Discipline church doctrine and procedures for UMC and fashioned a remedy contrary to Book of Discipline procedures.

New House Speaker Has Long Record of Conservative Advocacy on Religious Freedom Issues

Newly elected Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Mike Johnson (R- LA), has a long record, before he was in Congress, of advocacy on conservative Christian religious issues.  Wikipedia reports:

Before his election to Congress, Johnson was a partner in the Kitchens Law Firm and a senior attorney and national media spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund, now known as Alliance Defending Freedom. Johnson was also formerly chief counsel of the nonprofit law firm Freedom Guard.

In September 2016, Johnson characterized his legal career as "defending religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and biblical values, including the defense of traditional marriage, and other ideals like these when they’ve been under assault."

Johnson served as a trustee of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission within the Southern Baptist Convention from 2004 to 2012.

Johnson came to some prominence in the late 1990s when he and his wife appeared on national television to represent Louisiana's newly passed marriage covenant laws, which made divorce more difficult legally.

Louisiana House of Representatives

After the 8th District seat was vacated in 2015, Johnson ran for the position unopposed....

In April 2015, Johnson proposed the Marriage and Conscience Act, a bill similar in content to Indiana's controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed a few days earlier, though Johnson denied that his legislation was based on the Indiana law.

Johnson's Marriage and Conscience Act would have prevented adverse treatment by the State of any person or entity on the basis of the views they may hold with regard to marriage. Critics denounced the bill as an attempt to protect people who discriminate against same-sex married couples.

An e-mail statement from First Liberty Institute says that Johnson was also once a First Liberty attorney.

Georgia Supreme Court: 2019 Heartbeat Abortion Ban Was Not Void Ab Initio

In State of Georgia v. SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, (GA Sup. Ct., Oct. 24, 2023), the Georgia Supreme Court rejected a state trial court's holding that the state's heartbeat abortion ban (Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act) enacted in 2019 was void ab initio. The state Supreme Court had previously granted a stay of the trial court's order while the appeal was pending. Yesterday's decision keeps the law in effect while other challenges to it work their way through the courts. In yesterday's decision, the court said in part:

[T]he trial court concluded that portions of the LIFE Act were void when enacted in 2019 because they “were plainly unconstitutional [under the United States Constitution] when drafted, voted upon, and enacted.” According to the trial court, this was true even though the LIFE Act would comply with the United States Constitution if enacted today and the same United States Constitution governs today as governed when the LIFE Act was enacted.

This incorrect conclusion rests on a faulty premise — that, in Dobbs, the United States Supreme Court changed not only its interpretation of the United States Constitution but also the meaning of the Constitution itself. This could be true, however, only if (1) the United States Supreme Court, as opposed to the United States Constitution, is the source of the Constitution’s meaning or (2) the United States Supreme Court has the power not only to interpret the Constitution but also to amend it.... [B]oth of these propositions conflict with well-established, foundational principles of law that are essential to our system of government.

The case now goes back to the trial court for it to consider other challenges under the state constitution to the law.

Justice Ellington filed a dissenting opinion. WABE News reports on the decision. ACLU issued a press release reacting to the decision.

Consent Decree Entered In RLUIPA Suit Charging Discrimination Against Orthodox Jews

Last week, a New York federal district court entered a consent decree (full text) in United States v. Village of Airmont, (SD NY, Oct. 19, 2023). The decree settles a RLUIPA suit brought by the Justice Department charging the Village with religious discrimination. The consent decree supersedes a preliminary injunction issued by consent in 2021. (See prior posting.) According to the Justice Department's press release describing last week's consent decree:

The lawsuit alleged that Airmont had revised its zoning code in 2018 to discriminate against Orthodox Jewish residents and make it more difficult for them to worship in their own homes. The consent decree increases the amount of space in private homes that can be used for worship, removes restrictions that limited who residents are allowed to invite into their own homes to pray and eliminates the use of an arbitrary, drawn-out application process designed to delay and effectively deny permits for even minor alterations to private houses. Since 1991, this is the third lawsuit brought by the United States against Airmont for discriminating against the Orthodox Jewish community.

Principal Can Move Ahead with Claim He Was Nonrenewed Because of Speech to Fellowship of Christian Athletes

In Littlefield v. Weld County School District RE-5J, (D CO, Oct. 19, 2023), a Colorado federal district court refused to dismiss a retaliation claim against a school Superintendent brought by a former high school principal who was demoted and then whose contract was not renewed. Plaintiff, who alleged discrimination because he was a conservative Christian male, claimed that these action against him were taken because of a motivational speech he had given to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes before school started. The court said in part:

Dr. Littlefield has plausibly alleged that Ms. Arnold retaliated against him for his association with the FCA in violation of his First Amendment rights when she issued a negative performance review and demoted him.

Plaintiff's freedom of association claim against the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources was dismissed.

Oklahoma AG Sues State's Charter School Board Over Its Approval of Religious Charter School

Last week Oklahoma's Attorney General filed suit against the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board challenging its approval of the Catholic Archdiocese's application for a state-funded online religious charter school. (See prior related posting.) The ACLU and Americans United had previously filed suit in a state trial court challenging the Board's action. The Attorney General's action was filed directly with the Oklahoma Supreme Court. As reported by PBS News, the AG's action came after 3 members of the Board signed a contract this week for the school. In Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, (OK Sup. Ct., filed 10/20/2023), the Attorney General filed an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Declaratory Judgment, as well as a Brief in Support (full text) of its motions. The brief reads in part:

Make no mistake, if the Catholic Church were permitted to have a public virtual charter school, a reckoning will follow in which this State will be faced with the unprecedented quandary of processing requests to directly fund all petitioning sectarian groups....  For example, this reckoning will require the State to permit extreme sects of the Muslim faith to establish a taxpayer funded public charter school teaching Sharia Law. Consequently, absent the intervention of this Court, the Board members’ shortsighted votes in violation of their oath of office and the law will pave the way for a proliferation of the direct public funding of religious schools whose tenets are diametrically opposed by most Oklahomans.

As to the merits, this case is simple: Oklahoma’s Constitution disallows sectarian control of its public schools and the support of sectarian practices—indirect or otherwise....

The brief also asserted that the Board's action violates the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause. The Oklahoma Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Colorado Ban on Medication Abortion Reversal Violates Clinic's Free Exercise Rights

In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, (D CO, Oct. 21, 2023), a Colorado federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the state from taking enforcement action under a law enacted earlier this year against an anti-abortion pregnancy center for offering and advertising its medication abortion reversal services. The court said in part:

Bella Health considers it a religious obligation to provide treatment for pregnant mothers and to protect unborn life if the mother seeks to stop or reverse an abortion.... The State Defendants have not contested that SB 23-190 burdens Bella Health’s religious practice. Indeed, it is not up to the State or the Court to second-guess the sincerity of Bella Health’s religious motivations or to suggest alternative means of satisfying Plaintiffs’ religious calling. 

The more difficult question is whether Section Three’s prohibition on abortion pill reversal is neutral and generally applicable. It is not for three reasons. First, the law treats comparable secular activity more favorably than Bella Health’s religious activity.... Second, the law contains mechanisms for exemptions that undercut the State’s expressed interests.... Third, the law’s object and effect is to burden religious conduct in a way that is not neutral.

Colorado Politics reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Sergiy Panasyuk, Public Policy in Ukraine During Wartime: The Freedom of Religion v. National Defense Needs, (IACL-AIDC Blog 2023).
• Tamar Hostovsky Brandes, The Constitutional Overhaul and the West Bank: Is Israel’s Constitutional Moment Occupied?, (Israel Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Cometan, International Religious Rights and Standards (September 23, 2023).
• Tyler Shannon, Texas Proposition 3: A State Constitutional Response To Restrictions On Religious Gatherings, (55 Texas Tech Law Review 559 (2023)).
• Colleen Murphy & Lesley M. Wexler, Non-State Punishment, (University of Illinois Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Prerna, Review Article on the Book: Religious Liberty in Western and Islamic Law- Toward a World Legal Tradition by Kristine Kalanges (March 10, 2023).
• Asra Tufail Dahraj, Taxation in Pakistan in the Light of Islam and Modern Economics (September 20, 2023).

From elsewhere:

• Adelaide Madera, LGBTQ+ Rights v. Religious Claims: Navigating the Tensions Between RFRA and Title VII, Canopy Forum, Oct. 2023).
• Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 38, Issue 2 (May 2023).

Christian Pre-School May Get State Aid Without Complying With Non-Discrimination Rules Which Violate Its Beliefs

In Darren Patterson Christian Academy v. Roy, (D CO, Oct. 20, 2023), a Colorado federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring Colorado from excluding a private Christian pre-school from its Univeral Pre-School Program. The state requires participating schools to agree that they will not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, citizenship status, education, disability, socio-economic status, or any other identity.” The court said in part:

... [T]he Department’s non-discrimination policy likely violates Plaintiff’s rights by interfering with the school’s selection of key employees in accordance with its religious convictions under the “ministerial exception.” ...

Second, Plaintiff has the right to expressive association which the State’s hiring rules likely violate.... The freedom to associate with others also includes the freedom not to associate with others if doing so would compromise the associating group’s expression of beliefs....

Third, the Department’s rules also force Plaintiff to choose between adhering to religious beliefs and risking exclusion from the program or complying with the Department’s rules. In the specific context of excluding religious schools from participation in educational benefits programs, the Supreme Court has thrice held that a state may not exclude religious observers from receiving otherwise available educational funding because of a school’s religious status or practice....

Plaintiff seeks to hire only coreligionists, and to continue internal policies related to gender distinctions rooted in religious beliefs. These polices violate the Department’s non-discrimination standards for participating preschools.... The First Amendment forbids imposing such a choice.

Fourth, the State’s rules are likely not neutral and generally applicable..... They allow both categorical and individualized exemptions that would undermine the government asserted interests, and thereby trigger strict scrutiny.... See Fulton v. City ...

Plaintiff is also likely to succeed on the merits of its Free Speech claim, at least to the extent that the state would require Plaintiff and its staff to use a student’s or employee’s preferred pronouns as a condition of participating in the program.

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

Canadian Court Says Oath to Monarchy Does Not Infringe Sikh Lawyer's Rights

In Wirring v. Law Society of Alberta, (AB KB, Oct. 16, 2023), the Court of King's Bench of the Canadian province of Alberta (sitting as a trial court) rejected a challenge to the oath of allegiance to the British monarch that law school graduates are required to take in order to be admitted to the Law Society and practice law in Alberta. According to the court:

Mr. Wirring is an amritdhari Sikh. He has pledged an absolute oath of allegiance to Akal Purakh, the divine being in the Sikh tradition. Mr. Wirring asserts that the oath of allegiance to the Queen is incompatible with the oath he has sworn to Akal Purakh.

The court held, however, that the oath requirement did not infringe plaintiff's freedom of religion, or his equality rights, that are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court said in part:

[117]  ... [T]he Oath of Allegiance ... should be interpreted ... not as an oath to the Queen as a person, but as a symbolic oath to our constitutional democracy by those seeking to be barristers and solicitors....

[165]      I ... accept Mr. Wirring’s own words that he can only see the Oath of Allegiance as an oath to the Queen. However, and importantly, I do not find that portion of his evidence to be part of his sincerely held religious belief. The conclusion that the Oath of Allegiance is an oath to the Queen is Mr. Wirring’s own legal interpretation....

[166]      ... [T]he interpretation of the Oath of Allegiance is an objective exercise performed by the Court....

[172]      Because I have found the Oath of Allegiance to be symbolic, Mr. Wirring is not required under the LPA to pledge allegiance to a spiritual or secular entity other than Akal Purakh. Therefore, there is no objective interference with Mr. Wirring’s freedom of religion by the state.

[173]      ... [I]t is Mr. Wirring’s misunderstanding of the Oath of Allegiance’s meaning, and not the requirement to take the Oath of Allegiance, which is preventing him from admission to the legal profession in Alberta.

YesPunjab reports on the decision.