Christian Evangelists May Move Ahead With Part of Their Challenges To Restrictions On Them At City Festival

In O'Connell v. City of New Bern, North Carolina, (ED NC, March 10, 2020), a North Carolina federal district court allowed two Christian evangelists to move ahead with certain of their claims of unconstitutional treatment at the city's Mumfest-- an annual fall festival held in the historic downtown district.  The court held that the city did not infringe plaintiffs' 1st Amendment rights in barring them from carrying a nine-foot tall cross, using a loud megaphone to proselytize, or distributing literature, all in violation of city ordinances. The court did however allow plaintiffs to move ahead with their free speech and free exercise challenges to an officer moving them from the roadway to the sidewalk and placing a beeping firetruck and then a beeping utility cart between them and festival attendees who had gathered in the intersection.  The court said in part:

Defendant Conway testified that he ... placed a beeping cart in between plaintiffs and festival attendees because people were “getting aggravated” and “becoming aggressive” towards plaintiffs’ group.... Defendant Conway testified that individuals waived a rainbow flag in plaintiff O’Connell’s face and yelled at him.... In the past, individuals threw Mountain Dew bottles at plaintiff O’Connell, threatened plaintiff O’Connell with violence, and assaulted the police officers guarding plaintiff O’Connell....  Because “[l]isteners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation,” the court applies strict scrutiny to defendant Conway’s decision to order plaintiffs to the sidewalk and place a beeping cart between them and festival attendees in 2015.

Court Upholds $1.8M Award For Religiously Hostile Work Environment

In EEOC v. United Health Programs of America, Inc., (ED NY, March 6, 2020), a New York federal district court, in a 74-page opinion, upheld a jury verdict, as subsequently reduced by the court to $1.778 million, in a suit charging an employer with creation of a hostile religious work environment. The court said in part:

In the fall of 2007, defendants’ CEO, Robert Hodes, hired his aunt, Denali Jordan, who introduced religious and spiritual practices and teachings to the workplace. Defendants’ supervisors and officers, including Denali, imposed certain practices and beliefs, often referred to as “Onionhead” and “Harnessing Happiness,” on plaintiffs.....

[A]mple evidence in the record established that numerous religious images and practices permeated the office environment, and that employees were required to participate in such religious practices. Among other things, defendants’ office environment was cluttered with pervasive religious imagery, including rosary beads, Buddhas, and Onionhead/Harnessing Happiness literature, posters and banners; employees were given Onionhead feeling and truth cards and Onionhead workshop materials and instructed to use them; employees were strongly encouraged or instructed to wear Onionhead pins; employees were scheduled for attendance and participation at the Onionhead/Harnessing Happiness workshops, which employees understood were mandatory. ... [T]he Onionhead religion motivated certain idiosyncratic office practices, including the dismantling of overhead lights, use of candles, incense, and table lamps, hugging and kissing of coworkers, praying and meditation, and coworkers being directed to say “I love you.” All of these practices, taken together,could be found to have “unreasonably interfere[d] with an employee’s work performance” and altered the conditions of an employee’s work environment for the worse.

Missouri's Vaccination Exemption Form Not Motivated By Religious Hostility

In G.B. v. Crossroads Academy, (WD MO, March 2, 2020), a Missouri federal district court rejected the claim that the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services was motivated by religious hostility when it adopted the exemption Form that parents must complete in order to obtain a religious exemption for their children from the state's vaccination requirement.  The Form includes a message from the Department encouraging vaccination to protect school children.

Court Interprets Defenses Under Illinois RFRA and Right of Conscience Act

In Rojas v. Martell, (IL App., March 6, 2020), an Illinois state appellate court answered four certified questions on the state's  Health Care Right of Conscience Act and its Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court held that neither the analytic framework not the reasonable accommodation defense of Title VII should be read into these state statutes. It also concluded that transfer of an employee to a job that does not include the religiously objectionable duties may be permissible under the Right of Conscience Act. The issues arose in a case in which a county health department nurse claimed that the health department discriminated against her after she asserted that her Catholic religious beliefs prevented her from providing birth control, from providing Plan B emergency contraception, and from making abortion referrals.

Catholic Order May Build School, Gift Shop and Barn

In Fraternité Notre Dame, Inc. v. County of McHenry, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40030 (ND IL, March 2, 2020), an Illinois federal magistrate judge, after holding a public hearing, approved a settlement agreement that allows a conservative order of Catholic nuns to construct a barn-like building for wine making, beer brewing, and canning, and to build a boarding school and a gift shop. In entering the settlement agreement, the parties stipulated that the county had violated the "substantial burden" provision of RLUIPA in denying an amended conditional use permit. The court's public hearing elicited comments both in favor of and opposed to the settlement agreement. The court said in part:

The historical religious bigotry Plaintiff has been subjected to provides a painful backdrop to this case. Plaintiff, its members, and the Property have been subjected to repeated acts of religious bigotry. The Property has been vandalized and desecrated in the most vile ways. Plaintiff's members have been threatened with lynching. And they have been placed in peril. For example, Plaintiff's vehicles have been vandalized in ways that affected the operation of the vehicles, including the loosening of lug nuts and the severing of brake fluid lines. Because of these criminal acts, Plaintiff installed fencing and cameras to protect its members and the Property.

Stunningly, a community member then staked out Plaintiff's property for hours upon hours, taking photographs of the fencing and cameras, all to prove his point that Plaintiff and its members were not "inviting." ...

Lots of people were willing to share their opinions regarding how Plaintiff should use its Property. But none of those opinions considered the legal requirements of RLUIPA.

Chicago Tribune reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Laura Underkuffler, Should the Religious Be Exempt? Questions of Justice, Character, and the Maintenance of Norms, (Criminal Justice Ethics, Volume 37, 2018 - Issue 1).
• John Witte & Justin Latterell, The Last American Establishment: Massachusetts, 1780-1833, (Carl H. Esbeck and Jonathan Den Hartog, eds., Religious Dissent and Disestablishment: Church-State Relations in the New American States, 1776-1833 (University of Missouri Press, 2019)).
• Linda C. McClain, Bigotry, Civility, and Reinvigorating Civic Education: Government's Formative Task Amidst Polarization, (John Witte, Jr. et al., eds, The Role of Law in Character Formation, Moral Education, and the Communication of Values in Late Modern Pluralistic Societies (Leipzig: EVA Publishers, 2020, Forthcoming).
• Linda C. McClain, Response to Commentaries on Who's the Bigot?, (Boston University Law Review, Vol. 99, No. 2713, 2020).
• Ashutosh A. Bhagwat, Crossing Doctrines: Conflating Standing and the Merits Under the Establishment Clause, (Washington University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Samuel D. Brunson, God Is My Roommate? Tax Exemptions for Parsonages Yesterday, Today, and (if Constitutional) Tomorrow, (February 11, 2020).
• Dov Fox, The Legal Challenge of Abortion Stigma and Government Restrictions on Medical Practice, (Hastings Center Report, March 2020).
• Kent Greenfield, Trademarks, Hate Speech, and Solving a Puzzle of Viewpoint Bias, (Supreme Court Review, 2019, Forthcoming).
• Sefa Ozalp, et. al., Antisemitism on Twitter: Collective Efficacy and the Role of Community Organisations in Challenging Online Hate Speech. (Social Media and Society (2019).

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

• Neha Tripathi, Female Genital Mutilation: A Humanistic Approach, (January 28, 2020).
• Juan Pablo Perez Leon Acevedo & Thiago Felipe Alves Pinto, Enforcing Freedom of Religion or Belief in Cases Involving Attacks Against Buildings Dedicated to Religion: The Al Mahdi Case at the International Criminal Court, (Berkeley Journal of International Law (BJIL), Vol. 37, No. 3, 2020).
• Santiago Legarre, Germán José Bidart Campos (1927–2004), (Law and the Christian Tradition in Latin America: Biographies (London, Routledge, 2020, Rafael Domingo and Matthew Mirow eds.).
• Husam Suleiman, Implementation and Advancement of a Collaborative Zakat Management System in Southern California, the United States; A Case Study of a Hybrid Zakat Cooperative Model, (October 4, 2018).
• Saqib Jawad, Anglicization of Islāmic Law in the Sub-Continent and Its Impact on the Legal System of Pakistan, (Ulūm-e-Islāmia Vol. No.26, Issue No. 02, 2019).

High School Football Coach's Complaint Over On-Field Prayer Ban Is Dismissed

In Kennedy v. Bremerton Schoool District, (W WA, March 5, 2020), a Washington federal district court dismissed 1st Amendment and Title VII claims by a high school football coach who was suspended when he insisted on prominently praying at the 50-yard line immediately after football games.  The court said in part:

The ensuing dispute has highlighted a tension in the First Amendment between a public-school educator’s right to free religious expression and their school’s right to restrict that expression when it violates the Establishment Clause....

Given this practical assessment of Kennedy’s duties as a coach, the Court must hold that his prayers at the 50-yard line were not constitutionally protected.... Like the front of a classroom or the center of a stage, the 50-yard line of a football field is an expressive focal point from which school-sanctioned communications regularly emanate. If a teacher lingers at the front of the classroom following a lesson, or a director takes center stage after a performance, a reasonable onlooker would interpret their speech from that location as an extension of the school-sanctioned speech just before it. The same is true for Kennedy’s prayer from the 50-yard line....

Here, Kennedy’s practice of praying at the 50-yard line fails both the endorsement and coercion tests and violates the Establishment Clause. While it may not convey school approval as universally as a public announcement system, speech from the center of the football field immediately after each game also conveys official sanction. This is even more true when Kennedy is joined by students or adults to create a group of worshippers in a place the school controls access to.

The case, at the preliminary injunction stage, has already worked its way to the U.S. Supreme Court where certiorari was denied, but with an unusual 6-page concurring statement by 4 justices. (See prior posting.) Kitsap Sun reports on yesterday's district court decision.

USCIRF Hearing On Citizenship Laws and Religious Freedom

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom held a hearing yesterday on Citizenship Laws and Religious Freedom. The hearing focused on the use of citizenship laws to deny rights to religious minorities, with emphasis on developments in India and past actions in Burma. The written statements submitted in the hearings are available on USCIRF's website.

West Virginia Legislature Enacts Law To Permit Courses On The Bible

The West Virginia legislature yesterday gave final passage to House Bill 4780 (full text) which authorizes public schools to offer elective social studies courses on the Bible in grades 9 and above. Such courses are to:

Teach students knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding the development of American society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy....

The bill now goes to Governor Jim Justice for his signature.  WV Metro News reports on the legislation.

Virginia Becomes 20th State To Ban Conversion Therapy

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam this week signed into law House Bill 386 (full text) which bans licensed health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with anyone under 18 years of age. New York Times reports that this makes Virginia the twentieth state to ban these attempts to change sexual orientation of gender identity. It is the first southern state to do so.

Transcript of Oral Arguments In June Medical Services Case Now Available

Here is the transcript of today's oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court in June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo -- the constitutional challenge to Louisiana's abortion law. Vox reports on the oral arguments, headlining it "Abortion rights had a surprisingly hopeful day in the Supreme Court". CNN however headlines its report "Supreme Court appears split after hearing first major abortion case with strong conservative majority".

10th Circuit: Inedible Vegan Diet Burdened Buddhist Inmate's Religious Exercise

In Blair v. Raemisch, (10th Cir., March 2, 2020), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Buddhist inmate's complaint about the vegan diet he was served adequately stated a claim under the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause and under RLUIPA. According to plaintiff's complaint, on 19 out of each 28 days, he was served a vegan patty made at the prison from left-over beans, yams, oatmeal, tomato paste, and seasoning combined in a blender and then baked. He alleged that these were inedible, and caused him to vomit. This forced him to go hungry or purchase vegan food from the commissary. The court concluded that, if true, this substantially burdened plaintiff's sincerely held religious beliefs and put pressure on him to abandon them. Colorado Politics reports on the decision.

Supervision of Sex Offender's Church Attendance Upheld

In State of Washington v. Mecham, (WA App., March 2, 2020), a Washington state appellate court rejected a free exercise challenge to a community custody condition imposed on a convicted sex offender. Under a negotiated plea agreement, appellant, among other things, was prohibited from attending church services unless accompanied and supervised by an adult aware of his offenses and approved by his Community Corrections Officer.  In upholding the prohibition, the court said in part:

Mecham’s crime involved abusing an unsupervised child at church. The day of the offense, Mecham was attending church with his mother, father, and older brother. Mecham has failed to show that these members of his family, who presumably know his offense, will be unable to supervise his attendance at church. Thus, from the record, Mecham will be able to continue attending church services in the same manner as before his conviction.

Further, even if the restriction unduly burdened Mecham’s free exercise, the restriction satisfies strict scrutiny....

The State has a compelling interest to protect families who attend church services from Mecham. Mecham committed the offense in a church. He abused a seven-year-old in the church playroom while the congregation enjoyed lunch upstairs....  Mecham needs supervision to prevent this type of contact.

Supreme Court To Hear Arguments Today In High-Profile Abortion Case

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a high profile abortion case-- June Medical Services v. Russo. At issue is the constitutionality of the Louisiana Unsafe Abortion Protection Act which requires any abortion provider to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the location where abortions are performed. In March 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily upheld a preliminary injunction issued by the district court preventing the Act from going into effect. In September 2018, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and upheld the statute. In January 2019, the full 5th Circuit, by a vote of 6-9, denied en banc review. Plaintiff appealed the substantive holding to the Supreme Court. The state cross-appealed the grant of third-party standing to the abortion clinic plaintiff. (See prior posting.) Meanwhile in February 2019 the Supreme Court stayed the 5th Circuit's decision pending appeal to the Supreme Court, with four justices dissenting. The SCOTUS blog case page has links to all the filings (including dozens of amicus briefs) in the case, as well as to commentary on the case.

I will post a link to the transcript of the oral arguments when they become available later today.

Buffalo Catholic Diocese Files For Bankruptcy Reorganization

The Catholic Diocese of Buffalo (NY) announced last week that it has filed for bankruptcy reorganization, saying in part that the petition has:

a primary aim of enabling financial resolution for the most number of individuals who have filed claims under the Child Victims Act - a year-long window that opened on August 14, 2019 that suspends the statute of limitations related to allegations of past sexual abuse.  A further objective of reorganization is that it allows the Diocese to continue uninterrupted its mission throughout Western New York, while working to settle claims with existing Diocesan assets and insurance coverages....

Parishes of the Diocese are separately incorporated under New York State's Religious Corporation Law and not included in today's filing. Similarly, Catholic elementary and secondary schools are also not part of the Chapter 11 case, given that they are owned by parishes or are separately incorporated entities. Catholic Charities of Buffalo, with its extensive ministries that serve residents throughout Western New York, providing critical social services, is also separately incorporated under New York's Not for Profit Corporation Law and will not be part of the filing. This is also true for the Diocese's capital and endowment Campaign - Upon This Rock.

The Bradford Era reports on the filing.

Suit Challenges Tennessee School Voucher Law

Suit was filed yesterday in a Tennessee state trial court challenging the constitutionality under the state constitution of the Tennessee's school voucher law. The funding law applies only to two urban counties (Nashville an Memphis areas). The complaint (full text) in McEwen v. Lee, (TN Chancery Ct., filed 3/2/2020) alleges violations of the state constitution's home rule provision, its education and equal protection clauses, and state provisions on appropriation of public funds. The complaint alleges in part:

The Voucher Law diverts taxpayer dollars to private schools that are not required to adhere to the same academic, accountability, governance, and non-discrimination requirements as Tennessee’s public schools. Diverting limited public education funding to private schools that do not provide students the same standards of education and civil rights protections as public schools violates Tennessee’s Constitution and state law.

The ACLU of Tennessee issued a joint press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

House Holds Hearings On Anti-Semitic Domestic Terrorism

On Feb. 26, a subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee held a hearing titled Confronting the Rise in Anti-Semitic Domestic Terrorism, Part II. Transcripts of testimony and opening statements, as well as a video of the entire hearing, are available on the Committee's website. Part I of the hearings were held in January. (Transcripts and video of testimony).

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• James T. Lindgren, The Religious Beliefs, Practices, and Experiences of Law Professors, (15 University of St. Thomas Law Journal 342 (2019)).
• Faisal Daudpota, An Overview of Pakistan's Jurisprudence on: Free Exercise Clause, and Religious Freedom of Minorities, (February 21, 2020).
• Neil James Foster, Respecting the Dignity of Religious Organisations: When is it Appropriate for Courts to Decide Religious Doctrine?, (University of Western Australia Law Review, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2020).
• Ian Turner, Limits to Terror Speech in the UK and USA: Balancing Freedom of Expression With National Security, (Amicus Curiae, 2020).

From SmartCILP:

• Lalita Moskowitz. God Is a Woman: Feminism as a Religion Protected Under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, 27 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 399-430 (2019).
• Marian Burchardt, Zeynep Yanasmayan & Matthias Koenig. The Judicial Politics of Burqa Bans in Belgium and Spain--Socio-Legal Field Dynamics and the Standardization of Justificatory Repertoires. 44 Law & Social Inquiry 333-358 (2019).
• Gregory S. Parks & Derek S. Hicks. "How Much a Dollar Cost?" Political Ideology, Religion, and Poverty Policy Through the Lens of Kendrick Lamar's Music, 28 Southern California Review of Law & Social Justice 197-260 (2019).
• Russell Powell, Social Justice and Islamic Jurisprudence, 17 Seattle Journal for Social Justice 1-23 (2018).
• Pamela A. Wilkins. Law School in a Different Voice: Legal Education as a Work of Mercy, 63 St. Louis University Law Journal 401-452 (2019).

British Tribunal Denies Asylum To Disingenuous Iranian Convert To Christianity

Britain's appellate court that reviews decisions on visa and asylum applications and the right to enter or stay in the UK-- the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber-- has recently issued an interesting decision on how to treat a citizen of Iran who disingenuously converts from Islam to Christianity in Britain in order to create a basis for an asylum claim. In PS (Iran) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (UKUT IAC, Feb. 20, 2020), the court concluded that such aperson does not run a real risk of persecution upon return to Iran, and therefore is not entitled to asylum in the UK. the court said in part:

PS has been out of Iran since 2013; he has claimed asylum on at least two occasions, variously asserting fear as a result of being caught up in the green movement protests, ‘honour’ based violence and latterly on the basis that he had converted to Christianity; he attended church between May 2015 and sometime in 2016 and was baptised after he had been going to that church for about two weeks; he has no known contact with the authorities prior to leaving Iran; he has no known connection with any persons of interest, nor any adverse social media content to be concerned about. He has no known connection with any organisation which could be connected by the Iranian government to the house church movement.  He may be asked to sign an undertaking promising that he will not undertake any Christian activities. There is no reason why PS would refuse. We find that he is likely to be judged to present a negligible risk to the security of Iran. He will be released fairly quickly and we are not satisfied that there is any risk of ill-treatment. PS may be placed under surveillance. Once the authorities are satisfied that he is not attending house church or attempting to contact known Christians he will be of no further interest to the authorities.  Accordingly, we find that PS does not face a real risk of persecution upon return to Iran and his appeal is dismissed. 

The Tribunal also issued a new Country Guidance based on this case. Law & Religion UK reports on the case at greater length.

German Top Court Upholds Hijab Ban For Legal Interns Involved In Official Proceedings

In a decision handed down last month, but not published until yesterday, Germany's Federal Constitutional Court in a 7-1 decision rejected a challenge by a legal intern to the requirement that she remove her hijab when involved in court hearings.  The full decision in German is here. In a press release, the court summarized the decision:

In an order published today, the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court rejected as unfounded the constitutional complaint of a female legal trainee (Rechtsreferendarin) in the Land Hesse; the complaint was directed against the ban on wearing a headscarf when performing certain official tasks. Under constitutional law, the legislature’s decision to establish a duty of neutral conduct with respect to ideological and religious matters for legal trainees must be respected. While this duty amounts to an interference with the complainant’s freedom of faith and other fundamental rights, it is justified. Such an interference can be justified by the constitutional principles of the state’s religious and ideological neutrality and of the proper functioning of the justice system as well as by the negative freedom of religion of others. In the case at hand, none of the conflicting legal interests outweighs the others to such an extent that it would be required under constitutional law to prevent the complainant from wearing religious symbols in the courtroom, or to allow her to do so.