Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Friday, October 06, 2006
University Of The Cumberlands Withdraws Motion To Dismiss Suit Against It
Alaska Constitution May Protect Religious Marijuana Use
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on whether the defendants' conduct was based on a sincere religious belief and, if so, whether the state has not merely a compelling interest in enforcing its drug laws, but whether that interest will suffer if an exemption is granted to accommodate these defendants' religious beliefs. The court said that the test under the Alaska Constitution was similar to the test under RFRA applied by the United States Supreme Court in its 2006 O Centro decision.
Suit Charges New York With Failing To Accommodate Religious Practices Of Prison Guards
Saudis Try Al Qaeda In Shariah Courts
Democrats Tout Religious Credentials In North Carolina
European Court Upholds Salvation Army Claim Against Russia
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Michigan City Deciding Whether To Move Creche To Private Property
Indian Court Will Hear Challenge To Jain Fasting Ritual
More Prisoner Free Exercise Cases From September
In Barnes v. Pierce, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69303 (SD TX, Sept. 26, 2006), a Texas federal district court permitted inmates to proceed with a claim that Muslim prisoners are not allowed the same opportunities as are available to prisoners of other faiths to practice their religion, but rejected a challenge to the prohibition on prisoners wearing beards.
In Colquitt v. Camp, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69934 (MD FL, Sept. 27, 2006), a Florida federal district court permitted a Muslim plaintiff to move ahead with his claim against one of the jail officials he sued. Plaintiff alleged that officials refused to accommodate his dietary restrictions during Ramadan and retaliated against him for filing complaints in connection with his diet issues. It also held that defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity.
In Grant v. Sutton, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70076 (SD IL, Sept. 27, 2006), an Illinois federal district court permitted a former inmate to move ahead with claims that prison officials did not give Muslim inmates full access to the prison chapel for prayer, would not allow Imams to lead services except during Ramadan, denied Muslim inmates permission to participate in religious festivals, denied them access to Qurans, denied plaintiff permission to attend religious classes and chapel, and barred him from leading worship services.
In Ferdinand v. Johnson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70986 (WD VA, Sept. 29, 2006), a Virginia federal district court held that a prison's grooming policy did not violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Morocco Ministry Changes Religious Textbooks
Indiana Supreme Court Upholds Striking Clergy From Jury Panel
Nevada Clergy Endorse Measure To Liberalize Drug Laws
New Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage In Canada
Parent Attacks Harry Potter Books In Georgia Schools
Justice Department Investigating School's Holiday Excusal Policy
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
En Banc Review Sought In California Library Use Case
Kentucky Prohibition On Funeral Protests Struck Down
The provisions at issue in this case burden substantially more speech than is necessary to prevent interferences with a funeral or to protect funeral attendees from unwanted, obtrusive communications that are otherwise impractical to avoid. Section 5(1)(b) prohibits all congregating, picketing, patrolling, demonstrating or entering on property within 300 feet of a funeral whether such activities interfere with the funeral or not and whether such activities are authorized by funeral attendees or not. It prohibits such activity whether the persons involved in the activities are visible to funeral participants or not and whether they are making any sound that funeral participants can hear or not. Thus, in addition to prohibiting intrusive activities, Section 5(1)(b), prohibits activity that would not interfere with a funeral and prohibits communications that are neither necessarily unwanted nor so obtrusive that they cannot be avoided by the funeral attendees....
The 300-foot zone would encompass public sidewalks and streets and would restrict private property owners' speech on their own property. The zone is large enough that it would restrict communications intended for the general public on a matter completely unrelated to the funeral as well as messages targeted at funeral participants.
EEOC Sues Dentist Charging He Imposed Scientology On Employee
Court Says St. Louis U. Can Get Urban Renewal Funds Despite Its Religious Origins
Judge Mooney, concurring in the transfer of the case to the state's Supreme Court, wrote that he would not affirm the trial court's summary judgment. He believed that a trial was necessary to determine whether St. Louis University, despite its governing documents, is no longer in fact controlled by the Catholic creed.