Suit Challenges Limits On Homeless Drop-In Center

In St. Paul, Minnesota last week, Listening House, a daytime drop-in center for homeless, disadvantaged and lonely people, filed suit against the city seeking to prevent enforcement of a City Council resolution imposing unworkable limits on the operation of the center at its new home in the basement of First Lutheran Church.  The complaint (full text) in Listening House of St. Paul, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, (MN Dist. Ct., filed 4/2/2018), contends that the restrictions are arbitrary and capricious.  The Twin Cities Pioneer Press reported yesterday that First Lutheran Church has now joined as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Mary Nobles Hancock, God Save the United States and this Honorable County Board of Commissioners: Lund, Bormuth, and the Fight Over Legislative Prayer, (76 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. (2019 Forthcoming)).
• Jonathan Moreno, Church Attendance, Petty Crime and Rain, (March 29, 2018).
• Steve Sanders, Dignity and Social Meaning: Obergefell, Windsor, and Lawrence as Constitutional Dialogue, (Fordham Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Shawn Fields, Brief of Amici Curiae Constitutional Law Scholars in Support of Respondents in Trump V. Hawaii, 17-965, (San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 18-340 (2018)).
• Steve Sanders, Pavan v. Smith: Equality for Gays and Lesbians in Being Married, Not Just in Getting Married, (American Constitution Society Supreme Court Review 2016-2017).
• Timothy Horley, Rethinking the Heckler's Veto After Charlottesville, (Virginia Law Review, Vol. 104, No. 8, 2018).
• L.A. Latif, An Explication on Broadening the Definition and Scope of Maximum Available Resources Under General Comment 14 of the ICESCR to Include Islamic Taxation in Financing the Right to Health, (Biomed J Sci & Tech Res 1(3), 2017).

From elsewhere:

• Camilia R. Brown, The Violent Persecution of the Iranian Bahá’í: A Call to Take a Human Capabilities Approach to Defining Genocide, 43 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 361 (2018).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Ackridge v. Aramark Correctional Food Services, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54733 (SD NY, March 30, 2018), a New York federal district court in a lengthy opinion, while dismissing numerous claims, allowed a Jewish inmate to move ahead on his free exercise claim for delay in receipt of kosher meals and lack of regular Jewish religious services. The opinion includes a lengthy analysis of the state action doctrine as applied to the prison's food service contractor.

In Seamons v. Ramirez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55348 (D ID, March 30, 2018), an Idaho federal magistrate judge dismissed an inmate's complaint that, while in administrative segregation, he was limited to possessing no more than the five books and was not provided with regular, in-person, clergy visits.

In DePaola v. Clarke, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55925 (WD VA, March 30, 2018), a Virginia federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his claim that he was punished with reduced privileges for failing to shave his beard for religious reasons with no barbering services available to trim it, and that he was deprived of attending Jum'ah services or watching them on television.

In Allen v. Kunkel, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56249 (D CT, April 2, 2018), a Connecticut federal district court allowed a Moorish-American inmate to move ahead with his complaint regarding denial of access to a particular book and refusal to allow him to purchase a fez.  It dismissed his claim that he was denied the right to choose his nationality under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In Rickman v. Martin, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55624 (WD MI, April 2, 2018), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56828, Feb. 21, 2018) and allowed a Hebrew-Israelite inmate to move ahead with complaints that his request for a religious diet was denied as was his request to purchase a kufi and Star of David pendant.

In Hall v. Annucci, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57317 (ND NY, April 4, 2018), a New York federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his amended complaint that contends he was served meals that do not comply with requirements for Halal food.

In McLendon v. Montgomery County Jail, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58365 (MD TN, April 5, 2018), a Maryland federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with 1st and 8th Amendment claims against a jail chaplain contending that plaintiff was not furnished nutritionally adequate meals that complied with his religious diet.

In Allen v. Holt, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58362 (MD TN, April 5, 2018), a Tennessee federal district court held that inmates have not alleged a substantial burden on free exercise by alleging that during religious services in their housing pod the television is on at high volume and inmates not attending the service are out of their cells talking loudly.

In Larry v. Goldsmith, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59100 (ED WI, March 30, 2018), a Wisconsin federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his complaint that officers prevented him from praying on one ocassion during
Ramadan, but dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his complaint that he was not allowed to have his meals during Ramadan later in  the day.

In Wells v. Gonzales, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59198 (ED CA, April 6, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that a Native American inmate be allowed to move ahead with his complaint that a correctional officer confiscated and handled disrespectfully a native spiritual totem of Plaintiff's which was on display for Native Heritage Month. He also can pursue retaliation claims against defendant.  UPDATE: The court adopted the magistrate's recommendation at 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120099, July 17, 2018.

Fired Magistrate Has Due Process But Not Equal Protection Claim

In Edelstein v. Stephens, (SD OH, March 31, 2018), an Ohio federal district court adopted in part and rejected in part a magistrate's recommendations and held that a magistrate/ staff attorney who was fired after she requested eight days off for Jewish holidays had failed to allege an equal protection violation. However, the court concluded that plaintiff had adequately alleged a due process violation in her claim that her employment was terminated in a manner that "created the impression that Plaintiff had committed a serious violation of procedure, law or ethics and devastated Plaintiff's reputation in the legal community."

Challenge To Teaching Islam In History Curriculum Is Rejected

In Wood v. Arnold, (D MD, March 26, 2018), a Maryland federal district court dismissed a lawsuit by a high school graduate and her father complaining (1) that the school violated the Establishment Clause by teaching Islam in its World History course; (2) violated the student's free speech rights by requiring her to "confess" the Shahada; and (3) engaged in retaliation and suppression of speech in banning the student's father from school grounds after he expressed opposition to the school's curriculum. Summarizing its holding, the court said:

the First Amendment does not afford the right to build impenetrable silos, completely separating adherents of one religion from ever learning of beliefs contrary to their own, Nor, in this Court's view, does it prohibit a high school teacher from leading a purely academic study of a religion that may differ from the religious beliefs of some of his students.

Plaintiffs' Establishment Clause argument centered on a statement made by the World History teacher that "most Muslims faith is stronger than the average Christian". The court rejected plaintiffs'argument that the statement should be taken in isolation from the remainder of the curriculum, but concluded that even taken alone the statement, in the context it was made, did not violate the Establishment Clause.

Rejecting plaintiffs' compelled speech argument, the court held that requiring students to fill in the blanks in a quiz on the Shahda was merely aimed at fostering an understanding of the significance of the statements to Muslims.

Finally the court rejected the father's complaint about his exclusion from school grounds, finding that the father's statements on Facebook suggested that he was planning to cause disruption at the school.

Settlement Reached With NYPD In Muslim Surveillance Case

Last week, a settlement agreement (filed in New Jersey federal district court on April 5) (full text) was reached in Hassan v. City of New York. As reported by the New York Times, this settles the last of three major lawsuits challenging the New York City Police Department's surveillance of the Muslim community following 9/11. This suit was brought by Muslims in New Jersey who had been subjects of surveillance.  The 3rd Circuit had refused to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs had adequately stated free exercise and equal protection claims (See prior posting.)  A press release from Muslim Advocates summarizes agreement:

Under the terms of the settlement, the NYPD has confirmed it will reform its discriminatory and unlawful practices by agreeing to:

• Not engage in suspicionless surveillance on the basis of religion or ethnicity;
• Permit plaintiff input to a first-ever Policy Guide, which will govern the Intelligence Bureau’s activities, and to publish the Guide to the public;
• Attend a public meeting with plaintiffs so they can express their concerns about the issues in the lawsuit directly to the NYPD Commissioner or senior ranking official;
• Pay businesses and mosques damages for income lost as a result of being unfairly targeted by the NYPD and pay individuals damages for the stigma and humiliation harms they suffered for being targeted on the basis of their religion.

Break-Away Texas Anglican Group Loses In Latest Round of Long-Running Case

In The Episcopal Church v. Salazar, (TX App, April 5, 2018), a Texas state appeals court issued another ruling in a long running dispute over ownership of property of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. In 2008, the Diocese voted to disaffiliate from The Episcopal Church and to become part of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. In 2009, The Episcopal Church sued claiming ownership of the Diocese's property. The litigation has moved up and down the Texas court system, including to the Texas Supreme Court, ever since.  In this week's opinion, the state Court of Appeals reversed in part a trial court decision and held that control of the property resides in the group that remained with The Episcopal Church under the leadership of Bishop Scott Mayer, rather than with the break-away group led by Bishop Jack Iker. The court said in part:

Individual members of a parish may decide to worship elsewhere; a majority of individual members of a parish or diocese may decide to do so. But when they leave, they are no longer “Episcopalians” as identified by TEC; they become something else. And that something else is not entitled to retain property if that property, under the terms of the deed, is held in trust for a TEC-affiliated diocese or congregation. By rejecting TEC, Appellees also rejected any claim to items and property affiliated with TEC or with being a TEC-affiliated diocese to the extent that the instruments of ownership spell out an express interest. While a decision to disaffiliate is an ecclesiastical matter, what happens to the property is not, unless the affairs have been ordered so that the ecclesiastical decisions effectively determine the property issue....

In reaching its decision, the court refused to rely on  The Episcopal Church's Dennis Canon that "purports to impose a trust for TEC and TEC’s diocese on parish, mission, and congregation real and personal property," saying in part:

Because under Texas law, an entity that does not own the property to be held in trust cannot establish a trust for itself simply by decreeing that it is the beneficiary of a trust, the Dennis Canon, by itself, did not establish a trust under Texas law....

The Fort Worth Star Telegram reporting on the decision says that it is likely to be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.

Fired Mormon City Manger Can Move Ahead Under Title VII Against Some Defendants

In Fuqua v. City of Altus, (WD OK, April 6, 2018), an Oklahoma federal district court allowed the former City Manager of an Oklahoma city to proceed with his Title VII religious discrimination suit against the city and its mayor, but dismissed his claims against two other city officials.  Plaintiff David Fuqua alleges that he was fired from his position because he is a Mormon and because he hired Mormons for the positions of Assistant City Manager and Public Works Director.  The court dismissed two defendants, the Chief Financial Officer and the City Clerk, because they had no formal role in evaluating Fuqua or in the decision to fire him, saying in part:

There is plenty of evidence that they agitated against plaintiff, or for his removal, on the basis of his religion, but there is none that suggests they played some formal role in the City’s dealings with plaintiff. Complaints and gossip, even lots of it, do not arise to the level of involvement necessary to establish the necessary causative link.

New York Budget Bill Passed With Special Curriculum Criteria For Yeshivas

On Monday, the New York legislature sent to Governor Andrew Cuomo for his signature the state Budget for the 2018-2019 fiscal year (S07059) (full text).  As described in detail by New York Jewish Week, the bill contains provisions (at pp. 194-195 of bill) designed to lower the secular curriculum requirements for  Orthodox Jewish yeshivas whose long school days emphasize religious study.  The New York Times explains the politics behind inclusion of the provision, and the varied interpretations of its impact on curriculum standards for such schools.

Suit Over "In Christ" E-Mail Signature Moves Ahead

In Mial v. Foxhoven, (ND IA, April 4, 2018), an Iowa federal district court refused to dismiss Title VII and state religious discrimination claims brought by Michael Mial who had been fired from his position as a security specialist in the Civil Commitment Unit for Sexual Offenders (CCUSO) of the Iowa Department of Human Services.  Mial's dismissal resulted from his insistence on using the valediction "In Christ" on e-mails he sent on his CCUSO e-mail account, in violation of a rule against personal messages in e-mail signatures.  The court found that Mial's signature message was part of his "religious belief that he must proclaim his faith in everything he does." The court rejected CCUSO's claim that  Establishment Clause concerns justified its refusal to offer Mial a reasonable accommodation, saying in part:

there is scant evidence that Mial’s use of “In Christ” at the end of work-related email messages (such as in various requests for shift changes or time off) would lead the public to assume CCUSO was endorsing a religion. 

The court concluded:

[D]efendants have not shown as a matter of law that the Establishment Clause prevented them from offering an accommodation. Nor have they demonstrated, as a matter of law, that Mial’s email valediction caused any disruption in the workplace or violated any neutral, generally applicable rules or procedures. Of course, the jury could decide that Mial’s use of the valediction violated neutral policies about professional conduct and following supervisory directives. If so, then a duty to accommodate may not apply. However, I am not able to reach such a conclusion as a matter of law. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment must be denied.

Arizona Appeals Court Invalidates Hotline Procedure For Overruling Parental Objections To Medical Treatment

In Glenn H. v. Hoskins, (AZ App., April 3, 2018), an Arizona state appeals court invalidated the "hot line" procedure that hospitals in Maricopa County use to obtain emergency orders to treat minors over the religious or other objections of their parents.  In the case, Jehovah's Witness parents objected to the use of blood transfusions in the treatment of their 14-year old son for bone cancer.  Apparently the boy agreed with his parents' decision.  Vacating the trial court's order authorizing medical treatment for the boy, the appeals court concluded that there are no provisions in Arizona statutes permitting courts to rule before a complaint has been filed, adding:

However well-intended the emergency hotline may be, the superior court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain ex parte oral requests in the absence of specific statutory authorization.  See Redewill v. Superior Court, 43 Ariz. 68, 81 (1934) (“A court cannot do something not authorized by law, because it may think it is ‘just as good,’ or even better than the thing which the law does sanction.”)

AP reports on the decision.

Missouri High Court Rejects Church's Challenge To Signage Limits

In Antioch Community Church v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, (MO Sup. Ct., April 3, 2018), the Missouri Supreme Court upheld a zoning decision denying a Kansas City church a variance it sought so that it could retain the digital display on the sign in front of its church building. The decision focused primarily on technical interpretation of language in the Kansas City zoning ordinances regarding permissible signs in residential zones. The church, however, also raised First Amendment arguments which were rejected by the Court:

the Church’s brief on appeal notes most churches are located in residential areas and argues this means ordinances imposing limitations on signs in residential areas but not in commercial areas inherently discriminate against churches because of their location in residential areas.... Assuming for present purposes the Church were correct that an ordinance imposing additional restrictions on signs in residential areas could be considered content-based and discriminatory because churches tend to be located in residential areas, the Church did not preserve this claim.

KCUR reports on the decision. Also Court accompanied the opinion with a summary.

Refusal of "IM GOD" License Plate Can Be Challenged In Federal Court

In Hart v. Thomas, (ED KY, March 30, 2018), a Kentucky federal district court rejected an 11th Amendment sovereign immunity defense raised by the Secretary of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet in a suit over an application for a personalized license plate.  Plaintiff Bennie Hart had applied for a license plate reading "IM GOD", to reflect his philosophy about religion.  Kentucky refused to issue the plate on the ground that it is offensive to good taste.  Hart sued contending that his First Amendment free speech rights were infringed when his application was denied. Friendly Atheist blog has more on the decision.

Air Force Upholds Right of Commander To Refuse To Sign Certificate For Same-Sex Spouse

Stars and Stripes reported yesterday that the Director of the Air Force Review Boards Agency has granted an appeal by an Air Force Colonel who had been disciplined for refusing to sign a "certificate of appreciation" for the same-sex spouse of a master sergeant in his unit who was retiring.  Col. Leland Bohannon refused to sign the certificate because he thought it would signify his personal endorsement of a marriage that violates his religious beliefs.  Eventually the certificate was instead signed by a two-star General.  The retiring master sergeant however filed an Equal Opportunity complaint, and Bohannon was stripped of command of the Air Force Inspection Agency and removed from consideration for a promotion to brigadier general.

In a letter (full text) to members of Congress who had intervened on Bohannon's behalf, the Secretary of the Air Force wrote:

The Director concluded that Colonel Bohannon had the right to exercise his sincerely held religious beliefs and did not unlawfully discriminate when he declined to sign the certificate of appreciation.... The Air Force has a duty to treat people fairly and without discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation and met that duty by having a more senior officer sign the certificate.

The Air Force places a high value on the rights of its members to observe the tenets of their respective religions or to observe no religion at all. The decision on appeal applied current Air Force policy and the law.  It is an example of a situation in which protected, and potentially competing, interests must be carefully examined and resolved.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Patterson v. Quigley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54165 (ED PA, March 30, 2018), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to dismiss a Muslim inmate's complaint that the presence of guns during religious services generally prevented him from focusing on prayer, and that he was also prevented from engaging in religious exchange with other inmates.

In Muhammad v. Wheeler, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54292 (ED AR, March 30, 2018), an Arkansas federal district court ordered that a Muslim inmate be provided a halal diet that includes one daily serving of halal meat, kosher meat or fish.

In Johnson v. Lopez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54348 (D NV, March 30, 2018), a Nevada federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to proceed on his claim that he was denied adequate edible food, that he was denied his Eid al-Fitr feast in 2014, and on his request to be allowed to possess scented oils and obtain pre-dawn Ramadan meals.

In Dorsey v. Shearin, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54440 (D MD, March 30, 2018), a Maryland federal district court dismissed a complaint by a Native American inmate that he was not allowed to attend group religious services because of his disciplinary segregation.

In Sims v. Jones, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53094 (ND FL, March 29, 2018), a Florida federal district court adopted in part a magistrate's recommendations (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54652, March 1, 2018) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's 1st Amendment challenge to a beard length rule and strip search policy.  The magistrate had concluded, however, that defendant had violated RLUIPA.  The court, nevertheless, sent back to the magistrate judge for additional consideration plaintiff's RLUIPA challenges.

In Sanford v. Madison County, Illinois, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54704 (SD IL, March 29, 2018), an Illinois federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54709, March 1, 2018) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that the county jail did not allow Jumu'ah services to be held in a common space on Fridays, but only allowed use of a fellow-inmate's cell.

In Lombardo v. Freebern, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54735 (SD NY, March 30, 2018), a New York federal district court dismissed without prejudice claims by a Jewish inmate at a psychiatric detention center that his free exercise was burdened by denial of religious items and grape juice, interruption of his conversation with a rabbi, delivery of a broken menorah and denial of attendance at a Passover seder.

Pakistan's Chief Justice Sets Up Offices To Receive Minority Group and Human Rights Complaints

UCA News yesterday reported that Pakistan's Chief Justice has set up two separate units in the Court's Lahore office, one to receive and deal with complaints by minorities (including religious minorities), and the other to similarly receive and deal with human rights complaints. Chief Justice Nisar ordered his staff to set up the new offices after his own security forces prevented him from talking with the mother of the victim of a police shoot out. Christian political groups in Pakistan praised the Chief Justice's action.

Cert. Denied In Challenge To City's Removal of Cross

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied certiorari in Dawson v. Grand Haven, MI, (Docket No. 17-1024, cert. denied 4/2/2018). (Order List).  In the case, the Michigan Court of Appeals in Dec. 2016 upheld a decision by the city of Grand Haven to stop display of a cross on a city-owned sand dune.  In the case, Dawson v. City of Grand Haven, the Michigan court had said in part:

More than 50 years ago, the "Dewey Hill monument" was donated to defendant as a memorial for those who served and died in the Vietnam War. The monument was placed on Dewey Hill, a sand dune that defendant owned on the Grand River. The Dewey Hill monument consisted of an elaborate lifting mechanism and foundation that was designed to maintain the sand dune. When the lifting mechanism is raised, a cross is displayed. The cross can be made into an anchor by placing attachments on the bottom and top of the cross. For many years, defendant raised the lifting mechanism to display the anchor or the cross when requested by individuals in the community. For many years, First Reformed Church, where several of the plaintiffs are members, paid the required fee and requested that the cross be displayed for its Worship on the Waterfront services, which were held at the waterfront stage and bleachers across the Grand River from Dewey Hill.

In January 2015, defendant passed Resolution 15-013. Pursuant to the resolution, the lifting mechanism of the Dewey Hill monument could only be raised to display the anchor....

Because the Free Speech Clause does not regulate government speech ..., and because the freedom of government to speak includes the right to removal of speech with which the government disapproves, ... Resolution 15-013, which prohibited the lifting mechanism of the Dewey Hill monument from being raised to show the cross, did not violate the Free Speech Clause.

Grand Haven Tribune reports on yesterday's denial of review by the Supreme Court.

Suit Challenges Air Force's Ban On Religious Flag-Folding Script At Retirement Ceremony

A suit was filed yesterday by two retired Air Force officers against the Air Force and several current officers complaining about action taken by defendants to prevent one of the plaintiffs from reading a religious-themed tribute to the American flag at the retirement ceremony of the other plaintiff.  The complaint (full text) in Rodriguez v. U.S. Department of the Air Force, (D DC, filed 4/2/2018), sets out a lengthy history of flag-folding ceremonies at Air Force retirement events.  It contends that retiring Master Sergeant Charles Roberson  invited retired Master Sergeant Oscar Rodriguez, Jr. to read the flag script Rodriguez had developed (full text), despite orders to the contrary by the Squadron Commander.  Three uniformed Airmen removed Rodriguez from the stage as he began to read his script.  The suit alleges that this violated plaintiffs' free speech and free exercise rights, as well as Rodriguez' Fourth Amendment and Due Process rights. First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Powers v. Jones, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50418 (MD FL, March 27, 2018),  Florida federal district court allowed a Messianic Jewish inmate to move ahead against a Department of Corrections official with his complaint that authorities refused to provide him his Sabbath meal a day in advance so it would not be cooked on the Sabbath.

In March v. Aramark Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51258 (ED TN, March 28, 2018), a Tennessee federal district court allowed a Jewish inmate to move ahead with free exercise challenges regarding compliance of his meals with kosher standards and actions of correctional officials in serving him these meals.  However the court rejected plaintiff's attempts to challenge more broadly the food contract and conduct of the food service provider in obtaining and fulfilling the contract.

In James v. Virginia Department of Corrections, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51284 (WD VA, March 28, 2018), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a Jewish inmate's complaint that he was not allowed to have matzah and grape juice for Sabbath ceremonies in his cell and his complaint that a cardiac version of the Common Fare diet was not available.

In Burke v. Clarke, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51403 (WD VA, March 27, 2018) a Virginia federal district court allowed a Rastafarian inmate to move ahead on claims that he was not allowed congregate meetings with other Rastafarians and was not allowed Rastafarian holiday meals or religious items.

In Johnson v. Secretary of Corrections, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52357 (D MN, March 27, 2018), a New Mexico federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, a Muslim inmate's complaint charging religious and racial discrimination when he was fired from his prison job and reassigned to a less desirable one after he left early to attend a religious service.

In Bey v. Tennessee Department of Corrections, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52572 (ED TN, March 29, 2018), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he could not buy certified Halal prayer oil, and his complaint regarding the Halal food menu and timing of Ramadan trays in 2014.

In Mack v. Walker, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53316 (SD IL, March 29, 2018), an Illinois federal district court permitted an inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was denied access to Hebrew Israelite religious services.

Creativity Movement Is Not A "Religion"

In Hale v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, (D CO, March 28, 2018), a Colorado federal district court in a 33-page opinion held that the White supremacist Creativity movement is not a "religion" for purposes of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  In reaching this conclusion, the court (applying tests from a 1996 10th Circuit opinion) said that while Creativity has many of the accoutrements of religion, several other factors weigh against accepting its claim as being religious:

Creativity lacks an ultimate belief system that addresses philosophical and existential issues such as the nature of man, whether there is life after death, what role man plays in the universe, and the like. These beliefs address only the relative positions of people of different races during their lifetimes. Thus, the Court finds that Creativity fails to address ultimate ideas or metaphysical issues because it lacks any cosmological, teleological and existential focus....

Creativity does have a moral or ethical system, found mostly in its commandments. These commandments take definitive positions on what constitutes good, evil, right, and wrong in Creativity’s belief system. However, the system is less of a system and more of a single, binary precept.... Also at the same time, Creativity creates duties to itself, not to a higher power. There is no religious connotation to Creativity’s moral or ethical system; it is entirely based on the secular concern of white supremacy....

Creativity does not attempt to answer human kind’s basic questions; it either avoids questions or to the extent it has an answer, that answer is reduced to the single-dimensional idea of white dominance.