Iowa Supreme Court Dismisses Fiduciary and Defamation Claims Against Church and Pastors

In Koster v. Harvest Bible Chapel- Quad Cities,(IA Sup. Ct., May 21, 2021), the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit against a church and three of its pastors by a congregant who alleged defamation and breach of fiduciary duty. The court summarized the facts:

Two members of a church went through a fractious divorce. One member alleged that the other member had abused their children, allegations that turned out to be groundless. Their pastor, however, believed the allegations and sent emails to fellow pastors, church staff, and a discipleship group. The emails repeated the allegations to some extent, while also expressing support for the member making the allegations. After the allegations were discredited, the member who had been victimized by the allegations sued the pastor and the church on several tort theories....

We find that the plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim cannot go forward because it would require consideration of the church’s doctrine and religious practices. We also find that the plaintiff’s defamation claim is subject to a qualified privilege and that plaintiff has not overcome that privilege with evidence of actual malice.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Devin Humphreys, Conspiracy, Contract, and Covenant: Redefining Conspiracy's Actus Reus Through an Analysis of Selected Biblical Agreements, (February 5, 2021).
• V. Venkatraman & Dr. Kalaivani Rajendran, Question of Women Rights: Stri Dharma on the Hindu Women’s Rights Violation in In Colonial Tamilnadu, 1926 – 1936 (May 15, 2021).
• Anujay Shrivastava & Yashowardhan Tiwari, Understanding The Misunderstood: Mapping The Scope Of A Deity’s Rights In India, (10(1) WBNUJS International Journal of Law and Policy Review 1-45 (2021)).
• Fahad Aldossary, Are the Limitations on Remedies Fair? A Comparative Study Between the US Law and Islamic Law, (May 18, 2021).
• Fatih Serkant Adiguzel & Timur Kuran, The Islamic Waqf: Instrument of Unequal Security, Worldly and Otherworldly,  Economic Research Initiatives at Duke (ERID) Working Paper No. 305 (2021).

From SmartCILP:

• Joyce A. Hughes, Muhammad Ali: The Passport Issue, (42 North Carolina Central Law Review) 167-191 (2020).

European Court Says That Bulgaria Should Have Recognized Break-Away Orthodox Churches

In a case decided last month, Bulgarian Orthodox Old Calendar Church v. Bulgaria, (ECHR, April 21, 2021), the European Court of Human Rights, in a Chamber Judgment, held that Bulgaria had violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it refused to register a church adhering to the Old Calendarist variant of Eastern Orthodoxy.  Bulgarian courts relied on a provision in the Religious Denominations Act of 2002 providing that persons who had seceded from a registered religious institution before the Act’s entry into force in breach of that institution’s internal rules could not use the name of that institution. The European Court said in part:

62. Requiring a religious organisation seeking registration to take on a name which is not liable to mislead believers and the general public ... can in principle be seen as a justified limitation on its right freely to choose its name.... But the names of the applicant church and of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church were not identical, the applicant church’s name being sufficiently distinguished by the words “Old Calendar”. It is well known that Old Calendarist churches, which first appeared in the 1920s, when some Eastern Orthodox churches switched from the Julian Calendar to the Revised Julian Calendar, are distinct from those Eastern Orthodox churches.... Moreover, nothing suggests that the applicant church wished to identify itself with the Bulgarian Orthodox Church....

63.  In so far as the Government argued that the overlap between the beliefs and practices of the applicant church and of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was also a bar to the applicant church’s registration...- it should be noted that the assessment of whether or not religious beliefs are identical is not a matter for the State authorities, but for the religious communities themselves....  Pluralism, which is the basic fabric of democracy, is incompatible with State action compelling a religious community to unite under a single leadership.... 

64.  The refusal to register the applicant church was therefore not “necessary in a democratic society”. It follows that there has been a breach of Article 9 of the Convention read in the light of Article 11.

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

In a second case decided the same day, Independent Orthodox Church v. Bulgaria, (ECHR April 21, 2021), the same section of the European Court held that Bulgaria violated Article 9 of the Convention when it refused to recognize a new church because its name and beliefs were the same as those of the existing Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The Court commented:

[T]he State does not need to ensure that religious communities remain under a unified leadership.... Even if the creation of the applicant church was ... prompted by a division within the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, this fact does not alter that.... Nor does the fact that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church’s unity is considered of the utmost importance for its adherents and for Bulgarian society in general.

Suit Against Chicago Schools Over Transcendental Meditation Program Can Move Ahead In Part

In Separation of Hinduism from Our Schools v. Chicago Public Schools, (ND IL, May 21, 2021), plaintiffs challenged Chicago Public Schools' "Quiet Time" program which was led by a Transcendental Meditation instructor. They claim that the sessions contained elements of Hinduism in them. The court dismissed claims of some of the plaintiffs for lack of standing, and dismissed claims against the private foundation and the University of Chicago which helped implement the program. One of the plaintiffs, a former student who was required to participate in the program, was found to have standing to bring Establishment and Free Exercise clause claims as well as a claim under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act against the Chicago public schools. His father also had standing on 1st Amendment claims arising before his son's 18th birthday. The court said in part:

[E]ven if the Williamses were seeking only nominal damages, they would have standing to sue. In a case decided after the parties' briefs were submitted, the Supreme Court held that "a request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability element of standing where a plaintiff's claim is based on a completed violation of a legal right." Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 141 S. Ct. 792, 802 (2021).

Court Denies Injunction Against HUD's Fair Housing Act Interpretation Of Sex Discrimination

According to the Springfield News-Leader, after a 2½-hour hearing on Wednesday, a Missouri federal district court judge refused to issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against enforcement of a Department of Housing and Urban Development Directive interpreting the Fair Housing Act as barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The challenge was brought by College of the Ozarks, a Christian college that objects to housing transgender females in women's dormitories. (See prior posting.) The judge said that enjoining HUD would not protect the school from liability in a suit by a student who alleges  discrimination.

Suit On Misrepresentations In Settling Clergy Sex Abuse Claims Is Dismissed

 In Caldwell v. Archdiocese of New York, (SD NY, May 19, 2021), individuals who released their childhood sexual abuse claims as part of the Archdiocese's ’ Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Programs brought a class action claiming misrepresentations in procuring the releases. They claimed misrepresentations regarding the fairness of the settlements, the independence of the plan administrators, as well as failure to advise claimants of the prospects for enactment of the New York Child Victims Act.  The court dismissed the claims because plaintiffs failed to plead them with particularity as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 9(b).  They also failed to show a special relationship that would give rise to a duty to disclose information about the Child Victims Act and failed to show that they were induced to refrain from carrying out their own investigation.

Defamation Action By Bishop In Russian Orthodox Church Survives Motion To Dismiss

In Belya v. Metropolitan Hilarion, (SD NY, May 19, 2021), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss a defamation complaint by a leader of the Russian Orthodox Christian Church in the United States against various other Church leaders who oppose plaintiff's election as Bishop of Miami. According to the court, defendants, in a letter to the church's Synod, made various allegations:

Principally, the letter alleges that the election of Belya never actually occurred; that the results of Belya’s election were fabricated; that the communications from Hilarion to Russia were falsified, either with Hilarion’s knowledge or without; and that the letter from Archbishop Gavriil confirming that Belya had instituted the required changes of practice was likewise falsified. The Olkhovskiy Group requested, in light these allegations and additional unspecified complaints from persons in Florida, that Belya be suspended from clerical functions until the completion of a full investigation. This letter was disseminated among the members of the New York Synod, to parishes, churches, monasteries, and other institutions within ROCOR, as well as more broadly to online media outlets. 

According to Belya, after the September 3 Letter was sent, he was denied all access to Hilarion and was suspended from performing his duties as spiritual leader of his parish....

Rejecting an ecclesiastical abstention argument, the court concluded that the lawsuit "may be resolved by appealing to neutral principles of law. Plaintiff’s claim centers on Defendants’ allegations that he forged the various letters at issue that led to the confirmation of his election as Bishop of Miami."  The court went on:

Belya does not ask this Court to determine whether his election was proper or whether he should be reinstated to his role as Bishop of Miami, and the Court would not consider such a request under the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention....

Defendants argued that the statements at issue could not be defamatory because they were merely allegations or opinions.  The court concluded, however, that at least one of the challenged statements were assertions of fact, not just allegations.

President Signs COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act

Yesterday, President Biden signed into law S.937, COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act. (full text). While the impetus for the bill was the increase in hate crimes against Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders, the Act's provisions ramp up enforcement efforts relating to a broader group of hate crimes, including crimes committed because of the victim's religion. Among the Act's provisions are the following:

(1) Expedited review of hate crimes by the Justice Department during the next year.

(2) Justice Department must issue new guidance to states and localities on how to create online reporting of hate crimes and expand public education campaigns.

(3) Grants to states and local governments to assist in reporting of hate crimes to the National Incident-Based Reporting System.

(4) Grants for state-run Hate-Crime Hot Lines.

(5) Grants for law enforcement activities or crime reduction programs to respond to hate crimes.

(6) Justice Department must provide an annual report to Congress on the incidence of hate crimes.

(7) New provision on sentencing for hate crimes. If court imposes a term of supervised release after imprisonment, the court may order defendant to take classes or provide community service directly related to the community harmed by the defendant's offense.

NOTE TO READERS USING FEEDBURNER E-MAIL SERVICE

Google, the sponsor of Feedburner, has announced that the Feedburner e-mail service will no longer be available after July 2021. If you are currently following Religion Clause through a daily e-mail from feedproxy@google.com, you may wish to select an alternative platform for following this blog. You can find alternatives near the bottom of the Sidebar of the blog. This does not affect those who access Religion Clause in other ways (including FeedBlitz).

Virginia Muslim Politician Sues Over Lynching Threat

 A civil damage action for racial, religious and ethnic harassment in violation of Virginia Code § 8.01-42.1 was filed yesterday in federal district court by Qasim Rashid, a Virginia politician who is an Ahmadiyya Muslim and human rights activist.  Rashid sued Joseph Vandevere who used anonymous social media accounts to make violent threats, including the threat of lynching, against Rashid. The complaint (full text) in Rashid v. Vandevere, (ED VA, filed 5/19/2021), also alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress. In June 2020, Vandevere was sentenced in a criminal case to ten months in prison for making threats against Rashid. Muslim Advocates issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

ISIS Supporter Pleads Guilty To Planning Ohio Synagogue Attack

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio announced that yesterday Damon M. Joseph, aka Abdullah Ali Yusuf, pleaded guilty today to attempting to commit a hate crime by planning an ISIS-inspired attack on a synagogue in the Toledo, Ohio area. He also pleaded guilty to providing material support to ISIS and the Islamic State of Iraq. According to the Cleveland Jewish News, a preliminary plea agreement provides for a 20-year prison sentence for Joseph.

6th Circuit Rejects Free Exercise Challenge To Corporal Punishment Limitations

In Clark v. Stone, (6th Cir., May 19, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge by fundamentalist Christian parents that a child abuse investigation infringed their free exercise and due process rights. The parents believe that their religion requires them to use corporal punishment when necessary upon their children. The investigation led to a Juvenile Court order prohibiting the parents from physically disciplining their children. The court said in part:

While we can state with ease that there is a general right to use reasonable corporal punishment at home and in schools, that right is not an unlimited one. The Clarks have offered no authority that imposing corporal punishment that leaves marks is reasonable and is therefore a protected right....

... [A]lthough targeting religious beliefs is never acceptable, a generally applicable law that incidentally burdens one’s free exercise rights will typically be upheld....

Furthermore, any challenge to this regulation would likely survive strict scrutiny.... Here, the state certainly has a compelling interest in protecting children from physical abuse, and the regulation is written such that it explicitly does not prohibit corporal punishment that does not leave marks, bruises, etc. Thus, the regulation is narrowly tailored....

9th Circuit: Denial of Invocation Spot To Satanic Temple Was OK

 In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, (9th Cir., May 19, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an Arizona federal district court's dismissal of a religious discrimination suit by The Satanic Temple.  TST sued after it was not permitted to give a religious invocation at a city council meeting.  The district court concluded that the decision was based on a policy that only allowed organizations with substantial ties to the city to deliver invocations. According to the Court of Appeals:

After weighing the credibility of the witnesses, the district court properly concluded that TST had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that TST’s religious beliefs were a factor, let alone a substantial motivating factor, in Biesemeyer’s decision not to approve TST to give a legislative prayer.

Friendly Atheist blog discusses the case.

County's Current COVID Restrictions Upheld

In Abundant Life Baptist Church of Lee's Summit, Missouri v. Jackson County, Missouri, (WD MO, May 17, 2021), a Missouri federal district court held that free exercise, free speech, freedom of assembly and Establishment Clause challenges to prior versions of Jackson County's COVID-19 restrictions should not be dismissed. However challenges to the current version of the restrictions were dismissed because the restrictions do not distinguish between churches and other businesses or indoor spaces.

Suspended Priest's Age Discrimination Claim Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In In re Roman Catholic Diocese of El Paso, (TX App., May 17, 2021), a Texas appellate court by a vote of 2-1 held that under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, Texas civil courts lack jurisdiction over an age discrimination and fraud case brought by a Catholic priest against his diocese.  The suit was brought when the diocese reduced payments being made to the priest who was placed on administrative leave after criminal allegations were lodged against him. The majority said in part:

The Diocese contends in this mandamus that a civil court cannot adjudicate whether Bishop Seitz exercised his discretion to reduce Olivas’s payment of decent support in a reasonable manner without inextricably involving itself in the governance of the Catholic Church. We agree and conclude that for both of the asserted claims in this case, that the fact finder would have to judge the stated rationale of Bishop Seitz’s reduction of payments which is grounded under the church’s canon law.

Chief Justice Rodriguez dissented on several grounds. He said in part:

I believe that employment discrimination laws such as the age discrimination provision of Texas Commission on Human Rights Act ... may be constitutionally enforced against religious entity employers, provided that the employee bringing the claim is not one of the defendant’s “ministers.”...

[T]he wrinkle in this case is that while Olivas retains the title of priest, he is by the Church’s own assessment a priest in name only. Seitz admitted that Olivas does not and cannot perform any ministerial duties for the Diocese due to Olivas’ suspension of faculties.

Supreme Court Dismisses Cert. Grants On Title X Rule As HHS Considers Repeal

As previously reported, in February the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in three related cases challenging a Trump Administration rule promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services in March 2019. Among other things, the rule imposes new restrictions on abortion referrals by health care providers receiving Title X family planning funds. It effect was to cut off millions of federal dollars to Planned Parenthood. In April, however, the Biden Administration issued a proposed rule that would reverse the Trump Administration change in policy. (See prior posting.) In light of that, and the Government's assurance that it will continue to enforce the Trump Administration rules until they are changed (except in Maryland where an injunction is in force), the Supreme Court yesterday, by a vote of 6-3, dismissed the certiorari petitions. (American Medical Association v. Becerra, Docket No. 20-429, Becerra v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Docket No. 20-454, Oregon v. Becerra, Docket No. 20-539, cert. dismissed 5/17/2021) (Order List.) Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would not have dismissed the petitions. SCOTUSblog reports on the Court's action.

Supreme Court Grants Review In Mississippi Abortion Ban Case

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Center, (Docket No. 19-2392, certiorari granted 5/17/2021). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Mississippi statute that prohibits abortions, with limited exceptions, after 15 weeks' gestational age. The Supreme Court limited its grant of review to Question 1 presented in the petition for certiorari:

Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.

Here is the SCOTUSblog case page with all the filings in the case. NPR reports on the Court's grant of review.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Russell Powell, Spirit of the Corporation, (Seattle University Law Review, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2021).
• Amit Anand, Repression of Uyghur Muslims and The Freedom of Religious Beliefs in China, (Journal of Social Inclusion Studies (SAGE Publication), Forthcoming).
• Bidisha Das & Shivangi Banerjee, Hindu Female Intestate Succession Laws and Their Impact on Fundamental Rights of the Elderly, (May 1, 2021).
• Mark Koyama, The Institutional Foundations of Religious Freedom, (October 2020).
• Jaclyn L. Neo, Religious Freedom, (forthcoming in The Oxford Handbook of Constitutional Law in Asia).
• Johnny Davis, Conservative Betrayal, Natural Law and Legal Positivism, (May 10, 2021).
• Dr. Rifai Sulaiman Lebbe, Capital Punishments in Islamic Law, (May 11, 2021).
• Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Tolerating Racism and Hate Speech: A Critique of C.E. Baker’s 'Almost' Absolutism, (in: Sardoč M. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Toleration 2021. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham).
• Guiora, Amos N. Guiora, State Complicity and Religious Extremism: Failing the Vulnerable Individual, (State Complicity and Religious Extremism: Failing to Protect the Vulnerable, Afshin Elian and Paul Cliteur, eds.).

From SmartCILP:

• Mark R. Killenbeck, Pandora's Cake, 72 Arkansas Law Review 769-814 (2020).
• Jeffrey D. Jackson, Tiered Scrutiny in a Pandemic, 12 ConLawNOW 39-56 (2020).

Texas Passes Heartbeat Abortion Law With Broad Civil Enforcement Provision

Today the Texas legislature sent to Governor Greg Abbott for his signature SB8 (full text), the state's version of a "heartbeat" abortion law. Except in medical emergencies, it bans performing or inducing an abortion if the physician has detected a fetal heartbeat. Unique to the Texas law is a provision that allows any private person to bring a civil action against a physician who has violated the statute, and against anyone who knowingly aids or abets the abortion, including reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of the statute. However, no action may be brought against the woman on whom the abortion was performed. Plaintiff may recover statutory damages of not less than $10,000 for each abortion the defendant has been involved in. Daily Beast reports on the new statute. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Biden Sends Greetings To Muslims Celebrating the Eid al-Fitr

 In a Facebook post yesterday, President Joe Biden said:

As the holy month of Ramadan comes to an end, Jill and I send our warmest greetings to all those celebrating Eid. May you be well throughout the year. Eid Mubarak.