Happy Constitution Day!

Tomorrow is Constitution Day-- the 229th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. In many cities the event was celebrated today instead of on the weekend.  Of course the primary protections for religious liberty were not part of the document as signed in 1787, but instead were part of the First Amendment-- ratified two years later in 1789.  However the original body of the Constitution did contain some protection for religious liberty and religious pluralism through the provision in Article VI:

[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Happy Constitution Day!

Defendant Wears Religious Texts As Protest Against Judge

The New York Post reports (with accompanying photos) that on Wednesday a defendant charged with various drug offenses appeared in a Brooklyn, New York trial court wearing a shirt he had made from newsprint carrying Hebrew writings of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe. He also wore a paper hat carrying seven of the Ten Commandments.  Defendant Aaron Akaberi-- who has professed a series of different religious beliefs-- says he did this as a protest against the judge who had refused to allow him to read passages from Jewish texts into the record at an earlier pre-trial hearing. His hearing was adjourned to a later date.

Voyeuristic Rabbi's 6+ Year Sentence Upheld On Appeal

In Freundel v. United States, (DC Ct. App., Sept. 15, 2016), the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's sentence totaling over 6 years in prison imposed on Rabbi Barry Freundel who, under a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to 52 counts of voyeurism. Freundel had secretly videotaped 150 women in the changing room of the mikveh (ritual bath) at Washington's Kesher Israel Synagogue. The trial court sentenced Freundel to consecutive 45-day sentences on each count. On appeal, Fruendel argued that the consecutive sentences violate the double jeopardy clause, contending that his offenses involved only a single course of conduct. The appeals court disagreed, saying in part:

Under Mr. Freundel’s interpretation, once a defendant unlawfully recorded one victim, all future voyeuristic recording, even of different victims with different recording devices in different locations and at different times, would not be separately punishable as long as the defendant in some sense had a single voyeuristic purpose....“This is surely not a result which the legislature intended.”

AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Brooklyn District Elects First Hasidic Female Judge In New York

The Windsor Terrace Patch reports that Rachel Freier will become the first Hasidic Jewish woman elected as a judge in New York state.  Frier won 41% of the votes in a 3-way Democratic primary for 5th District Civil Court in Kings County.  The district encompasses various communities in Brooklyn.  Apparently Freier will be unopposed in the November election.  Freier, a mother of six and and attorney, is particularly known for her role in founding Ezras Nashim, an all-female volunteer EMT service for the observant Jewish community.

Salesperson Is Independent Contractor, So Title VII Does Not Apply

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported yesterday that a Pennsylvania federal district court has dismissed a suit against a bathroom remodeling company brought by a woman who was fired from her sales position when she refused to continue to attend Bible-based sales training sessions.  A federal court jury Tuesday concluded that the plaintiff was an independent contractor rather than employee, so the religious discrimination provisions of Title VII and state law do not apply.

Court Upholds Modified Version of School's Annual Christmas Production

In Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Concord Community Schools, (ND IN, Sept. 14, 2016), an Indiana federal district court upheld against an Establishment Clause attack a modified version of the annual Christmas Spectacular put on by an Indiana high school. The court had previously issued a preliminary injunction against the 2014 and proposed 2015 versions that included a live Nativity Scene. (See prior posting.) The court now ordered the parties to submit briefs as to whether claims regarding those versions are now moot, and if they are not, what remedies are appropriate. The court then concluded that the version of the Christmas Spectacular actually performed in 2015 after the issuance of the preliminary injunction-- a version that modifies the nativity scene and adds Chanukah and Kwanzaa elements-- does not violate any of the Establishment Clause tests.  The court said in part:

At bottom, the endorsement test involves a holistic, qualitative assessment of the totality of the circumstances of a given display. Here, based on the circumstances and presentation of the show as a whole, and the way in which an objective, reasonable observer would likely perceive it, the Court finds that the Christmas Spectacular that was actually performed in 2015 did not convey a message of endorsement of religion.

An FFRF press release, which contains links to prior pleadings in the case, discusses yesterday's decision.

US Civil Rights Commission Issues Report On Religious Liberty vs. Civil Rights

Last week (Sept. 7), the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released a 306-page briefing report titled Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties.  Here is a portion of the Commission's Findings:

The Commission endorses the briefing panelists’ statements as summarized at page 21 of the Report in support of these Findings.

(1) schools must be allowed to insist on inclusive values; 2) throughout history, religious doctrines accepted at one time later become viewed as discriminatory, with religions changing accordingly; 3) without exemptions, groups would not use the pretext of religious doctrines to discriminate; 4) a doctrine that distinguishes between beliefs (which should be protected) and conduct (which should conform to the law) is fairer and easier to apply; 5) third parties, such as employees, should not be forced to live under the religious doctrines of their employers [unless the employer is allowed to impose such constraints by virtue of the ministerial exception]; 6) a basic [civil] right as important as the freedom to marry should not be subject to religious beliefs; and 7) even a widely accepted doctrine such as the ministerial exemption should be subject to review as to whether church employees have religious duties.

Further, specifically with regard to number (2) above, religious doctrines that were widely accepted at one time came to be deemed highly discriminatory, such as slavery, homosexuality bans, and unequal treatment of women, and that what is considered within the purview of religious autonomy at one time would likely change.

Yesterday, the U.S. Catholic Bishop's Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty released a statement (full text) highly critical of the statement in the Report by Commission Chairman Martin Castro.  The Bishops said in part:

For the current Chairman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, religious liberty is reduced to "nothing except hypocrisy," and religion is being used as a "weapon… by those seeking to deny others equality." He makes the shocking suggestion that Catholic, evangelical, orthodox Jewish, Mormon, and Muslim communities are comparable to fringe segregationists from the civil rights era. These statements painting those who support religious freedom with the broad brush of bigotry are reckless and reveal a profound disregard for the religious foundations of his own work.

[Thanks to Jeff Ziegler for the lead.]

NYT: Russia Uses Orthodox Church To Extend Its Political Influence

The New York Times, in a front-page story posted online yesterday, explores how Russia is using the Russian Orthodox Church to extend the country's political influence.  Here is an excerpt:

While tanks and artillery have been Russia’s weapons of choice to project its power into neighboring Ukraine and Georgia, Mr. Putin has also mobilized faith to expand the country’s reach and influence. A fervent foe of homosexuality and any attempt to put individual rights above those of family, community or nation, the Russian Orthodox Church helps project Russia as the natural ally of all those who pine for a more secure, illiberal world free from the tradition-crushing rush of globalization, multiculturalism and women’s and gay rights.

Thanks to a close alliance between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Kremlin, religion has proved a particularly powerful tool in former Soviet lands like Moldova, where senior priests loyal to the Moscow church hierarchy have campaigned tirelessly to block their country’s integration with the West. Priests in Montenegro, meanwhile have spearheaded efforts to derail their country’s plans to join NATO.

But faith has also helped Mr. Putin amplify Russia’s voice farther west, with the church leading a push into resolutely secular members of the European Union like France.

Catholic Diocese and Franciscan Order Settle Abuse Lawsuits

AP reported yesterday that the Catholic Diocese of Youngstown, Ohio and a Franciscan order based in Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania have agreed to pay $900,000 to settle lawsuits involving 28 claims of abuse committed by a now deceased Brother in the order, Joseph Baker.  The abuse occurred in Catholic schools in Warren, Ohio between 1986 and 1990. Baker committed suicide in 2013.

Indiana's Bar On Name Changes By Non-Citizens Challenged As Violating Transgender Rights

Yesterday the battle over transgender rights-- which has often had religious overtones-- took a different turn with the filing of a federal court lawsuit by a transgender male from Mexico who was granted political asylum in the United States and who lives in Indiana.  At issue is an Indiana law that prohibits non-citizens from obtaining a legal change of name. The complaint (full text) in Doe v. Pence, (SD IN, filed 9/13/2016), contends that the law violates plaintiff's 1st and 14th Amendment rights, saying in part:

For a transgender person, a change of name is in many cases a necessary part of treatment for Gender Dysphoria....  Transgender people face a heightened risk of discrimination, harassment, and violence when their transgender status is known to others. Being referred to by or having to identify oneself by a name traditionally associated with the person’s sex assigned at birth, rather than with the person’s lived gender, can “out” a transgender person to others, revealing their private medical information and putting them at serious risk of harm.

Plaintiff asserts, in in addition to equal protection, autonomy and privacy claims, a free speech right to change his name:

Indiana Code Section 34-28-2-2.5(a)(5) violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech by compelling speech from Plaintiff that betrays and falsely communicates the core of who he is.... For transgender persons, communicating their name and expressing their gender is speech protected by the First Amendment. Plaintiff’s adoption of the traditionally masculine name “John” conveys the message that he is a man, an essential component of personal identity.

MALDEF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Wall Street Journal reports on the lawsuit.

Social Security Employee Fighting LGBTQ Awareness Training On Religious Grounds

A new controversy pitting Christian religious beliefs against LGBTQ rights has erupted at the Social Security Administration.  LGBTQ Nation reports today that David Hall, a 14-year employee at the Social Security office in Champaign, Illinois, has been suspended for two days and anticipates being fired for refusing to watch a training video on LGBTQ awareness.  Hall, a Christian, was refused a religious accommodation to excuse him from the requirement to sign a form acknowledging that he had completed the awareness training.  Hall, who has hired a lawyer, says: "I am not going to certify sin." He argues that the video is "promoting an agenda and lifestyle" that he does not agree with. Hall says he has LGBTQ friends and family and is not judging anyone.  He says: "I’m simply trying to live out my life, my faith and be obedient to the will of God."

Speeches To Value Voters Summit Now Online

The annual Value Voters Summit was held last week in Washington, D.C.  Videos of speeches by more than 25 political and religious leaders to the conservative Christian attendees at the Summit are available online.  Speakers included Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Reince Priebus, Oliver North and Rick Santorum.

Cert Petition Filed In "Sister Wives" Challenge To Polygamy Law

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in Brown v. Buhman.  In the case, U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed on mootness grounds the constitutional challenge to Utah's bigamy law that had been filed by the polygamous family from the television show "Sister Wives." (See prior posting). A federal district court had held most of Utah's plural marriage ban unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) Jonathan Turley who represents petitioners discusses the filing on his blog.

Title VII's Religious Organization Exemption Protects Salvation Army

In Garcia v. Salvation Army, (D AZ, Sept. 12, 2016), an Arizona federal district court dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought against the Salvation Army by a former social services coordinator for the organization.  Plaintiff claimed that she was subjected to discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment after she stopped attending services at the Salvation Army’s Estrella Mountain Corps where she was employed.  The court held that Title VII's religious organization exemption applies to plaintiff's claim, and that the Salvation Army did not waive the defense by failing to assert it as an affirmative defense.

2nd Circuit: Students Lack Standing To Challenge Diversion of Dollars To Religious Schools

In Montesa v. Schwartz, (2d Cir., Sept. 12, 2016), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that plaintiffs-- dozens of students in the East Ramapo Central School District in New York state-- lack standing to sue over funds allegedly diverted by the school board to Orthodox Jewish schools.  The students claim that the diversion-- in part through manipulation of payments under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act-- led to less funding for the public schools they attend.  In denying standing, the majority said in part:

We have not found a case ... where an appeals court has recognized [plaintiffs'] theory of direct exposure—where the plaintiffs’ exposure is the loss of a favored governmental service or benefit caused, in part, by a diversion of public resources away from such service or benefit to support a preferred religion....  The Student‐Plaintiffs’ injury arises out of being enmeshed in an underfunded school system, not out of being directly exposed to the alleged unconstitutional IDEA Settlements themselves. An alleged causal connection between the underfunding of the school district’s budget and the alleged unconstitutional expenditures is insufficient to give rise to a direct injury. To hold otherwise would impermissibly expand the concept of direct exposure to include injuries that are unrelated to the challenged governmental act but which flow in fact from a government’s decision to fund one program or service at the expense of another.  This is a theory of indirect injury and recognizing it would allow plaintiffs who are only incidentally affected by a challenged governmental expenditure to assert Establishment Clause claims.

Judge Reiss dissented. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Canadian Appeals Court Allows Review of Church's Expulsion of a Member

In Wall v Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, (Alberta Ct. App., Sept. 8, 2016), the Court of Appeals of the Canadian province of Alberta held, in a 2-1 decision, that Canadian civil courts have jurisdiction to review a formal decision by a Jehovah's Witness congregation to disfellowship one of its members. The congregation's Judicial Committee took the action against the member, Randy Wall, on the basis of charges of drunkeness.  A church Appeal Committee upheld the decision over Wall's defense that his action resulted from stress over the church's previous disfellowshipping of his 15 year old daughter and the requirement that he shun aspects of his relationship with her.

The majority held that civil courts have jurisdiction to review the decision of a religious organization where the decision impacts property or civil rights, or if a breach of the rules of natural justice is alleged.  Here Wall alleged sufficient procedural irregularities to give jurisdiction to determine if rules of natural justice were breached.  The appeals court majority also held that Wall can submit new evidence to the trial court on whether the impact of shunning by fellow congregants will result in an economic impact on his real estate business.

Judge Wakeling dissenting said in part:

Relying on basic constitutional principles, I have concluded that, presumptively, religious associations – and more importantly, the constituent members – have the constitutional right to select their own members – those with whom they will worship. This decision to exclude a person from the group may be attributable to irreconcilable religious differences or perceived unacceptable forms of behaviour. One should not have to undertake such an intensely personal pursuit with those with whom they do not wish to associate. A religious association must be solely responsible for this class of decisions.

A civil court must decline to review membership decisions of a religious association....

[S]tate intervention in the affairs of religious organizations is not only contrary to the interests of a democratic community, it is also inimical to the welfare of both religious organizations and their congregants.  Whether a religion prospers and attracts new members and has influence in the greater community should be the product of the efforts of adherents of a religion and the values of the religion, not the level of support provided by state apparatus, including the judicial branch of government.

... Courts have neither the mandate nor the expertise to resolve religious doctrinal disputes.

Where one appellate judge dissents on an issue of law, an appeal as of right to Canada's Supreme Court is available. (Background.)  National Post reports on the decision.

Company Settles With EEOC Over Firing of Seventh Day Adventist

The EEOC announced last week that North Carolina-based Greenville Ready Mixed Concrete, Inc., has agreed to a $42,500 settlement in the EEOC's suit (see prior posting) against it for firing a Seventh Day Adventist employee who refused a Saturday work assignment. The company has also agreed to a 5-year consent decree requiring it to create an anti-discrimination policy, engage in employee training, post notice about the lawsuit and submit periodic reports to the EEOC.

Illinois Court Recognizes Muslim Divorce In India Through Khula

Times of India reported yesterday on a June 28 opinion handed down by a Cook County, Illinois circuit court judge recognizing that a Muslim woman's first marriage had been validly dissolved in India in 2007 through the little-known wife-initiated Sharia law procedure of khula.  The issue arose when the woman's second husband raised as a defense in a divorce proceeding the argument that their marriage was never valid because the wife was never divorced from her first husband.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Steven Menashi, How Great is the Threat to Religious Freedom, Really?, (Mosaic Magazine, August 17, 2015).
• Michael W. McConnell, Mark E. Schneider, Jay P. Lefkowitz & Steven Menashi, Brief of Amici Curiae Former Justice Department Officials in Support of Petitioners in Zubik v. Burwell, (2016).
• Shachar Eldar & Elkana Laist, The Irrelevance of Motive and the Rule of Law, (New Criminal Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Marc O. DeGirolami, Religious Accommodation, Religious Tradition, and Political Polarization, (Lewis & Clark Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Christopher C. Lund, Religious Exemptions, Third-Party Harms, and the Establishment Clause, (Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 91, p. 1375, 2016 (symposium)).
• John C. Eastman, No Free Lunch, But Dinner and a Movie (and Contraceptives for Dessert)?, (10 N.Y.U. J. L. & Liberty 282 (2016)).
• Robert Corn-Revere, Hate Speech Laws: Ratifying the Assassin's Veto, (Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 791 (2016)).

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

• Effie Fokas, Directions in Religious Pluralism in Europe: Mobilizations in the Shadow of European Court of Human Rights Religious Freedom Jurisprudence, (Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, Vol 4, No.1, 54-74 (2015)).
• Luke Beck, The Case against Improper Purpose as the Touchstone for Invalidity under Section 116 of the Constitution, (Federal Law Review, Vol. 44, No. 3, Forthcoming).
• Gbohou Gnantin Hilaire Tegnan & Saldi Isra, Rule of Law and Human Rights Challenges in South East Asia: A Case Study of Legal Pluralism in Indonesia, (April 1, 2016).
• Preethi Kumar Mokshagundam, Dr. Ambedkar's Concept of Social Justice and Indian Constitution Protection for Dalits – A Recent Day Analysis, (August 23, 2016).
• Paul Dermine, Towards the Recognition of a Pan-European Right to Same-Sex Marriage – What If Light Came from the United States?, (June 1, 2016).
• Matthew S. Erie, Sharia, Charity, and Minjian Autonomy in Muslim China: Gift Giving in a Plural World, (American Ethnologist 43(2): 311-423 (2016)).

From SmartCILP:

• Walter C. Long, The Constitutionality and Ethics of Execution-Day Prison Chaplaincy, [Abstract], 21 Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights 1-33 (2015).
• Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Unconscionable War on Moral Conscience (reviewing Robert P. George, Conscience and Its Enemies: Confronting the Dogmas of Liberal Secularism), 91 Notre Dame Law Review Rev. 1167-1195 (2016).
• Mark Strasser, Hobby Lobby, RFRA, and Family Burdens, [Abstract], 25 Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 239-264 (2016).
• Special Issue: A Thousand Years of Infamy: The History of the Blood Libel. Edited by Richard H. Weisberg; preface by Richard H. Weisberg; articles by Jeffrey Mehlman, Hannah R. Johnson, Richard H. Weisberg, David Fraser and Vivian Grosswald Curran. 28 Law & Literature 1-95 (2016).

Ethiopia Pardons Muslims Convicted of Opposing Government's Moderate Push

AP reports that in Ethiopia on Saturday, the chief prosecutor pardoned around 1,000 convicts upon the approach of the Ethiopian New Year and Eid al-Adha.  Among them were 135 Muslims convicted on anti-terrorism charges of religious extremism.  The pardoned convicts had participated in months-long anti-government protests in 2012 when the government encouraged the teaching of the moderate Al-Ahbash form of Islam and required that it be taught in an Addis Ababa religious school. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]