Bureau of Prisons Says Objecting Chaplains Need Not Carry Pepper Spray

A Liberty Counsel press release today reports that the U.S. Bureau of Prisons has granted accommodation requests from prison chaplains who object on religious grounds to carrying pepper spray as a potential defense in emergency situations.  Various prison Chaplains were told to carry the spray after enactment of the Eric Williams Correctional Officer Protection Act of 2015.  Liberty Counsel sent a letter in October seeking a religious accommodation and religious exemption for chaplains.

Quebec Court: Muslim Community Center Is Not "House of Worship"

The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that a Quebec Superior Court judge has ruled that a Muslim community center in a Montreal suburb is not a "house of worship". The city of Mascouche attempted to shut down the community center in a strip shopping mall on the ground that under zoning rules "houses of worship" are not permitted in the area. A room in the community center was used by men for prayer. The court said however that "prayers can be uttered in all places and not exclusively in a place of worship."

Parents Challenge Teacher's Distribution of Material Disparaging Muslims

According to yesterday's Pasedena Star-News, the parents of a 7th grade boy have filed an appeal with the California Department of Education over the Mesa Union School District's clearing of a teacher's who distributed material disparaging Muslims.  The boy is being bullied by other students because of his religion. The paper reports:

The material the teacher distributed contained information taken from the website billionbibles.org, which makes “inaccurate and disparaging” statements about Islam and Muslims,” said Masih Fouladi, CAIR-LA’s advocacy manager.

The sheet of paper distributed by the teacher states Sharia Law, or Islamic religious law, gives Muslim men sexual rights over any woman or girl not wearing the hijab or head scarf; allows a man to marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9; and requires Muslims to lie to non-Muslims to advance their faith.

“The main issue at hand with this incident of bullying is that the material was drawn from a website that is clearly intended to promote one religion at the expense of another,” Fouladi said. “This has no place in our public school system and is a clear violation of the First Amendment.”

School District Says First Amendment Bars District Diwali Holiday

According to Fox4News yesterday, Coppell Independent School District in Texas has refused requests to schedule a day off from school during Diwali. Nearly half the students in the school district are Asian.  The school board however took the position that principles of separation of church and state prevent it from recognizing a religious holiday.  When proponents argued that the district schedules a holiday on Good Friday, the school district responded that Good Friday is considered a professional development and bad weather make-up day.

European Court Vindicates Critic of Anti-Muslim Political Remarks

In Case of GRA Stiftung gegen Rassismus und Antisemitismus v. Switzerland,  (ECHR, Jan. 9, 2018), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that the free speech rights of a civil rights organization were infringed when Swiss courts sanctioned it for a web posting calling remarks of a youth leader of a right wing party "verbal racism." The remarks were made in the context of a referendum on banning the building of minarets. A Swiss appellate court found that the web posting infringed the party leader's personality rights.  It required the organization to remove its web posting and replace it by the court's opinion. It also was required to pay legal and court costs. The ECHR held in part:

When assessing the impugned statements in the present case, it is first of all important to bear in mind the general background of the ongoing political debate in which both statements were made.

... Both B.K.’s speech and the applicant organisation’s article concerned a topic of intense public debate in Switzerland at the material time, which was the popular initiative against the construction of minarets, which was widely reported on in national and international media. The initiative, calling for a ban on the construction of minarets, was ultimately accepted by a referendum on 29 November 2009 and such a ban was included in the Swiss Constitution....

The Court reiterates that a distinction has to be made between private individuals and persons acting in a public context, as political or public figures. Accordingly, whilst a private individual unknown to the public may claim particular protection of his or her right to private life, the same is not true of public figures.... 

... B.K. had willingly exposed himself to public scrutiny by stating his political views and therefore had to show a higher degree of tolerance towards potential criticism of his statements by persons or organisations which did not share his views.

A Chamber Judgment may be appealed to the Grand Chamber.  the Court issued a press release summarizing the decision.  Law & Religion UK has more on the case.

Suit Challenges Canada's Denial of Grants to Pro-Life Group

In Canada last week, a pro-life group filed suit in Federal Court in Alberta challenging new rules that bar it from receiving grants under the Canada Summer Jobs Program.  According to Life Site News report on the lawsuit, Canada Summer Jobs provides grants to non-profit groups, small businesses, and public sector employers in order to create jobs for students between 15 an 30 years old.  The complaint (full text) in Right to Life Association of Toronto and Area v. Canada (Minister of Employment, Workforce and Labour), (Fed. Ct., filed 1/4/2018), contends that the grant restrictions infringe plaintiffs' freedom of religion, conscience and belief, as well as their equal protection rights, under Sections 2(a)-(b) and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Last December, Canada's Employment Ministry added a requirement that in order to receive a grant under the program, an organization had to attest to the following:

Both the job and the organization's core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights.  These include reproductive rights, and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.

Suit Challenges Rules Against Proselytizing At Alaska Town Festival

The Center for Religious Expression last week announced the filing of a federal lawsuit in Alaska challenging a rule at the Girdwood, Alaska Forest Fair that prohibits the distribution of religious literature.  Anchorage Daily News has more on the lawsuit:

During the Forest Fair, an annual Girdwood summer festival that celebrates tie-dye, home-spun crafts and public hula-hooping, signs posted on the tall trees alert visitors to three main rules: "No dogs, no politics, no religious orders."

But one of those rules, a doctrine of the fair for more than four decades, now faces a legal challenge. Last week, two evangelical Christians, one of whom is a well-known activist, filed a lawsuit in federal court saying the ban on "religious orders" infringes on their constitutional right to free speech....

The two plaintiffs say they were told that they could not continue to proselytize and distribute literature in the park where the festival is held.  They were required to move to sidewalks outside the park to distribute their gospel tracts. [Thanks to Jeff Pasek for the lead.]

6th Circuit: Tennessee Constitutional Amendment On Abortion Was Validly Adopted

In George v. Hargett, (6th Cir., Jan. 9, 2018), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge by Tennessee voters to the method by which votes were counted in 2014 on a state constitutional amendment.  At issue was an amendment that provides in part: "Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion."  Language in the Tennessee constitution on the number of votes needed to approve a constitutional amendment is ambiguous.  However a state court had upheld the interpretation by state voting officials.  The 6th Circuit, reversing the district court, upheld the state's determination that the amendment had passed. It also concluded that the vote counting method used by the state does not violated due process or equal protection provisions of the federal Constitution.  The Tennessean reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Notre Dame Alums Object To University's Contraceptive Mandate Position

As previously reported, Notre Dame University is allowing its its health insurance providers to continue to furnish contraceptive coverage for university employees and students, even though Trump Administration rules now allow the university to opt out on religious grounds. Life Site News yesterday reported that 66 lawyers who are Notre Dame alumni have signed a letter (full text) to Notre Dame president Father William Jenkins strongly objecting to the University's decision. The letter objects that the university "now doing voluntarily precisely what it said it could not do in good conscience...." The letter goes on to charge that the school's assertions "now appears to be a collection of flat-out misrepresentations" in what amounts to "a pretend lawsuit."  The letter continues in part:

If, then, there is some explanation that will absolve the University from the charge of playing fast and loose with the courts or mitigate to some degree its blame, we urge you to provide it.

If there is not, then the matter seems to us to be quite serious enough to demand the attention of the Fellows and the Board of Trustees. It will be bought to their attention in due course. Remedial action should be taken, an accounting given to the Notre Dame community, and thoughtful consideration given to how amends might be made to the courts. ...

Finally, though we hope it does not come to it, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does provide a means for federal courts to determine if there have been misrepresentations by litigants and, if so, what to do about it. A court can invoke the procedure on its own initiative. Given the wide publicity accorded the university's turnabout, Court of Appeals judges ... might think a Rule 11 hearing appropriate.

Trump Renominates Brownback for International Religious Freedom Post, Kacsmaryk For District Court

Yesterday President Trump sent a large number of renominations to the Senate, a step required after Democrats refused to consent to last Senate session's nominations rolling over into the new session.  As reported by the Kansas City Star, these included the renomination of Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback to be  Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom.

Last week, the President renominated 21 individuals for federal judgeships.  Among them is Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, nominated for Northern District of Texas.  Kacsmaryk specializes in religious liberty litigation as Deputy General Counsel at the First Liberty Institute.  Dallas Morning News reports on the renomination.

Supreme Court Refuses Review In Standing Case Challenging Mississippi's Conscience Law

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Barber v. Bryant, (Docket No. 17-547, cert. denied 1/8/2018) and Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, (Docket No. 17-642, cert. denied 1/8/2018). (Order List.)  In the companion cases, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed challenges to Mississippi's Conscience Protection Act for lack of standing. The law, Mississippi's HB 1523, protects against discriminatory action by state government anyone who acts in accordance with his or her religious beliefs or moral convictions that marriage is only between one man and one woman, sexual relations are reserved to such marriages, and gender is determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth. (See prior posting.) An en banc rehearing was denied by the 5th Circuit, over the dissent of two judges.  National Law Journal reports on the Supreme Court's action which leaves the law in effect.

Government Seeks Supreme Court Review of Third Travel Ban

The Justice Department last week filed a petition for certiorari (full text) in Trump v. State of Hawaii, a challenge to the President's third travel ban.  In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the third version of President Trump's travel ban is inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act. (See prior posting.)  The 9th Circuit avoided deciding the question of whether the Proclamation violates the Establishment Clause. SCOTUSblog has more on the cert. petition and the background of the case.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Muhammad Munir, Fundamental Guarantees of the Rights of the Accused in Islamic Criminal Justice System, (Hamdard Islamicus, Issue no. 4 (2017)).
• John Witte, Law, Religion, and Metaphor, (in Günter Thomas and Heike Springhart, eds., Risiko und Vertrauen/Risk and Trust: Festschrift für Michael Welker zum 70. Geburtstag (Leipzig: Evangeliche Verlagsanhalt, 2017), 177-195).
• Muhidin Mulalić & Ahmed Kulanić, Religious Extremism vs. Multiculturalism in Bosnia and Herzegovina, (Poligrafi Journal, Vol. 22, No. 85-86, p. 7-29, 2017).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Njie v. Yurkovich, (7th Cir., Jan. 5, 2018), the 7th Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of a lawsuit by a Rastafarian inmate, concluding that the district court wrongly concluded that all the claims were duplicative of those in another pending lawsuit.

In Hoskins v. Spiller, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 364 (SD IL, Jan. 2, 2017), an Illinois federal district court dis missed without prejudice a Muslim inmate's complaint about religious diet and Ramadan observance. It severed and allowed plaintiff to pursue separately complaints about prayer conditions and religious diet at another institution to which he was transferred.

In LeBaron v. Massachusetts Partnership for Correctional Healthcare, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213577 (D MA, Dec. 1, 2017), a Massachusetts federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing claims by a Messianic Jewish inmate that labeling him with a psychiatric condition and forcing him to take mental health drugs substantially burdens his free exercise of religion.

In Aguilar v. Linderman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 954 (D AZ, Jan. 2, 2018), an Arizona federal district court allowed an inmate who is an adherent of Assembly of Yahuwah-Is to move ahead with his complaint regarding a religious diet, but dismissed claims of inadequate religious feast meals and refusal to deliver religious literature mailed to him.

In Wonsch v. Garner, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74 (WD OK, Jan. 2, 2018), an Oklahoma federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213803, Nov. 22, 2017) and dismissed an inmate's claim that he was denied access to clergy, and was requred to take an 8-week Bible study course to be approved for baptism.

In Townsend v. Ouellette, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1427 (WD MI, Jan. 4, 2017), a Michigan federal district court allowed a Buddhist inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was denied a vegan-compliant Vitamin B-12 supplement, but dismissed his complaints regarding religious oil restrictions and denial of a PSA blood test in place of a digital rectal exam that violates his religious beliefs.

In Watford v. Newbold, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1636 (SD IL, Jan. 4, 2018), and Illinois federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that denial of dental and medical treatment violates his religious obligation to properly care for his body.

Amish Couple Required To Connect Property To Sewer System With Electric Pump

In Yoder v. Sugar Grove Area Sewer Authority, (Commonwlth. Ct. PA, Jan. 5, 2018), a Pennsylvania state appellate court, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the denial of an injunction sought by an Old Order Amish couple who object to the requirement that they connect to the local sewer system using an electric pump.  The dispute has wound its way through the courts for over five years.  (See prior related posting.)  The majority said in part:

Owners did not establish the injunction would not harm the public, or that the harm in denying the injunction outweighed the harm in granting it. We defer to the trial court’s findings as to weighing the harms and the adverse effect of an injunction on the public health. After several years of litigation on multiple fronts, we recognize a strong interest in accomplishing the mandatory connection without further delay. Because there are apparently reasonable grounds for the trial court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief, we affirm.

Judge McCullough dissented, relying on the state's Religious Freedom Protection Act. She argued that the trial court wrongly placed the burden on the property owners, rather than the sewer authority, to show the least restrictive means of furthering the state's interest.  She went on:

... [T]his case [should be] remanded to the trial court with the instruction to place the burden on the Authority to demonstrate the least intrusive means of non-electric connection to its sewer system. It may be that there are none and, if that is the case, then the trial court should re-open the issue of compelling Owners, against their sincerely held religious beliefs, to connect to the Authority’s sewer system. The Act requires the interest of the agency/authority to be “compelling” before it imposes a substantial burden on religious freedom. I question whether mandatory electric connection is such a compelling interest so as to countenance this infringement upon Owners’ religious freedom.

4th Circuit Strikes Down Baltimore's Posting Requirement For Pregnancy Centers

In Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc., v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, (4th Cir., Jan. 5, 2018), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held unconstitutional a Baltimore ordinance requiring any "limited service pregnancy center" to post a notice in its waiting room telling clients that it "does not provide or make referral for abortion or birth-control services."  Finding that the speech being regulated is neither commercial speech nor professional speech, the Court held that the ordinance violates plaintiffs' 1st Amendment rights.  The Court said in part:

The dangers of compelled speech in an area as ideologically sensitive and spiritually fraught as this one require that the government not overplay its hand. Without proving the inefficacy of less restrictive alternatives, providing concrete evidence of deception, or more precisely targeting its regulation, the City cannot prevail. The Baltimore ordinance, as applied to the Center, fails to satisfy heightened First Amendment scrutiny.

...This court has in the past struck down attempts to compel speech from abortion providers.... And today we do the same with regard to compelling speech from abortion foes. We do so in belief that earnest advocates on all sides of this issue should not be forced by the state into a corner and required essentially to renounce and forswear what they have come as a matter of deepest conviction to believe.

This is the second time that the case has made it to the 4th Circuit. (See prior posting.) The Baltimore Sun reports on the decision.

State Department Names "Countries of Particular Concern"

The State Department announced yesterday that it has redesignated ten countries as Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) under the International Religious Freedom Act. CPC's are nations guilty of the most egregious violations of religious liberty. The countries are: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.  The Sate Department also placed Pakistan on a Special Watch List-- a new category created by 2016 amendments to the International Religious Freedom Act. This category is for countries with severe violations of religious freedom.  Last April, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom had recommended six additional countries be added as CPC's. (See prior posting.)  In a Release yesterday praising the State Department's action, USCIRF urged the Department to also exercise its authority to designate non-governmental groups as "Entities of Particular Concern."

Parole Condition Barring Church Attendance Is Enjoined

In Manning v. Powers, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213749 (CD CA, Dec. 13, 2017), a California federal district court granted a preliminary injunction banning the government from enforcing two parole conditions imposed on Sherman Manning, a Baptist minister who had served 25 years in prison for sexual assaults on teenage boys.  One of the challenged conditions prohibited Manning from entering places where children congregate.  Authorities had interpreted that to prohibit him from entering any church.  In invalidating that broad prohibition, the court said in part:

To withstand constitutional scrutiny, a prohibition that is not neutral or generally applicable must advance "only those interests of the highest order," and be narrowly tailored to serve those state interests.... That criteria is not met here. Although public safety is a compelling state interest, the court finds that a blanket restriction on Manning's churchgoing is not narrowly tailored to suit this interest. None of Manning's convictions have any connection to churches or religious activity.... Additionally, the alleged prohibition is overbroad in that it may reach even church events at which no children, or very few children, are ever present. Therefore, the court concludes that an interpretation of SCP 18 that imposes a blanket prohibition on churchgoing is likely to result in a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

USCIRF Praises US Sanctions Against Burmese General

In a Dec. 21 press release, the U.S. Treasury Department announced the first sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act.  this week, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a press release focusing particularly on sanctions imposed on a Burmese army general for his abuses directed at Rohingya Muslims. USCIRF said in part:

USCIRF has long called for targeted sanctions against violators of religious freedom....  Tools that could be used include the Global Magnitsky Act, the Treasury Department’s “specially designated nationals” (SDN) list, and other provisions under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA).

Specific to Burma, USCIRF praises the inclusion of General Maung Maung Soe in the list of sanctioned individuals.  As the former head of the Burmese Army’s Western Command, he oversaw military operations in Rakhine State and myriad human rights abuses that resulted in more than 700,000 Rohingya Muslims fleeing the country since 2016.

FEMA Policy Change: Houses of Worship Now Eligible For Disaster Relief

The Federal Emergency Management Agency announced yesterday that:

private nonprofit houses of worship are now eligible for disaster assistance as community centers, without regard to their secular or religious nature.  These changes are effective for disasters declared on or after August 23, 2017 and for applications for assistance that were pending with FEMA as of August 23, 2017, including applications on first- or second-level appeal, that as of today have not yet been resolved by FEMA.

The policy change, also reflected in a new edition of FEMA's Public Assistance Program Policy Guide, reverses a long-standing policy that is currently being challenged in two separate lawsuits growing our of recent hurricane damage in Texas and Florida. (See prior posting.) Becket issued a press release calling attention to FEMA's policy change.