New South Asian Congressional Caucus Launched Amid Criticism from Some Civil Rights Groups

Last week, Michigan Congressman Shri Thanedar announced formation of the 28-member "Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain US Congressional Caucus." According to India West Journal: "The group will address cultural misunderstandings, promote interfaith dialogue and harmony, and support initiatives to promote the well-being, education, and empowerment of the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Jains in the US." However, four Hindu, Sikh and Muslim civil rights groups issued a press release sharply criticizing formation of the caucus, saying it does not represent all parts of the South Asian community across faith, caste and ethnic lines.  The press release says in part:

"... In June of this year, Congressman Thanedar announced his intention to form a Hindu Caucus without input from the full spectrum of Hindu American civil society, including Dalit and linguistic community organizations. This caucus seems to be a new iteration of that previous announcement.”

“If this caucus is that announcement repackaged with a more inclusive label but the same makeup, it will likely combat meaningful oversight of the U.S.-India relationship, ongoing work to protect the civil rights and safety of Sikhs and other marginalized groups, and efforts to ban caste discrimination at a federal level. Moreover, given the lack of Muslim representation, it may oppose ongoing efforts to combat Islamophobia. In short, any caucus without inclusive representation from the Indian diaspora will serve as nothing more than a vehicle for Hindu nationalist policies that will inevitably harm the entire South Asian American community, including Sikh, Muslim, Dalit, Buddhist, Jain, and even Hindu Americans.

Ministerial Exception Bars Disability Discrimination Suit Against Zen Center

In Behrend v. San Francisco Zen Center, Inc., (ND CA, Feb. 14, 2023), a California federal district court dismissed on ministerial exception grounds a disability discrimination suit brought against a Zen Center by plaintiff who was participating in the Center's Zen Buddhism practice program. The program included both a "formal practice" (meditations, services, educational programs) and a "work practice" (cooking, dishwashing, bathroom and guest room cleaning, ringing bells) component. Finding that the ministerial exception applied, the court said in part:

[B]oth the formal practice and the work practice, “lie[s] at the very core of the mission of” SF Zen Center. Guadalupe, 140 S. Ct. at 2064. And so, drawing all reasonable inferences in Mr. Behrend’s favor, every reasonable trier of fact would be compelled to find his position implicates the fundamental purpose of the ministerial exception. The Work Practice Apprentice position was undisputedly a residential religious training program, and work practice was undisputedly a part of that religious training. Work as part of learning to practice the faith and work as part of training to lead the faith implicate the same fundamental purpose of the exception.

Congregants of Buddhist Temple Have Standing to Sue in Factional Dispute

 In Bui v. Loc Hoang Bach, (CA App., Dec. 16, 2022), a California state appellate court, reversing the trial court, held that congregants of a Vietnamese Buddhist Temple have standing to sue two directors who took over control of the Temple after the death of its long-time Abbot. The two directors are attempting to force out the deceased Abbot's nephew who appellants claim was chosen by the deceased Abbot to be the new leader of the Temple. The court held that because the Temple's bylaws did not provide for members, plaintiffs cannot rely on the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law provision that allows members to sue. The court went on to conclude, however:

There are two other causes of action in the complaint, neither of which is dependent on standing under the code. The second cause of action for accounting requires only that the plaintiff has a relationship with the defendant which requires an accounting.... This relationship need not be fiduciary in nature....  As congregants who have paid dues and invested time and energy in the temple, the Buis – like any other congregant – are arguably entitled to an accounting of the Bachs’ use of temple monies.

As for declaratory and injunctive relief, the Buis seek a judicial determination of the parties’ respective rights and obligations. At minimum, this would require a determination of who is legitimately on the board of directors at present. More specifically, the Buis seek to block the eviction of Cao. Given that Cao has been confirmed as the head abbot at the temple, and was the desired successor to Abbot Thanh, his eviction would almost certainly impact worship at the temple, which consequently impacts the religious freedom of congregants. They have a beneficial interest in these affairs.

Airline Settles EEOC Suit on Behalf of Buddhist Pilot

The EEOC announced this week that United Airlines has settled a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the agency on behalf of a Buddhist airline pilot.  According to the EEOC:

[T]he pilot was diagnosed with alcohol dependency and lost the medical certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). One of the requirements of United’s HIMS program ... to obtain new medical certificates from the FAA is that pilots regularly attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). The pilot, who is Buddhist, objected to the religious content of AA and sought to substitute regular attendance at a Buddhism-based peer support group. United refused to accommodate his religious objection and, as a result, the pilot was unable to obtain a new FAA medical certificate permitting him to fly again, the agency charged....

Under the consent decree that resolves the lawsuit, United will pay the pilot $305,000 in back pay and damages and will reinstate him into its HIMS Program while allowing him to attend a non-12-step peer recovery program. The company will also accept religious accommo­dation requests in its HIMS Program going forward, institute a new policy on religious accom­modations, and train its employees.

Today Is Diwali; NYC Schools To Recognize It

Today is Diwali, the Hindu Festival of Lights which is also celebrated by some Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists. As reported by CNN, last Thursday New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced that starting next year, Diwali will be a public school holiday in New York City.  In order to keep the same number of school days in the academic year, state legislation has been introduced to allow New York City public schools to no longer celebrate Anniversary Day as a holiday. Anniversary Day (also known as Brooklyn-Queens Day) is variously described as celebrating the opening of the first Protestant Sunday School on Long Island or the founding of the Brooklyn Sunday School Union in 1816.

UPDATE: Here is President Biden's statement sending greetings for a happy Diwali.

Biden Issues Greetings To Buddhists Celebrating Vesak

Earlier this week, President Biden issued a Statement (full text) extending warm wishes to Buddhists in the United States and around the world celebrating Vesak. The Statement says in part:

This sacred day is a time to reflect on the Buddha’s teachings, including the need to work for peace and justice, recognize our common humanity, respect and preserve the nature that surrounds us, and cultivate humility and compassion.

Vesak was celebrated this year on May 16.

Denial Of Permission To Build Buddhist Meditation Center Did Not Violate RLUIPA

In Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama, an Alabama federal district court dismissed a RLUIPA and 1st Amendment challenge to the city's denial of permission to build a meditation center and related structures in an area zoned residential. Plaintiff is a Buddhist religious organization.  The court said in part:

The Court finds Plaintiffs have shown, for the purposes of summary judgment, the City’s decision effectively deprives them of any viable means by which to engage in protected religious exercise, but the application of the City’s Zoning Ordinance generally does not since the meditation center could be located at a commercially zoned property as of right.... 

... Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the City’s zoning decisions substantially burdened their religious exercise, and even if Plaintiffs’ religious exercise was substantially burdened by the denial of their Applications, the Court finds the decision was the least restrictive means to further the City’s compelling interest in its Zoning Ordinance...

Code Enforcement Against Buddhist Temple Did Not Violate Free Exercise Clause Or RLUIPA

In Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont, (ND CA, March 4, 2022), a California federal district court dismissed a suit by a Miaolan Lee who lives on property owned by the Temple of 1001 Buddhas challenging the city's enforcement of the state's building, electrical and plumbing codes. Among others, the court dismissed plaintiff's free exercise and RLUIPA claims, saying in part:

Although the code enforcement does not permit her to use (for any purpose) the three buildings that are in severe noncompliance, Lee can exercise her religion elsewhere on her property. The code enforcement does not at all “coerce [her] into acting contrary to [her] religious beliefs or exert substantial pressure on [her] to modify his behavior and to violate [her] beliefs.” ...

Lee argues that the City violated RLUIPA when West “instruct[ed] Plaintiff Lee that she could only pray on the property in the main house or in the dome Meditation Hall and nowhere else on the Real Property.” ... Lee contends that this act was “an implementation of a land use regulation.”... [T]he Court now concludes that Lee does not state a claim on this basis because Lee does not plausibly allege that this remark constituted the “application of a zoning or landmarking law” within the meaning of RLUIPA.

8th Circuit: Buddhist Inmate Not Entitled To Separate Soto Zen Services

In Erdahl v. Pirc, (8th Cir., Nov. 18, 2021), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Buddhist inmate's religious exercise was not substantially burdened by denying him separate Soto Zen religious services. He already can attend existing Buddhist services conducted by the minister he wanted for his separate services. The court concluded:

In the end, the prison only has to provide “a reasonable opportunity” for Erdahl to practice his faith.

Biden Issues Greeting To Buddhists Celebrating Vesak

Yesterday President Biden issued a Statement (full text) sending warm wishes to Buddhists celebrating the festival of Vesak, saying in part:

The ceremonial lighting of a lamp, the symbol of this holiday that has been celebrated for over 2,500 years, reminds us of Buddhism’s teachings of compassion, humility, and selflessness that endure today. On this day, we also commemorate the many contributions of Buddhists in America....

Execution Delay Sought Because of Health of Chaplain

USA Today reports on anew twist in litigation seeking to delay execution of an inmate.  A suit was filed in federal district court in Indiana seeking a stay:

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a Buddhist priest who has ministered to condemned inmate Wesley Purkey, argues that the pandemic would risk the health of Rev. Seigen Hartkemeyer who is "religiously obligated" to attend Purkey's July 15 execution....

Purkey's lawyers asserted that Rev. Hartkemeyer, 68, has lung-related illnesses that "make him particularly vulnerable to COVID-19."

The lawsuit claims that the timing of the execution, "forcing Rev. Hartkemeyer to risk his health and life to perform his religious duties as Purkey’s priest," violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 

10th Circuit: Inedible Vegan Diet Burdened Buddhist Inmate's Religious Exercise

In Blair v. Raemisch, (10th Cir., March 2, 2020), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Buddhist inmate's complaint about the vegan diet he was served adequately stated a claim under the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause and under RLUIPA. According to plaintiff's complaint, on 19 out of each 28 days, he was served a vegan patty made at the prison from left-over beans, yams, oatmeal, tomato paste, and seasoning combined in a blender and then baked. He alleged that these were inedible, and caused him to vomit. This forced him to go hungry or purchase vegan food from the commissary. The court concluded that, if true, this substantially burdened plaintiff's sincerely held religious beliefs and put pressure on him to abandon them. Colorado Politics reports on the decision.

5th Circuit Upholds Stay of Execution For Buddhist Inmate

In Murphy v. Collier, (5th Cir., Nov. 12, 2019), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a stay of execution granted last week by a Texas federal district court in the case of a Buddhist inmate who challenges the access he will have to his religious adviser prior to his execution. The district court granted a stay to allow it time to explore factual concerns about the balance between the inmate's religious rights and the prison’s valid concerns for security. (See prior posting.) Christian and Muslim inmates have access to chaplains until the moment they enter the execution chamber.  Members of other religions have access to their outside clergy only until 5:00 p.m.on the day of execution. In his majority opinion for the 5th Circuit, Judge Dennis wrote in part:

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Murphy’s stay. We agree with the district court’s implicit finding that Murphy has a strong likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that the TDCJ policy violates his rights by allowing inmates who share the same faith as TDCJ-employed clergy greater access to a spiritual advisor in the death house.

Judge Elrod dissented, saying in part:

Because I believe Murphy did not demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on his brand-new, untimely, and unexhausted claim regarding the TDCJ’s pre-execution holding-area protocol, I would hold that the district court abused its discretion in granting Murphy’s motion for stay of execution.

CNN reports on the decision.

New Stay of Execution For Buddhist Inmate Over Access To Chaplain

In Murphy v. Collier, (SD TX, Nov. 7, 2019), a Texas federal district court stayed the execution of Patrick Murphy because of differential treatment of the religious needs of prisoners being executed. The U.S. Supreme Court stayed a previous execution date because of Texas' policy to allow a Christian chaplain to be in the execution chamber, but Murphy's Buddhist spiritual adviser could only be in an adjacent room. (See prior posting.) Texas then modified its procedures and allowed no chaplains in the execution chamber. (See prior posting.) However Murphy claims that there is still differential treatment:

Murphy’s amended complaint, however, has moved its primary focus to the interaction an inmate has with his spiritual advisor before entering the execution chamber..... [A]ll inmates have access to their spiritual advisor during business hours in the two-and-a-half days leading up to the execution. An inmate, however, may only meet with non-TDCJ spiritual advisors in the holding area (generally referred to as the “death house”) between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. on the day of execution. For the next two hours, preparations are made for the execution. The inmate may make phone calls, including to his spiritual advisor, until 5:00 p.m. Only TDCJ personnel may interact with the inmate thereafter.

The policy, however, does not place any limitation on visits by TDCJ-employed clergy, “who appear to have access to an inmate until the minute he enters the execution chamber.”... Murphy argues that the amended policy still favors some religions over others because TDCJ-employed chaplains, who are all Christian or Muslim, have greater access to the condemned than non-TDCJ employee spiritual advisors.

The court concluded:

The concerns raised by the amended complaint’s focus on the pre-execution procedure are as compelling as those in the original complaint..... A stay will allow the Court time to explore and resolve serious factual concerns about the balance between Murphy’s religious rights and the prison’s valid concerns for security.

Texas Tribune reports on the decision.

Court in Burma Dismisses Blasphemy Suit Against U.S. Ambassador

Yesterday in Myanmar, a township court dismissed a lawsuit that had been filed against the U.S. Ambassador and two others, charging that a picture posted on Facebook defamed Buddhism. Irawaddy reports:

Nationalist monk U Parmaukha filed the lawsuit against US Ambassador Scott Marciel, the artist who painted the picture and the person who posted the picture on the official Facebook page of the US Embassy in Yangon. The image was of a painting done for an environmentally themed art exhibit the embassy hosted in July.

The US Embassy in Yangon on Friday promoted the “Insight Out Art Exhibition” of young artists on its Facebook page with a painting that depicts a silhouette of Buddha wearing a gas mask in the foreground while factories belching smoke are seen in the background.

Chapter XV of the Myanmar Penal Code outlaws various offenses against religious feelings.

Myanmar Body Outlaws Ultra-nationalist Buddhist Organization

Radio Free Asia reports that in Myanmar (Burma), the 47-member government appointed council that regulates Buddhist clergy has declared the ultranationalist (and anti-Muslim) Buddha Dhamma Parahita Foundation (BDPF) to be illegal.  The Sangha Maha Nayaka (Mahana) declared the BDPF an illegal association and ordered the removal of all of its signage by Sept. 13.  The action was taken against BDPF after it publicly criticized the ruling National League for Democracy government.

Alito Weighs In Late On Buddhist Inmate's Request For His Spiritual Adviser At His Execution

As previously reported, late on March 28, the U.S. Supreme Court In Murphy v. Collier ruled in favor of Buddhist prisoner Patrick Murphy who wanted his Buddhist spiritual adviser to be present in the execution chamber when his execution was carried out. At that time it was indicated that Justices Thomas and Gorsuch voted against granting the stay. This week, on May 13, Justice Alito filed an opinion (full text) dissenting from the grant of the stay. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined the opinion.

In the present case, Murphy cannot overcome the presumption against last-minute applications. As I will explain, see Part III, infra, his religious liberty claims are dependent on the resolution of fact-intensive questions that simply cannot be decided without adequate proceedings and findings at the trial level. Those questions cannot be properly resolved in a matter of hours on a woefully deficient record. But that is precisely what Murphy asked of the lower courts and this Court.

Justice Alito did not explain why he was not listed originally as dissenting from the grant of the stay of execution. He merely said in this week's opinion:

I did not agree with the decision of the Court when it was made. Because inexcusably late stay applications present a recurring and important problem and because religious liberty claims like Murphy’s may come before the Court in future cases, I write now to explain why, in my judgment, the Court’s decision in this case was seriously wrong. 

Justice Kavanaugh, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice Roberts, responded to Justice Alito, saying in part:

Put simply, this Court’s stay facilitated the prompt resolution of a significant religious equality problem with the State’s execution protocol and should alleviate any future litigation delays or disruptions that otherwise might have occurred as a result of the State’s prior discriminatory policy.

Supreme Court Says Inmate Is Entitled To His Spiritual Adviser In Execution Chamber

Late last night, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 7-2 vote, ruled in favor of Buddhist prisoner Patrick Murphy who wanted his Buddhist spiritual adviser to be present in the execution chamber when his execution, scheduled for last night, was carried out. A Texas federal district court had upheld the decision of prison authorities to allow only the prison's Christian chaplain to be in the room with Murphy. His Buddhist clergyman could be in the adjacent viewing room. (See prior posting.) In Murphy v. Collier, (Sup. Ct., March 28, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court held:

The State may not carry out Murphy’s execution pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari unless the State permits Murphy’s Buddhist spiritual advisor or another Buddhist reverend of the State’s choosing to accompany Murphy in the execution chamber during the execution.

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch voted against granting a stay of execution. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

For this kind of claim, there would be at least two possible equal-treatment remedies available to the State going forward: (1) allow all inmates to have a religious adviser of their religion in the execution room; or (2) allow inmates to have a religious adviser, including any state-employed chaplain, only in the viewing room, not the execution room.... [T]here are operational and security issues associated with an execution by lethal injection. Things can go wrong and sometimes do go wrong in executions, as they can go wrong and sometimes do go wrong in medical procedures. States therefore have a strong interest in tightly controlling access to an execution room in order to ensure that the execution occurs without any complications, distractions, or disruptions. The solution to that concern would be to allow religious advisers only into the viewing room.

....What the State may not do, in my view, is allow Christian or Muslim inmates but not Buddhist inmates to have a religious adviser of their religion in the execution room.

The case moved through the Supreme Court rapidly. The district court's decision was handed down on March 26. A petition for a stay was filed and on March 28 Becket filed a 22-page amicus brief with the Supreme Court.  According to Becket, the Supreme Court's decision was handed down two-and-one-half hours after the scheduled start of the execution.

Another Death Row Inmate Denied Chaplain of His Choice During Execution

Last month in a widely publicized decision the U.S. Supreme Court  vacated the the stay of execution that had been granted the day before by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to a Muslim inmate who wanted to have his Imam instead of the Christian prison chaplain with him in the execution chamber. (See prior posting). Yesterday a Texas federal district court dealt with a similar request from a Buddhist inmate, and similarly denied a stay of execution because the inmate had waited too long to assert his objections. In this case the prisoner had the option of having a Christian prison chaplain or no chaplain present.  In Murphy v. Collier, (SD, TX, March 26, 2019), the court said in part:

Murphy gave TDCJ little time to decide whether to vary its policy. And Murphy gave TDCJ little time to litigate any legal challenge that would follow. Once informed that TDCJ would not deviate from its policy, Murphy waited over two weeks to file litigation in state court. He filed this action only two days before his execution.

"Given the State's significant interest in enforcing its criminal judgments . . . there is a strong equitable presumption against the grant of a stay where a claim could have been brought at such a time as to allow consideration of the merits without requiring entry of a stay."

Murphy's execution is set for tomorrow.

Buddhist Center Can Proceed On Some Challenges To Zoning Denial

Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama, (SD AL, Sept. 28, 2018), is a challenge to the city's denial of zoning applications to construct a Buddhist meditation center in a residential district. The court denied summary judgement to either side on plaintiff's RLUIPA nondiscrimination and Equal Protection claims. The court said in part:

Defendant’s primary assertion is their Planning Approval decision was based on the poor compatibility of Plaintiffs’ proposed meditation complex within a single family neighborhood, not bias towards Plaintiffs’ religion or practice of meditation.... While this argument supports the level of discretion Defendant claims to possess, Defendant’s evaluation of Plaintiffs’ Applications is riddled with inclinations of discrimination.

The court granted summary judgment to defendant on several of plaintiff's other challenges, including its RLUIPA substantial burden and RLUIPA equal terms claims and its 1st Amendment free exercise claim.