Trump Issues Proclamation On Holocaust Remembrance

Today is Yom Hashoah (Holocaust  Remembrance Day).  Yesterday President Trump issued a Proclamation (full text) asking the people of the United States:

to observe the Days of Remembrance of Victims of the Holocaust, April 12 through April 19, 2018, and the solemn anniversary of the liberation of Nazi death camps, with appropriate study, prayers and commemoration, and to honor the memory of the victims of the Holocaust and Nazi persecution by internalizing the lessons of this atrocity so that it is never repeated.

New Report On Worldwide Antisemitic Incidents

Yesterday Tel Aviv University's Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry released its 103-page report titled Antisemitism Worldwide General Analysis 2017 .  The Center highlights this excerpt:

In 2017, there was a moderate worldwide average decrease in antisemitic violent incidents that were directed at Jewish people, their communities and their private property, of about 9% (327 cases compared to 361 in 2016, according to the Kantor Center criteria). It does not include yet the numbers of violent incidents in France, which the Jewish security body is still elaborating. During the years 2006 to 2014, the violent cases worldwide numbered between 600 to 700 per year, while during recent years they decreased 300 to 400. But it should be emphasized that some of the recent violent cases have been perpetrated more brutally, causing more harm. And most important – this decrease is overshadowed by what is seen by the Jewish communities as a dramatic increase in all other forms of antisemitic manifestations, many of which are not even reported, most notably harassment in schools (some Jewish pupils moved to Catholic schools) and on social media.

AP reports on the data.

Law Student Religious Liberty Writing Competition Announced

The J. Reuben Clark Law Society has announced its 9th Annual Religious Liberty Writing Competition for law students and graduate students in related areas.  The deadline for submissions is July 1, 2018.

At Hearing Judicial Nominee Retreats From Prior Pro-Life Comments

Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Wendy Vitter to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  NPR reports on the hearing:

Wendy Vitter, nominated by President Trump for a federal judgeship, tried Wednesday to walk back several controversial comments she made about abortion and birth control.

Questioned by skeptical Democrats at her confirmation hearing, she maintained she could "put aside" her long-held "pro-life" advocacy, and as a judge enforce the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights.

In particular, Vitter sought to distance herself from a brochure she had appeared to endorse while leading a panel at a pro-life conference in 2013. The panel was called "Abortion Hurts Women," and the brochure promoted a variety of unsubstantiated claims linking birth control pills to breast cancer, cervical and liver cancers, and "violent death."

Indiana Homicide Law Expanded To Cover Non-Abortion Killing of Fetus At Any Stage

On March 25, Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb signed Senate Bill 203 (full text).  The new law expands the state's murder and manslaughter laws to include killing of a fetus "at any stage of development".  Prior law covered only killing of a fetus that has attained viability.  The law does not apply to a lawfully performed abortion or to a pregnant woman who terminates her own pregnancy or kills a fetus she is carrying. Liberty Counsel issued a press release on the new law.

Update On Third Travel Ban Developoments

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on April 25 in Trump v. Hawaii, a group of challenges, including an Establishment Clause challenge, to President Trump's third travel ban. (See prior posting.) Over 70 amicus briefs have been filed in the case.  Links to them are on SCOTUSblog's case page.  Meanwhile, yesterday the White House announced that the President has signed a Proclamation removing Chad from the list of countries covered by the travel ban, saying in part:

Republic of Chad has improved its identity-management and information sharing practices sufficiently to meet the baseline security standard of the United States.  Chad nationals will therefore again be able to receive visas for travel to the United States.

India Supreme Court Affirms Right To Choose Religion and Marriage Partner

In Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (India Sup. Ct., April 9, 2018), a 3-judge panel of India's Supreme Court, in 61 pages of opinions, set aside a High Court's order that had annulled the marriage of a 26-year old student who had converted to Islam in order to marry. The court strongly affirmed the right of individuals to choose their religious faith and their marriage partner. The court's opinion by Chief Justice Misra said in part

It is obligatory to state here that expression of choice in accord with law is acceptance of individual identity. Curtailment of that expression ... destroy the individualistic entity of a person.  The social values and morals have their space  but they are not above the constitutionally guaranteed freedom.  The said freedom is both a constitutional and a human right. Deprivation of that freedom which is ingrained in choice on the plea of faith is impermissible.  Faith of a person is intrinsic to his/her meaningful existence.  To have the freedom of faith is essential to his/her autonomy....

In the case at hand, the father ... may feel that there has been enormous transgression of his right to protect the interest of his daughter but his view point or position cannot be allowed to curtail the fundamental rights of his daughter who, out of her own volition, married the appellant.

A concurring opinion by Justice Chandrachud added:

The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees the right to life.... Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees as a fundamental right is the ability of each individual to take decisions on matters central to the pursuit of happiness. Matters of belief and faith, including whether to believe are at the core of constitutional liberty. The Constitution exists for believers as well as for agnostics. The Constitution protects the ability of each individual to pursue a way of life or faith to which she or he seeks to adhere. Matters of dress and of food, of ideas and ideologies, of love and partnership are within the central aspects of identity.... Society has no role to play in determining our choice of partners. 

One India and The Hindu report on the decision.

Anti-Transgender Bathroom Initiative Voted Down In Anchorage

Anchorage Daily News reports that in Alaska's first-ever vote-by-mail election, a so-called "bathroom bill" initiative was defeated by Anchorage voters.  The Ballot Measure would have required that all municipally-owned facilities limit restrooms and locker rooms by sex as determined biologically rather than by gender identity.  The initiative would also have permitted other employers and public accommodations to adopt the same policy.  With virtually all ballots counted, the vote as reported last Friday was 40,378 opposed and 36,234 in favor.  Metro Weekly reports on reactions to the defeat.

Trump Cabinet Has Bible Study Group

BBC reports that President Trump's Cabinet has a weekly Bible study group, led by former professional basketball player-turned-pastor, Ralph Drollinger.  While not all Cabinet members attend each week, the group has ten "sponsors". Members of the group include Vice-President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  Some of the Cabinet members originally got to know Drollinger through his Capitol Ministries study groups in the House and Senate. According to BBC:

President Trump is not a member of Drollinger's group - but he is a Christian, and does get Drollinger's eight-page print-outs most weeks.

"He writes me back notes on my bible studies," says Drollinger.

"He's got this leaky Sharpie felt-tip pen that he writes all capital letters with. 'Way to go Ralph, really like this study, keep it up.' Stuff like that."

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Limits On Homeless Drop-In Center

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

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

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

From elsewhere:

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

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fired Magistrate Has Due Process But Not Equal Protection Claim

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

Challenge To Teaching Islam In History Curriculum Is Rejected

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

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

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

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

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

Settlement Reached With NYPD In Muslim Surveillance Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York Budget Bill Passed With Special Curriculum Criteria For Yeshivas

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

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

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

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

The court concluded:

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

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

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

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

AP reports on the decision.