Suit Settled Allowing Christian Group To Use Building To House Recovering Addicts and Their Children

Alliance Defending Freedom announced this week that it has reached a settlement with the city of Hattiesburg, Mississippi in a suit challenging the city's refusal to rezone or provide a special use permit for a Christian organization to use a building it purchased for overnight housing of women who are recovering from addiction and their children. The complaint (full text) in Lighthouse Rescue Mission, Inc. v. City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, (SD MI, filed 5/3/2013) claimed that the zoning denials violated RLUIPA, the federal Fair Housing Act and the speech and religion protections in the federal and state constitutions. The order and settlement agreement (full text, filed 11/7/13) permits Rescue Mission to house allows it to use the building for overnight housing and related ministry operations.

Norway's Government Will Propose New Law On Ritual Circumcision

Norway's health minister Brent Hoie says that by this spring the government will introduce new legislation on non-medical circumcision of boys under 18. Each year some 2000 Muslim and 7 Jewish newborns are circumcised in Norway. According to the Jerusalem Post yesterday, the announcement follows a recommendation by Norway's Children’s Ombudswoman Anne Lindboe to completely ban non-medical circumcision of boys under 18 without their consent. Lindboe said: "This is not due to any lack of understanding of minorities or religious traditions, but because the procedure is irreversible, painful and risky."  It is not clear what the proposed bill will provide.

Snake Handling Pastor Charged Criminally; Authorities Tipped Off By Reality TV Show

RNS reported yesterday that the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency last week raided the Tabernacle Church of God in LaFollete, Tennessee and seized 53 venomous snakes handled by the congregation during worship services. Authorities arrested the church's pastor, Rev. Andrew Hamblin, who is the co-star of the National Geographic Chanel's reality series Snake Salvation.  Wildlife authorities were tipped off to the fact that there were snakes at the church because of the television show. Hamblin was charged with violations of Tennessee Code § 39-17-101 which prohibits using a poisonous snake in a way that endangers others. Hamblin says that the ban violates his and his congregation's religious liberty. They point to language in Mark 16: 18 to explain their snake handling rituals.

7th Circuit In 2-1 Decision Grants Preliminary Injunction To For-Profit Corporations and Their Owners In Contraceptive Mandate Challenge

In Korte v. Sebelius, (7th Cir., Nov. 8, 2013), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision in a consolidated appeal of suits by two unrelated small businesses and their Catholic owners, held that a preliminary injunction should be granted barring enforcement of the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate on religious freedom grounds.  The companies involved are Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc., an Illinois construction company, and Grote Industries, Inc., an Indiana manufacturer of vehicle safety systems.The majority, in a 64-page opinion, held that for-profit corporations are "persons" whose religious exercise is protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying:It’s common ground that nonprofit religious corporations exercise religion in the sense that their activities are religiously motivated. So unless there is something disabling about mixing profit-seeking and religious practice, it follows that a faith-based, for-profit corporation can claim free-exercise protection to the extent that an aspect of its conduct is religiously motivated.The majority then concluded that the mandate imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of both the corporations and their individual owners and managers that is not justified by a compelling governmental interest and is not achieved by the least restrictive means. Judge Rovner wrote a very interesting 89-page dissent. Early in her opinion, she sets out several hypotheticals that follow from the majority's decision, involving employers who object on religious grounds to paying for coverage for other kinds of medical treatment for their employees.  Later in her opinion, she discusses at length what she describes as "significant logical difficulties posed by attributing religious rights to secular corporations."  She says in part:First, to the extent that a corporation’s religious principles and identity derive from its owners, what if the owners have diverse beliefs, diverse degrees of devotion, and diverse notions as to whether and how the corporation ought to reflect their religious beliefs?...Second, suppose that the company’s ownership changes. What happens then to the beliefs we have attributed to the corporation based on its ownership?....Third, are the religious beliefs of corporate owners solely determinative of the corporation’s religious principles? Suppose ... that a corporation’s owners have entirely entrusted the management of the corporation to its longtime CEO.... Are her beliefs attributable to the corporation?  Or suppose ... the focus of the corporation is on serving members of a particular religion-- selling kosher or halal food products, for example....  Can the corporation be said to hold the religious beliefs of its target market, even if its owners and managers do not?....[I]f a corporation has free exercise rights because the Dictionary Act suggests it is among the "persons" to which RFRA grants the right to make such a claim... then why does a corporation of large, diverse, or even public ownership not have free exercise rights also? And how would the beliefs of a public corporation be determined—by a vote at the annual shareholders’ meeting, for example?The 7th Circuit had previously granted an injunction pending appeal in the case. (See prior posting.)

Charter Affirming State Secularism Introduced Into Quebec Legislature

As previously reported, in August the ruling Parti Quebecois government in the Canadian province of Quebec announced its intention to introduce a secularist Charter of Quebec Values into the National Assembly.  Last Thursday it did so by introducing Bill 60, (full text) titled Charter Affirming the Values of State Secularism and Religious Neutrality and of Equality Between Women and Men, and Providing a Framework for Accommodation Requests.  Here is an excerpt from the Explanatory Notes summarizing the most important provisions of the bill:Public bodies must, in the pursuit of their mission, remain neutral in religious matters and reflect the secular nature of the State. Accordingly, obligations are set out for personnel members of public bodies in the exercise of their functions, including a duty to remain neutral and exercise reserve in religious matters by, among other things, complying with the restriction on wearing religious objects that overtly indicate a religious affiliation. As well, personnel members of a public body must exercise their functions with their face uncovered, and persons to whom they provide services must also have their face uncovered when receiving such services.  The same rules apply to other persons, in particular to persons who exercise judicial functions, or adjudicative functions within the administrative branch, and to personnel members of the National Assembly.Canadian Jewish Press reports on the concerns that various Jewish organizations have about the bill, including Section 38 that would allow the National Assembly to bar its members from wearing religious symbols.

Developments In Challenges To Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

On Tuesday, a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Eden Foods Inc. v. Sebeius, (cert. filed 11/12/2013).  In the case, the 6th Circuit Court denied a preliminary injunction to a for-profit natural foods corporation and its Catholic owners who claim that the contraceptive coverage mandate under the Affordable Care Act violates their free exercise rights as protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (See prior posting.) Thomas More Law Center announced the filing of the cert. petition.

In June (see prior posting), a Pennsylvania federal district court granted Geneva College a preliminary injunction pending a decision on the merits in its challenge to the requirement that it include in its student health plans coverage for contraceptives that it considers abortifacients. As reported by BNA Daily Report for Executives [subscription required], the Christian college has now filed a motion and supporting Memorandum of Law (full text) seeking a similar preliminary injunction for the health plan covering its employees. The case is Geneva College v. Sebelius, (WD PA, motion filed 11/12/2013).

Court Invalidates Couple's Agreement Negotiated Before Bet Din For Lack of Formalities

In Katz v. Katz, (S.Ct. Kings Co. NY, Nov. 7, 2013), a New York trial court held that an agreement negotiated before a Jewish rabbinical court (Bet Din) by a husband and wife is unenforceable because it was not formally acknowledged in the manner required by NY Domestic Relations Law Sec. 236B(3).  As described by the court, the wife argued that she:was a "victim of extortion" in the sum of $70,000.00 in order to obtain a get, a Jewish divorce, from the husband....  [She] alleges that she only conceded to joint custody and to the parenting access schedule detailed in the May 17, 2010 writing because she "was intimidated to give in to the Defendant's unreasonable demands of custody, visitation and holidays" and that she believed that the husband would not grant her a get [a religious divorce] unless she did so.... She alleges that she placed $50,000.00 in escrow to "guarantee performance" that the husband would grant her a get and that she has "not received [the escrow] money and believes that it has been given to the Defendant, and that he is using [her escrow] money to support this litigation."The husband denies that the wife was a victim in process of obtaining the get and alleges ... that if the wife "did not agree with the tenets of the Jewish Law and Torah or felt that the process was unfair to her, she did not have to go through the Get process" and that it is "disingenuous of her to receive the benefit of the Get and then attack the Jewish Law and Torah under which it was issued." He "categorically" denies the he received any money from the wife in exchange for him granting her a get. The husband alleges that it is he, not the wife, who is being victimized in this litigation: he alleges that "[i]t is only because [he] did not think [the son] should be traveling to Israel, that [the wife] is now retaliating against [him] by trying to take away what [he] value [sic] most in life — custody of [his] son."

Nevada Supreme Court Stays Out of Dispute Over Judge's Recusal For Religious Ties

On Nov. 8, the Nevada Supreme Court denied a Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition in Health Plan of Nevada v. District Court (Lynam).  As reported by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, in the case the Health Plan of Nevada was attempting to get the court to order trial court judge Douglas Smith back on a case in which Smith had recused himself.  In the case in which plaintiffs are suing over contracting hepatitis C from a doctor covered by the Health Plan HMO, the judge stepped out after plaintiffs claimed that the attorney representing the HMO held a position of authority over the judge in the Mormon Church.  The attorney,  Mark Hutchison (a state senator and candidate for lieutenant governor) was one of two counselors to the president of Red Rock Stake (one of the 38 districts into which the Mormon Church in Nevada is divided). The judge served as a counselor to the bishop of one of the congregations in Red Rock Stake. Health Plan argued that Hutchison had no direct authority over Judge Smith in the Church, and in any event Hutchison has now withdrawn from representing Health Plan so the conflict is eliminated.

The Episcopal Church Sues Break-Away Illinois Diocese Over Property

The Episcopal Diocese of Chicago and The Episcopal Church last week filed a state court lawsuit claiming that property held by or for parishes and missions of the break-away Anglican Diocese of Quincy may only be used for the benefit of The Episcopal Church. (Press release). The complaint (full text) in The Episcopal Church v. Morales, (IL Cir Ct., filed 11/6/2013), seeks a declaratory judgment that the individual defendants do not hold any offices in the Episcopal Diocese of Quincy and that the parishes and missions are controlled by clergy and officers appointed or elected by The Episcopal Church.  In a case decided earlier this year, Diocese of Quincy v. The Episcopal Church, (IL Cir. Ct., Sept. 9, 2013), a different state trial court held that the break-away Anglican Diocese holds title to the bank account and administrative offices of the Diocese. The court held that the Dennis Canon on which The Episcopal Church in part relied relates to parish or mission properties and not to properties titled in the name of the Diocese. Anglican Curmudgeon blog discusses the background and strongly criticizes the Diocese of Chicago for the suit filed last week.

Jewish Leaders Criticize Bush 43's Decision To Speak At Messianic Jewish Fundraiser

CNN reports that Tevi Troy, George W. Bush's former Liaison to the Jewish Community is critical of the former president's decision to speak tonight at the fundraising dinner of the Messianic Jewish Bible Institute, a group whose goal is to convert Jews to Christianity.  CBS reports that other Jewish leaders such as ADL director Abe Foxman and Los Angeles rabbi David Wolpe have also spoken out against President Bush's decision. MJBI's website says:

The vision of the MJBI is to bring Jewish people into a personal relationship of faith with Yeshua the Messiah, knowing their acceptance will eventually mean life from the dead (Romans 11:15).

Consent Order Requires Priest Charged With Sexual Misconduct To Petition Vatican For Removal From Priesthood

Bergen County, New Jersey prosecutor John L. Molinelli issued a press release last week announcing an unusual resolution in a clergy sex abuse case.  As explained by an RNS report yesterday, in 2007 Catholic priest Michael Fugee, in order to avoid a retrial on improper sexual conduct charges, signed an agreement, embodied in a judicial order and Memorandum of Understanding, banning him from ministering to children.  It was discovered earlier this year that Fugee violated the agreement by attending youth retreats and hearing confessions from teens.  In response, in May he was charged with 5 counts of criminal contempt.  On November 1, those charges were disposed of through a binding agreement and court order under which Fugee has agreed to petition the Vatican to remove him permanently from the priesthood.  Prosecutor Molinelli said that this result could not have been achieved by a contempt conviction because:it is not believed that the American Justice System has such authority as a condition of probation or upon conviction. This is a requirement that will eliminate the threat of Michael Fugee, ever again, obtaining the trust of people through his clerical position nor using his ordained position as a Priest to exert improper contact with children.... The agreement that has been reached forever bars Michael Fugee from holding himself out as a current or former priest or spiritual advisor. Most importantly, he is prohibited from working with children in any capacity. Molinelli also emphasized that this new order will be supervised by the prosecutor's office, and not by the Archdiocese of Newark, in which Molinelli has lost confidence. UPDATE: Here is the full text of the court's order in State of New Jersey v. Fugee, (NJ Super. Ct., Nov. 1, 2013).

Appeals Court Dismisses Failure To Supervise Suit Against Diocese By Abuse Victim

In D.T. v.Catholic Diocese of Kansas City- St. Joseph, (MO App., Nov. 12, 2013), a Missouri state appeals court upheld the dismissal of claims against a Catholic diocese by plaintiff who was sexually abused by a priest serving in one of its parishes. The suit alleges that that the Diocese knew that the priest had sexually molested children in the past and knew that it was substantially certain that he would molest other children in the future.  Relying on the Missouri Supreme court's 1997 decision in Gibson v. Brewer, the appeals court held that negligence-based claims against the diocese are barred by the First Amendment because deciding them leads to excessive entanglement.  It also, reluctantly, dismissed the claims of intentional failure to supervise clergy because under Gibson, a diocese could be held liable in such cases only when the abuse occurred on property belonging to the diocese. The appeals court said it is bound by the state Supreme Court precedent, despite the questionable outcome it produces in this case:Taken to its extreme, then, a religious organization could be fully cognizant that a member of its clergy, when placed near children, is certain or substantially certain to sexually molest children; but as long as it counsels its clergy to take their personal criminal proclivities to premises not owned, possessed, or controlled by the church and not to use a chattel of the church in the commission of the harmful and often criminal actions, there could be no civil liability for intentional failure to supervise. That result seems to contradict the spirit and intent of the intentional tort recognized and announced by the Gibson court.... Perhaps this is a case that our Supreme Court may wish to accept on transfer to clarify application of the elements of the tort of intentional failure to supervise clergy that it previously announced in Gibson, particularly in light of the fact that both the Restatements (Second) of Agency and Torts have been revised since Gibson was decided.AP reports on the decision.

U.S. Bishops Elect New Leaders; Focus On Christian Persecution Abroad

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops began their Fall meeting in Baltimore yesterday.  As reported by CNS and the New York Times, outgoing USCCB president Cardinal Timothy Dolan in his address to fellow-bishops called for a new emphasis on combating persecution of Christians in countries such as Syria, Egypt, India and Nigeria. He said that we are living in what must be recognized as a new age of martyrs.  He claimed that as many as 1 million Christians have been killed for their faith so far in the 21st century, and said that it is a priority to urge political leaders to make the protection of "at-risk Christians a foreign policy priority."The bishops elected their current vice-president, Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, as the new president of the Conference, and elected Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston as vice president. (Press release.) (AP report.)  They also approved the drafting of a formal statement on pornography.

Supreme Court Review Sought By Photographer Who Refused Employment For Same-Sex Wedding

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed Friday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock. In the case, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the state's Human Rights Act requires a commercial photography business to serve same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couples, and that the 1st Amendment does not require an exception for creative or expressive professions. (See prior posting.) The cert. petition frames the Question Presented as:

Whether applying a state public-accommodations statute to require a photographer to create expressive images and picture-books conveying messages that conflict with her religious beliefs violates the First Amendment’s ban on compelled speech.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition.

International Court of Justice Rules On Cambodian- Thailand Dispute Over Hindu Temple Site

Yesterday the International Court of Justice in the Hague issued a decision in Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand). (Full text of decision; Summary of the judgment; Press Release).  In 1962, the ICJ ruled in a border dispute that the Temple of Preah Vihear (now a UNESCO world heritage site) is located in Cambodian territory, and ordered that "Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity."  Yesterday's decision clarified what was meant by the area in the "vicinity" of the Temple. As described in a Voice of America report:

The unanimous ruling by the 17 judges of the world court says all of the raised land on which the ancient Khmer Hindu temple sits belongs to Cambodia.... While adjusting some of the disputed boundary, the decision leaves unresolved the sovereignty of much of the 4.6 square kilometer area in the immediate vicinity of the religious site.....

The ICJ decision rejects some territorial claims in the area made by each country thus it is not a total victory for either side.....

Within hours of the verdict, Thailand’s Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra appeared in a nationally televised address, saying the court had taken her country’s stance into consideration and that Bangkok should work with Phnom Penh to resolve outstanding issues.

The territorial dispute led to an exchange of gunfire and dozens of deaths in 2011.

Hawaii Legislature Passes Marriage Equality Bill

Yesterday the Hawaii legislature gave final passage to SB1, the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act which will legalize same-sex marriage as of Dec. 2. One of the 19 representatives voting against the bill in the House was Rep. Jo Jordan, the first openly gay state legislator to vote against same-sex marriage.  She told Honolulu Magazine that her objections were in part based on a concern that the religious exemptions in the bill are too narrow.  The bill protects clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriages or civil unions, and allows any religious organization or nonprofit that is "operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious organization" to refuse to provide goods, services or facilities for civil unions or marriages that are in violation of the organization's religious beliefs. According to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Gov. Neil Abercrombie has said he will sign the bill.  It is expected that he will do so today, beating Illinois to become the 15th state to legalize same-sex marriage.  The Illinois legislature passed marriage equality legislation last week (see prior posting), but Gov. Pat Quinn does not plan to sign it until Nov. 20. Shortly after the bill passed in Hawaii, President Obama issued a statement congratulating the legislature on its action, and saying that this made him even prouder to have been born in Hawaii.

5th Circuit Remands Sikh's RFRA Challenge To Ban On Kirpan In Federal Building

In Tagore v. United States, (5th Cir., Nov. 13, 2013), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a Title VII religious discrimination claim by a Sikh employee of the Internal Revenue Service who lost her job after she insisted on wearing her kirpan into her federal office building. Federal law (18 USC Sec. 930) prohibits weapons with blades over 2.5 inches long in federal building. The court said that: "An employer need not accommodate an employee’s religious practice by violating other laws."However the court remanded for reconsideration of plaintiff's RFRA claim in light of a Policy Directive issued by the Federal Protective Service after the case concluded in the district court. (See prior posting.) That Directive permits granting of exemptions in federal buildings for Sikh articles of faith, and thus possibly undercuts the government's argument regarding the need for uniform application of the weapons ban.  The appeals court also held that, contrary to the district court's conclusion, plaintiff had created a genuine issue of material fact as to her sincere religious belief in wearing a 3-inch bladed kirpan.  [Thanks to Blog From the Capital for the lead.]

Suit Settled Allowing Christian Group To Use Building To House Recovering Addicts and Their Children

Alliance Defending Freedom announced this week that it has reached a settlement with the city of Hattiesburg, Mississippi in a suit challenging the city's refusal to rezone or provide a special use permit for a Christian organization to use a building it purchased for overnight housing of women who are recovering from addiction and their children. The complaint (full text) in Lighthouse Rescue Mission, Inc. v. City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, (SD MI, filed 5/3/2013) claimed that the zoning denials violated RLUIPA, the federal Fair Housing Act and the speech and religion protections in the federal and state constitutions. The order and settlement agreement (full text, filed 11/7/13) permits Rescue Mission to house allows it to use the building for overnight housing and related ministry operations.

Supreme Court In Unusual Move Gives Interim Relief On Grooming Rules To Muslim Prisoner

In an unusual order (full text) yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued an injunction barring the Arkansas Department of Corrections from enforcing its grooming policy against Muslim inmate Gregory Holt "to the extent that it prohibits applicant from growing a one-half-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs."  The order entered in the case of Holt v. Hobbs, (Docket No. 13-6827) will terminate either when the Court denies Holt's petition for certiorari, or, if it grants the petition, when the Court enters its judgment. AP reports that Holt is serving a life sentence for domestic violence and burglary after he cut his girlfriend's throat and stabbed her. Holt, who also goes by his religious name of Abdul Maalik Muhammad, is appearing pro se.  He filed his handwritten application for an injunction while his cert. petition is pending with Justice Samuel Alito (who is assigned to receive such motions in 8th Circuit cases). Alito in turn referred the application to the entire court which issued yesterday's order. Here is the 8th Circuit's opinion upholding the prison system's grooming policy. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Whitaker v. Whitener, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157692 (WD NC, Nov. 1, 2013), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed without prejudice a complaint by a Jewish prisoner that serving his kosher meals cold, or late, or delivering them along with non-kosher meals violates his free exercise rights.In Barton v. Snaza, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157934 (WD WA, Nov. 4,2013), a Washington federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157937, Oct. 4, 2013) and dismissed without prejudice prior to service for failure to state a claim an inmate's complaint that  two of his personal Asatru/Odinist books were confiscated by an unidentified person, preventing him from performing a ceremonial rite in his cell for three different holidays.In Arrendondo v. Brooks, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158406 (D NV, Nov. 5, 2013), a Nevada federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158403, Sept. 23, 2013) and dismissed an inmate's complaint that several of his religious books were confiscated as contraband because he did not have his name written in them.In White v. Van Leer, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159186 (ED CA, Nov. 5, 2013), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was denied kosher meals in place of the vegetarian substitute meals served at breakfast and lunch to those receiving Halal diets.In Medina v. Snyder, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159225 (ED CA, Nov 5, 2013), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed,with leave to amend, an inmate's complaint that he was denied a kosher meal on three separate occasions.In George v. City of New York, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159434 (SD NY, Nov. 6, 2013), a New York federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's claim that a strip search of him violated his free exercise rights. His request to be searched in private was refused.In West v. Grams, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160003 (WD WI, Nov. 8, 2013), a Wisconsin federal magistrate judge dismissed complaints by a Muslim inmate that Muslim prayer services were not permitted to be held when a volunteer leader from outside the prison was unavailable. The court also dismissed his claim that Ramadan meals were served as late as possible in retaliation for his arguing about the proper time to serve these meals.In McKenzie v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159981 (WD MI, Nov. 8, 2013), a Michigan federal district court dismissed a suit brought by several Jewish prisoners complaining about a change in Department of Corrections policy that eliminated separate kosher meals and instead made vegan meals that meet kosher and halal standards available for religious diets.In Arafat v. U.S. Department of Justice, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160075 (D MN, Nov. 8, 2013), a Muslim inmate complained of a lack of a halal-certified diet at the county jail in which he was held while his federal criminal trial was under way.  A Minnesota federal district court dismissed most of his claims but allowed him to proceed with his claim for injunctive relief, subject to its being dismissed as moot as soon as his sentencing hearing was completed and he was transferred back to federal prison where a halal diet was available.

Federal Lawsuit Challenges Idaho's Refusal To Permit or Recognize Same-Sex Marriage

A suit was filed Friday in an Idaho federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Idaho's laws that exclude same-sex couples from marrying in the state, and refuse to recognize marriages of same-sex couples entered into lawfully elsewhere.  The complaint (full text) in Latta v. Otter, (D ID, filed 11/8/2013), claims that Idaho Const. art. III, § 28 and Idaho Code §§ 32-201 and 32-209 violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. The National Center for Lesbian Rights issued a press release on the case. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Court Rejects Challenges To New Jersey Ban On Conversion Therapy for Minors

In King v. Christie, (D NJ, Nov. 8, 2013), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed a challenge to the state's ban on sexual-orientation change therapy for minors.  It held that psychotherapy carried out through talk therapy is not speech under the 1st Amendment.  Instead it is conduct.  In so holding, the court in part pointed to the 9th Circuit's recent decision upholding a similar California statute. The court went on to reject claims that the New Jersey statute is overbroad and vague.  Finally the court rejected the claim that the New Jersey statute violates the Free Exercise clause by preventing mental health providers from exercising their sincerely held religious beliefs that changing same-sex attraction or behavior is possible. The court concluded that the statute is a neutral law of general applicability. The Newark Star Ledger reports on the decision.

EU Court of Justice Rules On When Homosexuals Qualify For Refugee Status

On Thursday, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a preliminary ruling interpreting Council Directive 2004/83/EC on minimum standards for third-country nationals to qualify as refugees. The Directive defines a refugee, in part as a person who has a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of ... membership of a particular social group...." In X, Y, Z v. Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel, (EU Ct. Justice, Nov. 7, 2013), the court held that:

the existence of criminal laws ... which specifically target homosexuals, supports the finding that those persons must be regarded as forming a particular social group.

... the criminalisation of homosexual acts per se does not constitute an act of persecution. However, a term of imprisonment ... which is actually applied ... must be regarded as being a punishment which is disproportionate or discriminatory and thus constitutes an act of persecution.

.... When assessing an application for refugee status, the competent authorities cannot reasonably expect, in order to avoid the risk of persecution, the applicant for asylum to conceal his homosexuality in his country of origin or to exercise reserve in the expression of his sexual orientation.

The Court also issued a press release on the decision. So did ORAM (the advocacy group for LGBTI refugees). It discusses at length the problems that European officials will face in accurately assessing the credibility of asylum claims based on sexual orientation. The Los Angeles Times reports on the decision, focusing on the persecution of gays and lesbians in Africa-- the home continent of the 3 refugees who were parties to the case decided by the court.

Endorsing Agency For Two Conservative Chaplains Sues VA Over Pastoral Education Program Clashes

Fox News and Breibart News report  on a federal lawsuit filed last week by the endorsing agency for two military chaplains who were forced out of a Clinical Pastoral Education program run by the Department of Veterans Affairs in San Diego. The program is required in order to work as a chaplain in a VA hospital. The two chaplains, who were endorsed by the Conservative Baptist Association of America, continually clashed in class with the religiously liberal instructor, Nancy Dietsch.  The complaint (full text) in Conservative Baptist Association of America, Inc. v. Shenseki, (D DC, filed 11/8/2013), sets out examples of in-class exchanges between Dietsch and chaplains Steven Firtko and Dan Klender, among which are:

... Dietsch informed the class she believes God could be a man or woman. Chaplain Firtko recited the Lord’s Prayer, stating “Our Father who Art in Heaven.” In response, Ms. Dietsch angrily pounded her fist on the table and shouted: “Do not quote Scripture in this class!”....

When Chaplain Klender responded to a question during a group discussion regarding the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown CT, by stating he would tell a parent whose child was a victim by stating that “there is evil in the world,” Ms. Dietsch impugned his core faith beliefs stating they would not work in a clinical setting. In the presence of the other students she said: “You don’t actually believe that do you?”

Dietsch also told the class that The VA and she "do not allow Chaplains to pray 'in Jesus' name' in public ceremonies."The lawsuit contends that the program's intolerance of mainstream Judeo-Christian beliefs violates RFRA, the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses. It also contends that discrimination against Conservative Baptist Association chaplains was arbitrary and capricious.In a statement to news media, the VA said that the two chaplains were "bullying other classmates and refusing to honor other faith groups." [Corrected to make clear that plaintiff is the endorsing agency, not the chaplains. Thanks to God and Country blog.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:
Arshad Zaman, Maulana Sayyid Sulaiman Nadvi on Law, Politics, and Government, in Islam, (November 1, 2013).Scott D. Gerber, Law and the Lively Experiment in Colonial Rhode Island, (2 British Journal of American Legal Studies 453 (2013)).Zachary R. Calo, Review of 'The Tragedy of Religious Freedom' by Marc O. Degirolami, (Religion and Human Rights 8 (2013)).Nora Abdul Hak & Hanna Ambaras Khan, The Application of Sulh in Resolving Community Disputes, (Paper presentation at in 1st World Congress on Integration and Islamicisation of Acquired Human Knowledge (FWCII-2013)).Susannah William Pollvogt, United States v. Windsor and the Crisis in Equal Protection Jurisprudence, (November 6, 2013).David B. Cruz, 'Amorphous Federalism' and the Supreme Court's Marriage Cases, (Loyola Law Review, Supreme Court Issue, Forthcoming).

Hawaii Court Upholds State's New Marriage Equality Law

In Hawaii, a trial court judge rejected a state constitutional challenge to the Hawaii's marriage equality law that was signed by the governor yesterday. According to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Circuit Court Judge Karl Sakamoto held yesterday that the legislature has the inherent authority to define marriage. In 1998, Hawaii voters approved an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment.  But unlike amendments in a number of other states, Hawaii's Art. I, Sec. 23 merely permits the state legislature to reserve marriage to opposite sex couples. Plaintiffs in the case, including a state representative, a Christian pastor and the head of Hawaii's Christian Coalition argued that in the 1998 amendment, voters intended to ban same-sex marriage. The court rejected this argument.