Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  • President Donald Trump signed an executive order that established a temporary task force within the Justice Department aimed at eradicating anti-Christian bias within the federal government. The Executive Order names the Attorney General as the Task Force chair and vests within the Task Force with authority to review the activities of all executive departments and agencies for unlawful anti-Christian policies, practices, or conduct, recommend methods to revoke or terminate violative policies, develop strategies to protect the religious liberties of Americans, and more.
  •  In a new complaint filed for Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper, the plaintiff, a public school teacher,  alleges that DiLoreto Elementary & Middle School violated the Free Exercise clause when she was placed on administrative leave following her refusal to remove a crucifix that she had hung among other personal items in personal workspace near her classroom desk. The plaintiff alleges that the school district pressured her in several meetings to remove the crucifix, and suspended her for two days without pay shortly before placing her on administrative leave.
  • In Groveman v. Regents of the University of California, a California District Court recently dismissed a suit alleging that the University of California Davis alleging that the University violated the plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights when it allowed a pro-Palestinian encampment to operate on campus grounds and exclude Plaintiff from walking on the sidewalk where the encampment was located, despite the fact that the encampment violated school policy. The District Court found that the causal connection between the University’s inaction and the injury the plaintiff suffered was too attenuated for a Free Exercise claim to survive. Further, the District Court held that it was impossible to draw a plausible inference that the defendant’s inaction favored or disfavored any religion or burdened the plaintiff’s religious exercise.
  • The Australian Parliament recently passed new amendments to the country’s Hate Crimes Law, strengthening the punishments for existing offenses that urge and force violence and creating new offenses that threaten force or violence against targeted groups and members of groups. These amendments were passed following several high-profile incidents of antisemitism that have risen across the country.
  • The Supreme Court of India recently held that the government of Chhattisgarh has two months to demarcate new, exclusive burial sites for Christians in an attempt to reduce disputes over burial grounds. The Supreme Court’s decision was made against the backdrop of continued persecution by Chhattisgarh state officials, in which Christians have been routinely (and sometimes violently) denied the right to a Christian burial.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  • In United States v. Harris, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals deliberated on whether a defendant, charged with threatening a federal judge and declared incompetent for trial, could be involuntarily medicated despite his religious objections as a Jehovah’s Witness. The court recognized the importance of religious liberty in this context, concluding that it could be considered a “special circumstance” in deciding the permissibility of involuntary medication, according to Supreme Court precedent in Sell v. United States.
  • In Foshee v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, a Maryland federal court dismissed a religious discrimination claim under Title VII by two employees seeking a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The court found that their objections, based on what plaintiffs assert was guidance from God or the Holy Spirit and personal concerns about the vaccine, were not strictly religious but intertwined with secular reasons, thus not qualifying for a religious exemption. The court emphasized that their beliefs, being “not subject to any principled limitation in…scope,” amounted to an unverifiable “blanket privilege” not strictly religious in nature.
  • In Hilsenrath v. School District of the Chathams, a New Jersey court reaffirmed its prior decision stating that a 7th grade curriculum on Islam did not violate the Establishment Clause. The court, after a reconsideration prompted by the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, emphasized that the educational materials were not coercively promoting religious establishments forbidden by the First Amendment, leading to a ruling in favor of the school board.
  • In Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance, a New Mexico federal district court declined to order an injunction that would prevent the state’s insurance superintendent from regulating Health Care Sharing Ministries (HCSMs), cost-sharing organizations intended to cut medical expenses for members. The plaintiffs argued that an official press release, which warned consumers about HCSMs and declared their plans unauthorized insurance products, showed a form of official disapproval of their religious beliefs. However, the court disagreed, and using rational basis review, found that state laws requiring compliance with the Insurance Code were justified and evinced a legitimate governmental concern.
  • In The Matter of James Hogue v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division upheld the denial of Hogue’s request for a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination mandate for New York City Department of Education employees. It ruled that Hogue failed to prove his objection was based on sincere religious beliefs and that granting an exemption would impose undue hardship on the Department of Education. The court dismissed Hogue’s other arguments, including a lack of cooperative dialogue and issues of timeliness in the appeal process.
  • In Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, India’s Supreme Court declined to recognize same-sex marriages, aligning with government and religious leaders who opposed the petitions. The Court concurred that the power to legislate on marriage resides with the parliament, not the judiciary. The petitioners had advocated for the modification of the Special Marriage Act to be more inclusive by using the term “spouse” instead of specifying gender. Despite refusing to legalize same-sex marriages, the Court did urge the government to explore and implement extended rights and privileges for same-sex couples, suggesting the formation of a committee to examine this prospect.
Posted on by

Sen, “Articles of Faith: Religion, Secularism, and the Indian Supreme Court”

This November, Oxford University Press will publish Articles of Faith: Religion, Secularism, and the Indian Supreme Court by Ronojoy Sen (National University of Singapore). The publisher’s description follows.

This book examines the relationship of religion and the Indian state and seeks to answer the question: ‘How has the higher judiciary in Independent India interpreted the right to freedom of religion and in turn influenced the discourse on secularism and nationhood?’ The author examines the tension between judgments that attempt to define the essence of religion and in many ways to ‘rationalize’ it, and a society where religion occupies a prominent space. He places the judicial discourse within the wider political and philosophical context of Indian secularism. The author also focuses on judgments related to Article 44, under the Directive Principles of State Policy, which places a duty on the state to ‘secure’ a uniform civil code for the nation. His contention is that the Indian Supreme Court has actively aimed at reform and rationalization of obscurantist religious views and institutions and has, as a result, contributed to a ‘homogenization of religion’ and also the nation, that it has not shown adequate sensitivity to the pluralism of Indian polity and the rights of minorities.