Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:
- In Solliz v. Knox County, Tennessee, a Muslim woman filed suit after she was required by a Knox County sheriff to remove her hijab for a booking photo following her arrest. The complaint alleged violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the Tennessee Preservation of Religious Freedom Act.
- A Ukrainian court has extended the detention of an Orthodox bishop for two months after he was arrested for allegedly revealing army positions to the public in a sermon, having mentioned the presence of a road block that prevented access to a local monastery. The bishop was denied the possibility of posting bail, and the checkpoints in question were removed prior to the publication of his sermon online.
- A petition for certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, after the Supreme Court of Oklahoma declared the certification of a Catholic-sponsored charter school violative of the state’s constitution and the Establishment Clause. The petition states that the exclusion of religious schools from the state’s charter program violates the Free Exercise Clause, and that the mere funding of religious schools by the state does not constitute state action.
- The recently-passed Abortion Services Act in Scotland threatens prosecution against anyone praying within a 200-meter radius of an abortion facility, including within their own homes, if they can be seen or heard within the zone, and act in an intentional or reckless manner. Guidance provided by the government to facilitate compliance lists silent vigils and religious preaching as potentially actionable offenses, if conducted intentionally and recklessly.
- The University of California has continued to deny wrongdoing following a California federal court’s order mandating a variety of measures to prevent the exclusion of Jewish students from parts of campus. The University claims responsibility lies with actors unaffiliated with the school, whereas the plaintiffs maintain the school’s complicity via its failure to act in the face of clear religious discrimination against its students.
