Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  •  In Walker v. Dismas Charities, Inc., the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a Free Exercise Bivens claim by an inmate serving part of his sentence in home confinement. The inmate sued individual employees of a government contractor that contracted with the government to supervise federal prisoners serving home sentences, alleging that his sentence violated his right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment
  • In Bates v. Pakseresht, the plaintiff was denied certification to adopt children through the Oregon Department of Human Services because she would not agree to use a child’s preferred pronouns and undertake other required acts that the state claims “affirm a child’s gender identity” because of her Christian beliefs. The court rejected plaintiff’s free exercise and free speech claims because she was not seeking certification to become a full parent, but instead sought certification “to house and care for a child under the state’s umbrella of protection.”
  •  In Tosone v. Way, suit was filed in the District of New Jersey in early October challenging the New Jersey requirement that candidates filing to run for public office sign an Oath of Allegiance that ends with “so help me God.” The Acting Director of the New Jersey Division of Elections recently issued a Memo to County Clerks stating that candidates for public office now have the option of a solemn affirmation or declaration in lieu of an oath, and the phrase “so help me God” will be omitted. Counsel for plaintiffs then filed to voluntarily dismiss the suit.
  • in Grace Community Church- The Woodlands, Inc. v. Southern Montgomery County Municipal Utility District, Grace Community Church filed a complaint challenging a utility district’s requirement that the church pay a capital recovery fee of $83,780 rather than the actual cost of $24,900 to connect its new office building and auditorium to the district’s water system. The church alleges the fee is an unlawful tax on an otherwise tax-exempt organization, and it further violates Texas’ version of RFRA and the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.
  • The White House issued a Fact Sheet: Biden-⁠Harris Administration Takes Action to Address Alarming Rise of Reported Antisemitic and Islamophobic Events at Schools and on College Campuses.The Fact Sheet discusses recent initiatives taken by the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Homeland Security to prevent further antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents which have been taking place at schools and colleges since the October 7 Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel.
  • A New York Court of Claims judge serving as an active Supreme Court Justice is being investigated and no longer handling criminal cases after the justice asked a Muslim criminal defendant to remove her niqab–a religious garment that covers most of the face–at a plea hearing on October 24.
Posted on by Daniel Vitagliano

Around the Web

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

Posted on by Daniel Vitagliano

Around the Web

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

Posted on by Liam Ray

Around the Web

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

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Conference on Illegal Covering (Onanti, Spain)

The International Institute for the Sociology of Law in Onanti, Spain will hold a conference, “‘Illegal’  Covering: Comparative Perspectives on Legal and Social Discourses on Religious Diversity,” this Thursday and Friday, May 17-18. The conference organizers are Valerie Amiraux (University of Montreal) and Pascale Fournier (University of Ottawa). For details, follow the links here.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Canada Bans Veils During Citizenship Ceremonies

Reuters reports that Canada’s immigration ministry has decided to forbid women at naturalization ceremonies from wearing veils that cover their faces, even for religious reasons. The ban will affect Islamic veils like the  niqab, which covers the face but has an opening to allow vision, and burqa, which has a mesh. The ministry argues that its decision will ensure that people who “join the Canadian family” do so “freely and openly,” but Reuters talks about a possible lawsuit by Canadians who believe the ban violates Muslims’s religious freedom. If such a case materializes, the governing precedent would likely be the Canadian Supreme Court’s 2006 Multani decision, the Sikh kirpan case, in which the court held that, under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, any restriction on religious freedom must serve an important government objective and be proportional to that objective — a test that resembles the pre-Smith Sherbert doctrine in American law.

Posted on by

Choudhury on Minority Rights in Quebec

Nafay Choudhury (graduate of McGill University – Faculty of Law) has posted Niqab vs. Quebec: Negotiating Minority Rights Within Quebec Identity. The abstract follows.—YAH

Quebec recently proposed legislation (Bill 94) that would require all individuals to reveal their face when seeking a government service. The proposed legislation particularly targets Muslim women who don the niqab. Underlying the present debate is an artificial dichotomy – a tension between a society’s interest in defining a common sense of citizenship and minority claims that seem inconsistent with the will of the majority. A Charter challenge – even if successful – would not fully address this underlying tension. In this paper, I argue that the heart of the present controversy relates to the need for a clear conception of Quebec identity. By considering the historical, social, ethnic, geographic and intrinsic significance of the French language, I argue that the French language, not secularism, is the key element of Quebec identity and facilitates a common sense of citizenship in Quebec. If a minority claim is capable of fitting within this conception of Quebec identity, then it poses no threat to Quebec citizenship, and thus, there should be no reason to exclude the claim – in this case the claim to wear the niqab when seeking a government service – from Quebec society.