Posted on by Mark Movsesian · 1 Comment

Constitutional Intolerance

Religious freedom begins with tolerance, but aspirationally goes beyond it, to the full participation of religious minorities in political and legal life. Lately, some European observers think that even tolerance for religious and other minorities is lacking. A book out from Cambridge next month, Constitutional Intolerance: The Fashioning of the Other in Europe’s Constitutional Repertoires, explores the phenomenon. The author is Marietta van der Tol (above), the Alfred Landecker Postdoctoral Fellow at Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government. Here’s the publisher’s description:

Constitutional Intolerance offers a deeper reflection on intolerance in politics and society today, explaining why minorities face the contestation of their public visibility, and how the law could protect them. Van der Tol refers to historical practices of toleration, distilling from it the category of ‘the other’ to the political community, whose presence, representation, and visibility is not self-evident and is often subject to regulation. The book considers ‘the other’ in the context of modern constitutions, with reference to (ethno)religious, ethnic, and sexual groups. Theoretical chapters engage questions about the time and temporality of otherness, and their ambivalent relationship with (public) space. It offers examples from across the liberal-illiberal divide: France, the Netherlands, Hungary, and Poland. It highlights that vulnerability towards intolerance is inscribed in the structures of the law, and is not merely inherent to either liberalism or illiberalism, as is often inferred.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Ending Persecution?

Readers of this blog and listeners to Legal Spirits will know that I’m skeptical that international human rights law can do much on its own to end religious persecution. Everything depends on state enforcement–and states, including the US, only get involved when their interests suggest they should. Even then, there is typically little the “international community” can do when local actors really want to punish a religious minority, other than offer asylum–collective action problems always seem to get in the way, and the international community typically loses interest in time. It’s a very sad fact. But I know that other people think this view is too pessimistic. For a more optimistic view on what international human rights law can do, here is a new book from the University of Notre Dame Press, Ending Persecution: Charting the Path to Global Religious Freedom, by longtime human rights lawyer Knox Thames. The publisher’s description follows:

Building on his extensive experience in the U.S. government and as an international human rights lawyer, H. Knox Thames provides fresh, decisive strategies to advance religious freedom for all.

Today, a scourge of religious persecution is impacting every faith community around the globe. In Ending Persecution: Charting the Path to Global Religious Freedom, author H. Knox Thames takes readers to some of the world’s most repressive countries in the Middle East and Asia, exposing the harsh reality of religious repression. Thames breaks down the devastating litany of human rights abuses faced by religious groups in these countries into four major types of persecution: terrorism in the Middle East, government-sponsored genocides in China and Burma, cultural changes due to extremism in Pakistan, and tyrannical democracy in Nepal and India.

Ending Persecution recounts the range of tools and policies that the U.S. government has used to encourage reform in repressive governments, leverage U.S. influence for the oppressed, and to reflect the best of American values of diversity, minority rights, and religious freedom. To help the persecuted in the twenty-first century, Thames argues, the United States must revitalize its approach and recommit to ending oppression by supporting coalition building and interfaith tolerance.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

A New Book on Religious Freedom in the Middle East

I’m delighted to report that last month Brill released a new book by a great friend of the Mattone Center (and mine!) for many years, Professor Andrea Pin. Andrea, who teaches law at the University of Padua, has an encyclopedic knowledge of comparative law, especially the comparative law of church and state, and he has devoted much of his career to studying how law and religion interact in the Middle East. His new book, Religious Freedom without the Rule of Law: The Constitutional Odysseys of Afghanistan, Egypt, and Iraq and the Fate of the Middle East, addresses that interaction. Highly recommended! Here is the description from the publisher’s website:

The volume compares the efforts to instil the values and practices of the rule of law in the Middle East in the early twenty-first century with their disappointing performances in terms of safety, human rights, and, especially, religious freedom. It zooms in on Afghanistan, Egypt, and Iraq to argue that international interventions and local initiatives underestimated the ethno-religious mosaic of these countries and their political and constitutional culture.

The standard notion of the rule of law values individualism, equality, rights, and courts, which hardly fit the makeup of the Middle East. Securing stability and protecting religious freedom in the region requires compromising on the rule of law; the consociational model of constitutionalism would have better chances of achieving them.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Movsesian at ICLARS Next Month

I’m greatly looking forward to participating in next month’s ICLARS conference at Notre Dame Law School. I’ll be on a panel, “Status, Conduct, and Message,” along with Steven Collis of the University of Texas and Amy Sepinwall of the University of Pennsylvania. We’ll try to make sense of some of the Court’s recent religious freedom cases. Details in the conference program, below. Friends of the Mattone Center, please stop by and say hello!

ICLARS 2024 Program with logos first draft for print (JMT 20092024) (1)Download
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • A petition for certiorari was filed in Apache Stronghold v. United States after the Ninth Circuit refused to enjoin the government from transferring federally-owned land to a copper company. The land is alleged to have significant spiritual significance to the Apache Nation, and the petitioners claim violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
  • The Ukrainian Supreme Court decided to formally ban the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, the largest religious organization in Ukraine, after years of church confiscations and harassment of believers. The law bans all religious organizations with ties to Russia, and gives the Church nine months to either merge with a mostly-unrecognized nationalist church, or formally disavow all of its connections with the Russian Orthodox Church.
  • In Edison v. South Carolina Department of Education, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that a state scholarship for private school students violates the State’s Constitution, which prohibits public funds to be used for the direct benefit of religious or private educational institutions. The program allowed beneficiaries to use the state-provided scholarship funds to pay for their private school tuition.
  • The Tenth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a discrimination claim brought by a school administrator, who was fired after complaining about the depiction of Christians in a school play. Although the Court said that the Plaintiff’s words were not protected as they were made in the course of performing his official duties, it reversed due to sufficient facts being raised that gave rise to an inference of discrimination.
  • The Ninth Circuit held that a municipal law mandating tree-trimming did not violate the Free Exercise rights of a resident who claimed his religious and spiritual beliefs were substantially burdened by the regulation. The Court held that the Free Exercise Clause does not relieve an individual of the duty to comply with a neutral law of general applicability.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Legal Spirits 062: Can a Public School Ask Kids to State Their Religion?

(Robert Sciarrino/The Star-Ledger)

When the Cedar Grove School District in New Jersey surveyed students about their religious identities and other sensitive matters, St. John’s Law Professor Patricia Montana went into action. She and other parents sued the district for violating student privacy laws, including the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, a federal statute. Last month, the US Department of Education ruled in the parents’ favor. In this episode, Montana talks about her successful legal challenge and explains why she and other parents fought the district’s policy. Listen in!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Youth 71Five Ministries v. Williams, the 9th Circuit issued an injunction allowing a Christian organization to participate in Oregon’s Youth Community Investment Grant Program after the state canceled its grants due to religious-based hiring practices. The court found that Oregon selectively enforced its Certification Rule against the organization while continuing to fund secular groups that also violated the rule.
  • In Resurrection House Ministries, Inc. v. City of Brunswick, a Georgia federal court dismissed the ministry’s Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act claim but allowed its other constitutional claims to proceed. The court found that the ministry sufficiently alleged the city’s nuisance action was retaliatory and aimed at deterring its religious practices.
  • In Knights of Columbus Council 2616 v. Town of Fairfield, a Connecticut federal court allowed the Knights of Columbus to proceed with free speech, free exercise, and equal protection claims after the town denied the group a permit to hold a Christmas Vigil in a public park. The court found that the town’s stated COVID-19 concerns were likely pretextual and that the Special Events Permitting Scheme lacked adequate standards, giving the Commission unbridled discretion.
  • In Desmarais v. Granholm, a D.C. federal court allowed a Title VII claim to proceed in which a Department of Energy employee alleged that his request for a religious exemption from the Covid vaccine mandate was deprioritized compared to medical exemptions. The court found that the employee plausibly alleged a causal connection between his religious beliefs and the decision to delay his accommodation request.
  • In North United Methodist Church v. New York Annual Conference, a Connecticut trial court dismissed the local church’s petition for a declaratory judgment on its disaffiliation from the parent church, citing the need to avoid involvement in church policy matters.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • A California federal court recently issued a temporary injunction barring the University of California from allowing protestors to prevent Jewish students from attending class. The lawsuit was initiated by three Jewish students who claimed they were prevented from accessing certain portions of UCLA’s campus without wearing a wristband signifying their refusal to recognize the State of Israel.
  • In Saint Dominic Academy v. Makin, a Maine federal court refused to enjoin the enforcement of a statute that requires schools receiving tuition aid for out-of-district students to refrain from discriminating on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. The Court found that the statute met the strict scrutiny standard of review placed upon it by the Supreme Court, despite the Plaintiff’s claim that it amounts to a de facto ban on parochial schools receiving the desired aid.
  • In In re Covid-Related Restrictions on Religious Services, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of two challenges to the Governor’s orders restricting religious gatherings in the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Court held that any injury caused could not be redressed by the suit due the lifting of the restrictions as well as a binding commitment by the Governor not to impose similar restrictions in the future, rendering the desired declarative judgment incapable of changing the status quo.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston, the 1st Circuit ruled that the Boston City Council did not violate the 1st Amendment by choosing not to invite representatives of the Satanic Temple to deliver invocations at Council meetings. The court found no evidence of religious bias in the selection process as Council members choose speakers based on personal or community ties.
  • In StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a Massachusetts district court dismissed a suit against MIT, which alleged that the university showed deliberate indifference to a hostile environment affecting Jewish and Israeli students in violation of Title VI. The court found that MIT took various steps to address the escalating protests and threats, indicating that its response was not clearly unreasonable.
  • A Massachusetts district judge denied Harvard’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit by six Jewish students alleging the university failed to address pervasive antisemitism on campus, citing the university’s “deliberate indifference”. The decision is particularly notable as it comes shortly after the same judge dismissed a similar lawsuit against MIT (see above).
  • In Spillane v. Lamont, the Connecticut Supreme Court decided that parents cannot pursue constitutional challenges to the removal of religious exemptions from vaccination requirements because of sovereign immunity. However, the court allowed a statutory claim under the Connecticut Religious Freedom Restoration Act, stating that sovereign immunity does not block this type of claim.
  • Americans United for Separation of Church and State faces internal conflict and allegations of a troubled work culture. A staff union and former board members complain that the group’s leadership prioritizes publicity over the organization’s core mission of protecting the separation of church and state, which has resulted in resignations and accusations of a toxic environment.

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Queens, NY, statues depicting Christ and the Virgin Mary were vandalized and decapitated outside of a Catholic Church, resulting in the perpetrator being charged with a hate crime. The incident took place outside of Holy Family Catholic Church in Fresh Meadows, Queens, with the attack being fully recorded by the church’s camera.
  • The Center for Religion, Culture, & Democracy recently released the 2023 iteration of their Religious Liberty in the United States survey, which measures each state’s statutory protections against religious discrimination. West Virginia finished last, whereas Illinois finished first, providing an insight into how cultural norms can misalign with formal legal protections.
  • In Chino Valley Unified School System v. Newsom, a California school district sued the state of California, claiming that recent legislation prohibiting parental notification of a child’s gender transition violated parents’ free exercise rights.
  • In Behrend v. San Francisco Zen Center, Inc., a Buddhist novice’s disability discrimination suit was dismissed due to the ministerial exception doctrine.
  • In L.F. v. M.A., a New York state trial court held that a Coptic Orthodox wedding was sufficient to render a couple civilly married for the purposes of a divorce action. The court held that the belief of both parties, as well as testimony from the officiating bishop, were enough to overcome the lack of formal marriage license.