Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami

Supreme Court Denials and Holds on Religion Clause Cases

SCOTUS Blog reports (Lyle Denniston) that the Justices denied certiorari on a new Ten Commandments case as well as a RLUIPA case but did nothing yet with respect to the fairly well-known Utah highway cross case out of the 10th Circuit.  Here’s the relevant bit.  (And see my colleague Mark’s post below on the Court’s Ten Commandments display doctrine.)   — MOD

Among the hundreds of cases denied review was one involving a plea for the Court to reopen the question of the constitutionality of posting the Ten Commandments on the wall of a courtroom — an issue brought to it by a state judge in Ohio (DeWeese v. ACLU, 10-1512).  The Court, however, took no immediate action on the constitutionality of placing a Christian cross at the roadside sites of the deaths of on duty of state highway patrolmen (Utah Highway Patrol Association v. American Atheists, 10-1276, and Davenport v. American Atheists, 10-1297).  In another case involving church-state issues, the Court declined to sort out how far local governments must go, under the federal Religious Land Use [and Institutionalized Persons] Act, to allow churches to build new structures in areas of the city not zoned for such uses (San Leandro v. International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, 11-106).

Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami

Swiss Strife

This is a fascinating story detailing the recent history of conflict in Switzerland between various Muslim and state/non-Muslim interests.  The newest controversy is the result of Muslim agitation to remove the white cross from the Swiss flag, ostensibly in order both to reflect the “separation of church and state” and Switzerland’s increasing “cultural diversity.”  The group prefers a flag with colors and patterns resembling the flags of Bolivia and Ghana.

Switzerland has been the site of increasing strife stimulated by the dramatic increase in its Muslim immigrant population, which the story reports has quintupled since 1980.  Among the many interesting conflicts reported in the story (including the minaret controversy) is the successful lawsuit by Muslim parents demanding the right to dress their children in full-body bathing suits (“burkinis”) during co-ed swimming lessons.  — MOD

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Sukkahs in TriBeCa

Tonight, according to the New York Times, the Community Board for New York’s neighborhood of TriBeCa (if the Times spells it that way, so will we) votes on whether to allow a Jewish group to erect a sukkah, a ritual hut associated with the Jewish autumn holiday of Sukkot, in a neighborhood park. It’s not clear how the Board will vote.  A few members apparently have concerns about allowing religious symbols like the sukkah in a public park.  As a legal matter, the sukkah is probably acceptable.  Once the state opens up a public forum for private speech, it cannot discriminate on the basis of content. The state must treat religious and non-religious speech equally — and it seems that the city does allow private speech in Duane Park.  Also, although the Supreme Court’s case law on religious displays is famously unpredictable, past decisions suggest that a private group may erect a religious display on public property as long as reasonable observers would not conclude that the state had endorsed the group’s religious message.  So it might be a good idea for Chabad, the group seeking permission for the sukkah, to include some sort of disclaimer that makes clear that the sukkah is not an official city structure.  However the Board decides, this case could well reach the courts. — MLM