A small New Jersey congregation rented from a local school building until the rent increased. The twenty-five congregants couldn’t afford the new price and used Reverend Robert Cameron’s house as a new meeting place. Learn how this congregation fought all the way to the State Supreme Court against unfair zoning laws by visiting FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Robert Cameron was a minister without a home. Well, that’s not quite right. Rev. Cameron actually had a home, a house much like any other in Franklin Township, New Jersey.
Actually, Rev. Cameron, and his congregation at the Mount Carmel Reformed Episcopal Church, had no home for their church. They had been renting a local school building, but someone hiked the rent. The twenty-five congregants couldn’t afford the increase. So, they decided to meet in Rev. Cameron’s house until they could find a new meeting place.
You would think that would be uncontroversial, but town officials told him he was violating the town’s zoning laws. A judge agreed and, for the crime of holding a worship service in his home, he was given a $500 fine for every time the church would meet in his home.
Rev. Cameron didn’t give up. He appealed that decision and the Supreme Court of New Jersey acknowledged that the zoning ordinance was vague and its focus on religious activity alone led to unfair and inconsistent results. It had to go.
State v. Cameron was decided in 1981, two decades before Congress would pass the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Today, RLUIPA provides a critical defense for pastors, churches, and religious organizations against cities and towns that would substantially burden the free exercise of religion in the religious use of their property.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
A few months ago, First Liberty Briefing shared the story of a Rastafarian chef who was discharged from an Orlando hotel for refusing to cut his dreadlocks. There’s an update on that case and you can listen to it by visiting FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
A few months ago, I shared with you the story of a Rastafarian chef who was discharged from an Orlando hotel for refusing to cut his dreadlocks. Well, here’s an update on that case.
As you will recall, Rastafarians wear their hair in dreadlocks as part of their sincerely held religious beliefs. So, under federal law, his employer was required to accommodate his hair, unless doing so posed an undue hardship to the business itself.
After efforts to resolve the matter failed, the EEOC brought a federal lawsuit. That prompted further settlement discussions, which resulted in the hospitality company agreeing to pay $30,000 to settle the lawsuit. The company further agreed to amend its policies and train its employees to make it clear that religious-based requests for accommodation will be provided.
Once again, this demonstrates how costly it is to deny an employee their religious liberty. And, if you’re like me, you may not have a sincerely held religious belief about how you wear your hair. But, that doesn’t matter. Sincerely held religious beliefs—even about hair—deserve the protection of the law.
In an age of increasing complexity in the employment context, it’s important to remember that our national commitment to liberty means that we respect and, where possible, accommodate the religious beliefs of our employees—to the point that, as the late Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote, we give religious employees “favored treatment.”
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
In 2012, the Mt. Vernon City Council received a complaint for opening the meeting with prayer. In an effort to satisfy everyone, the prayer took place two minutes before the meeting officially started but that ultimately caused uproar. Learn more about the case at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Back in 2012, as the Mt. Vernon City Council officially gaveled in their monthly meeting, someone offered a prayer. That’s not terribly out of the ordinary. But, something was different this time. This prayer took place at 7:28. The meeting officially started at 7:30. Everyone noticed the change.
You see the city council had received a complaint from a local atheist questioning and disparaging the practice. He even told the local press, “Having a prayer of any faith creates an atmosphere of exclusion.” In response, the council took the prayer off the agenda and moved it ahead two minutes, before official business began.
No one was satisfied. To the atheist, it was still exclusionary. To the rest, it was one more capitulation of driving religion from the public square. The uproar was so great that the city council was compelled to pass a resolution restoring the prayer to the agenda.
Well, the whole thing was avoidable. City councils have been opening their official business with prayer since our country’s beginning. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this tradition, most recently explaining in Greece v. Galloway that legislative prayer is “meant to lend gravity to the occasion and reflect values long part of the Nation’s heritage.”
In other words, cities opening their meetings with prayer are part of who we are as a country.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
A Nevada school district has reversed a long-standing policy that allows students in Washoe County to decorate their graduation caps. Learn how this story helped facilitate religious liberty by visiting FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
A Nevada school district has reversed a long-standing policy just in time for its high school graduates to stick a feather in their cap.
Students in the Washoe County School District have, in the past, been prevented from decorating their graduation caps. The policy prevented what we might call graduation graffiti, the inappropriate decorating of caps and gowns with vulgar language and even gang symbols. But, in its zeal to protect the solemnity of the day, the policy prevented Native American students from decorating their cap with an eagle feather.
Native Americans attach significant spiritual meaning to eagle feathers. The district’s policy prevented Quecholi Nordwall’s older sister from wearing a feather at graduation in 2014 and he was determined to make a difference this year.
And it looks like that’s just what happened. With the change in policy, the school district has, in fact, opened the graduation cap to decoration once more. The district could probably still prevent vulgar and lewd messages from appearing, but now, not only may Native American students adorn their caps with an eagle feather, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and other religious students should be able to decorate their caps with reference to their faith.
This is how religious liberty encourages liberty, tolerance, and diversity: As one faith group’s religious expression is protected, it means that those of other faiths benefit as well.
Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protect religious acts of protests outside of the Supreme Court? Learn how a U.S. District Court decided the case at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Sometimes the substantial burden on a person’s religious exercise comes literally to the steps of the Supreme Court.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently dismissed a lawsuit alleging that preventing anti-war activists from demonstrating outside the Supreme Court violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The activists noted in their complaint that as a “post-denominational Christian” and “Unity Christian,” their religious beliefs compel protests against war. They insist on living out their spirituality through prayer vigils and peace walks, sometimes on the Supreme Court’s steps.
Interestingly, the court never questioned the sincerity of their beliefs, no matter how odd they seem. Nevertheless, the court determined that RFRA did not protect their religious acts of protest. Why? Because the rule restricts “only one of a multitude of means by which Plaintiffs could engage in their religiously motivated activity.” According to their own words, the steps of the Supreme Court are not the only place in which to exercise their beliefs; it’s just one of the places they exercise their beliefs. So, while the rules might burden their religious exercise, it’s not a substantial burden since there are many avenues left open to their religious exercise.
RFRA provides broad protection to those who seek to exercise their religion, even when they attempt to do so in public. This case reminds us that RFRA correctly balances that right against the legitimate needs of government to govern.
Bernie Sanders questions religious beliefs of Senate nominee, Russell Vought. Learn more about Article VI of the Constitution and how it prohibits a religious test for those seeking office at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Not long ago, we examined Article VI of the Constitution, which prohibits the application of a religious test for office. The point of this provision is to both prevent the exclusion of religious individuals from office and to ensure good and wise citizens of every stripe can serve the country.
Recent senate confirmation hearings brought Article VI to the national stage, raising questions of religious liberty. Senator Bernie Sanders questioned nominee Russell Vought over an article in which he examined a passage from the Gospel of John, defending the exclusivity of Christ in salvation according to Vought’s Christian faith. Sanders decried Vought’s conclusion that followers of other faiths, and Islam in particular, were condemned according to Vought’s explanation of the Christian faith.
I won’t debate the theological correctness of Vought’s arguments, but it’s worth noting that at the conclusion of questioning, Senator Sanders announced he would vote against Vought, not over any professional qualification, but because, “this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about.”
Senators can vote for or against executive nominees for nearly any reason, but for one to publicly question a nominee’s religious faith, pronounce it disagreeable, and withhold his vote expressly because of the nominee’s faith, makes me wonder if, in fact, the senator from Vermont may have created a religious test for office, in violation of the Constitution.
Former UPS employees sued the delivery service company after a supervisor put an end to their break-time prayers. Learn why it’s religious discrimination to not accommodate employees by visiting FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The folks in brown are facing a claim of religious discrimination in Minnesota.
Former UPS employees sued the delivery service after a supervisor put an end to their break-time prayers. The package people permitted their Muslim employees to pray during their breaks at a Minneapolis facility. That worked well for a while. The employees did their work and, when afforded the same break time as anybody else, they used the time to pray.
But, then a new operations manager started and put an end to the practice, making it very clear that anyone who prayed during a break—even a break to use the restroom—would be terminated. The manager did not even disguise his discrimination. In a meeting announcing the new policy, he asked which employees wanted to pray. When those who did raised their hands, he informed them that they would all be replaced.
Federal law requires employers to reasonably accommodate its employee’s religious beliefs. That’s what UPS did previously by letting employees use breaks to pray. There is no allegation that such a practice caused any hardship to UPS. So, for the manager of the company to reverse course and threaten termination of anyone who prayed on break is a gross violation of the law.
Religious discrimination has no place in the workplace. Employers should respect and accommodate the religious beliefs of its employees.
Church wrongly accused of violating ‘separation of church and state’ for renting space from local school district. Learn more about religious liberty rights of churches and other houses of worship at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
A Massachusetts church is accused of violating the separation of church and state because it rents space from the local school district.
Town leaders of Southbridge, Massachusetts have raised concerns about Iglesia Casa de Destino’s rented use of a public school in its town. The church pays the standard rate to use the school’s auditorium once per week, like many churches do across the country. But, the church is known in the community for its conservative, religious beliefs.
One of the town councilmen is openly questioning whether the church should have a standing agreement to use the property. Not only is the building expensive to operate, the councilman suggested that the agreement could violate the so-called separation of church and state.
Well, not likely. The Supreme Court has twice upheld the practice. A town is, of course, under no obligation to rent its facility to anyone. But, historically, publicly owned schools have been used and rented by a variety of organizations, including churches. Once a school district decides that it will rent its facilities to the community, it would be unlawful religious discrimination to prevent churches from renting the space.
As the Supreme Court observed in the 1981 decision of Widmar v. Vincent, “The Constitution forbids a State to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the public, even if it was not required to create the forum in the first place.”
The Supreme Court has indicated that it wants to consider whether people of faith who operate a business will be welcomed to the public square or driven from it. Learn more by visiting FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The Supreme Court has announced that it will hear the appeal of Masterpiece Cakeshop. You are probably familiar with at least the broad outline of the facts. A baker is approached to create a product that communicates a message he has a moral objection to creating. It is, unfortunately an all too familiar refrain these days. It’s threat to religious freedom and the freedom of speech should be obvious.
Our constitution guarantees the rights of free exercise of religion and free speech for every American. By granting review of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court of the United States has indicated that it wants to consider whether people of faith who operate a business will be welcomed to the public square or driven from it.
Americans want a diverse public square that tolerates a variety of beliefs and opinions. We hope the Supreme Court will use this opportunity to protect people like First Liberty clients, Aaron and Melissa Klein, who have been forced out of business, penalized $135,000 and even had a gag order issued against them—all because the State of Oregon would not tolerate them operating their business according to their religious conscience.
No one should lose their livelihood because the government disagrees with their religious beliefs. Let’s hope the Supreme Court makes that abundantly clear.
The vote in Trinity Lutheran was 7-2, meaning, seven justices agreed that the opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts accurately represents the law, while two disagree. Learn what their opinions mean for religious liberty by visiting FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Before moving on to other topics, I wanted to point out something that may have slipped past your attention in evaluating the Trinity Lutheran decision: the numbers. Specifically, the numbers 9, 7, 2, and 3.
There are nine members of the Supreme Court of the United States. Sometimes they are divided by ideology: liberal, conservative, or moderate. But, at the end of the day, each member of the court gets one vote.
The vote in Trinity Lutheran was 7-2, meaning, seven justices agreed that the opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts accurately represents the law, while two disagree. If we break those numbers down, we see that joining Chief Justice Roberts were Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Two justices dissented: Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg.
There were also three concurring opinions. Justice Thomas notes that he agrees with the court’s analysis, but disagrees with one of the cases used to support the conclusion of the court. Justice Gorsuch wrote to explain that the majority makes an unnecessary distinction between religious status and use. Justice Breyer uses his concurrence to suggest that “Public benefits come in many shapes and sizes,” so perhaps the majority opinion shouldn’t be limited just to playgrounds.
But, the numbers don’t lie: seven justices agree that the state may, in some fashion, provide funds to religious organizations without violating the constitution.
The Supreme Court rejected status-based discrimination against religious organizations in its recent Trinity Lutheran v. Comer opinion, but not all the justices see eye-to-eye. Learn what the dissenting Justices said by visiting FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The Supreme Court rejected status-based discrimination against religious organizations in its recent Trinity Lutheran v. Comer opinion, but not all the justices see eye-to-eye.
As we have discussed, seven justices agreed with Chief Justice Robert’s opinion, making it the majority opinion of the court. Three justices qualified that agreement in concurring opinions. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, penned a lengthy, sometimes heated, dissent, criticizing the majority opinion.
Justice Sotomayor reviews language from Trinity Lutheran’s website, highlighting its clear religious mission. She argues that, even if it’s a playground here, it cannot dislodge the conclusion that a state is funding a religious, rather than a secular, organization. The majority opinion, she maintains, “permits direct subsidies for religious indoctrination . . . [and] favors religious groups” as they compete for public dollars.
For the dissenting justices, then, allowing a state to fund any organization that has a religious purpose may violate the Constitution. She concludes, “The Court today blinds itself to the outcome this history requires and leads us instead to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment.”
That very well may be, but then again, perhaps that’s not so bad. As the majority opinion made clear, the constitution finds “odious” any notion that religious organizations can be driven from the public square based on nothing more than their religious status.
Learn how America's Founding Fathers recognized the importance of religious liberty during the Declaration of Independence. Learn more by visiting FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
When telling the story of America, we rightly recount how the founders of our country sought to be free from something. Perhaps we ought to consider that we are also free to something.
The Pilgrims sought to be free from persecution, but were also eager to be free to practice their faith in peace.
The Declaration of Independence lists a litany of “injuries and usurpations” from which we sought to be free from, but also declared precisely what we are free to: “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” to name an essential few.
From the early colonists to the Founding Fathers to the diverse faiths of our neighbors—each benefit from a national commitment to religious liberty that tolerates the free exercise of religion by all peaceful Americans.
The American commitment to liberty recognizes that freedom grows when none are required to hide who they really are in the free exercise of religion. We are less free when religion is banished from public, hidden from view, or treated with contempt.
As we celebrate our Independence on this the Fourth of July, let us remember that our forefathers paid a high price for our liberty – not merely the right to be free from oppression, but to be free to speak openly, exercise our faith, and live our lives according to our most deeply cherished beliefs. That is liberty.
In the recent Supreme Court decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, the newest member of the court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, felt compelled to qualify his endorsement of the majority opinion. Learn what his is opinion on the matter is by visiting FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Recently, we discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer. Chief Justice Roberts declared it “odious to the constitution” for the state to prevent a church from participating in a public benefit merely because of its religious status.
The newest member of the court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, felt compelled to qualify his endorsement of the majority opinion. In his concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch suggests removing the false distinction between religious status and religious use. As an example, he asks, “Does a religious man say grace before dinner? Or does a man begin his meal in a religious manner?” The same facts could be described in the same way, but, under the court’s decision, only one is protected.
Justice Gorsuch reveals that he believes that the First Amendment protects more than religious status when he writes, “Neither do I see why the First Amendment’s Free Exercise should care.” Whether status or use, the point of the First Amendment is to protect religious exercise. He says, “I don’t see why it should matter whether we describe that benefit, say, as closed to Lutherans (status) or closed to people who do Lutheran things (use). It is free exercise either way.”
It’s good to see the newest member of the court thinking so clearly. The First Amendment should protect the free exercise of religion, regardless of status or use.
The Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the case of Trinity Lutheran v. Comer in favor of the church. Learn more about the playground case here: FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The potential for scraped knees has led to an important victory for religious liberty.
On June 26, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the case of Trinity Lutheran v. Comer. The court, by a margin of 7-2, held in favor of the church.
Trinity Lutheran applied for reimbursement by the State of Missouri through a program that would allow them to trade out their course, pea gravel surface for softer, shredded tires on their church-operated child learning center playground. But, Missouri rejected Trinity Lutheran’s application. Why? Because the state maintained that it could not fund grants designated for religious organizations.
The Supreme Court found such a policy to be rank religious discrimination. As Chief Justice Roberts said, “The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has not subjected anyone to chains or torture on account of religion. And the result of the State’s policy is nothing so dramatic as the denial of political office. The consequence is, in all likelihood, a few extra scraped knees. But the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”
I agree. No state official should discriminate against people of faith, or the religious organizations they operate, based merely on their religious status.
Mosque wins fight against Township preventing building permit grant using the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Learn more about the victory at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
3.25 million dollars—that’s the price one New Jersey town will pay for its religious discrimination.
Not long ago, on this program, I told you about the refusal of Bernard’s Township, New Jersey, to grant a building permit to the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge New Jersey. The society fought city hall for at least four years, having their application denied 9 separate times.
In November 2016, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the township, alleging a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The Department of Justice won just two months later.
But, by May 2017, the Township decided to give up the fight, settle with the government, and allow the Islamic Society to build their mosque.
This is good news for religious liberty. Though Bernards Township, in this case, used their zoning laws to prevent the building of a mosque, it could’ve just as easily been a synagogue, church, cathedral, or other house of worship. City governments cannot intentionally throw up permitting obstacles to religious organizations. They must treat a religious organization’s application for land use just like it would any other land use application.
In a land that values freedom, our government should never make the free exercise of religion difficult.
Texas Governor signs a bill prohibiting state review of sermons. Learn more about the bill at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
It’s not every day that the governor of a state finds himself behind the pulpit of a church. But, I guess not every state is Texas.
Greg Abbott, governor of the great state of Texas, joined Pastor Steve Riggle and churchgoers at Grace Community Church, recently to sign a bill into law.
The bill that passed the Texas legislature made it unlawful for the government to force religious leaders to turn over copies of sermons during a civil lawsuit or administrative proceeding.
And, if you don’t think such a law is necessary, recall that the pastor of the church Governor Abbott was in that day was asked by the mayor of Houston to turn over his sermons—even though he wasn’t even a party to the lawsuit.
If that’s not enough, recall that Dr. Eric Walsh, himself a lay minister, was fired by the State of Georgia over something he said in a sermon. And, after he sued the state, Georgia’s attorney general subpoenaed copies of Dr. Walsh’s sermons, sermon notes, and sermon transcripts.
So, the day has come in which we need laws on the books to make it clear that the state is not entitled to review a pastor’s sermons. The pulpit has rightly been called “the sacred desk.” The promise of America has been that he who fills that desk is entitled to speak what his conscience demands.
A new Supreme Court decision respects the American tradition of allowing religious ministries and organizations to pursue their missions without interference from the IRS. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
In 1977, the Internal Revenue Service tried to declare that Catholic nuns operating a hospital was not a “religious function.” Congress responded by amending the Employment Retirement Income Securities Act or ERISA to prevent the IRS from deciding what is or is not a church.
Nonetheless, class-action lawyers recently tried to argue that because some religious hospitals established pension plans, ERISA’s exemptions did not apply because those plans were not established by a church.
Well, a unanimous Supreme Court recently rejected that reasoning. The Court recognized that Congress’s amendment of ERISA continues to protect religious organizations from the burdens of ERISA, foreclosing the possibility that the IRS could bankrupt a religious organization simply because it does not believe the organization is religious enough.
First Liberty Institute filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case on behalf of several religious organizations. As my colleague, Justin Butterfield, said of the decision in Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton: “The History of the United States of America is one requiring the government to respect the religious freedom and autonomy of its houses of worship and religious organizations. The Supreme Court’s decision respects that great history and tradition, allowing churches, synagogues, mosques, and religious ministries to pursue their religious mission without the weight of government bureaucracy and regulation hindering their efforts and intruding upon their mission.”
The recent leak of the HHS mandate gives hope to religious business and ministries who have been penalized by the contraceptive mandate under Obama. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
After litigating for nearly three years, First Liberty Institute’s religious ministry clients look to receive relief from the crippling penalties imposed by the HHS contraceptive mandate found in “Obamacare.” Well, at least that what it seems.
Our clients, several religious ministries from across the country, first filed suit seeking exemption from the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate in October of 2014 and have been waiting for resolution on appeal since the spring of 2015. After the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Little Sisters of the Poor case, the Court told the Obama administration to work with clients like ours to find a resolution. But, that never happened before President Obama left office.
If the interim final rule recently leaked is adopted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, its broad protections for religious conscience of individuals, nonprofits, and businesses would all but end the pending lawsuits because the rule simply exempts from the mandate those who object for religious reasons.
As I recently explained to the press: “The Trump administration has clearly announced its intent to adopt an important new policy for religious ministries across the country: the government will no longer force a religious ministry to violate their faith or face a government penalty.”
Nothing is certain yet, but it is nice to know that someone in the Trump administration is working to protect the religious conscience of our clients.
When Tzvi McCloud asked for a religious accommodation at his new job in order to celebrate Rosh Hashanah, a Jewish holy day, he was disciplined and sent home. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Tzvi McCloud was hired to work in customer service for XPO Last Mile, a logistics company out of Maryland. But, he didn’t even make it to his first day of work.
When McCloud’s operations manager called him to let him know he was hired and asked him to report to work on October 3, 2016, McCloud explained there was a problem. McCloud wanted to report to work that day, but it was Rosh Hashanah, one of the holiest days of the year for him as an Orthodox Jew. He asked if reporting the next day would be permissible.
Initially, the manager agreed, but, later that evening, the market vice president called to inform McCloud that the only days the company observed were federal holidays, not religious ones.
McCloud chose to observe his holy day and showed up for work on October 4. When he did, he was sent home. Now, the EEOC is involved, suing XPO for religious discrimination.
EEOC regional attorney Debra Lawrence said it well, “The freedom to exercise one’s religious beliefs is one of our nation’s fundamental values . . . A one-day postponement of a start date is not an undue hardship.”
In other words, religious liberty and the corporate mission need not be in conflict. Accommodating the religious practices of our employees is good business.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org
Toni Richardson, a special needs educational technician in Augusta, Maine, was threatened to be disciplined and potentially fired for telling a fellow employee, with whom she also goes to church, that she would pray for him. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Toni Richardson is an educational technician at Cony High School in Augusta, Maine. Her work in the special needs classroom can be very demanding, but she loves it.
A colleague, with whom Toni attends church, was new to the job and found it overwhelming. One day, after the students had left the classroom and it was just the two of them, Toni tried encouraging her colleague, letting him know that she was praying for him. He thanked her for the encouraging gesture.
Soon after, when talking to the HR director for the Augusta School Department, Toni was asked whether she had ever told someone at school that she was praying for them. She was shocked, but admitted that she had. The HR representative said Toni had violated the law and warned her never to do it again.
Toni also received a coaching memorandum informing her that she had violated the First Amendment and admonishing her to make “no reference to [her] spiritual or religious beliefs” while at school. And, if she did, the memo said, she could face additional discipline or even dismissal.
Last month, First Liberty, along with our co-counsel at the Maine law firm of Eaton Peabody, filed a charge of religious discrimination and retaliation with the EEOC. The law is pretty clear: school employees are not required to hide their faith from each other while on campus.
To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org
The lawsuit that was filed against the Chabad of Irvine was recently dismissed. Learn about how religious liberty was upheld at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
Several months ago on this program, we discussed the religious practice of “Kaporos.” It literally means “atonement” and has been a religious tradition of Orthodox Jews for over 2,000 years.
On the eve of Yom Kippur, some Orthodox Jews will recite scripture and then swing a live chicken over their head while reciting a prayer like, “This is my substitute, this is my exchange, this is my atonement. This fowl will go to death, and I will enter upon a good and long life.” The chicken is then butchered in the Kosher fashion and the meat of the chicken is then often donated to those in need of food. The ceremony invites the participants to contemplate their own mortality and appreciate the atonement of their sins.
We represent the Chabad of Irvine that was sued by animal rights activists in Federal court during the holy week of October of 2016. I’m pleased to report that that lawsuit was recently dismissed. We will continue to defend this synagogue at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but the practice should continue for at least the foreseeable future.
Rabbi Alter Tenenbaum expressed his relief well, he said, “We are overjoyed that the judge saw the wisdom of protecting our ability to practice a cherished tradition of our faith. This is a great victory, not only for the synagogue, but for all Americans who value our constitutional freedoms.”
To learn more about this case and how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Universities are increasingly providing space for religious students on campus. Learn about why some oppose this decision to have separate religious spaces at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
A recent survey of Big 10 colleges reveals that universities are increasingly providing space for religious students on campus.
According to the report, these new spaces on campus serve students from a variety of faith backgrounds. Some use the rooms for prayer and others for religious gatherings.
But, not everyone thinks the rooms should be used for just religious purposes, however. The Ohio State University student government passed a resolution urging campus leaders to reconsider the interfaith space as religious-use only.
Activists off-campus questioned the University of Iowa, suggesting that setting aside rooms for use by religious students “unconstitutionally entangled itself with religion.”
That, of course, is simply the political posturing of ideologues that dislike any religion appearing in public. The efforts by these universities are to be commended. Providing space for religious students to meet is an important means of recognizing the diverse, religious background of its student body.
At the same time, it should be unnecessary. Religious students should be able to use campus space on the same terms as secular students. To the extent certain religious backgrounds require specific space, the efforts by these Big 10 universities are to be commended. Yet, it is important to remind our coeds that, as in all of life, religious liberty means religious students are to be welcomed and tolerated in the university setting.
Recent Minneapolis reports reveals that an aspiring female teen boxer has been granted religious accommodation. Learn about this and more sports-related cases that require religious liberty at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
News out of Minneapolis reports of an aspiring teen boxer granted a religious accommodation.
Amaiya Zafar is a 16-year old boxing protégé that, for some time, has had her sights set on representing the United States as a boxer at the 2020 Olympics. But, current rules place her in the position of having to choose between her faith and her sport.
USA Boxing, however, has solved the problem for the St. Paul teenager by accommodating her faith in the ring. As a result, Zafar will be permitted to keep her arms and legs covered with long sleeves and leggings, as her faith requires.
That’s a simple solution and, while I don’t share Zafar’s religious beliefs concerning clothing, I do support efforts by anyone, USA Boxing included, to take reasonable steps to respect the religious beliefs of Americans whenever possible.
Of course, Zafar is not the first boxer to need a religious accommodation. Cassius Clay, better known as Muhammad Ali, famously asserted his religious beliefs as grounds for conscientious objection to the Vietnam War.
In other sports-related cases, we are working to protect the right of Coach Joe Kennedy to pray silently at the 50-yard line when the game is over. Meanwhile, in Florida, we are defending the right of a football team at a Christian school in Florida to be able to pray over the loudspeaker prior to kickoff.
As these stories remind us: religious liberty impacts every area of our life, including sports.
In April of 2017, the Indiana General Assembly passed, and its governor quickly signed, a measure providing students with the chance to take an elective surveying the worlds religions, Learn more about this law at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The Hoosier state has taken steps to codify important religious liberty protections for Indiana’s students.
In April of 2017, the Indiana General Assembly passed, and its governor quickly signed, a measure providing students with the chance to take an elective surveying the worlds religions, while outlining the civil liberties afforded to its students in Indiana’s public schools.
The new law provides each local school district the freedom to offer an elective course that will study the historical, cultural, and literary contributions of the world’s major religions.
At the same time, some of the critical civil liberties protected by the law include protecting a student’s right to express their religious beliefs in class and class assignments, the right to pray before, during, and after the school day, and the right to access a school’s facilities in the same manner that secular groups do.
Of course, many of these protections are found in policies issued by the United States Department of Education. Nonetheless, it is encouraging to see a state dedicate significant legislative effort to religious liberty. Students should not be required to hide their faith at school, nor should they be punished for daring to discuss their religious beliefs while at school.
Religious liberty should be our national priority. It’s good to see that, at least for one state, it’s a clear priority for their students.
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kansas City filed a lawsuit against the Mission Woods city council for denying the use of his own home for religious meetings on the basis of traffic and parking concerns. Learn more about this issue at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.
The city of Mission Woods, Kansas covers just 64 acres outside of Kansas City. Its part-time government leadership is concerned that the expansion of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kansas City into their small town is going to cause problems.
The Archdiocese purchased a derelict home in Mission Woods. The roof had holes in it. Animals roamed the attic freely. But the Archdiocese favored the house for prayer groups, religious meetings and religious education throughout the week. Nonetheless, the Mission Woods city council has twice denied their application citing traffic and parking concerns.
In the past, the city council has approved more expansive land-use in the same area for secular groups like athletic fields for the local high school and a significant parking lot for the University of Kansas health system. It appears that sports and parking are preferred by the city council, but parking for religious meetings is unwelcome.
The Archdiocese has taken the appropriate step to file a lawsuit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act or RLUIPA. It may appear insignificant, but this case gives all the appearances of religious discrimination. Congress understood that city councils could easily hide religious discrimination within neutral rationales and zoning ordinances like traffic and parking. RLUIPA forces a closer look at those seemingly neutral defenses, requiring an agency to demonstrate their fairness.