There is a brief article in The Australian newspaper today (Friday, Jan 23) by Chris Merritt, “Left hijacks human rights arena”, which quotes me, and some other Australian commentators, on the unfortunate tendency to trivialise freedom of religion (a clearly recognised human right under major international conventions) and to elevate general rights of “non-discrimination”. For those who are interested in further reading, there is an excellent discussion of some of these issues in a chapter by Professor Patrick Parkinson, “Christian Concerns about an Australian Charter of Rights” (in Babie & Rochow, eds, Freedom of Religion under Bills of Rights, Uni of Adelaide Press, 2012) 117-151, esp from p 121. (The book as a whole may be downloaded for free here.)
Freedom of religion
Beards, prisons and religious freedom
The US Supreme Court yesterday issued an interesting religious freedom decision in Holt, AKA Muhammad v Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Dept of Correction (No 13-6827, Jan 20, 2015). (Thanks to Marc DeGirolami at the CLR Forum for the notice.) A Muslim prisoner wanted to grow a 1/2 inch beard for religious reasons. The State prisons policy required that prisoners have no beards, except that those with certain skin problems were allowed to grow a 1/4 inch beard. Holt, the prisoner, successfully sued the State under the provisions of the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalised Persons Act 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 USC §2000cc et seq. The SC held that he had shown that the State rule burdened his religious freedom, and that the rule could not be proven by the State to be in furtherance of a “compelling governmental interest” or to be the “least restrictive means” of furthering that interest.
The unanimous decision of the Court (there were clarifications issued by Ginsburg J and Sottomayor J but they agreed with the outcome) is a nice illustration of how many religious freedom claims are dealt with in the US these days. Alito J provides a helpful “road-map” to the way the issues are raised, at part IA of the judgment (pp 2-4 of the linked decision). This case did not directly involve the right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, because the prevailing view in the SC at the moment seems to be that Employment Division v Smith, 494 US 872 (1990) represents the correct approach to the First Amendment. In effect Smith is read to mean that so long as there is some plausible, non-“religiously hostile”, reason for a Government law then it cannot be challenged under the First Amendment. Following Smith, the US Congress attempted to return protection for religious freedom to a broader basis by enacting two Federal statutes. The first was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 1993 (“RFRA”), which (it was subsequently held in City of Boerne v Flores, 521 US 507 (1997)) applies only to Federal law. The second was RLUIPA, which applies to specific types of State laws covered by Federal legislative power (according to Alito J here at p 3, the “Spending and Commerce Clauses”.) The particular State laws covered by RLUIPA, as its somewhat odd title conveys, are land use laws and laws governing “institutionalised persons” including prisoners in State jails.
Where RLUIPA applies, as with RFRA in its area, the substantive provisions require that a State law which “substantially burdens” the religious freedom of a prisoner, will only be valid if the State can show that:
imposition of the burden on that person––(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” §2000cc–1(a).
Here the Supreme Court held that
- the plaintiff was able to show that he had a sincere and genuine religious belief, not motivated by some other reason (evidence at trial established “hadith requiring beards… are widely followed by observant Muslims” – see p 8), and the Court held that it was irrelevant that growing a beard was neither universally followed by all Muslim men, and also that it was not viewed as a “compulsory” part of Islam. Nor was it relevant that the prisoner was allowed to carry out other religious exercises- the specific issue of the beard mattered to him on genuine religious grounds.
- hence it was a “burden” to be asked to shave off his beard below 1/2 inch (it may have been relevant that Mr Holt had already “compromised” in agreeing to restrict his beard to 1/2 inch, as he would have preferred to not shave at all).
- The State was not able to show that its claimed interests were “compelling”. The claim that small dangerous items could be concealed in a beard was doubted by the Court in relation to a 1/2 inch beard (nothing that hair could be grown quite long and would provide a better hiding place!) The claim that the beard could be shaved off and make identification harder was met by the answer that two photos of each prisoner could be taken, a “before” and “after” the beard, which would enable adequate identification (a policy followed in many other prison systems.)
- Nor could the State show that this was the “least restrictive” method of achieving even these limited aims, for similar reasons. The Court noted that of course the judgment of prison officials warranted a degree of deference by the courts, as they had to deal with the issues daily; but they said that there came a point where deference had to give way:
without a degree of deference that is tantamount to unquestioning acceptance, it is hard to swallow the argument that denying petitioner a 1⁄2-inch beard actually furthers the Department’s interest in rooting outcontraband. (at p 10)
- One factor that counted heavily against the State was that the vast majority of other State prison systems, and the Federal system, had no such rules and was able to manage the concerns about smuggling and identification adequately.
In the end, then, all the Court agreed that Mr Holt’s religious freedom had been unduly burdened by a rule which could not be justified under the RLUIPA standard.
Churches meeting in public schools
Can a church hold its Sunday meetings (or other activities) in a public school building? The issue doesn’t seem controversial in Australia at the moment (my church, for example, does just that.) But it has proved surprisingly difficult to resolve in New York, and where there is a trend in the US in the area of religious freedom it is worth noting for its possible future arrival in Australia.
I first wrote a paper about this particular dispute at the end of 2011. That paper contains some details about the US First Amendment and why it was invoked here. Essentially, a smallish independent church, the Bronx Household of Faith, had been meeting on Sundays in a public school, but the New York City Board of Education objected. The relevant rule they laid down, after some other versions, was that no organisation could use school property for “religious worship services”. They were effectively claiming that by allowing church services to take place, the “wall of separation” between church and state was being breached, and members of the public would see the City as somehow “entangled” with the church.
The dispute has been characterised by trial judges ruling in favour of the church, and the Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeals then overturning the lower court decision and ruling against the church. There have also been strong dissents from one of the judges on the Court of Appeals. As I left matters at the end of my 2011 note, the US Supreme Court had refused to hear an appeal from the Second Circuit, which had ruled that the City’s regulation was not contrary to the “free speech” part of the First Amendment. But as I said in my note, it had become apparent that there were stronger “freedom of religion” arguments that could have been raised, which opened the way for the school to have another go.
After the Supreme Court’s denial of appeal on the free speech point, the church obtained an injunction from the District Court, in Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Educ. of City of New York, per Preska CJ (see 876 F Supp 2d 419 S.D.N.Y., 2012; June 29, 2012) preventing the city removing the church from the school, this time on “free exercise” grounds (as the particular regulation targeted “religious worship”), and also interestingly on the “establishment clause” ground that the law “excessively entangled” the government with religion (as government officials had to make a judgement about whether what the church was doing was “religious worship” or not!).
The Court (a single judge) found that the regulation violated the Establishment Clause under Lemon (see the earlier paper for details of this) because it caused the Board’s officials to become excessively entangled with religion by requiring them to make their own bureaucratic determinations as to what constitutes “worship.” (at p 47 of the transcript)
The US Second Circuit Court of Appeals then heard an appeal from this decision on Nov 19, 2012. On April 3, 2014, the majority of the 2nd Circuit ruled in favour of the City that there was no violation of the First Amendment, either the establishment clause or the free exercise clause. An application for an appeal to the US Supreme Court has now been made. The 2nd Circuit on 10 July 2014 issued a “stay order” which means that the church can keep meeting in the school for the moment until the appeal is resolved.
Meanwhile, in May 2013 the New York City Council passed a motion encouraging the New York State legislature to overturn the particular rule: see here. But there is apparently still some doubt as to whether the State legislature will do this, and so it seems that the outcome of the appeal is still important for the issue. The current New York mayor has said that he favours allowing the church to use the school.
The latest report I have read says that, despite the Mayor’s previously expressed views, officials from the City are still proposing to argue the appeal in the Supreme Court. It is also interesting to note that the litigation has been dragging on for so long that church has now managed to put up its own building! But it would still like to use school premises for the occasional extra activities, so it will also continue the litigation.
Those interested in a full account with links to all the relevant court documents can see it at the excellent Alliance Defending Freedom website on the case.
Vaccination and religious freedom
The question of the effectiveness or possible harm of compulsory vaccinations is of course a hot topic in Australia as it is in other parts of the developed world. My own view is that the evidence for the effectiveness and general safety of most standard childhood vaccinations is overwhelming. But how should the law respond when a parent claims that for religious reasons they do not want to vaccinate their children?
This was the issue that was considered recently in a decision of the Second Circuit of the US Court of Appeals in Phillips v City of New York (DN 14-2156-cv, 7 Jan 2015). NY state law requires all children attending public schools to produce evidence of vaccinations, with two exceptions: where there is a clear medical reason that vaccination should not take place, or where the parents can show a genuine religious objection. But another part of the law specifies that where there is an outbreak of a disease against which vaccination is effective, students who are unvaccinated because of such exemptions being granted, may be temporarily excluded from the school.
In this case two of the plaintiffs had been granted a religious exemption, but complained that their children had been excluded from school during a chicken-pox outbreak. The other plaintiff had had her claim for a religious exemption denied, because she could not cite any doctrines of her church (the Roman Catholic Church) that related to the question of vaccinations. The complaints alleged a breach of the freedom of religious exercise right granted by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
The facts illustrate a common feature of religious freedom cases, that many involve a clash between religious freedom of the plaintiff and some other right of someone else. Here NY officials claimed that the right to be free from infectious diseases (a specific example of what one might call a general right to be free from unnecessary bodily harm) clashed with the right of parents to exercise religious freedom. The Court, correctly in my view, held that the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs had to give way in this case to public health considerations. While there was no US Supreme Court decision directly on point on the First Amendment issues, the Court cited dicta from a 1944 decision which was highly persuasive:
a parent “cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds. The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.” Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166–67 (1944).
In addition, the general approach of the US Courts to religious freedom issues in recent years is to read the right very narrowly, so that if there is a “neutral” (i.e. not clearly anti-religious) reason for a law, it will not breach the First Amendment, following the decision in Employment Division v Smith 494 US 872 (1990). (Without going into detail at the moment, I should say that I disagree with this general approach, which seems to read religious freedom far too narrowly. But that will have to be the topic of a future post.) But even if a more generous approach were adopted, such as has been taken in the US Federal sphere in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) 1993,[1] where restrictions on religious freedom have to have a compelling policy justification and be narrowly drawn, it seems to me that this law on vaccination is perfectly sensible. There are clear and scientifically proven detrimental health effects to others from the spread of disease from those who are not vaccinated (and indeed compelling reasons in the interests of children themselves to do as much as possible to encourage parents to vaccinate.) Even if there are religious reasons not to do so, the potential harm caused by the failure outweighs the harm caused to religious sensibilities.
Indeed, one may go further. While it is true that some who oppose vaccinations on general principles are religious believers, many are not. And even among those who are religious, it is arguable that hardly any of the reasons offered for not vaccinating are drawn from religious reasons. The decision records that the plaintiff who was denied a religious exemption, while she claimed she did so as a Roman Catholic,
testified that she did not know of any tenets of Catholicism that prohibited vaccinations.
In other words, while it was not doubted that she had genuine health concerns for her child, those concerns were not really based on religious beliefs. It may be that others can be offered, and I would not want to deny that some objections to vaccination might be based on genuine religious beliefs. But I think the approach of the court here was correct, to test the claim of a religious belief on the topic by asking the plaintiff to spell out her reasons, and where none of the effective beliefs related to her religious world-view, to not accept that they were religiously motivated.
Religious freedom is a fundamental human right which is protected by international human rights instruments and a long common law tradition. But like all other rights, it occasionally has to give way in the wider public interest, and while accepting that the parents concerned had genuine beliefs, the decision of the Court here seems sensible. It will be interesting to see if the matter is taken up the US Supreme Court, as some of the press reports indicate the plaintiffs plan to appeal.
[1] 42 USC ss 2000bb to 2000b-4.
Is Christianity inconsistent with a professional legal education?
This may sound like an odd question, but it is one that has been raised in Canada recently with the application of a Christian University there, Trinity Western, to offer a law degree. The University has a policy which has attracted the ire of some, which requires students to adhere to Biblical standards of sexual behaviour while pursuing their course. This would mean that sexual intercourse outside marriage was precluded, both for heterosexual and homosexual couples. Interestingly the ban on heterosexual sex does not seem to have caused the problem, but the ban on homosexual sex has been interpreted as meaning that homosexual persons would not be able to study law at TWU. Under the Canadian system for accrediting legal practitioners, each Province’s Law Society must approve a particular law degree for its graduates to be able to practice law in that Province, and while at the early stages TWU had received approval from many of the Provincial Law Societies, more recently a number have either refused or reversed an earlier decision to approve.
See here for a detailed comment on the issues as they emerged when the matter was first discussed at the beginning of 2013.
The most recent news update I have seen, here, reports that the New Brunswick Law Society has, by a narrow vote, re-affirmed its support for accreditation. This seems to mean that overall 3 Provinces have now officially voted against accreditation, 2 (including New Brunswick) have voted in favour, and 2 others have not taken a final position. It will be interesting to see whether those who are supposed to be the defenders of the rule of law in Canada, the lawyers, are willing to support freedom of religion, or instead are determined to characterise an adherence to established Biblical morality as “homophobic”. As noted in my 2013 piece, the overall implications for the involvement of committed Christians in public life generally are fairly disturbing. Still, since the Supreme Court of Canada in 2001 has already decided that TWU could train teachers for Canada, I have some hope that if the matter proceeds through the courts the SCC will once again find in favour of religious freedom.
To quote from my previous paper:
Of course it need not be said that if students or staff at TWU engage in unlawful discrimination while studying or teaching, or once they have graduated, then the law will apply to them. But the argument that TWU ought not to be accredited to graduate lawyers boils down in the end to an argument that no-one holding to a Biblical view of sexual morality is fit to hold public office in a Western society today. It is an argument that is not legally sound in Canadian law, and ought to be rejected by anyone who supports a balanced view of human rights, which includes not only anti-discrimination rights, but rights of freedom of religion.
Truck-driving and religious freedom
These two ideas don’t automatically sound related, but they came up in a recent news item from the Boston Globe here. Can a Catholic firefighter object when asked to drive a fire truck in a “gay pride” parade? The court ruled they could not.
I think this case is close to the edge, but on balance went the wrong way. An employee with religious convictions about the sinfulness of homosexual behaviour ought, in my view, be allowed to decline to participate in activities the sole purpose of which is to affirm and celebrate such behaviour. Of course it would be different if, for example, there was a fire involved, even if it were a fire that broke out on one of the floats! There saving life and property would be the issue and employees should, and I imagine would, be happy to do the job. But to be asked to play this supporting role in a purely symbolic affirmation of homosexuality is going too far. It seems that it would have been perfectly possible for the employees to not have been rostered on this duty.
These issues are similar to those which came up in the Ladele case a few years ago in the UK and in Europe. See a recent paper here which comments on some of the issues.
