Religious
Freedom in Focus is a
monthly email update about the Civil
Rights Division's religious liberty
and religious discrimination cases.
Assistant Attorney General R. Alexander
Acosta has placed a priority on these
cases. Through vigorous enforcement
of:
- Federal
statutes prohibiting religion-based discrimination
in education, employment, housing, public
facilities, and public accommodations;
- Federal
laws against arson and vandalism of houses
of worship and bias crimes against people
because of their faith; and
- The
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (RLUIPA);
and
through participation as intervenor and
friend-of-the-court in cases involving
the denial of equal treatment based on
religion, the Civil Rights Division is
working to protect the right of people
of all faiths to participate fully in public
life.
More information about this initiative, and back issues
of this newsletter, may be found on the
religious discrimination home page of the Civil Rights
Division website. |
IN
THIS ISSUE:
Court
Enters Consent Decree Guaranteeing
Muslim Girl's Right to Wear Headscarf to School
In
an important victory for the religious liberty
of people of all faiths, U.S. District Judge
Frank H. Seay entered a consent
decree on May 20 in the case
of a sixth-grade Muslim girl in Muskogee, Oklahoma
who had been barred from wearing her headscarf,
(or hijab) to school. The consent decree, reached
between the United States, lawyers for the student,
and the Muskogee Public School District, will
permit her to wear her hijab at school and will
also require the school district to accommodate
the religious needs of other children. The school
had suspended her for eight days in October 2003
for refusing to take off her hijab.
Nashala
Hearn had worn her hijab for several weeks at
the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year. However,
on September 11, 2003, the sixth-grader was told
that she could no longer wear her hijab. School
officials said that other students were frightened
by the hijab, and cited the “no-hats” policy in the school’s dress
code. The dress code had not been applied consistently, however.
Students with thinning hair due to medical reasons were permitted
to wear scarves. The school had also allowed students to wear “Cat
in the Hat” hats for Dr. Seuss’s birthday, and to wear hats on other
special days. When Nashala refused to take off her hijab, she was
suspended.
Nashala,
through her father, brought suit against the
school district in October 2003, alleging violation
of her constitutional rights and violations of
Oklahoma law. She was permitted to wear her hijab
during the pendency of the lawsuit. The Civil
Rights Division opened an investigation in November
2003, and then intervened in
the lawsuit upon finding evidence to support a claim based on
the denial of her rights under the
Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
The
consent decree, which will last for six years,
will permit Nashala to wear her hijab, and requires
the school district to make similar religious accommodation
for any other student in the school system who
has a bona fide religious objection to the dress
code. The school district will also implement a training
program for all teachers and administrators regarding
the revised dress code and publicize the revisions to students
and parents. The school district also must certify its compliance
with the terms of the order to the Department
of Justice for a four-year period. In a confidential agreement,
the district settled Nashala’s damages claim and claim for
expungement of her school records.
“This
settlement reaffirms the principle that public
schools cannot require students to check their
faith at the school house door,” said R. Alexander
Acosta, Assistant Attorney General for Civil
Rights. “The Department of Justice will not tolerate
discrimination against Muslims or any other religious
group. As the President and the Attorney General
have made clear repeatedly, such intolerance
is un-American, and is morally despicable.”
Appeals
Court Rules Florida City Discriminated Against
Orthodox Jewish Congregations
In
a significant victory for the right of people
of faith to gather for worship, on April 21,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
ruled that the City of Surfside, Florida, violated
the religious liberties of two small Orthodox
Jewish congregations when it barred them from
meeting in rented commercial space. This was
the first time that a house of worship has won
under the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) in
a federal court of appeals. Assistant Attorney
General R. Alexander Acosta argued the case for
the United States in January.
“The court sent a strong message that the right to worship is
a civil right, and that zoning laws cannot be used to discriminate
against churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship,” said
Assistant Attorney General Acosta. “The Department of Justice
will not tolerate illegal discrimination in zoning on the basis
of religion.”
The
two congregations, Midrash Sephardi and Young
Israel of Bal Harbor, had rented space above
a bank in the city’s commercial
district. Surfside’s zoning code permitted private clubs, lodge
halls, dance studios, music studios, and language schools in
the commercial district, but excluded houses of worship. When
threatened with eviction, the two congregations challenged the
city’s actions under RLUIPA. The federal trial court ruled in
favor of the city last year.
On
appeal, the Civil Rights Division submitted two
briefs, one arguing
that the city had violated the congregations’ rights
under RLUIPA, and the second arguing that RLUIPA
is a valid exercise of Congress’s power to enforce the
Fourteenth Amendment. The
Court of appeals agreed,
and reversed the lower court. The Court of Appeals held
that the city had violated RLUIPA’s “equal terms” provision, which requires that
religious assemblies be treated no less equally than “a non-religious
assembly or institution,” by barring religious congregations
while allowing private clubs such as a Masonic lodge in its commercial
district. The court rejected Surfside’s claim that its private
clubs contribute to the local economy in a way that the synagogues
do not.
The
court also rejected both the city’s claim that RLUIPA exceeded
Congress’s legislative authority, and its claim that RLUIPA’s
goal of protecting houses of worship from discrimination violated
the Establishment Clause.
USA
PATRIOT Act Leads to Arrest in Bias Crime Against
El Paso Mosque
Thanks to a provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, the FBI arrested
a Texas man shortly after he sent a threatening e-mail to
the El Paso Islamic Center. On May 21, a federal grand jury
in
the
Western
District of Texas returned a two-count indictment
charging that thirty-year-old Jared Bjarnason
sent an e-mail to the mosque threatening
its destruction if American hostages held
in Iraq were not freed within three days.
The
FBI made the arrest after obtaining information
about the sender from two internet service providers. The FBI
was able to obtain that information thanks to a provision of
the USA PATRIOT Act that permits internet service providers
to turn over
email records to law enforcement officials “if
the provider reasonably believes that an
emergency involving immediate danger of death
or serious physical injury to any person
justifies disclosure of the information.” Absent
this provision, investigating authorities
would have had to obtain a separate search
warrant from each service provider through
whose system the e-mail traveled, a process
which could have taken over 30 days. With
the USA PATRIOT Act’s authority, agents were
able to address the threat in near-real time.
The
first count returned by the grand jury was under
18
U.S.C. 247,
known as the Church Arson Prevention Act, which
makes it a federal crime to use force or the
threat of force to interfere with a person’s
free exercise of religion. The second count was
under 18
U.S.C. 875, which makes it a federal
crime to transmit a threat in interstate
commerce. The defendant is considered
innocent until proven guilty in a court
of law.
More
information about the USA PATRIOT Act is available
at www.lifeandliberty.gov.
Conviction
of Tallahassee Mosque Attacker Upheld
On April 30, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the conviction
of Charles Franklin under the Church Arson
Prevention Act for driving his pick-up truck
through the front of the Islamic Center of
Tallahassee. The appeals court rejected Franklin's
claim that the provision of the Church
Arson Prevention Act under which he was
convicted was beyond Congress's power to enforce
civil rights under the 13th Amendment.
On
March 25, 2002, Franklin drove his truck through the front
doors of the Islamic Center. After crashing
the truck into the mosque, Franklin went
to a nearby bar and was heard bragging about “getting
back” at Arabs and Muslims for the 9/11 attacks.
He made similar statements to police when he
was arrested.
He
was charged under 18 U.S.C. 247(c), which makes it a crime
to “intentionally deface[ ], damage[ ], or
destroy[ ] any religious real property because
of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics
of any individual associated with that religious
property.” Franklin was convicted on February
20, 2003, and sentenced to 27 months in prison.
The
appeals court rejected his argument that this section
of the Church Arson Prevention Act was unconstitutional.
The court determined that in passing the Act, “Congress
found that the destruction and damage to religious
property posed a serious national problem,
and that there had been an increase in arson
of places of religious worship that serve predominantly
African American congregations.” While the
13th Amendment was addressed at protecting
African-Americans, the fact
that the Act also can protect people of other
races does not render it unconstitutional, the court
held.
“This conviction, and the court's affirmance, send a clear message
that attacks on mosques and other house of worship will be punished
severely,” R. Alexander Acosta, Assistant Attorney General for
Civil Rights, said. “Here a man angry about the attacks against
innocents on 9/11 retaliated by attacking innocents. Such violence
cannot, and will not, be tolerated.”
United
States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt
