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:
Texas
City Agrees to Equal Access for Religious Groups
The Civil
Rights Division successfully resolved its investigation into
allegations that the City of Terrell, Texas discriminated against a
church in the use of a city-owned building. On October 26, the City
agreed to adopt a policy of nondiscrimination against religious
groups, and allowed the church to rent the room. "The Supreme Court
has made clear that religious expression deserves and has a right to
access equal to other forms of expression, and the federal government
will protect and enforce that right," said R. Alexander Acosta,
Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.
The Division opened this investigation in May 2004 after a city official
informed the Purpose Life Church that it could no longer rent for worship
meetings a room at the local YMCA, which leases space in a city-owned
building, because "local governments are not allowed to have church
activities in city-owned buildings." The Purpose Life Church is a small
church with no meeting space of its own. In December 2003, the Kaufman
County YMCA agreed to rent space to this church to hold worship meetings
on Saturday afternoons. The city then objected.
On
March 2, after its efforts to change the city's position
failed, the church filed a federal suit alleging violation of
its constitutional rights. The Civil Rights Division then opened
an investigation of the city's actions under Title
III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which
prohibits the denial of "equal utilization
of any public facility" based on religion,
and Title IX of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, which allows the United States
to intervene in cases of general public importance
that involve denial of equal protection of the
laws.
Over
the past twenty years, the Supreme Court has consistently held
that when the government makes facilities available to private
groups for meetings and similar activities, it may not discriminate
against faith-based groups. Most recently, in Good
News Club v. Milford (2001),
the Court held that once a school opens its facilities to youth
and community groups for after-school use, it may not selectively
prohibit comparable religious groups - there a group that held
weekly meetings for boys and girls that taught moral values from
a Biblical perspective - from making similar use of the
space.
In
response to the lawsuit and the Civil Rights
Division investigation, the City of Terrell passed
a resolution stating that it would not discriminate
on the basis of viewpoint, including religious
viewpoint, in access to city property, and agreed
to allow the Purpose Life Church to
use the YMCA space. The investigation was conducted by the
Division's
Housing and Civil Enforcement
Section,
which since January 1, 2001 has looked into
57 complaints of religious discrimination
and opened 21 formal investigations.
California Court Holds Religious-Speech
Fee Unconstitutional
On November 17, 2004, in
Child
Evangelism Fellowship v. Lenz, a federal court in
California struck down the Upland School District's
policy of charging religious groups a "usage fee" for
use of school facilities, which was not charged to other private
groups. The Civil Rights Division
submitted an
amicus
brief to the court opposing the selective fee. Assistant
Attorney General R. Alexander Acosta applauded the decision:
"The Constitution does not tolerate a sliding fee scale based
on one's
religious views. We are very pleased that the District Court
has upheld the principle of equal treatment for all regardless
of religion."
This matter arose when a Pomona school demanded a usage fee from
the Good News Club, a Christian youth organization, to hold meetings
after school.
An Upland School District policy gives free access to school facilities
for youth activities drawing at least half of their participants
from the local
community. The District has granted free access to groups such as
the YMCA, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, and Camp Fire. The
policy, however,
provides that those using facilities for "religious activities" must
pay a fee. The policy is based on a California law that requires school
facilities
to be open for use by community groups, but mandates that schools
charge religious groups a usage fee. Pursuant to this policy, the local
Good News
Club chapter was charged for its meetings. When it could not pay,
the district told it that it would not be allowed back on school grounds
until
it paid the fee.
In
Good News Club v. Milford (2001),
the Supreme Court held that a New York school
district that opened its facilities to community
groups that "promote[]
the moral and character development of children," could
not bar the local Good News Club from using the
facilities simply because the Good News Club
promoted these ends from a religious viewpoint.
Relying on the Milford decision, the
Pomona Good News Club filed suit against the
Upland School District on July 9, 2004. The Civil
Rights Division's
brief supports the Good News Club's position
that the school district policy and the California
statute on which it was based unconstitutionally
discriminate against religious viewpoints.
The
District Court agreed with the Good News Club and the United
States, finding no distinction between selectively granting access,
the issue in Good
News Club v. Milford,
and selectively charging a fee. The court held: "For
the purposes of determining viewpoint discrimination, there is
no legal distinction in Supreme Court precedent between an exclusion
from a limited public forum and a differential fee schedule."
The Court also rejected the school district's argument that
giving free access to the Good News Club would violate the Establishment
Clause. Citing Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the
University of Virginia (1995), a case that held that the
University of Virginia could not deny a student-run Christian
magazine access to student activity funds available to pay student
publication printing costs, the court held that allowing the
Good News Club the same free access granted to other private
groups "would ensure neutrality toward religion, not threaten
it."
Morton
Grove, IL, Grants Special Use Permit for School After DOJ Mediation
On November 22, 2004 the Village of Morton Grove,
Illinois granted a special use permit to the Muslim Community Center,
resolving a two year old dispute, which included a federal lawsuit
and a Civil Rights Division investigation. The permit allows the
Muslim Community Center to construct a mosque and expand its existing
school facilities. The Muslim Community Center operates a K-8 school
in Morton Grove, which holds daily prayer services for its students
in its gym, and which also opens services on Fridays to local Muslims.
In November 2002, the school applied for a permit to expand its
facilities to provide more classrooms, and to build a mosque on
the site. The proposal met with heated community opposition. Although
some of the opposition was based on traffic and congestion concerns,
incidents of vandalism at the school and expressions of anti-Muslim
sentiment also occurred.
In April 2003, the Village denied the school's permit application.
In October 2003, the school filed a federal action under the
Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The Civil Rights Division
opened an investigation into whether the school's rights were
violated, also under RLUIPA. The Department of Justice Community Relations
Service also began
mediation efforts between the school and the village.
As
previously
reported in Religious Freedom in Focus, after a series of
mediation sessions with the Community Relations Service,
the school and the Village announced in court
on June 2, 2004 that they had reached an agreement
on a plan that would meet the school's expansion
needs while limiting the impact on traffic, parking,
and congestion. The Board of Trustee's
vote was the final step in implementing this
settlement.
The
granting of the special use permit averts the
need for protracted litigation or further federal
involvement. Assistant Attorney General R. Alexander
Acosta remarked: "We are pleased that the
school and the community were able to work out
a plan that accommodated the school's religious
needs while also responding to the concerns of
neighbors."
Supplemental
Brief Filed In Salvation Army Case
On
December 13, the Civil Rights Division filed
a second brief (pdf and WordPerfect
formats) defending the constitutionality
of contracts between the Salvation Army and New
York City to provide foster care, adoption services,
hospice care and other social services. In the
case, Lown
v. Salvation Army, a group of Salvation
Army employees sued the Salvation Army and the
City of New York, claiming that the contracts
were unconstitutional. The suit did not allege
that the services provided under the contracts
were themselves religious. Rather, the plaintiffs
argued that the Salvation Army's practice
of taking religion into consideration in hiring
and the religious atmosphere of the Salvation
Army workplace tainted the secular contracts.
This case has broad implications for the President's Faith-Based
and Community Initiative.
As
reported in the August/September
issue of Religious Freedom in Focus, the United States
filed a friend-of-the-court brief on August 26 asking the court to dismiss the
complaint on the grounds that the Salvation Army
is a private entity and not a government actor
as the plaintiffs contend, and that the contracts
with the Salvation Army do not violate the Establishment
Clause.
Plaintiffs
subsequently amended their complaint to charge
that the Salvation Army is engaged in religious
discrimination in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
While Section 702 of Title VII specifically permits
religious organizations to take religion into
consideration in hiring and the terms and conditions
of employment, the plaintiffs claim first that
the Salvation Army has waived this Section 702
exemption, and second that even if it has not, it would
be unconstitutional to allow it invoke the exemption in light
of
the social service contracts with the government. The Civil
Rights Division's supplemental brief demonstrates
that the carrying out of social service contracts does not
alter the basic right embodied in the Section 702 exemption
permitting religious organizations to define their character
through their employment policies.
Focus
on Religious Bias Crimes
Prosecuting
crimes based on racial, ethnic, and religious bias
is a priority for the Civil Rights Division. The
Division has prosecuted 154 defendants in 104 such
cases since 2001. Many of these crimes involve attacks
on churches, synagogue, mosques, and other religious
sites. The Civil Rights Division is determined to
bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice.
The Division has brought 22 cases against 26 defendants
involving threats, arson, or vandalism of religious
sites since 2001. Some recent examples:
Desecration
of Virginia Church: Two men were sentenced
to prison terms on October 19 for vandalizing a
historically African-American church in Roanoke,
Virginia. The men, Zachary Lee Bryant and Christopher
Martin, pleaded guilty in July to breaking into
the Mount Moriah Baptist Church in January 2004
and smashing windows in the church's sanctuary,
discharging fire extinguishers, and committing
other acts of vandalism throughout the church.
The men were sentenced to 27 and 21 months in
prison, respectively.
Desecration
of Jewish Cemetery: Also on October
19, two men were indicted for desecrating a Jewish
Cemetery in Portland Oregon this past May by spray-painting
swastikas and anti-Semitic messages. The two men,
Sean Andrew Sigley and Steven Hale Smith, are charged
with conspiring to vandalize the Congregation Shaarie
Torah Cemetery in order to intimidate area Jewish
residents. They face up to eleven years in prison
each if convicted. An indictment is merely an allegation
of guilt, and defendants are presumed innocent
until proven guilty.
Attempted
Arson of El Paso Mosque: On
October 21 the Civil Rights Division announced
the indictment of Antonio Nunez-Flores on
charges of attempted arson of the Islamic
Center mosque in El Paso, Texas on September
17. The indictment alleges that he threw
one Molotov cocktail at the mosque, which
shattered on the ground, and placed another
Molotov cocktail next to the mosque's gas
meter. The second Molotov cocktail was discovered
and extinguished before exploding. If convicted,
he faces up to 100 years in prison. An indictment
is merely an allegation of guilt, and defendants
are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
E-Mail
Threats Sent to Detroit Mosque:
On November 16, the Civil Rights Division announced
the indictment of two New York men for sending
e-mail threats to the Islamic Center of America
in Detroit, Michigan. The indictments charge
that Michael Bratisax and John Barnett sent
threatening emails to the mosque this past May.
If convicted, Bratisax faces up to 12 years in
prison, and Barnett faces up to six years in
prison. An indictment is merely an allegation
of guilt, and defendants are presumed innocent
until proven guilty.
Other criminal prosecutions previously reported
in Religious Freedom in Focus:
Conviction of Tallahassee Mosque Attacker Upheld
Church Arson Act's Constitutionality Defended
USA
PATRIOT Act Leads to Guilty Plea in Bias
Crime Against El Paso Mosque
United
States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt
