Category Archives: Blog Posts

Joint Statement By CAIR and PRPCP on President Trump’s EO on “Religious Liberty”

Joint Statement
By the Council on American-Islamic Relations of New York &
Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

May 15, 2017

As advocates for free exercise of religion, civil rights, and religious pluralism, we are deeply concerned that President Trump’s recently signed Executive Order “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty” will serve to limit, not protect, religious freedom. The order was signed on May 4, 2017, in a ceremony that included Christian musician Steven Curtis Chapman and statements by Pentecostal televangelist Paula White, Baptist Pastor Jack Graham, Catholic Archbishop Donald Wuerl, Rabbi Marvin Heir, and Vice President Mike Pence. While the executive order—unlike a prior leaked draft—does not single out particular religious beliefs for special protection, we are nevertheless concerned that the broad discretion it offers to federal agencies will have the effect of favoring majoritarian faiths at the expense of religious minorities.

Religious Liberty Guidance Provision

Section 4 of the order directs the Attorney General to “issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections in Federal law.” This provision suggests that the administration plans to take an aggressive approach in affirmatively interpreting federal religious accommodation laws, like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), to grant exemptions from federal law to religious objectors. Religious exemptions are often essential to protecting religious minorities when neutral laws and policies unintentionally burden their beliefs and practices. For example, religious exemptions have ensured that Sikhs, Muslims, and Jews in the military and other workplaces are able to wear religious headwear despite uniform rules. However, President Trump’s order signals an intent to construe religious exemptions more broadly than in the past; such wide discretion is likely to disproportionately protect majoritarian beliefs, perhaps at the expense of religious minorities and other marginalized communities. The Executive Order’s signing ceremony was representative of a larger and pervasive bias in the way that this administration has interpreted “religious liberty”: neglecting, if not, affirmatively denying, the rights of religious minorities – especially Muslims.

So too, this administration is committed to expanding too broadly the notion of religious liberty for some people of faith over others. In particular, inappropriately-broad exemptions run the risk of allowing religious objectors to become religious enforcers, and to impose their views on third parties. Faith-based exemptions from health, employment, and civil rights laws would protect religious health care providers, employers, and landlords, at the expense of workers, patients, and tenants who do not share their beliefs. It is important to note that overly-broad interpretations of religious exemptions threaten religious liberty itself, even among Christians, since even members of the same faith often hold divergent views on many moral and philosophical issues. For example, many Christians as a matter of their faith support reproductive rights for women, equality for LGBTQ people, and religious pluralism in the workplace, public accommodations and elsewhere. Nevertheless, religious minorities are at particular risk of being coerced into abiding by or supporting dominant religious beliefs. This is especially true for minority religions that already face significant mistrust and discrimination, including Muslims, Sikhs, and nonbelievers. Other communities—including LGBTQ people, unmarried families, and those seeking reproductive health care— may also be harmed if the DOJ takes an overly-expansive approach to federal religious exemption law that allows religious objectors to impose their beliefs on others.

We are especially troubled by the fact that the order directs sensitive religious exemption decisions to be made by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has a long history of supporting Islamophobic measures, organizations, and beliefs. This history includes:

  • In December 2015, then-Senator Sessions voted against a nonbinding amendment seeking to prevent a religious litmus test for people entering into the United States. During that vote, Senator Sessions said: “Many people are radicalized after they enter. How do we screen for that possibility, if we cannot even ask about an applicant’s views on religion?” Following the horrific shooting that targeted LGBTQ Latinx people at a nightclub in Orlando, Sessions warned Americans on FOX News Sunday to “slow down” on foreign born admissions into the United States, particularly those with Islamic backgrounds. “It’s a real part of the threat that we face and if we can’t address it openly and directly and say directly that there is an extremist element within Islam that’s dangerous to the world and has to be confronted.” In an interview in June 2016, Sessions said of U.S. immigration policy, “We need to use common sense with the who-what-where of the threat.  It is the toxic ideology of Islam.”
  • In October 2013, Senator Sessions asRanking Member of the Senate Budget Committee sent a letter to the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) in part demanding a justification for why the NEH was “promoting” Islamic cultures at the expense of Christian and Jewish cultures. The purpose of NEH’s Muslim Journeys program is to “offering resources for exploring new and diverse perspectives on the people, places, histories, beliefs, and cultures of Muslims in the United States and around the world.”
  • Sessions has also associated himself with anti-Muslim hate groups. In 2015, Sessions accepted the “Keeper of the Flame” award from the Center for Security Policy, whose leader Frank Gaffney has advanced the conspiracy theory that President Obama is Muslim and whose reporting the FBI has said “overstated” any threat Muslim observances pose to America. In 2014, Sessions accepted the “Annie Taylor Award” from the David Horowitz Freedom Center and he attended the group’s annual “Restoration Weekend” retreats in 2008, 2010 and 2013. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that tracks hate movements in the United States, labels David Horowitz “the godfather of the modern anti-Muslim movement.”

While Sessions has expressed hostility towards Muslims, he has long supported writing conservative Christian beliefs about sex, marriage, and reproduction into law. In one interview, he expressed doubt about admitting into the country Muslims who hold conservative views about sex and sexuality, suggesting that immigrants should be asked if they “respect minorities such as women and gays.” Despite this, he has been an ardent opponent of LGBTQ equality and reproductive rights, and was a sponsor of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), a religious exemption law that would create special protections for those who believe that sex should only take place within a cisgender, different-sex marriage. Thus, we hold deep reservations that Attorney General Sessions will be willing and able to interpret religious exemption laws equally for all religions and beliefs, and will adequately consider the burdens that religious exemptions place on third parties.

Johnson Amendment Provision

The potential ramifications of the recently signed EO are especially worrying, given that President Trump joins a long line of Republican figures who support repeal of the Johnson Amendment, a federal law that prohibits tax-deductible non-profits (including universities, charities, and houses of worship) from participating or intervening in “any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” Recent examples include the U.S. House’s Free Speech Fairness Act (which is supported by 57 Republican Representatives) and its companion bill in the U.S. Senate (which is supported by 5 Republican Senators).

For years, conservative political activists have fought against this provision, arguing that it amounts to an unconstitutional limitation of the First Amendment rights of religious leaders and houses of worship to comment on political activities. In contrast, political observers note that the repeal of the amendment, combined with the tax deductibility of 501(c)(3) donations, would effectively lead to taxpayers subsidizing political activism from houses of worship and other non-profits.

The operative provision of the executive order, Section 2, is quite limited: the Treasury Secretary is not to challenge the tax exempt status of religious organizations that speak “about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has . . . not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign . . . .” Since the IRS has never shown any interest in expanding tax-exempt enforcement against houses of worship, the order is, at most, a ratification of the status quo. For years, activists have flagrantly violated the Johnson Amendment, only to see the IRS refuse to respond or agree to generous settlements. Since 2008, conservative activists such as the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) have hosted Pulpit Freedom Sunday a few weeks before Election Day, encouraging pastors across the country to talk electoral politics in church as part of a deliberate effort to draw scrutiny from the IRS so that ADF can launch a constitutional challenge to the law. ADF encourages Christian Pastors to engage in civil disobedience and “speak truth into every area of life from the pulpit.” To date, none of the participating pastors have faced IRS enforcement measures.

If Congress repealed the Johnson Amendment, or if President Trump implemented a more robust executive order on the topic, the effect would be strikingly asymmetrical. Christian and Jewish clergy (and other politically-secure religious traditions) would be empowered to bring faith and politics together at the very moment that Muslim clergy worry about the growing net of suspicion and surveillance being cast on their community. Unlike their counterparts in other faiths, Muslim clergy are primarily fearful of the local, state, and federal intelligence operations that target their houses of worship, and not without cause. Muslims already face increased scrutiny from law enforcement officials. For example, the National Security Agency and the FBI allegedly tracked email accounts of five Muslim American leaders between 2006 and 2008, according to an NSA spreadsheet of email addresses disclosed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. More recently, over 100 people contacted the Council on American Islamic Relations to report that they were visited by the FBI prior to the 2016 election.

The effect would be particularly pronounced here in New York, where Muslims face additional scrutiny from the NYPD, which has a long history of suspicionless, warrantless surveillance of the Muslim community. According to the NYPD’s own inspector general, 95% of recent NYPD intelligence investigations targeted Muslim New Yorkers or organizations associated with Islam, and the NYPD has repeatedly inserted undercover agents everywhere from New York masajid to Muslim student groups at public colleges.

While President Trump’s May 4th executive order, self-styled as “Protecting Free Speech and Religious Liberty,” was largely symbolic, it has disturbing implications for how measures that purportedly advance religious liberty can promote majoritarian religious institutions, while harming the minority faiths most in need of protection. Hopefully, the order isn’t a harbinger of more meaningful and substantive measures in the months and years to come.

_______________________________________________

Access a .pdf of this statement from the Council on American Islamic Relations and the PRPCP here.

For questions regarding this analysis, or to contact the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project regarding this or any other issues, contact:

The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Liz Boylan, Assistant Director for the Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
E-mail: eboyla@law.columbia.edu
Phone: 212.854.0167

To read other analyses by the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project, visit us on the web at: https://www.law.columbia.edu/gender-sexuality/public-rights-private-conscience-project.

 

Five Key Questions to Ask About the New Executive Order on Religious Liberty

Press Advisory: Five Key Questions to Ask About the New Executive Order on Religious Liberty

Date: May 3, 2017

From: Columbia Law School, The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP)

Contact: Liz Boylan | eboyla@law.columbia.edu | 212.854.0167 

Five Key Questions to Ask About the New Executive Order on Religious Liberty

In February, a draft of an Executive Order (EO) on religious liberty was leaked from the Trump Administration. This order would have had sweeping effects on the enforcement of federal law by all government agencies. In addition to harming LGBTQ communities, it would have had ramifications for unmarried pregnant and parenting women, patients seeking contraceptive care, religious minorities, cohabitating adults and others. President Trump is expected to sign an updated draft of the EO this week. The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) has outlined five questions to ask when analyzing and reporting on the new order.

For more thorough analyses of religious exemptions, please visit our website, which includes numerous publications on the legal and policy implications of funding organizations that discriminate based on religion, religious exemptions’ effect on women of color, and an analysis of the First Amendment Defense Act. Additional analysis of the EO will also be posted to our website in the coming days.

1) Who does the EO apply to?  

Religious exemptions are special rights that allow religious practitioners to violate laws that conflict with their sincerely-held beliefs. A religious exemption, like the forthcoming EO, can apply to houses of worship, religious organizations, and/or individuals. It’s important to read the definition of “religious organization” carefully, however, as this term can often include large corporations that appear secular, like a hospital system or even a for-profit company. The term “person” is generally defined by federal law to include for-profit, publicly-traded companies like Walmart and ExxonMobil. Thus if the EO provides religious exemptions to all “persons,” this would go beyond the Supreme Court’s ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which held that closely-held, for-profit companies are entitled to religious exemptions under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

2) What religious beliefs are protected? 

Recent proposed and enacted religious exemptions, including a leaked draft of the EO, have singled out for special protection particular conservative religious beliefs about sex, marriage, and reproduction. These include the belief that: 1) marriage is the union of one man and one woman; 2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; 3) male and female refer to an individual’s sex as determined at birth; and 4) human life begins at conception. Providing government support for particular religious beliefs raises serious Establishment Clause and Equal Protection concerns, as highlighted by a recent federal court opinion.

However other parts of the previously-leaked EO appear to apply far more broadly. For example, the requirement that federal agencies should “not promulgate regulations, take actions, or enact policies that substantially burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious exercise” could cover any religious belief.

3) Who is authorized to grant a religious exemption?

RFRA is a broad religious liberty law that prohibits the government from substantially burdening the exercise of religion unless doing so is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. Typically, it is the judiciary’s responsibility to interpret and apply RFRA through litigation between a private party and the government. The leaked EO, however, orders federal agencies to interpret (RFRA) preemptively in deciding whether or not to enforce federal laws.

For example, under the EO the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission could interpret RFRA to exempt employers with a religious opposition to hiring transgender workers from compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It could then decline to bring suits on behalf of, or even provide right-to-sue letters to, transgender workers who are discriminated against because of their employer’s religious beliefs. In such instances, it could be difficult to challenge an agency’s overly-broad interpretation of RFRA.

4) Who is harmed?

It’s clear that the proposed EO will harm many LGBTQ people. Less obvious, however, are the sweeping effects it is likely to have on many other groups. The leaked version of the EO specifically protects religious opposition to sex outside marriage; a provision that could sanction discrimination against unmarried pregnant and parenting women and cohabitating, unmarried adults more generally. The leaked EO would also gut the contraceptive coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act, limiting coverage of necessary health care.  Religious practitioners, and especially religious minorities, could also be harmed. The EO would allow discrimination against those who do not share their employer’s religious beliefs. Further, it places government support behind particular religious beliefs that many religious observers do not share, such as the belief that a fertilized egg should be protected over the health of a pregnant person.

5) Are government contractors and employees included?

The leaked EO would provide broad religious exemptions to government contractors and employees, which poses particular Establishment Clause risks. It states that organizations do not “forfeit their religious freedom” when receiving government grants or contracts and orders agencies to provide religious exemptions to grantees. It also orders agencies to accommodate both federal employees and grantees who act upon the four particular religious beliefs outlined in question two, above. Thus the EO would allow faith-based organizations to place religious restrictions on the use of government funds, and to discriminate while carrying out government programs. It would also protect government employees who wish to act on their religious opposition to LGBTQ rights, extramarital sex, and reproductive health care.

Download a .pdf of this press advisory, here.

For more legal analyses from the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project, see our policy page, here.

PRPCP Provides Testimony to New York City Council on Gender and Racial Equity Training

Press Release:
April 27, 2017

From:
Columbia Law School, The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP)

Subject:
Columbia Law School Think Tank Provides Testimony to New York City Council on Gender and Racial Equity Training

Contact:
Liz Boylan | eboyla@law.columbia.edu | 212.854.0167
Ashe McGovern | amcgovern@law.columbia.edu | 212.854.0161

______________________________________________

April 27, 2017—On Monday, April 24, Ashe McGovern, Legislative and Policy Director of Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) testified before the New York City Council Committee on Women’s Issues on a bill that would require several city agencies to undergo training on “implicit bias, discrimination, cultural competency and structural inequity, including with respect to gender, race and sexual orientation.”

McGovern’s testimony outlines the merits of the bill, and encourages the council to expand its requirements to all city agencies, as well as to private city contractors. Private organizations that contract with the city receive billions of taxpayer dollars and are the primary source of many city-funded services. Any bill intended to combat discrimination within city programs, therefore, should apply to contractors. In addition, the current bill mandates training for only three city agencies—the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the Administration for Children’s Services and the Department of Social Services/Human Resources Administration—despite the fact that all agencies and their grantees are in need of the proposed training.

The testimony also draws attention to the unique legal concerns and challenges that arise when faith-based organizations—which are exempted from certain provisions of New York City’s human rights law—contract with the city to provide vital services. PRPCP explains that clear training on all contractors’ legal duty to provide comprehensive and nondiscriminatory care is essential to ensuring that the city does not use public funds to subsidize discrimination.

“While this bill is an important step in the right direction, it is vital that all city agencies, and the private organizations they contract with, be subject to cultural competency training and more stringent oversight,” said McGovern. “Last year alone, New York City provided over $4 billion to private contractors so that they could meet the city’s social and human service’s needs. LGBTQ communities, those seeking reproductive healthcare, and communities of color experience unique vulnerabilities in accessing these vitally important services. The Council should be cognizant of those vulnerabilities and adopt proactive measures to ensure that all agencies and contractors, whether faith-based or secular, do not engage in discriminatory behavior.”

The PRPCP’s mission is to address contexts in which religious liberty rights conflict with or undermine fundamental rights to equality and liberty through academic legal analysis. PRPCP approaches the developing law of religion in a manner that respects the importance of religious liberty while recognizing the ways in which broad religious accommodations may violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Read the full transcript of McGovern’s testimony, here: http://tinyurl.com/McGovern424Testimony

Access a .pdf of this Press Release here: http://tinyurl.com/PR-McGovern-Testimony-424

See the agenda of the April 24 Committee meeting here: http://tinyurl.com/April24NYCCouncilAgenda

For more information on the PRPCP, visit the PRPCP’s webpage, here: http://tinyurl.com/PRPCP-Columbia

Because You’re Not Fooling Anyone: Why Trump Travel Ban 2.0 Still Unconstitutional

Cross-posted with Religion Dispatches, and on Medium, March 14, 2017

Trump’s second attempt at banning travel from certain Muslim-majority countries is clearly written to avoid being struck down under the Establishment Clause. Most notably, it no longer contains provisions that preference entry for religious minorities—language the President himself admitted was intended to prioritize entry for Christian rather than Muslim refugees.

So why isn’t the new EO constitutional, at least with regard to First Amendment claims? Because cutting its most obviously discriminatory provision doesn’t fix the fact that the new EO was passed with the same invalid purpose as the President’s first attempt—to reduce Muslim immigration into the U.S. When a candidate campaigns for nearly two years on the promise of banning, profiling, and even registering Muslims, that is context that a court can—and should—consider in evaluating whether his actions are motivated by religious animus or legitimate security concerns.

In 2005, the Supreme Court issued two decisions on the question of whether displaying the Ten Commandments in or near a courthouse violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The cases came out split, with one display upheld and the other held unconstitutional. The takeaway? Context and history matter.

These decisions serve as helpful background for why a quick fix to Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration doesn’t resolve all the EO’s constitutional problems.

In one of the cases, McCreary County v. ACLU, the displays at issue were the third in a series of exhibits that had been repeatedly challenged as unconstitutional. The first displays—installed in two Kentucky county courthouses—were large, gold-framed copies of the Ten Commandments, with a citation to the Book of Exodus. In response to a suit by the ACLU, the counties expanded the displays to include additional documents in smaller frames, each with a religious theme, including the “endowed by their Creator” passage from the Declaration of Independence and the national motto, “In God We Trust.”

When a District Court preliminarily enjoined both the original and the expanded displays, the counties installed a third version, this time consisting of nine framed documents including the Ten Commandments, Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights. In explaining its decision to strike down even this seemingly acceptable display, the Supreme Court noted: “the purpose apparent from government action can have an impact more significant than the result expressly decreed” (emphasis added).

In other words, the counties weren’t fooling anyone.

In order to be upheld under the Establishment Clause, a government action must have a valid secular purpose. While courts typically give deference to the secular intent proffered by legislatures, the purpose has to be “genuine, not a sham.” In this case, it was obvious to the Court that the counties’ intent in creating the third round of displays was no different than their intent for the original display: they “were simply reaching for any way to keep a religious document on the walls of courthouses constitutionally required to embody religious neutrality.”

In contrast, the Court in Van Orden v. Perry held that it was permissible for Texas to accept and display a Ten Commandments statue donated by a civic organization on the state capitol grounds, alongside 17 other monuments and 22 historical markers. In this case, there was no history indicating a legislative intent to endorse or advance religion.

The history of Trump’s two Executive Orders recalls the counties’ efforts in McCreary to water down a religious display simply to meet legal approval, without changing its underlying intent. In the years leading up to the EO, President Trump repeatedly pledged to ban Muslims from entering the country. (He also made comments supporting Muslim profiling, the creation of a Muslim registry, and the closure of mosques.) Trump sometimes varied his language, calling his plan “extreme vetting” or emphasizing its application to “terror nations” rather than Muslim-majority nations.

After the issuance of the first order, however, Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani openly admitted that the President intended to craft a Muslim ban that would withstand judicial scrutiny. When the ban was enjoined, Trump stated in a press conference that the administration could “tailor the [new] order to that decision and get just about everything, in some ways more.” White House advisor, Stephen Miller, also stated that the new EO contained “mostly minor, technical differences,” and would “have the same, basic policy outcome for the country.”

Thus, despite the elimination of the explicit religious preference, there’s no indication that the new order should be treated any differently from the last one when it comes to determining whether the administration had a valid, secular, non-discriminatory purpose in issuing the EO.

This is certainly not to say that Trump can never pass a law on immigration or national security that won’t violate the Establishment Clause. The McCreary Court explained that it did not hold that the counties’ “past actions forever taint any effort on their part to deal with the subject matter.” However it does mean that Trump cannot avoid the ample and longstanding evidence that his EO is intended to be a Muslim ban simply by removing the language that most clearly identifies it as one.

WA Supreme Court: LGBT Discrimination No More About Flowers than Civil Rights Were About Sandwiches

Originally posted at Religion Dispatches, February 22, 2017

Last Thursday, the Washington Supreme Court issued a significant and unanimous decision in the ongoing dispute—being litigated in courts across the country—over whether antidiscrimination law must yield to the religious beliefs of business owners opposed to marriage equality. The case involved a florist, Barronelle Stutzman, who refused to provide floral arrangements for a wedding between same-sex partners because of her deeply held religious beliefs about marriage.

In prior cases including Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock and Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, courts have come down against business owners who refuse to provide goods and services for weddings between same-sex couples. Opinions in these cases have found that antidiscrimination laws are neutral, generally applicable measures that do not favor secularism over religion, or single out particular religious groups for ill treatment. The right-wing legal nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom represented the business owners in both of those suits, and is currently representing Stutzman, who says she plans to appeal Thursday’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The opinions in Elane Photography and Masterpiece Cakeshop have declined to analyze the application of LGBT antidiscrimination laws to religious objectors using the rigorous “strict scrutiny” test. This test, used to evaluate government actions that specifically disadvantage religion, requires a law to be the least restrictive (to the religious objector) means of achieving a “compelling” government interest.

In this latest opinion, State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers, the court did subject Washington’s antidiscrimination law to the strict scrutiny test. They did so because the free exercise provision of Washington’s state constitution has been interpreted to be more protective of religion than the federal First Amendment, raising the possibility that the lower level of scrutiny required under the federal Free Exercise Clause may be insufficient.

While the court declined to hold that the strict scrutiny test was necessary when evaluating neutral laws under the Washington constitution, it found that applying antidiscrimination law to religious objectors satisfied even this demanding test. Importantly, the court recognized that providing exemptions for religious objectors was inherently inconsistent with the entire purpose of antidiscrimination law.

Stutzman had argued that applying the law to her could not be necessary to achieving any compelling government interest, since there was no “access problem.” In other words—since the couple could purchase flowers elsewhere, application of antidiscrimination law in this case served no purpose. In response, the court held:

We emphatically reject this argument…”[t]his case is no more about access to flowers than civil rights cases in the 1960s were about access to sandwiches.” Br. of Resp’ts Ingersoll and Freed at 32. As every other court to address the question has concluded, public accommodations laws do not simply guarantee access to goods or services. Instead, they serve a broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens in the commercial marketplace. Were we to carve out a patchwork of exceptions for ostensibly justified discrimination, that purpose would be fatally undermined.

This statement strikes at the heart of the dispute between religious objectors and LGBT couples and families. Too often, the vital role that antidiscrimination law plays in establishing the equal place of long-subordinated groups in civil society gets lost or ignored in claims that focus on the availability of flowers or cake. Efforts to limit the scope of antidiscrimination law will not stop at wedding-related services (and, indeed, a federal judge ruled last summer that the religious beliefs of a funeral home owner justified his discrimination against a transgender employee). Washington’s opinion is clear on the real purpose of these laws: guaranteeing equality, not roses.

Trump Attempts to Pit LGBTQ Communities, People of Color, and Women Against Muslim Refugees and Immigrants

Trump’s latest executive order highlights what is becoming standard practice within his administration: obscuring the destructive impact of an action on some marginalized communities by couching it in a feigned concern for “protecting” others.

Reblogged from Rewire News

At the tail end of a relentless first week of presidential action targeting the environment, immigrants, reproductive health care, Native communities, and the free speech rights and employment of federal workers, President Trump signed an executive order to halt refugee resettlement and travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.

The order suspends the entire U.S. refugee resettlement program and bans entry of persons from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

On the whole, the order is dangerous, misguided, and deeply rooted in this administration’s commitment to a xenophobic, racist, and Islamophobic agenda. However, two sections in particular highlight a manipulative tactic that is becoming standard practice within the Trump administration: obscuring the destructive impact of an action on some marginalized communities by couching it in a feigned concern for “protecting” others.

Section one of the order states that “the United States [will] not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry and hatred … or those who would oppress members of one race, one gender, or one sexual orientation.”

Trump’s attempt to couch this order in paternalistic, hollow concern for LGBTQ communities, communities of color, and women is both dangerous and insincere. It directly ignores the lived experiences of Muslims within those communities, falsely implies that Islam’s principles are inconsistent with equality and justice, and is in direct contrast with the hostility Trump, his administration, and his appointees have exhibited toward these communities domestically and abroad. It is also a clear attempt to exploit support for these communities in a way that obscures the order’s oppressive effect on Muslim immigrants and refugees.

Trump has made clear, through his campaign rhetoric, cabinet appointments, and vice presidential selection, that he has no interest in protecting the rights of women, communities of color, or LGBTQ people. Despite superficial statements claiming he strongly supports LGBTQ rights, Trump, Vice President Pence, and most of their cabinet appointees have a strong commitment to laws that would harm LGBTQ and reproductive rights, including the First Amendment Defense Act and similar state bills. Trump also campaigned heavily on a “law and order” platform, which has demonized undocumented immigrants and communities of color by pushing forward a false narrative about the problem of “inner-city” crime—a term that has long been coded as racist and intended to target Black communities in particular.

Secondly, the order’s alleged commitment to rejecting bigotry rings particularly false because it is apparently aimed at prioritizing the resettlement of Christians in Muslim-majority countries. While it does not name Christians explicitly, the order directs the secretary of the State Department, in consultation with the secretary of Homeland Security, “to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” Absent from the order, of course, is any prioritization of the communities Trump claims he is invested in protecting from supposedly dangerous Muslim refugees and immigrants.

Last week, Trump told the Christian Broadcasting Network that he intended to help persecuted Christians with his new refugee policies, because, he claims, they have been “horribly treated” in the refugee resettlement process, despite evidence showing that Christian and Muslim refugees have been approved for resettlement at roughly the same rate in recent history.

As others have also pointed out, although Trump has claimed a strong support for “religious liberty,” the selective religious beliefs that he supports seem to be grounded more in a self-serving version of Christian nationalism than justice for communities directly harmed by his particular brand of white, cis-hetero Christian supremacy. Although there might be a vocal minority of Christian leaders speaking out in support of reducing or banning Muslims from entering the United States, “leaders of nearly every Christian denomination, along with those of other faiths” criticized the action, which they argued does “not reflect the teachings of the Bible, nor the traditions of the United States,” reported The Atlantic.

During the weekend, large-scale protests erupted across the country, prompting federal judges in New York, Massachusetts, Washington State, and Virginia to hold emergency hearings, which resulted in temporary orders halting enforcement of the order. Despite judicial intervention, there continues to be reports of people and families, even those with visas and green cards, being detained for hours without food or access to lawyers at airports across the country—and some have already been deported. Adding to the confusion, Trump has continued to defend the order and the Department of Homeland Security has issued a statement emphasizing that despite court orders, the ban will stay in effect.

The framing of this order should serve as a reminder to advocates, journalists, and others to remain vigilant in calling out and resisting Trump’s attempts to pit some of our important justice and equality interests against others—particularly when the communities in question are not inherently at odds, and the administration has no intent in furthering the substantive rights of those communities.

Report: Church, State & the Trump Administration

PRESS RELEASE

JANUARY 30, 2017 

Trump and Cabinet Nominees Seek to Restrict Muslim Rights, Break Down the Wall Between Church and State

MEDIA CONTACT: Ashe McGovern
amcgovern@law.columbia.edu

A new document issued by the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) at Columbia Law School outlines the numerous areas in which the Trump administration will seek to advance particular conservative Christian tenets, restrict the rights of religious minorities, and break down the barrier between church and state. Enactment of the administration’s policy priorities would call into question the careful balance that currently exists between the First Amendment and other fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The report, entitled Church, State & the Trump Administration, highlights the ways in which the new administration’s early executive actions and cabinet nominations, as well as his campaign rhetoric and proposed policies, indicate hostility toward religious liberty guarantees of the First Amendment and an intentional disregard for other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The report will continue to be updated in the coming weeks as the administration takes further action.

Despite his stated commitment to religious freedom, during his first week in office President Trump has issued an Executive Order that clearly expresses an official State preference for Christianity, and disapproval of Islam. Furthermore, Trump has consistently demonstrated that his policies will be grounded in the concerns of certain conservative Christian groups. His Executive Order reinstating a significantly expanded version of the anti-choice global gag rule, an expected Executive Order sanctioning anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and his selections for cabinet appointments all point to an administration that will seek to further particular religious ideals while breaking down the barrier between church and state.

President Trump and cabinet appointees appear to hold a deeply flawed understanding of the First Amendment, and particularly the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from favoring or disfavoring any religious group or belief. If confirmed, many of his appointees are likely to implement policies that will harm the rights of religious and other minorities, particularly Muslim communities, LGBTQ people, and communities seeking access to adequate healthcare and protection of their reproductive rights. A recently released report by PRPCP also highlights the ways in which communities of color are particularly harmed by the religious exemptions that President Trump, Vice President Pence, and others in his cabinet have championed.

“Despite his insistence that the protection of religious liberties is a top priority, Trump has made clear, through executive orders and cabinet appointments, that he seeks only to prioritize a version of white Christian nationalism and supremacy, that, if left unchecked, would create tangible harms to many marginalized communities—and violate fundamental liberty and equality guarantees under the Constitution,” said Ashe McGovern, Associate Director of PRPCP.

“Religious freedom is fundamentally inconstant with the State’s endorsement of particular religions or religious beliefs,” said Elizabeth Reiner Platt, PRPCP’s director. “Anyone committed to free exercise rights should be deeply concerned with Trump and his cabinet’s apparent distain for the separation of church and state.”

“The new administration has shown a disturbing commitment to write the First Amendment out of the U.S. Constitution,” said Katherine Franke, Sulzbacher Professor of Law and Faculty Director of PRPCP.   “In its first week in office the Trump White House has been remarkably aggressive in both embracing a particular religious agenda in violation of the Establishment Clause and discriminating against people whose faith it disfavors in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,” Franke continued.

Read the full report here.

 

PRPCP’s Comment Regarding Zubik

This week the Public Rights Private Conscience Project (PCPCP) submitted a letter to the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) in response to their request for information (RFI) regarding an accommodation for religious employers who do not wish to provide their employees with insurance coverage for no-cost contraceptive care, as mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  The request came shortly after the Supreme Court punted a case on this very topic back to the lower courts, leaving religious freedom and women’s health advocates in limbo regarding the mandate’s fate.

The case, Zubik v. Burwell, combined separate challenges from religious non-profits to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate, which requires employers to provide health insurance coverage for birth control to their employees. The religious accommodation to the mandate allowed religious non-profits to file a one-page form with the HHS to opt out, and made health insurance companies or third-party administrators responsible for stepping in to provide this coverage without involvement or funds from the employer. But the non-profits asserted that even this requirement violated their religious beliefs. The government holds that the accommodation complies with relevant laws protecting religious freedom, such as the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA), which was enacted in 1993 to protect religious minorities.

In the RFI, the government states that their commitment to religious freedom and desire to find an accommodation that works for all led to the public information request.  The government also recognized that the Zubik decision “affect(s) a wide variety of stakeholders, including many who are not parties to the cases that were before the Supreme Court,” which they say increased their desire to find an effective solution to the problem presented in Zubik.

The RFI asks the public to comment on two alternatives to the ACA religious accommodation. The first alternative would allow religious non-profits to contract with insurers for coverage that did not include contraceptives and then the insurer would have to notify employees separately and explain that they would provide no-cost contraceptive coverage independent of the employer’s health plan. Here, the religious employer would only have to verbally notify the insurer of their objection, rather than through a form. The second alternative was for women employees to affirmatively enroll in policies that only covered contraceptives.

In the comment that PRPCP submitted we began by discussing how the existing religious accommodation does not offend RFRA:

“RFRA prohibits the government from substantially burdening the exercise of religion unless doing so is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. The current accommodation meets this standard for two reasons: first, it does not impose a burden, much less one that is substantial in nature, on religious exercise and second, it is the least restrictive means of furthering the government’s compelling interests in ensuring access to contraceptives, a necessary part of basic preventative health care, and avoiding violations of the Establishment Clause.”

PRPCP then discusses how the alternative accommodations proposed by the plaintiffs would impose harms on employees and their families and risk violating the Establishment Clause. Here, we noted that a number of Supreme Court cases have held that the Establishment Clauses was violated when a government-created religious accommodation imposed serious harms on other private individuals. We stated:

“Both of the alternative accommodations put forth in the RFI would impose a significant harm on non-beneficiaries, most notably employees and their families. The first alternative, by providing ample opportunity for confusion, misrepresentation, and further RFRA litigation, would make employees susceptible to extensive gaps in necessary contraceptive coverage. Further, by making enforcement of the contraceptive mandate significantly more difficult, it would impose costs on both employees and the government. The second alternative would impose significant burdens on third parties by requiring health plans to create, and employees to seek out and enroll in, contraceptive-only health plans. These plans would likely face substantial administrative and financial difficulties. Furthermore, they would result in fewer employees and families having adequate access to contraceptive health care.”

Lastly, we mentioned how important seamless access to cost-free contraceptive care is for women of color, a conversation that is oftentimes left out of the discussion about religious accommodations to the ACA. PRCPC noted:

“Eliminating disparities in reproductive health care, including high rates of unintended pregnancy, involves increasing access to contraception and family planning resources. Access to contraception allows women of color to plan whether and when they will have a child, which research has shown provides them with greater financial stability and freedom.  Many women of color, who on average earn significantly less than white women, cannot afford to pay for quality contraception. For example, the IUD is considered the most effective form of contraception available on the market today and costs between $500.00 and $1,000.00 without insurance. Because of its high cost, among other factors, only six percent of Black women have used IUDs compared with seventy-eight percent who have used birth control pills, which have higher user failure rates.  Providing women of color with access to contraceptive coverage at no additional cost will help to reduce the reproductive health disparities that we see in communities of color. This is an important first step in ameliorating the overall health disparities between women of color and white women in the United States.”

We applaud the Department’s commitment to religious freedom as mentioned in the RFI, however hope this commitment does not outweigh its duty to uphold the rights of women seeking cost-free contraceptive coverage. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court dodged making a decision on this important

New York City’s PreK Program’s Church State Problem

upk

New York City’s school system is no stranger to church state problems. Since 2005, the city has rented space for public schools in religious buildings, causing conflicts ranging from lease provisions that require students to be taken off-site for state-mandated sex education classes to students having to walk by crosses and other religious images as they make their way to school. Last year, the City awarded $19.8 million in funds to religious schools to hire security guards. This school year, New York City’s Department of Education will be dealing with another church state issue as the city enrolls the largest number of four year olds ever into its pre-kindergarten program.

In September, tens of thousands of pre-kindergarten students will be attending class for the first time as part of the De Blasio Administration’s hallmark universal full day pre-k (UPK) program, now in its third year.[1] In order to reach its enrollment goals, the city has been urging religious schools and community organizations to host the UPK program, since most public schools have reached capacity. The city is now providing religious schools roughly $10,000 per student, raising potential conflicts with church state laws. More problematically, under a guidance document issued by the De Blasio administration these religious schools are permitted to teach from religious texts, so long as they do so “objectively as part of a secular program of education,” and are allowed to preference hiring teachers that share the school’s religion. While schools must cover religious symbols on their exterior entrance and UPK class rooms, they need not do so where this is “not practicable.” De Blasio also issued a rule allowing UPK programs to hold breaks for optional prayer.

In New York State, citizens are protected from government advancement of religion by both the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the government from passing any law “respecting an establishment of religion,” and the so-called “Blaine Amendment” of the New York Constitution. New York’s Blaine Amendment is more restrictive than the Establishment Clause, and maintains that the State should not use public money in aid “of any school or institution of learning wholly or in part under the control or direction of any religious denomination, or in which any denominational tenet or doctrine is taught.”[2]

Unfortunately, both of these protections have been substantially watered down over the years by federal and state court decisions that have allowed the government to fund religious schools through various programs. For example, the Supreme Court decision Agostini v. Felton upheld a New York State program that sent public school teachers into parochial schools to teach remedial education. The New York State Supreme Court found in College of New Rochelle v. Nyquist that a college’s affiliation with religion did not make it ineligible for state aid under the Blaine Amendment, unless the “affiliated religious denomination controls or directs the institution towards a religious end” or the college is “controlled or directed to a degree so as to enable the religious authorities to propagate and advance—or at least attempt to do so—their religion.”

Despite this case law, New York’s UPK program poses opportunities for violations of the Establishment Clause and Blaine Amendment. A significant issue is the fact that UPK students are so young. Some courts have placed heightened scrutiny in deciding whether there was an Establishment Clause violation when vulnerable groups, like young students, are involved. In Rusk v. Crestview Local Schools for example, a district court ruled that an elementary school violated the Establishment Clause by distributing flyers advertising community activities sponsored by churches to “impressionable elementary students” who might believe the activities were school-endorsed.[3] This decision was overruled by the Appeals court which found that the parents were the ones who would receive and observe the flyers not the kids, therefore quelling concerns that the flyers would leave an impression on the students. However, the district court’s decision shows that courts sometimes take the age and vulnerability of school students into account when deciding whether an act violates the Establishment Clause.

The potential for coercive indoctrination in the UPK program is real. Publicly-funded UPK programs are supposed be available for all students regardless of religious belief, and there does not appear to be any clear information on the City’s Pre-K Finder to let parents know that a program is housed in a religious institution. Thus, for example, a Muslim or atheist family could apply for a UPK program that is located in a Christian school either because they were not aware of its religious identity, they did not realize that such schools are permitted to teach religious texts, practice coreligionist hiring, and hold prayer breaks, or simply because of a lack of alternative options close to their home. This could leave the four-year-old child in a position where they have to see religious symbols that are in direct conflict with their religious teachings every day, wear a uniform bearing the religious name of their school, read religious materials, watch their fellow students break for prayer, and follow instruction from teachers and an administration that practices a faith different from their own. It is not hard to see how such a scenario could lead to impermissible indoctrination of an impressionable young mind.

Church state issues in education are complicated, especially in a city like New York which is one of the most religiously diverse cities in the nation.[4]   However, law and policy makers have a responsibility to make sure that students are in culturally and religiously sensitive learning environments that respect and pay homage to our city’s religious diversity. Children’s minds are too impressionable to be subjected to religious materials and practices that could potentially indoctrinate them with a particular religion.

[1] Ben Chapman, Mayor De Blasio’s Universal Pre-K Program Still Failing to Reach Some Families, New York Daily News (April 19,2016) http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/poor-new-yorkers-left-free-universal-pre-k-article-1.2607773

[2] College of New Rochelle v. Nyquist, 326 N.Y.S.2d 765, 765 (1971)

[3] Rusk v. Crestview Local Schools, 220 F.Supp.2d 854 (6th Cir. 2002)

[4] Jed Kelko, America’s Most Religiously Diverse Cities, Citylab (Dec. 20, 2012) http://www.citylab.com/politics/2012/12/americas-most-religiously-diverse-cities/4227/

Constitutional Amendment SJR 39 Could Immunize Religiously-Motivated Crimes From Prosecution

Link to Document/Text here:
https://bit.ly/1S7ttmn

Media Contacts:

Elizabeth Reiner Platt
Associate Director
Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
ep2801@columbia.edu

Elizabeth Sepper
Associate Professor
Washington University School of Law
esepper@wustl.edu

April 18, 2016

The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project at Columbia Law School issued a statement today adding to its earlier memorandum on Missouri’s Senate Joint Resolution 39, a proposed amendment to the state constitution. The statement posits that SJR 39 would prevent Missouri and its municipalities from prosecuting crimes, including trespass, harassment, or assault, that are motivated by a religious belief concerning marriage between same-sex couples.

SJR 39 would prohibit the state and local governments from imposing a “penalty” on many religious individuals and organizations for acts motivated by their “sincere religious belief concerning marriage between two persons of the same sex.” Missouri law routinely employs the term “penalty” to mean both criminal punishments and civil fines or actions. The amendment would therefore pose a barrier to prosecuting certain religiously-motivated criminal conduct.

For example, the amendment could immunize from prosecution members of the Westboro Baptist Church, a religious organization, if they violated state trespass laws and entered a private chapel or home in order to protest the wedding of a same-sex couple. It could also protect Church members from prosecution if they harassed or even physically assaulted the couple or their guests.

“Not only does SJR 39 attack the equality and dignity rights of LGBT Missourians and supporters of marriage equality” said Columbia Law School Professor Katherine Franke, director of the Center for Gender & Sexuality Law, “it also puts them at risk of physical harm.” Elizabeth Sepper, Associate Professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, said SJR 39 “allows the religious preferences of a few to trump not only other individual rights, but also important governmental interests in public safety and impartial enforcement of the law.”

The statement also summarizes other arguments made in the longer memorandum, which maintains that SJR 39 violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Read the statement here.