WASHINGTON – Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief yesterday urging the Supreme Court to ensure Americans can go to court when government interferes with their religious freedom, without first having to jump through a series of bureaucratic hoops. In Grand v. City of University Heights, city officials told Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jew, that he needed a special permit to host a small prayer gathering in his own home. Grand sued, but two lower courts ruled that he had to keep working through the city’s zoning process before they would hear his religious-freedom claims. 

Becket’s brief argues that under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), religious believers like Grand do not have to wait to finish lengthy bureaucratic proceedings before defending their rights in court. 

“Religious Americans shouldn’t have to be put through the bureaucratic wringer before courts can protect their rights,” said Joseph Davis, senior counsel at Becket. “Our Constitution demands more. The courthouse doors must be open the moment government tramples on your rights, not only after city hall finishes underlining that its answer is no.”  

Daniel Grand is an Orthodox Jew whose beliefs require him to pray three times a day in a minyan, a quorum of 10 Jewish men. Because of his city’s strict zoning laws, it’s difficult for Grand to travel to synagogue for a minyan, especially on Sabbath. Grand therefore opted for an unremarkable alternative: he invited a group of friends over to his house to pray. But almost immediately, the city sent him a cease-and-desist letter demanding that he first obtain a special permit.  

Grand sought to comply by applying for a permit, but was quickly met with a deluge of procedural obstacles and community backlash. At a three-hour hearing, residents derided Grand’s plan for the minyan and made comments about Jews disrupting the “fabric of the community.” The city then demanded that Grand jump through still more hoops before making a final decision. Grand ultimately went to court to protect his religious freedom. But rather than decide whether the city had violated his rights, the lower courts ruled that he first had to keep working his way through the very permitting process he was challenging. 

“Congress enacted RLUIPA to combat this very kind of government abuse,” said Davis. “It means very little if believers like Grand must wait out a lengthy permitting process while the state runs roughshod over their religious freedom. We’re confident the Court will set things right.”  

The Supreme Court will hear Grand’s case on December 9.  

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is now considering an Alabama prisoner’s request to have access to a clergy member of his faith in the chamber during his execution for prayer and spiritual guidance. The Alabama Department of Corrections has banned all clergy from the execution chamber, depriving prisoners like Willie Smith from praying with a clergy member during their final moments. Smith’s execution was scheduled for today, but late last night a federal appeals court ordered Alabama to allow Smith’s pastor to enter the chamber. Alabama has now asked the Supreme Court to reverse that decision and allow the execution to go forward without comfort of clergy.

“Allowing clergy to be present for condemned prisoners at the moment of death is an ancient and common practice, one that Alabama is familiar with,” said Diana Verm, senior counsel at Becket. “In fact, until 2019, Alabama not only allowed but required clergy in the death chamber. That shows Alabama is less concerned about security than it is about litigation tactics.”

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Dunn v. Smith in support of Smith’s request for Pastor Robert Paul Wiley, Jr. to accompany him to the gurney. Becket pointed out that most of the prisoners who were executed in the United States over the last year were allowed to have a clergy member of their choice present in the execution chamber. If the federal government and other states have been able to offer this religious accommodation, Alabama should be able to as well. In fact, Alabama required clergy in the chamber until 2019, when it changed its requirement as a result of prisoner litigation requesting equal treatment. In Murphy v. Collier, a Buddhist prisoner requested that his spiritual advisor be available instead of the Christian or Muslim chaplains that the prison provided. When the Supreme Court required equal treatment for all faiths, Alabama banned all clergy from the death chamber, even its own prison chaplains.

“The Constitution and federal law require more than equal treatment, they require that prisoners be allowed to exercise their sincere religious faith whenever possible,” said Verm. “That includes allowing clergy to pray with prisoners as they cross over into death.”

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit required Alabama to allow clergy into the execution chamber, likely delaying the execution that was scheduled for today. Alabama has asked the Supreme Court to reverse that order.

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – Late tonight, and two and a half hours after the scheduled start to the execution of Patrick Henry Murphy by the State of Texas, the Supreme Court voted 7-2 to stay his execution. The Supreme Court ruled that Texas could not proceed with the execution unless it permitted a Buddhist spiritual advisor to be with Murphy in the execution chamber. Texas already allows Christian and Muslim clergy to accompany prisoners in the execution chamber. 

The following statement can be attributed to Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket: 

“Religious liberty won today. The Supreme Court made it clear that the First Amendment applies to every American, no matter their faith. As we said in our brief to the Court, you can’t give fewer rights to Buddhists than you give to Christians or Muslims. In his last moments, a condemned man can receive both comfort from a minister of his own faith, and equal treatment under the law.” 

The Supreme Court’s ruling followed Becket’s recommendation, after Becket filed an emergency amicus brief at the Court earlier today urging the Court to require Texas to allow a Buddhist minister to accompany Murphy to the execution chamber. 

Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, reinforcing the fact that “governmental discrimination against religion—in particular, discrimination against religious persons, religious organizations, and religious speech — violates the Constitution.”  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at m[email protected] or 202-349-7219.  Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

Additional Information: 

• Supreme Court’s decision (March 28, 2019) 
• Becket’s Amicus Brief (March 28, 2019)  
• Patrick Henry Murphy v. Bryan Collier, ED, Texas Department of Criminal Justice case page

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions  and has a 100% win-rate before the United States  Supreme Court.  For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians  (read more here). 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A New Jersey town agreed to treat all houses of worship equally and pay $3.25 million in damages and attorneys’ fees, after a federal court ruled that the town had illegally discriminated against a local mosque. The settlement agreement, signed today, ends lawsuits brought by the United States Department of Justice and the mosque and ensures that all houses of worship in the town will be treated equally.

The Islamic Society of Basking Ridge has been trying to build a permanent house of worship for almost a decade. In 2012, it purchased a four-acre lot zoned for houses of worship and designed a small, unassuming mosque that met every requirement of the local zoning code. But four years and 39 public hearings later, the town denied the mosque a permit—after making up new zoning requirements that had never been applied to any other house of worship. The mosque and the U.S. Department of Justice sued, and a federal court ruled on December 31, 2016, that the town had illegally discriminated against the mosque.

“Our constitution guarantees every religious congregation equal treatment under the law,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel at Becket, which filed an amicus brief in support of the Islamic Society. “Every religion is a minority in some part of the country. If one religious group can be denied equal treatment because of hostility to their faith, then all religious groups are at risk.”

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a diverse coalition of religious, legal, and civil liberties groups—including Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and others—to defend the mosque’s right to equal treatment (view full coalition list). Becket has defended houses of worship against discriminatory zoning practices across the country – from Jewish synagogues in Florida to Christian churches in California, and almost everything in between.

The mosque was joined in its lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice. To settle the Department of Justice’s lawsuit, the town agreed to amend its zoning ordinance to treat all houses of worship equally.

Becket was joined in its friend-of-the-court brief by Christopher J. Paolella of the New York law firm Reich & Paolella. The Islamic Society of Basking Ridge and Mr. Chaudry are represented by the New York law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at [email protected] or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – An Orthodox Jewish inmate won a twelve-year legal battle with the state of Texas Friday, voluntarily dropping his lawsuit after convincing the Texas prison system to provide a kosher diet not only to him, but to all Orthodox Jewish inmates in the state. This win is another one of Becket’s victories on behalf of prisoners’ religious liberty, including the 2014 Supreme Court case Holt v. Hobbs.

The vast majority of states provide Jewish inmates with kosher meals, and studies show that allowing prisoners to practice their faith leads to better behavior in prison and fewer crimes after release. Nevertheless, Texas refused to provide Orthodox Jewish inmates with kosher meals, arguing concerns about cost. So in 2005, Max Moussazadeh sued. The court ruled in Moussazadeh’s favor, concluding that the denial of kosher meals violated his faith and that the cost of kosher meals was “minimal”—“less than .005% of the food budget.” The lawsuit prompted Texas to begin offering a kosher diet to all of the state’s Orthodox Jewish inmates.

“Protecting religious freedom in prison is not only smart, but also the right thing to do,” said Luke Goodrich, deputy general counsel at Becket. “Allowing prisoners to practice their faith results in better behavior in prison and less crime after release—and it respects human dignity.”

Although Texas initially resisted Moussazadeh’s lawsuit, he won important victories in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans in 2010 and 2013. After the state began providing a kosher diet for all the state’s Orthodox Jewish inmates, Moussazadeh put the lawsuit on hold until he was released from prison. The suit was finally dismissed on Friday following his release from prison in 2016.

Currently, more than thirty-five states and the federal government provide a kosher diet to observant Jewish inmates. Becket has also won similar kosher diet cases against Florida and Georgia, and assisted in a similar victory against Indiana. In 2015, Becket won a unanimous Supreme Court victory on behalf of a Muslim prisoner in Arkansas seeking to practice his faith in prison.

“At least thirty-five states and the federal government have been providing a kosher diet for years,” said Goodrich. “They have shown that the benefits of respecting religious freedom are worth far more than a few pennies per meal.”

Mr. Moussazadeh was represented by Becket, along with firm Latham & Watkins, LLP.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at [email protected] or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court.  For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).

Washington, D.C. – For the second time in less than a year, a federal court in Florida rejected a lawsuit and gave a local Jewish congregation a crucial win on the road to building their synagogue, just weeks before Passover.

After a decade of fighting for a house of worship, Jews in Boca Raton have now defeated a hostile attempt to prevent them from building their synagogue. Two local landowners, ignoring unanimous city council approval for the synagogue, filed a lawsuit claiming that allowing the synagogue would discriminate against them as Christians. But the city ordinance explicitly benefits all faith groups, not just the synagogue, and local Christian congregations strongly supported the synagogue.

“After years of patience and perseverance, the Chabad has now removed a big barrier to building a home for their congregation,” said Daniel Blomberg, legal counsel at Becket, which represents the Chabad of East Boca Raton. “It’s sad that some people would rather have a tattoo parlor or a liquor store in their community than a synagogue. Despite ugly anti-religious hostility toward the Chabad, it’s an inspiration to see their undaunted commitment to move forward.”

The Chabad of East Boca Raton is an Orthodox Jewish center that provides religious worship, outreach, and educational services. Since 2007, it has encountered heavy, well-financed opposition to its attempt to build a new center for its growing congregation. After the city unanimously approved the Chabad’s synagogue plan, opposing groups launched a website containing anti-Semitic posts. In fact, the lawsuit against the synagogue admitted that some of the opposition was openly anti-Semitic (though the plaintiffs themselves said that they were not hostile toward Jews).

The Chabad also suffered a string of attacks in the last few years, including the destruction and theft of glass mezuzahs that contain sacred scripture, a smashed synagogue door, and physical assault against a teenage member of the synagogue who was told to “go back to Auschwitz” and that “Hitler was right.”

The court’s opinion today noted that even the landowners admitted that some of the opposition to the Chabad was “motivated by religious animus.” The court ruled that there was no problem with allowing the Chabad to build. To the contrary, the Chabad won because the landowners never “alleg[ed] to have suffered the injuries that the [Constitution] exists to protect against.”  The court sternly reminded the plaintiffs that “not every unfavorable… zoning decision rises to the level of a constitutional violation.”

“This long battle against the synagogue attacks everyone’s religious liberty,” said Blomberg. “Fortunately, the court’s ruling puts that behind us. It’s time to let the Chabad build.”

The Chabad of East Boca Raton, Inc. is represented by Becket, Kirkland & Ellis, and Weiss, Handler & Cornwell.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at [email protected] or 202.349.7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.   

 ###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today marks the sixth time in three years that federal courts have ruled that the Florida Department of Corrections must provide religiously appropriate meals to prisoners. Until now, the Department remained the only large prison system that offered a variety of diets to prisoners for medical reasons but refused to offer them for religious reasons. 

“Studies show that when prisoners are allowed to practice their faith, it reduces violence in prison and reduces rates of recidivism outside of prison,” said Daniel Blomberg, legal counsel of Becket. “Treating prisoners humanely by protecting their religious liberty isn’t only the right thing to do. It is also good for prisoners, good for prisons, and good for society as a whole.”

Thirty-five states and the federal government already provide religious diets. The Department argued that it would be too expensive to do so, but it relied on inflated estimates that were over fifty times more expensive than comparable prison systems.  The Department’s true cost for providing religious diets—only about $1.50 more per day per prisoner than standard meals—is less than 0.02 percent of its multi-billion-dollar annual budget.

Becket, which has successfully represented or supported religious prisoners in Georgia, Texas, Indiana, and in past Florida cases, has never lost a case concerning a prison system’s denial of religious diets.

“When many faithful prisoners are denied a religious diet, they don’t eat food that violates their faith. They go hungry,” said Blomberg. “Today the court upheld the inherent dignity and rights of every person, especially prisoners.”

On April 22, 2016, Becket filed an amicus brief urging the protection of the inmate’s religious rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket  attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at  [email protected]  or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians  (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Just two days after hearing oral argument, a federal court—relying heavily on Becket Supreme Court victories – ruled late yesterday that the Florida Department of Corrections must allow Jewish prisoners to practice their faith by providing them with kosher meals. Thirty-five states and the federal government already provide kosher diets for prisoners.

Before the court’s ruling, Florida’s Department of Corrections was the only large prison system in the country that insisted it should remain free to refuse to provide kosher meals to observant Jewish prisoners, despite the fact that it already offers a variety of expensive medical diets for its prisoners.

“This is a huge win for Florida’s Jewish prisoners and for every American, because it supports the right to practice faith out of reach of government bureaucrats,” said Diana Verm, legal counsel for Becket, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. “Today, Jewish prisoners in Florida won’t have to go hungry because earlier courts protected the rights of Muslims prisoners to wear beards and Christian families to run their businesses without abandoning their faith.”

Relying on several Becket cases in its opinion, including two Supreme Court cases Holt v. Hobbs and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Court stated that the Department of Corrections must lose because it “fail[ed] to explain why the Department cannot offer kosher meals when the Federal Bureau of Prisons and other states do so”  and “failed to do more than ‘simply utter the magic word “costs.”’” The Court recognized that the Department’s “costs” argument was “but another formulation of the ‘classic rejoinder of bureaucrats throughout history: If I make an exception for you, I’ll have to make one for everybody, so no exceptions.’”

Thirty-five states and the federal government have all managed to balance their budgets while still protecting religious liberty. Indeed, Becket, which has successfully represented or supported Jewish prisoners in Georgia, Texas, Indiana, and in past Florida cases, has never lost a case concerning a prison system’s denial of kosher meals. And here, the cost of providing kosher meals—only about $1.50 more per day per prisoner than standard meals—is estimated to be less than 0.02 percent of the Department’s multi-billion-dollar annual budget.

“When prisoners are allowed to practice their faith, the rate of recidivism drops dramatically, violent incidents are less frequent in prisons, and prisoners maintain their human dignity. As the majority of other states have learned, paying $1.50 a day for kosher meals is well worth the value to prisons and society overall,” said Verm.

Oral argument was heard on Tuesday, July 12. Last year, a federal district court ordered the Department to begin providing kosher meals for all observant Jewish inmates, and Florida appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In March, Becket filed an amicus brief urging the protection of the religious rights of all prisoners. This lawsuit is the first time the U.S. government sued a state prison system under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Throughout the litigation, a diverse array of religious groups have supported kosher meals for Jewish prisoners, including Christians and Hindus.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket  attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at  media@becketlaw.org or 202–349–7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket   is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians  (read more).

Washington, D.C. – Moments ago, the federal government argued to protect Jewish prisoners’ right to worship from Florida bureaucrats, who currently deny kosher meals to Jewish prisoners.

The clear majority of state prisons and the federal government have provided observant Jewish prisoners with kosher meals for many years. Yet Florida’s Department of Corrections is the only large prison system in the country that refuses to provide kosher meals to observant Jewish prisoners, despite the fact that it already offers a variety of more expensive medical diets for its prisoners. The state also ignores the extensive data that shows prisoners allowed to practice their faith while in jail are much less likely to reoffend.

“When prisons refuse to provide kosher meals, many Jewish prisoners don’t eat non-kosher food; they go hungry,” said Daniel Blomberg, legal counsel of Becket, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. “That’s unnecessary, and it’s wrong. Prisoners surrender many of their physical rights at the jailhouse door, but they do not surrender their human dignity.”

The Department claims that providing kosher meals would be too expensive. But the cost of providing kosher meals is less than 0.02 percent of the Department’s annual budget. Further, 35 states and the federal government have all managed to balance their budgets while still protecting religious liberty. The Department has offered no reason why it cannot do the same. And studies show that ensuring prisoners can fully practice their faith reduces both violence in prison and repeat crime outside of prison.

“Allowing prisoners to practice their faith is better for them, better for prisons, and better for society. In other contexts, including within prisons, Florida has successfully defended religious liberty for all. It should do the same here and give up this misguided opposition to kosher diets,” said Blomberg.

Last year, a federal district court ordered the Department to begin providing kosher meals for all observant Jewish inmates, and Florida appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In March, Becket filed an amicus brief urging the protection of the religious rights of all prisoners. This lawsuit is the first time the U.S. government is suing a state prison system under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Throughout the litigation, a diverse array of religious groups have supported kosher meals for Jewish prisoners, including Christians and Hindus.

A Becket attorney is available for comment at the courthouse immediately following the hearing.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket  attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at  [email protected]  or 202.349.7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket   is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians  (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Tomorrow, the federal government will argue that Florida cannot continue denying kosher meals to Jewish prisoners, especially since the vast majority of state prisons and the federal government have provided such meals for many years. Florida claims that providing kosher meals would be too expensive—even though the estimated cost of providing such meals is less than 0.02 percent of its annual budget, and even though studies show that allowing prisoners to practice their faith reduces both violence in prison and repeat crime outside of prison.

Florida is the only large prison system in the country that still insists on denying kosher meals to observant Jewish prisoners, despite the fact that it already provides a variety of more expensive, specialized diets for medical needs of its prisoners. Last year, a federal district court ordered Florida to begin providing kosher meals for all observant Jewish inmates, and Florida appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In March, Becket filed an amicus brief urging the protection of the religious rights of all prisoners. This lawsuit is the first time the U.S. government is suing a state prison system under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

What:
Oral Argument in U.S. v. Florida Department of Corrections

Who:
Daniel Blomberg, legal counsel of amicus Becket

When:
Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. EST

Where:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132

Becket attorneys will be available for comment immediately following the hearing.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket  attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at  [email protected]  or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

Additional Information:

• Amicus Brief (March 2, 2016)
• U.S. v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections Media Kit (Images, press releases, legal docs, news)

###

Becket  is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians  (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Nearly 20 diverse civil rights and religious groups today asked a court to support a community of Muslims in New Jersey who have been trying to build a house of worship for almost a decade (view full coalition list). The mosque met every requirement by the local zoning board and was designed to look like a house to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. But due to local hostility toward Muslims, the permit was denied.

“I came to America almost fifty years ago with a firm belief in the values that America represents, including freedom of religion and equality before the law,” said Mohammad Ali Chaudry, the founding and current president of the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge. “This mosque is part of my American dream. We are overwhelmed by this extraordinary support from so many diverse groups all supporting our position and affirming that Muslims too have the right to worship in Bernards Township.”

Dr. Chaudry is a Pakistani immigrant who has lived with his family in Basking Ridge for nearly 40 years. He has a Ph.D. in economics from Tufts University and is a retired AT&T executive. He has a long history of community engagement, including serving on the town’s board of education and as mayor from 2004 to 2007.

In 2008, Dr. Chaudry began looking for property to build a larger space to hold the Society’s prayer meetings and Sunday school for children. A few years later, Chaudry purchased a 4-acre site zoned for houses of worship and began planning construction. The small, unassuming mosque was designed to fit in with the residential neighborhood, without a traditional dome and with discrete minarets that looked like chimneys. But after the Society filed its application for a permit, what ensued was four years of local bureaucratic quagmire. The Board held a record 39 public hearings during which time the Society faced hostility and vandalism from members of the local community.

“It is a gross misuse of power by the local Planning Board to deny this house of worship simply because it is a mosque,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel of Becket, which filed an amicus brief in support of the Islamic Society. “The town cannot arbitrarily apply different standards to any religious group, be they Jews, Native Americans, Catholics or Muslims, merely because local protesters disapprove of religious beliefs that are new or different.”

In March 2016, the Society sued the town for violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Becket’s amicus brief was joined by a diverse coalition including the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, Center for Islam and Religious Freedom, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Interfaith Coalition on Mosques, International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Muslim Bar Association of New York, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Association of Evangelicals, New Jersey Muslim Lawyers Association, Queens Federation of Churches, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Sikh Coalition, South Asian Bar Association of New Jersey, South Asian Bar Association of New York, and Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey.

Becket was joined by Christopher J. Paolella of the New York law firm Reich & Paolella and Asma Uddin of the Center for Islam and Religious Freedom. The Islamic Society of Basking Ridge and Mr. Chaudry are represented by Adeel A. Mangi of the New York law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at [email protected] or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a friend-of-the-court brief filed today, Becket argued that federal law compels Florida to provide kosher meals to Jewish prisoners. Florida is the only large prison system in the country that still wants to force Jewish prisoners to eat non-kosher food.

“Prisoners surrender many of their physical rights at the jailhouse door, but they do not surrender the fundamental right of conscience,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel at Becket. “Every large prison system in the country provides kosher meals to Jewish prisoners; it is past time for Florida to do the same.”

Florida claims that providing kosher meals is too expensive to be required by federal law. However, at least 35 states and the federal government provide prisoners with kosher meals while remaining within their budgets. Florida also provides a variety of more expensive, specialized diets to meet the medical needs of its prisoners.

Becket has sued Florida over the denial of kosher meals twice—first in 2002, then in 2012. Both times it received a favorable result on behalf of one observant prisoner. This latest lawsuit was filed by the United States on behalf of all observant prisoners. A federal district court ordered Florida to begin providing kosher meals for all observant inmates last year, and Florida has appealed. Today Becket, represented by the global law firm Jones Day, filed an amicus brief urging the protection of the religious rights of all prisoners.

“Protecting religious freedom in prison reduces prison violence and makes prisoners less likely to commit crimes after their release,” said Goodrich. “Forcing Jewish prisoners to violate the centuries-old commands of their faith is the height of bureaucratic foolishness.”

In addition to its successful suits against Florida, Becket has won kosher meal cases against Georgia and Texas, and has assisted in a similar victory against Indiana. Becket has never lost a case when suing a prison system over the denial of kosher meals.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket  attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at  [email protected]  or 202.349.7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

 ###

Becket   is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians  (read more).

Washington, D.C. – Last night, on behalf of a Florida-based Anglican Church, Becket won an important victory reaffirming the rights of religious communities everywhere seeking to build new places of worship.

“Under federal law, churches must be treated on equal terms with other community groups, no worse than the local rotary, school, or movie theater,” said Senior Counsel Hannah Smith of Becket. “If religious freedom means anything, it means being able to grow a community of believers in a permanent physical space suitable for the congregation’s needs.”

In 2013, the Church of Our Savior, an Anglican community located in Jacksonville Beach, Florida, applied for permits to build a new, permanent church to accommodate its growing numbers, but its application was twice denied.

After several years of seeking a place to worship, the Church of Our Savior can now build a new permanent home on Beach Boulevard. The settlement follows a ruling in favor of the church by a Florida district court in 2014. The court held that the church had suffered a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal civil-rights law designed to protect houses of worship from discrimination. Following the settlement agreement and the court’s orders, the church now has the right to proceed with construction.

“We are so thankful to finally be free to build a house of worship in the place we believe God has called us. We are blessed to have had Becket come alongside us in our time of need,” said Reverend David Ball, pastor of the church.

The Church of Our Savior was represented by Daniel Dalton of Dalton & Tomich, Charles Stambaugh of Stambaugh & Associates, and Hannah Smith and Luke Goodrich of Becket. Mr. Dalton and Mr. Stambaugh guided the church through the successful trial and favorable settlement. Becket led litigation at the Eleventh Circuit.

Becket is widely recognized as one of the nation’s leading law firms handling land-use litigation under RLUIPA. Becket successfully represented the plaintiffs in the first case resolved under RLUIPA, Haven Shores Community Church v. City of Grand Haven. Successful RLUIPA land use appeals include Elijah Group, Inc. v. City of Leon Valley, Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, Lighthouse Inst. for Evangelism v. City of Long Branch, and Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at [email protected] or 202.349.7224.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians. Its recent cases include three major Supreme Court victories: the landmark ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and the 9-0 rulings in Holt v. Hobbs and Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, the latter of which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half-century.”

Washington, D.C. – After a scathing Supreme Court decision against the state of Arkansas for not respecting religious freedom, last Thursday a federal district court issued a permanent injunction against the state. Arkansas state agreed to the injunction, which requires the state to allow a prisoner to grow a religiously-mandated beard. Arkansas also changed its religious beard policy to align with the majority of state prison systems. In the Supreme Court decision, Holt v. Hobbs, Justices clearly stated that the government cannot refuse to protect religious freedom on “prison officials’ mere say-so.”

“The Supreme Court decision protects the rights not only of prisoners but of all Americans,” said Eric Rassbach, Deputy General Counsel of Becket. “When we protect the rights of one religious person, we protect all American citizens, religious and non-religious alike.”

Under the settlement approved, Arkansas agreed to a permanent injunction, guaranteeing Mr. Abdul Muhammad’s right to wear a beard. The state also agreed to pay the attorneys’ fees of Douglas Laycock, professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, and Becket, who represent Mr. Muhammad.

“Arkansas did this to itself. It should have done the right thing in the first place. Instead, it spent untold amounts of taxpayer money and state resources fighting against religious rights,” said Rassbach.

In January the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Muhammad has the right to peacefully wear a half-inch beard in accordance with his Muslim faith after the State of Arkansas failed to show that it had a compelling interest to ban beards. Currently more than 43 state, federal, and local prison systems allow beards, and because Arkansas has long allowed beards for medical reasons, the Court held that Arkansas could not discriminate based on an inmate’s religious beliefs.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at  [email protected] or 202.349.7224. 

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including  Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians. Its recent cases include three major Supreme Court victories: the landmark ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and the 9-0 rulings in Holt v. Hobbs and Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, the latter of which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

Washington, D.C. – After spending over a decade arbitrarily trying to deny kosher meals to religious prisoners, the Florida Department of Corrections was ordered by a federal court to provide them. The court, which issued its opinion on April 30, also rejected Florida’s weak arguments regarding budgetary concerns, noting that most major prison systems already offer the meals, and told Florida that it had failed to present any evidence that its prison system was different than any other.

“Federal law protects all Americans from arbitrary restrictions of their religious practice. This includes prisoners,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel of Becket. “Today, there is one less arbitrary restriction on religious freedom.”

The court opinion relied heavily on previous Becket victories, including Rich v. Buss, Moussazadeh v. TDCJ, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling just three months ago in Holt v. Hobbs.

“Prisoners lose many of their physical rights at the jailhouse door, but they do not lose their basic right of conscience,” said Goodrich. “Florida’s own research has shown that protecting religious freedom for prisoners reduces prison violence and saves taxpayers money.”

Becket has sued the state of Florida over its denial of a kosher diet for religiously observant inmates twice—first in 2002, then in 2012. Both times it received a favorable result on behalf of a Jewish prisoner. This latest lawsuit was filed by the United States Department of Justice on behalf of all observant prisoners. In addition to its successful suits against Florida, Becket has won kosher diet cases against Georgia and Texas, and has assisted in a similar victory against Indiana. Becket has never lost a case when suing a prison system over the denial of a kosher diet.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at  [email protected] or 202.349.7224.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians. Its recent cases include three major Supreme Court victories: the landmark ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and the 9-0 rulings in Holt v. Hobbs and Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, the latter of which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

Washington, DC – In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that prison officials cannot arbitrarily ban peaceful religious practices, securing a landmark victory for religious freedom for all faiths. (see video here).

“No religion is an island,” said Eric Rassbach, Deputy General Counsel for Becket for Religious Liberty representing the plaintiff Abdul Muhammad in this case. “This is not just a win for one prisoner in Arkansas, but a win for all Americans who value religious liberty.”

In the case of Holt v. Hobbs, the Court ruled that Mr. Muhammad has the right to peacefully wear a half-inch beard in accordance with his Muslim faith after the State of Arkansas failed to show that it had a compelling interest in banning beards. In light of the fact that more than 43 state, federal, and local prison systems allow beards, and because Arkansas has long allowed beards for medical reasons (see infographic), the Court held that Arkansas could not rely on mere assertions.

The Court said that the law does not permit “unquestioning deference” to prison officials, and that lower courts had wrongly “deferred to [Arkansas] prison officials’ mere say-so.”

The Supreme Court heard the case of Holt v. Hobbs on October 7. At issue was whether the Arkansas prison system’s refusal to allow the peaceful wearing of a half-inch beard violates a federal civil rights law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

“The Court repeated a fundamental American principle today: government doesn’t get to ride roughshod over religious practices,” said Rassbach. “Where government can accommodate religion, it ought to. What’s more, the Court’s unanimous decision today, and the broad-based support among such diverse groups in this case, shows that religious liberty remains one of the central ideals of America that unifies us as a nation.”

A broad range of groups supported Becket’s client, including the United States Government, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Orthodox Union, Sikhs, Hindus and many other religious and civil rights groups.

On June 28, 2011, Mr. Muhammad, representing himself, filed a lawsuit seeking the ability to wear a half-inch beard in accordance with his faith. After losing in federal trial court and in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, he then submitted a handwritten petition for an injunction to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his appeal in full. Mr. Muhammad is represented in this case by Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia School of Law and Becket.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians. Its recent cases include two major Supreme Court victories: the landmark ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and the 9-0 ruling in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

Additional Quotes

The following can be attributed to Eric Rassbach, Deputy General Counsel for Becket, and co-counsel in this case:

This is a huge win for religious freedom and for all Americans. More than 43 prison systems across the country allow prisoners to grow a half-inch beard, and at least 41 prison systems would allow an even longer beard. What the Supreme Court said today was that government officials cannot impose arbitrary restrictions on religious liberty just because they think government knows best.

This is a victory not just for one prisoner in Arkansas, but for every American who believes and wants the freedom to act on those beliefs.

Washington, D.C. – Can prisons ban peaceful religious expression? That was the question before the U.S. Supreme Court this morning as the justices heard oral argument in Holt v. Hobbs.

At issue is whether the Arkansas prison system’s refusal to allow the peaceful wearing of a half-inch beard violates a federal civil rights law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

“Arkansas already allows inmates to grow beards for medical reasons, and a half-inch beard is permissible in over 40 state and federal prison systems,” said Hannah Smith, Senior Counsel for Becket representing Mr. Muhammad. “This is precisely the kind of religious exercise Congress meant to protect when it passed RLUIPA.”

A broad range of groups support Becket’s client, including the U.S. Government, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Orthodox Union, Sikhs, Hindus and other religious and civil rights groups.

“The broad-based support among such diverse groups in this case shows that religious liberty remains one of the unifying ideals of America,” said Smith. “Under federal law, prison officials cannot impose unnecessary restrictions on religious liberty. While prisoners do surrender many rights at the jailhouse door, they do not surrender the fundamental right of conscience.”

On June 28, 2011, Mr. Muhammad, representing himself, filed a lawsuit seeking the ability to wear a half-inch beard in accordance with his faith. After losing in federal trial court and in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, he then submitted a handwritten petition for an injunction to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his appeal in full. Today Mr. Muhammad was represented by Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia School of Law and Becket.

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians. Its recent cases include two major Supreme Court victories: the landmark ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and the 9-0 ruling in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

###

For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys handling this case, please contact  Melinda Skea, [email protected], 202.349.7224.

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the landmark prisoner religious liberty case of Holt v. Hobbs on October 7, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. EST (see video). Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia School of Law and Becket for Religious Liberty represent Mr. Abdul Muhammad, an Arkansas inmate who has been denied the ability to grow a half-inch beard in accordance with his Muslim faith. At issue is whether the state prison system’s refusal to allow Mr. Muhammad’s peaceful religious expression violates a federal civil rights law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

Who:
Professor Douglas Laycock, University of Virginia School of Law and Hannah Smith, Senior Counsel for Becket

What:
Oral Argument for Holt v. Hobbs (see video)

When:
October 7, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.

Where:
The U.S. Supreme Court, 1 First St NE, Washington, DC 20543

Becket attorneys will be available for comment immediately following the argument outside the Supreme Court.  For more information or to arrange an interview with an attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at [email protected] or 202.349.7224.

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians. Its recent cases include two major Supreme Court victories: the landmark ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and the 9-0 ruling in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

###

Washington D.C. – Today, in a significant victory for religious freedom, a Tennessee mosque voluntarily dropped its lawsuit after winning the right to meet at its newly built mosque. This puts an end to the two-year-old legal dispute over the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, which has been represented by Becket.

“We are delighted that the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro can put this dispute behind it and is now free to meet,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel at Becket. “Today is a triumph for religious liberty and for people of all faiths. No house of worship should be kept from meeting just because a handful of neighbors dislike their religious beliefs.”

The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has been part of the Murfreesboro community for over thirty years. In 2010, the Islamic Center began building a new mosque to accommodate its growing congregation. Unfortunately, its efforts were met with hostile protests from a small group of local residents who claimed that the congregation was threatening solely because of its Muslim religious beliefs. Hostility toward the mosque culminated in acts of vandalism, arson, and even a bomb threat, which resulted in a federal indictment.

In June 2012, opponents of the mosque sued Rutherford County, alleging that the County should not have given approval for construction of the mosque. A local Chancery Court judge ruled in favor of the mosque opponents, concluding that county approval of the mosque was subject to a heightened legal standard when compared with other houses of worship, due to the “tremendous public interest” surrounding the mosque.

In July 2012, Becket filed a separate lawsuit on behalf of the mosque in Nashville federal court, arguing that subjecting the Murfreesboro mosque to a different legal standard than a Christian church violated the federal Constitution and civil rights laws. The case was heard the day before the start of Ramadan—the holiest month in the Muslim calendar—and Chief Judge Todd Campbell issued a temporary restraining order requiring the County to conduct the inspection process and grant a certificate of occupancy for the mosque as it would for any other house of worship.In support of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, over 100 religious leaders from a wide variety of faith traditions signed an open letter  calling for equal treatment of the mosque. And on August 10, 2012, the mosque was able to use its new building for the first time.

Ultimately, Rutherford County appealed the initial decision from the Chancery Court, and the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled in the county’s favor, concluding that approval of the mosque was appropriate. The Tennessee Supreme Court declined to review the case, and the U.S. Supreme Court did the same.With all of the state-court lawsuits fully dismissed, all parties agreed that the mosque’s 2012 lawsuit was now moot and could be voluntarily dismissed. The federal court dismissed the suit today.

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians. Its recent cases include two major Supreme Court victories: the landmark ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and the 9-0 ruling in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Melinda Skea at  [email protected] or call 202.349.7224.

###

Washington D.C. – Today, in a significant victory for religious freedom, the Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit attempting to shut down a Tennessee mosque, ending a two-year-old legal fight. The ruling preserves an earlier victory gained by Becket, and ensures that the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro is free to continue meeting at its newly built mosque.

“Today marks a triumph not just for the Muslims of Murfreesboro, but for people of all faiths. No house of worship should be kept from meeting just because the neighbors dislike their religious beliefs,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel at Becket.

The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has been part of the Murfreesboro community for over thirty years. In 2010, the Islamic Center began building a new mosque to accommodate its growing congregation. Unfortunately, its efforts were met with hostile protests from a small group of local residents who claimed that the congregation was threatening solely because of its Muslim religious beliefs. Hostility toward the mosque culminated in acts of vandalism, arson, and even a bomb threat, which resulted in a federal indictment.In June 2012, opponents of the mosque sued Rutherford County, alleging that the County should not have given approval for construction of the mosque. A local Chancery Court judge ruled in favor of the mosque opponents, concluding that county approval of the mosque was subject to a heightened legal standard when compared with other houses of worship, due to the “tremendous public interest” surrounding the mosque.

In July 2012, Becket filed a separate lawsuit on behalf of the mosque in federal court, arguing that subjecting the Murfreesboro mosque to a different legal standard than a Christian church violated the federal Constitution and civil rights laws. The case was heard the day before the start of Ramadan—the holiest month in the Muslim calendar—and Chief Judge Todd Campbell issued a temporary restraining order requiring the County to conduct the inspection process and grant a certificate of occupancy for the mosque as it would for any other house of worship.In support of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, over 100 religious leaders from a wide variety of faith traditions signed an open letter  calling for equal treatment of the mosque. And on August 10, 2012, the mosque was able to use its new building for the first time. Ultimately, Rutherford County appealed the initial decision from the Chancery Court, and the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled in the county’s favor, concluding that approval of the mosque was appropriate. The Tennessee Supreme Court declined to review the case, and today the U.S. Supreme Court did the same, putting an end to the attempt to shut down the mosque.

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. For 18 years its attorneys have been recognized as experts in the field of church-state law. Becket recently won a 9-0 victory in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”    For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Melinda Skea at  [email protected] or call 202.349.7224.

###

Washington D.C. – More than 50 groups, including religious denominations, the American Civil Liberties Union, other civil rights groups, as well as prison security experts, are submitting friend-of-the-court briefs to the United States Supreme Court in support of Abdul Muhammad, an Arkansas inmate who has been denied the ability to grow a half-inch beard in accordance with his Muslim faith.

Becket and Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia School of Law represent Mr. Muhammad in Holt v. Hobbs, No. 13-6827, which will be argued to the Court in the fall. Submission of friend-of-the-court briefs is expected to take place today and conclude at midnight tonight.At issue is whether the Arkansas prison system’s refusal to allow Mr. Muhammad’s peaceful wearing of a half-inch beard violates a federal civil rights law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

“The across-the-board support for Mr. Muhammad shows that religious liberty remains one of the bedrock ideals of America,” said Eric Rassbach, Deputy General Counsel for Becket. “Whether we treat prisoners with basic human dignity—including the freedom to seek God—speaks volumes about who we are as a Nation.”

In 2000, President Clinton signed RLUIPA with unanimous Congressional support to stop arbitrary restrictions on prisoners’ religious practices, promote prison security, and lower recidivism rates. That broad-based support is reflected in the filings today, which include Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Sikh, and Hindu religious organizations, as well as civil rights organizations, former prisoners, former prison wardens, and prison security experts. Among those filing are the Nation’s Catholic bishops, the ACLU, Orthodox Jewish organizations such as Orthodox Union and Agudath Israel, the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Missions Board, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Women’s Prison Association.

“Over 40 state and federal prison systems would allow Mr. Muhammad’s beard,” stated Rassbach. “And if they can do it Arkansas can, too. That’s especially the case since Arkansas already allows beards for medical reasons.”

On June 28, 2011, Mr. Muhammad, representing himself, filed a lawsuit seeking the ability to wear a half-inch beard in accordance with his faith. Mr. Muhammad lost in federal trial court and in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. He then  submitted a handwritten petition  for an injunction to the Supreme Court. Justice Alito read the petition and sent it to the entire Court for decision, and the Court granted the petition. On March 3, 2014, the Supreme Court said that it would hear his appeal in full. Oral argument is expected in October or November 2014. Becket filed Mr. Muhammad’s opening brief on May 22.

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. For20years its attorneys have been recognized as experts in the field of church-state law. Becket recently won a 9-0 victory in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”    For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Melinda Skea at  [email protected]  or call 202.349.7210.

###

Washington D.C. – Today, Becket and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) jointly filed a friend-of-the-court brief criticizing the State of Florida for refusing to provide a kosher diet to Jewish prisoners. Florida is the only large prison system in the country that still denies a kosher diet to Jews.

“Prisoners surrender many of their physical rights at the jailhouse door, but they do not surrender the fundamental right of conscience,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel at Becket. “Bureaucratic stubbornness should not prevent a small number of prisoners from peacefully following the centuries-old commands of Judaism.”

Becket has sued Florida over the denial of a kosher diet twice—first in 2002, then in 2012. Both times it received a favorable result on behalf of one observant prisoner. This latest lawsuit was filed by the United States on behalf of all observant prisoners. A federal district court ordered Florida to begin providing a kosher diet for all observant inmates no later than July 1, 2014, and Florida has appealed.

In its appeal, Florida claims that a kosher diet is too expensive to be required by federal law. However, at least thirty-five states and the federal government maintain kosher diets without problems of cost. Moreover, from 2004 to 2007, Florida itself provided a Jewish dietary program that cost only a fraction of one percent of its annual food budget.

“States as diverse as California, New York, and Texas already provide Jewish inmates with kosher food. It is only a matter of time before Florida is required to do the same,” added Goodrich.

In addition to its successful suits against Florida, Becket has won kosher diet cases against Georgia and Texas, and has assisted in a similar victory against Indiana. Becket has never lost a case when suing a prison system over the denial of a kosher diet.

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. For 18 years its attorneys have been recognized as experts in the field of church-state law. Becket recently won a 9-0 victory in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact  Melinda Skea at [email protected] or call 202.349.7210.

Washington, D.C. – Today, an Orthodox Jewish prison inmate ended his four-year-old lawsuit seeking a kosher diet, thanks to a recent court ruling requiring Florida to provide all Jewish prison inmates with a kosher diet. Florida is the only remaining major prison system objecting to providing kosher meals to observant Jewish prisoners.

“This is a major victory for religious freedom,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel at Becket. “Florida is finally being ordered to join 35 other states and the federal government in protecting the rights of Jewish prisoners.”

Bruce Rich was born and raised in an Orthodox Jewish household. Since his incarceration, the Florida Department of Corrections has denied him a kosher diet, citing alleged cost and security concerns. Becket represented Mr. Rich, arguing that the denial of a kosher diet violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act because it forces him to choose between his religious practice and adequate nutrition.

In May of 2013, Mr. Rich won a major victory in the Eleventh Circuit, which ruled that “the evidence submitted by the [Florida Department of Corrections] on summary judgment in support of its position is insubstantial.” As the court noted, at least thirty-five states and the federal government currently provide kosher diets without problems of cost or security. In light of this evidence, the Eleventh Circuit held that the Department of Corrections made only “meager efforts to explain why Florida’s prisons are so different from the penal institutions that now provide kosher meals such that the plans adopted by those other institutions would not work in Florida.”

After Mr. Rich filed his lawsuit, the United States Department of Justice filed a parallel lawsuit making the same claims against Florida. In response to the United States’ lawsuit, on December 6, 2013, a federal court ordered Florida to begin providing a kosher diet to all Jewish inmates in the state. The ruling relies on Mr. Rich’s victory at the 11^th Circuit, and orders Florida to begin providing kosher meals no later than July 1, 2014. In response to this ruling, Mr. Rich voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit, effective today.

“It’s too bad that it took multiple lawsuits for Florida to do what it should be doing anyway—allow Jewish prisoners to follow Judaism,” added Goodrich. “Prisons should not be faith-free zones.”

In addition to winning Mr. Rich’s appeal at the 11^th Circuit, Becket won a previous kosher diet case against Florida, kosher diet cases against Georgia and Texas, and assisted in a similar victory against Indiana. Becket has never lost a case when suing a prison system over the denial of a kosher diet.

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. For 19 years its attorneys have been recognized as experts in the field of church-state law. Becket recently won a 9-0 Supreme Court victory in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

###

Washington, DC — Today the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted a major victory to a Jewish prison inmate who is seeking to receive a kosher diet in accordance with his religious beliefs.

“Today’s decision is a great victory for human rights and religious liberty,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel at Becket. “Even prisoners retain basic human rights, and the state cannot sacrifice those rights on the altar of bureaucratic convenience.”

The plaintiff in the case is Bruce Rich, an Orthodox Jewish prison inmate who has been denied kosher food by the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) for many years. In 2010, he filed a lawsuit alleging that the denial of a kosher diet violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, because it forces Mr. Rich to choose between his religious practice and adequate nutrition. A federal district court dismissed his lawsuit in 2012, but Becket took on the case free of charge and filed an appeal.

“Prisoners surrender many of their physical rights at the jailhouse door, but they do not surrender the fundamental right of conscience,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel at Becket. “Bureaucratic stubbornness should not prevent a handful of prisoners from peacefully following the centuries-old commands of Judaism.”

In the appeal, the DOC argued that denying a kosher diet was necessary in order to control costs and maintain security. However, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that “the evidence submitted by the [DOC] on summary judgment in support of its position is insubstantial.” Moreover, at least thirty-five states and the federal government currently provide kosher diets without problems of cost or security. In light of this evidence, the Eleventh Circuit held that the DOC made only “meager efforts to explain why Florida’s prisons are so different from the penal institutions that now provide kosher meals such that the plans adopted by those other institutions would not work in Florida.”

The case will now be remanded to federal district court for further proceedings. At the same time, the DOC is facing a parallel lawsuit by the United States Department of Justice over the same policy of denying kosher food.

At issue in both cases is the scope of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), a federal civil rights law that was passed unanimously by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The law protects both the religious exercise of prisoners, and the freedom of religious organizations to use land for religious purposes. Becket filed the nation’s first lawsuit under RLUIPA, and has been involved in hundreds of RLUIPA lawsuits since then—including scores of lawsuits protecting churches, and two lawsuits that forced prison systems in Georgia and Texas to begin providing kosher diets.

Eighteen different organizations filed five separate amicus briefs supporting Mr. Rich’s appeal. The amici represented a broad array of Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and nonreligious groups, including the ACLU, the National Association of Evangelicals, the American Jewish Committee, Aleph Institute, the Rabbinical Council of America, and the Hindu American Foundation.

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. For 18 years its attorneys have been recognized as experts in the field of church-state law. Becket recently won a 9-0 victory in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

###

For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Melinda Skea at [email protected] or call 202.349.7224.

Washington, DC — After seven years of litigation, a Jewish prison inmate in Texas today won a major victory in his quest to receive a kosher diet in accordance with his religious beliefs. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Max Moussazadeh has a sincere religious belief in keeping a kosher diet, that Texas burdened his religious beliefs by denying him kosher food, and that the lower court should decide whether Texas can prove that it has a “compelling interest” in maintaining its current policies. The court stated that “we are skeptical” that the state’s desire to cut costs would pass legal muster.

“Today’s decision is a great victory for human rights and religious liberty,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel at Becket Law. “Even prisoners retain their human rights, and the state cannot sacrifice those rights on the altar of bureaucratic convenience.”

Currently, at least thirty-five states and the federal government provide a kosher diet to all observant Jewish inmates. Texas is one of the few remaining holdouts. It estimates that the cost of feeding all observant Jewish inmates in its prison system would be less than 0.02% of its annual food budget.

“If thirty-five states and the federal government can provide kosher diets to all of their observant Jewish inmates, there is no reason Texas cannot do the same,” said Goodrich.

After Becket filed suit, together with megafirm Latham & Watkins, LLP, Texas established a “kosher kitchen” at one of its prison facilities and began providing a kosher diet. But it still denies kosher food to Jewish inmates who are transferred away from that facility. Becket is also fighting a similar lawsuit against the State of Florida.

Both lawsuits center on a federal civil rights law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). The law protects not only prisoners but also religious land uses—such as religious schools, soup kitchens, and houses of worship. Becket has won numerous cases under RLUIPA defending a wide variety of religious expression across the country.

###

Becket Law is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. For 18 years its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law.  For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Melinda Skea at [email protected] or call 202.349.7224.

WASHINGTON, DC – A heated legal fight over Jewish prisoners’ access to kosher food will be heard when the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit hears oral argument Monday, October 1 in New Orleans, Louisiana. Becket Law and the law firm Latham & Watkins LLP are representing Max Moussazadeh, an observant Jew in the Texas prison system.  They will argue that the restriction violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

Although thirty-five states and the federal government provide Jewish inmates with a kosher diet, Texas has refused to provide a kosher diet to Moussazadeh, despite the minimal cost, which is less than 0.02% of its annual food budget.  There is mounting evidence that efforts to accommodate prisoners’ religious beliefs reduce violence and recidivism.

WHAT:   Oral arguments begin in Moussazadeh v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

WHO: Anne Robinson of Latham & Watkins LLP will argue for Moussazadeh, before Fifth Circuit judges Carolyn Dineen King, Jerry E. Smith, and Rhesa H. Barksdale

WHEN:  Monday, October 1, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.

WHERE:  Room 223 of the John Minor Wisdom United States Court of Appeals Building, 600 Camp Street, New Orleans, LA

Becket Law is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. Becket has a 17-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths. Its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law, and they recently won a 9-0 victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

###

Washington D.C. – Today, in a great victory for religious freedom, the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, will be able to use its newly built mosque for prayer for the first time. The Murfreesboro mosque has faced opposition from a small group of local residents, who filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the mosque from being used. But on July 18th, after lawsuits filed by Becket Law and the United States Department of Justice, a federal court ruled in the mosque’s favor, concluding that the mosque was entitled to a certificate of occupancy on the same terms as any other house of worship.

“Today marks a triumph not just for the Muslims of Murfreesboro, but for people of all faiths. No house of worship should be kept from meeting just because the neighbors dislike their religious beliefs,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel at Becket.

The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has been part of the Murfreesboro community for over thirty years. In 2010, the Islamic Center began building a new mosque to accommodate its growing congregation. Its efforts were unfortunately met with hostile protests from a small group of local residents who claimed that the congregation was threatening solely because of its Muslim religious beliefs. Hostility toward the mosque culminated in acts of vandalism, arson, and even a bomb threat, which resulted in a federal indictment

In June 2012, opponents of the mosque brought suit in court, claiming, among other things, that Islam is not a religion and the mosque, therefore, lacks protection under the First Amendment. Dismissing these claims, the local Chancery Court judge nonetheless ruled that county approval of the mosque was subject to a heightened legal standard when compared with other houses of worship, due to the “tremendous public interest” surrounding the mosque.

In July, Becket Law filed suit on behalf of the mosque in federal court, arguing that subjecting the Murfreesboro mosque to a different legal standard than a Christian church violates the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution, as well as a federal civil rights statute, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The case was heard the day before the start of Ramadan—the holiest month in the Muslim calendar—and Chief Judge Todd Campbell issued a temporary restraining order requiring the County to conduct the inspection process and grant a certificate of occupancy for the mosque as it would for any other house of worship.

On Tuesday, the Mosque passed inspection and received a temporary occupancy permit, in time for the end of Ramadan, on August 18th.

“We now celebrate this ruling—not as a victory for our congregation, nor as a victory for American Muslims, but as a victory for the American Constitution,” said Dr. Ossama Bahloul, the imam of the Islamic Center.  “Part of what makes our nation great is that we protect religious freedom for all—Muslim, Christian, Jew, and others.”

In support of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, over 100 religious leaders from a wide variety of faith traditions have signed an open letter calling for equal treatment of the mosque.

In addition to Becket, the Islamic Center is represented by George Barrett of the Nashville law firm Barrett Johnston, LLC.

Becket Law is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. For 18 years its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law, and they recently won a 9-0 victory in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

###

For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Melinda Skea at [email protected] or call 202.349.7224.

WASHINGTON, DC  – Yesterday, Becket Law filed an appeal on behalf of Bruce Rich, an Orthodox Jewish prison inmate who has been denied a kosher diet by the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC). Becket is arguing that denial of kosher food violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000(RLUIPA), because it forces Rich to choose between his religious practice and adequate nutrition.

“Prisoners surrender many of their physical rights at the jailhouse door, but they do not surrender the fundamental right of conscience,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel at Becket Law. “Bureaucratic stubbornness should not prevent a handful of prisoners from peacefully following the centuries-old commands of Judaism.”

The DOC claims that it is denying a kosher diet in order to control costs and maintain security. However, at least thirty-five states and the federal government currently provide kosher diets without problems of cost or security. Moreover, from 2004 to 2007, the DOC provided a Jewish dietary program that cost only a fraction of one percent of its annual food budget and did not result in any security problems. It canceled kosher diets in 2007 against the advice of special commission appointed to study the issue.

“If states as diverse as California, New York, and Texas can provide Jewish inmates with kosher food, Florida can do the same. It’s not that difficult,” added Goodrich.

After Becket filed its opening brief, eighteen different organizations filed five amicus briefs supporting Mr. Rich. The amici represent a broad array of Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and nonreligious groups, including the ACLU, the National Association of Evangelicals, the American Jewish Committee, Aleph Institute, the Rabbinical Council of America, and the Hindu American Foundation.

Florida’s response to the appeal is currently due August 31, 2012. A decision in the case could come later this year.

###

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, in a major victory for religious liberty, Chief Judge Todd Campbell of the Nashville federal district court ruled that Rutherford County, Tennessee must allow the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro in Murfreesboro, Tennessee to complete the inspection process so it can use its mosque building in time for the religious holiday of Ramadan. Judge Campbell issued a temporary restraining order at the request of the mosque’s lawyers at Becket Law. Becket Deputy General Counsel Luke Goodrich argued the mosque’s case in Nashville federal court, along with attorneys from the Department of Justice. The court’s decision opens the door for the mosque to celebrate the Muslim holiday of Ramadan in their mosque building; Ramadan begins at sundown on Thursday, July 19.

“The bottom line is: the full expression of religious liberty is the public interest here,” said Judge Campbell from the bench.

The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has been part of the Murfreesboro community for over thirty years. In 2010, the Islamic Center began building a new mosque to accommodate its growing congregation. Its efforts were unfortunately met with hostile protests from a small group of local residents who claimed that the congregation was threatening solely because of its Muslim religious beliefs. Among other things, these anti-mosque protestors made the absurd claim that Islam is not a religion and that the mosque, therefore, lacks protection under the First Amendment. Hostility toward the mosque culminated in acts of vandalism, arson, and even a bomb threat, which resulted in a federal indictment.

“This is a great victory not just for the Muslims of Murfreesboro, but for people of all faiths. No house of worship should be kept from meeting just because the neighbors don’t like their religious beliefs,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel at Becket. “The First Amendment prevailed today, and we are all the better for it.”

In June of 2012, a local Chancery Court judge ruled that county approval of the mosque was subject to a heightened legal standard when compared with other houses of worship, due to the “tremendous public interest” surrounding the mosque. As Becket’s request points out, subjecting the mosque to a different legal standard than a Christian church violates the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution, as well as a federal civil rights statute, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

“The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro is delighted by the judge’s decision,” said Dr. Ossama Bahloul, the imam of the Islamic Center. “We are thankful that Becket was able to find justice for us in the federal courts. We look forward to celebrating Ramadan with our neighbors.”

In support of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, over 100 religious leaders from a wide variety of faith traditions have signed an open letter calling for equal treatment of the mosque. The U.S. Department of Justice has also filed a parallel federal lawsuit in support of the mosque.

In addition to The Becket Fund, the Islamic Center is represented by George Barrett of the Nashville law firm Barrett Johnston, LLC.

*UPDATE: July 19, 2012, 12:41pm EST

The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has released the following statement:

 We learned this morning that there are several more steps that need to be completed to obtain our final certificate of occupancy, and that these steps will take perhaps 10 days to complete. The mosque is committed to complying with the building code just like any other building, and we will be moving quickly to bring that process to completion. We are happy that because of yesterday’s ruling this building inspection process, which is normal for all buildings, is now able to go forward to completion. It is unfortunate that we cannot be in our building for the start of Ramadan tonight. However, it does look like we will get to enjoy most of Ramadan in our building, especially the breaking of the fast at the end of Ramadan, on Eid-ul-Fitr. The children are very excited to get to use our new building to celebrate Ramadan.

We also want to say thank you to all of the well-wishers from around Tennessee and the entire nation. We have been overwhelmed by the outpouring of support. We also want to thank our attorneys at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Mr. George Barrett, as well as the U.S. Attorney Jerry Martin and the Department of Justice, for helping us obtain our rights.

Becket Law is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. For 18 years its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law, and they recently won a 9-0 victory in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.

For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Melinda Skea at [email protected] or call 202.349.7224.

###

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Becket Law, on behalf of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, has filed a request for a temporary restraining order in federal district court in Nashville, requesting that the Islamic Center be permitted to use its newly built mosque in time for the religious holiday of Ramadan. Ramadan begins at sundown on Thursday, July 19, and a decision on the lawsuit is expected within a day.

The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has been part of the Murfreesboro community for over thirty years. In 2010, the Islamic Center began building a new mosque to accommodate its growing congregation. Its efforts were unfortunately met with hostile protests from a small group of local residents who claimed that the congregation was threatening solely because of its Muslim religious beliefs. Among other things, these anti-mosque protestors made the absurd claim that Islam is not a religion and that the mosque therefore lacks protection under the First Amendment. Hostility toward the mosque culminated in acts of vandalism, arson, and even a bomb threat, which resulted in a federal indictment.

“No congregation should have its right of religious liberty curtailed solely because some of its neighbors disapprove of its religious beliefs,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel at Becket. “No religion is an island. When the rights of one faith are abridged, the rights of all faiths are threatened. All faiths have the right to worship God in freedom and in peace.”

In June of 2012, a local Chancery Court judge ruled that county approval of the mosque was subject to a heightened legal standard when compared with other houses of worship, due to the “tremendous public interest” surrounding the mosque. As Becket’s request for a temporary restraining order points out, subjecting the mosque to a different legal standard than a Christian church violates the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution, as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

“The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro looks forward to continuing to worship alongside our neighbors in peace, as we have done for over thirty years,” said Dr. Ossama Bahloul, the imam of the Islamic Center. “We have avoided litigation as long as we possibly could. But this lawsuit appeared to be the only way we could use our new mosque by the start of Ramadan. We hope the court will uphold the right of religious liberty for all, which is part of what makes this country so great.”

In support of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, over 100 religious leaders from a wide variety of faith traditions have signed an open letter calling for equal treatment of the mosque. The U.S. Department of Justice has also filed a federal lawsuit in support of the mosque.

In addition to Becket, the Islamic Center is represented by George Barrett of the Nashville law firm Barrett Johnston, LLC.

Becket Law is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. For 18 years its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law, and they recently won a 9-0 victory in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

 For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Melinda Skea at [email protected] or call 202.349.7224.

Washington, D.C. – Today, Becket and a Christian church in Texas scored a huge victory for religious freedom.

After five years of litigation, the Elijah Group, an evangelical Christian church in Leon Valley, Texas, has finally gained the right to use its building for worship without discrimination from the city government. The settlement follows a unanimous ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which said that the city violated federal law by discriminating against the church. Under the settlement agreement, the city must allow the church to meet and must pay $250,000 in legal fees.

“Finally, after five long years, our church has a permanent home in Leon Valley,” said Pastor Darryl Crain, pastor of the church. “We are so glad that Becket stepped in and took our appeal.”

The case began in 2007 when the Elijah Group tried to buy a church building located within a retail zone. Although the building had been used as a church for over a decade, the city of Leon Valley refused. Desiring to increase its tax revenues, the city had recently revised its zoning code to exclude religious assemblies from retail zones—even while allowing many secular assemblies, such as auditoriums, convention centers, theaters, and private clubs.  Thus, Leon Valley allowed the Elijah Group to move its daycare and administrative offices to its new home, but it prohibited the church from gathering for worship.

Represented by Becket, the Elijah Group sued the city, arguing that the zoning code violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal civil-rights law which prohibits cities from discriminating against churches. The Fifth Circuit unanimously agreed—ultimately leading to today’s settlement.

“Federal law is clear: Cities cannot treat churches worse than the local Elks lodge, convention center, or movie theater down the street,” said Luke Goodrich, the attorney who argued the appeal before the Fifth Circuit. “The right of religious freedom includes the right to gather on property for worship and other religious activities.”

Becket Law is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. Becket has a 17-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths. Its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law, and they recently won a 9-0 victory against the federal government at the U.S. Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.

For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Melinda Skea at [email protected] or call 202.349.7224.