Click image to left for actual judgment amount and link below for the whole decision.Connecticut
Christian man free to share faith in New Haven without fear of arrest
Police threatened man because he was ‘annoying’
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
HARTFORD, Conn. — The city of New Haven has agreed to a court order, issued Monday, that will allow a man to resume expressing his Christian faith on public sidewalks. In 2005, Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit against the New Haven Police Department after officers threatened to arrest the man for “annoying” passersby.
“Christians shouldn’t be penalized for expressing their beliefs,” said ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “Police cannot silence citizens because they or others think are ‘annoying.’ All Americans are free to peacefully exercise their First Amendment right to free speech on a public sidewalk. Those rights must be protected, or we’re all in trouble.”
On May 16, 2004, Jesse Morrell attempted to express his faith on four different public ways in downtown New Haven. At no time did he attempt to touch, harass, or block anyone, nor did he attempt to block any public rights-of-way.
On each occasion, a New Haven Police Department officer informed Morrell that he would be arrested if he did not stop speaking. The officers stated that patrons complained about his “preaching” and that his speech was “annoying,” and therefore in violation of the local noise ordinance. Fearing that he would be arrested, Morrell left the New Haven area and has not returned.
The consent order was issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut in Morrell v. City of New Haven."
New York
Clean sweep for NY church in settlement with Broome Community College
College scraps discriminatory policy prohibiting use of facilities for religious purposes
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
“Christians shouldn’t be penalized for expressing their beliefs,” said ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “Police cannot silence citizens because they or others think are ‘annoying.’ All Americans are free to peacefully exercise their First Amendment right to free speech on a public sidewalk. Those rights must be protected, or we’re all in trouble.”
On May 16, 2004, Jesse Morrell attempted to express his faith on four different public ways in downtown New Haven. At no time did he attempt to touch, harass, or block anyone, nor did he attempt to block any public rights-of-way.
On each occasion, a New Haven Police Department officer informed Morrell that he would be arrested if he did not stop speaking. The officers stated that patrons complained about his “preaching” and that his speech was “annoying,” and therefore in violation of the local noise ordinance. Fearing that he would be arrested, Morrell left the New Haven area and has not returned.
The consent order was issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut in Morrell v. City of New Haven."
New York
Clean sweep for NY church in settlement with Broome Community College
College scraps discriminatory policy prohibiting use of facilities for religious purposes
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
BINGHAMTON, N.Y. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys have reached a favorable settlement agreement with Broome Community College on behalf of North Pointe Church, which is now allowed equal access to campus facilities after being told it was no longer permitted to meet on campus. ADF attorneys filed suit in February over the school’s discriminatory policy prohibiting religious groups from renting its buildings for meetings while allowing other similarly situated community groups to do so.
“Churches shouldn’t be discriminated against for their beliefs,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Daniel Blomberg. “We are pleased that Broome Community College now recognizes the constitutional right of churches and other religious groups to meet in public meeting facilities on the same terms as other groups.”
North Pointe Church had been regularly holding meetings in a rented facility on the Broome Community College campus for several months. But college officials invoked a ban on “religious services” and barred the church from continuing to rent space there after a few members of the public complained to the college about a church meeting in a public facility.
ADF attorneys, along with local counsel Raymond Dague of Syracuse, filed North Pointe Church v. Moppert with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of NewYork, arguing that churches have equal access to public facilities under the law and cannot be discriminated against because of the religious nature of their meetings--especially as paying customers.
In March, just days after the filing, the college stated in court that it would be closing its facilities to everyone on weekends because of financial constraints that made it cheaper to simply close the buildings; however, later evidence revealed that Broome’s buildings actually remained open on the weekends for other uses.
Barred from using the campus, the church searched for and found another location at which to meet during the ongoing litigation and plans to continue meeting at its new location now that it has already moved. However, the change in the Broome policy removes an unconstitutional barrier for any church that wishes to meet on the campus on equal terms with other groups in the future.
ADF attorneys filed a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit with the court Tuesday in light of the settlement, in which the college also agreed to reimburse legal fees and costs."
Court order to purge religious displays from part of church-run store reversed
Federal judge had ordered removal of Christian elements because store contained contract postal sub-station
Thursday, August 20, 2009
“Churches shouldn’t be discriminated against for their beliefs,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Daniel Blomberg. “We are pleased that Broome Community College now recognizes the constitutional right of churches and other religious groups to meet in public meeting facilities on the same terms as other groups.”
North Pointe Church had been regularly holding meetings in a rented facility on the Broome Community College campus for several months. But college officials invoked a ban on “religious services” and barred the church from continuing to rent space there after a few members of the public complained to the college about a church meeting in a public facility.
ADF attorneys, along with local counsel Raymond Dague of Syracuse, filed North Pointe Church v. Moppert with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of NewYork, arguing that churches have equal access to public facilities under the law and cannot be discriminated against because of the religious nature of their meetings--especially as paying customers.
In March, just days after the filing, the college stated in court that it would be closing its facilities to everyone on weekends because of financial constraints that made it cheaper to simply close the buildings; however, later evidence revealed that Broome’s buildings actually remained open on the weekends for other uses.
Barred from using the campus, the church searched for and found another location at which to meet during the ongoing litigation and plans to continue meeting at its new location now that it has already moved. However, the change in the Broome policy removes an unconstitutional barrier for any church that wishes to meet on the campus on equal terms with other groups in the future.
ADF attorneys filed a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit with the court Tuesday in light of the settlement, in which the college also agreed to reimburse legal fees and costs."
Court order to purge religious displays from part of church-run store reversed
Federal judge had ordered removal of Christian elements because store contained contract postal sub-station
Thursday, August 20, 2009
NEW YORK — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has reversed a federal judge’s order to remove all religious displays from a church-run contract postal unit in Manchester, Conn. The court provided certain minimal guidelines for the church-run store to follow but ruled that it does not have to cleanse its facility of its Christian elements.
“Private Christian entities shouldn’t be censored for displaying information about their own religious ministries, on their own properties, simply because they participate in contracts with the government,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeff Shafer. “We’re pleased that the 2nd Circuit agreed that the First Amendment does not call for a wholesale religious cleansing of the church’s speech from its own facility.”
The judges for the 2nd Circuit wrote in the opinion that they “require no more than that the postal counter be free of religious material, and that visual cues distinguish the space operating as a postal facility from the space functioning as purely private property.... [T]he removal of all religious messages would render the premises a single-use post office, and would prevent the second legitimate use to which the premises are dedicated.... For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is vacated....”
A customer, Bertram Cooper, sued the U.S. Postal Service and the Manchester, Conn., postmaster for allegedly violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Cooper argued that religious signs, literature, prayer cards, and other materials inside a contract provider store--privately owned and operated by the Full Gospel Interdenominational Church--constitutes a government endorsement of religion.
At a hearing before the 2nd Circuit in March, Shafer argued that a federal district court in Connecticut should not have ruled that the church-owned postal store, named Sincerely Yours, Inc., is a government entity, but rather a private entity that should not have its speech about its own ministries censored within its own facility. The USPS awarded the store a contract to sell postal services to the local community in 2001. The USPS commonly awards such contracts to spare the government the expense and responsibility of maintaining a facility and staff of its own and to allow a greater geographic distribution of locations from which postal services may be purchased.
Sincerely Yours has operated since 2002 as a private business on its own private property, with signs and other indicators in several locations throughout its facility informing patrons the store is a contract postal unit operated by a church. On the counter is a sign bearing the USPS official logo, which reads, “The United States Postal Service does not endorse the religious viewpoint expressed in the material posted at this Contract Postal Unit.”
ADF-allied attorney Joseph Secola of Brookfield, Conn., is local counsel in the lawsuit, Cooper v. United States Postal Service."
“Private Christian entities shouldn’t be censored for displaying information about their own religious ministries, on their own properties, simply because they participate in contracts with the government,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeff Shafer. “We’re pleased that the 2nd Circuit agreed that the First Amendment does not call for a wholesale religious cleansing of the church’s speech from its own facility.”
The judges for the 2nd Circuit wrote in the opinion that they “require no more than that the postal counter be free of religious material, and that visual cues distinguish the space operating as a postal facility from the space functioning as purely private property.... [T]he removal of all religious messages would render the premises a single-use post office, and would prevent the second legitimate use to which the premises are dedicated.... For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is vacated....”
A customer, Bertram Cooper, sued the U.S. Postal Service and the Manchester, Conn., postmaster for allegedly violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Cooper argued that religious signs, literature, prayer cards, and other materials inside a contract provider store--privately owned and operated by the Full Gospel Interdenominational Church--constitutes a government endorsement of religion.
At a hearing before the 2nd Circuit in March, Shafer argued that a federal district court in Connecticut should not have ruled that the church-owned postal store, named Sincerely Yours, Inc., is a government entity, but rather a private entity that should not have its speech about its own ministries censored within its own facility. The USPS awarded the store a contract to sell postal services to the local community in 2001. The USPS commonly awards such contracts to spare the government the expense and responsibility of maintaining a facility and staff of its own and to allow a greater geographic distribution of locations from which postal services may be purchased.
Sincerely Yours has operated since 2002 as a private business on its own private property, with signs and other indicators in several locations throughout its facility informing patrons the store is a contract postal unit operated by a church. On the counter is a sign bearing the USPS official logo, which reads, “The United States Postal Service does not endorse the religious viewpoint expressed in the material posted at this Contract Postal Unit.”
ADF-allied attorney Joseph Secola of Brookfield, Conn., is local counsel in the lawsuit, Cooper v. United States Postal Service."
