U.S. Department of Justice

Report on 

Enforcement of Laws 

Protecting Religious Freedom 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006

Office of the Attorney General 

Washington, D.C. 

February 20, 2007 


Dear Reader: 

Religious freedom is one of our most cherished inheritances. It is known as the “First 

Freedom” because our Founders saw fit to place it first in the Bill of Rights. But it is not merely first in order; it is a freedom on which other freedoms rest. As President George W. Bush said 

in his Religious Freedom Day proclamation last year, “The right to religious freedom is a foundation of America.” He continued, “Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of freedom of 

religion to a stable democracy, and our Constitution protects individuals’ rights to worship as they 

choose. We reject religious discrimination in every form, and we continue our efforts to oppose 

prejudice and to counter any infringements on religious freedom.” 

In addition to its important responsibilities of enforcing federal civil rights statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, and national origin, the Department of 

Justice is charged with enforcing a wide range of civil rights statutes designed to protect religious 

liberty: laws barring discrimination against individuals on account of religion in education, 

employment, housing, credit, public facilities, and public accommodations; laws barring local 

zoning authorities from discriminating against houses of worship and religious schools, or from 

imposing unjustifiable burdens on their religious exercise; laws protecting the religious rights of 

persons in state institutions; and criminal statutes such as the Church Arson Prevention Act that 

make it a federal crime to attack a person or a place of worship based on religion. 

This report summarizes the Department’s accomplishments during this Administration to 

protect religious liberty through enforcement of civil rights laws. Early in the Administration, the 

Department of Justice for the first time established a Special Counsel for Religious 

Discrimination to ensure that laws protecting religious freedom are enforced vigorously. The 

Department’s recognition that these laws deserved greater attention has resulted in a dramatic rise 

in the number of cases brought to protect the religious rights of all Americans in category after 

category, as outlined in this report. Just as important as these enforcement statistics, however, are 

the types of cases brought. The Department has made a sustained effort through the cases it 

brings to demonstrate to the public and to state and local officials the variety of ways in which 

the law protects religious liberty. For example, the Department filed a lawsuit to protect the right 

of a Muslim student to wear a headscarf while attending public school, brought the first patterni 
or-practice discrimination lawsuit against a government entity to require it to accommodate 

employees’ need to refrain from work on the Sabbath, defended in numerous cases the right of 

religious groups to meet in public facilities on an equal basis with secular groups, and defended 

the right of seniors to pray, sing religious songs, and hold Bible studies at a community senior 

center. 

But this should be only the beginning. Preserving religious liberty requires an ongoing 

commitment to protecting this most basic freedom for people of all faiths. It is my hope that this 

report will help educate the public, community and religious leaders, and government officials 

about the range of religious freedom rights that all Americans possess, ways that these rights can 

be respected, and the Department’s dedication to protecting them. 

Sincerely, 

Alberto R. Gonzales 

Attorney General 

ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS


Message from the Attorney General ..............................................................................................................i

I. Introduction to Religious Freedom Laws Enforced by the Department ........................1

A. Background..................................................................................................................1 

B. Responding to a Need ................................................................................................3

II. Enforcement Results 2001-2006 ............................................................................................7

A. Education ....................................................................................................................7

B. Employment ..............................................................................................................13

C. Housing and Lending Discrimination ..................................................................17

D. Public Accommodations and Public Facilities ....................................................21 

E. RLUIPA – Land Use ..................................................................................................25

F. Rights of Institutionalized Persons ........................................................................31

G. Crimes Against Persons and Property Based on Religion ................................33

H. Religious Liberty in the Courts of Appeals ..........................................................37 

III. Outreach ................................................................................................................................41 

iii 
PART I. 

Introduction to Religious Freedom Laws Enforced by the Department 

A. Background	 James Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments 

Religious liberty has often been explained that religious liberty is a right 

called our “first freedom,” since it is the that belongs to all people. He wrote that 

first right listed in the First Amendment. it is a “fundamental and undeniable truth 

As the Founders recognized, it is an inte- ‘that Religion or the duty which we owe 

gral and foundational element of free- to our Creator and the manner of dischargdom itself. James Madison stated suc- ing it, can be directed only by reason and 

cinctly that “conscience is the most conviction, not by force or violence.’ The 

sacred of all property.”1 Many came to Religion then of every man must be left to 

America precisely because of the recog- the conviction and connition of religious lib- science of every man; 

erty and the protec- and it is the right of 

tion of this most basic every man to exercise it 

of human rights. As as these may dictate.”3 

George Washington 

said in his letter to The United States 

the Hebrew Congre- Department of Justice’s 

gation at Newport: Civil Rights Division 

“It is now no more enforces a wide range 

that toleration is spo- of federal statutes that 

ken of as if it were the protect religious freeindulgence of one dom. The Civil Rights 

class of people that Division, founded in 

another enjoyed the 1957, is best known 

exercise of their inher- for its historic and 

ent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives 

to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no 

assistance, requires only that they who 

live under its protection should demean 

themselves as good citizens in giving it 

on all occasions their effectual support.”2 

1 James Madison, Essay on Property (1792), reprinted in 14 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON 267 (Rutland et al. eds., 


University Press of Virginia 1983).


2 George Washington, Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island (1790), reprinted in George


Washington, WRITINGS 766, (Rhodehamel ed., The Library of America 1997).
 3 James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785), reprinted in Adams and 


Emmerich, A NATION DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 104 (Univ. of Penn. Press 1990).


4 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. 

“The right to religious freedom is a foundation of America. . . . . Our Founding

Fathers knew the importance of freedom of 

religion to a stable democracy, and our 

Constitution protects individuals' rights 

to worship as they choose. We reject religious discrimination in every form, and 

we continue our efforts to oppose prejudice 

and to counter any infringements on religious freedom.” 

– President George W. Bush, 

Religious Freedom Day Proclamation, 

January 13, 2006 

ongoing work toward ending racial discrimination in education, voting, employment, housing, and other areas. Today 

the work of the Civil Rights Division 

encompasses many other areas of civil 

rights as well, such as the Americans 

with Disabilities Act,4 the Civil Rights of 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 1 
Department of Justice — Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom 

Institutionalized Persons Act,5 the Trafficking Victims Protection Act,6 and 

many others. The Division also enforces 

statutes that prohibit religious discrimination in a variety of contexts, criminalize 

interference with religious rights through 

threats or violence, and ensure that certain federal constitutional rights to religious freedom are protected. 

Most of the provisions of the landmark 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 bar discrimination 

based on religion along with other suspect 

criteria such as race, national origin, or 

sex: Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 19647 

bars discrimination based on religion in 

public accommodations like restaurants 

and hotels; Title III8 bars discrimination 

based on religion in public facilities such 

as municipal recreation facilities and senior centers; Title IV9 bars discrimination 

based on religion in public elementary 

and secondary schools, as well as in public colleges and universities; and Title VII10 

bars discrimination based on religion in 

employment. Title VII also has two unique 

provisions protecting religious liberty. In 

addition to making outright discrimination illegal, such as refusing to hire persons of a particular religion, Title VII also 

requires that employers make a reasonable accommodation of the religious 

observances and practices of employees, 

such as accommodating Sabbath observance or religious dress, unless the 

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales speaking at employer can demonstrate that doing so 

the Orthodox Union’s annual dinner in June 2005 would be an undue hardship.11 And § 702 

about the Justice Department’s enforcement of reli- of Title VII protects the independence and 

gious freedom laws. autonomy of religious institutions by 

5 42 U.S.C. § 1997, 1997a-1997j.

6 Pub. L. No. 106-386 (codified as various sections of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 77).

7 42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq. 8 42 U.S.C. § 2000b et seq. 9 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. 10 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 11 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). 

2 Fiscal Years 2001-2006 
PART I. 

Introduction to Religious Freedom Laws Enforced by the Department 

exempting them from the general restriction on consideration of religion in hiring.12 The Fair Housing Act13 and the Equal 

Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)14 also 

protect persons from discrimination based 

on religion. Title IX of the Civil Rights Act 

of 196415 permits the Attorney General to 

intervene in federal court cases seeking 

relief from denial of equal protection of 

the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution on account of 

religion. All of these non-discrimination 

laws are enforced by the Department of 

Justice’s Civil Rights Division. 

In addition to these anti-discrimination laws, the Civil Rights Division also 

enforces a number of statutes designed to 

protect the religious liberty of citizens 

more broadly. The Division can bring 

actions against state and local governments for violations of the Religious Land 

Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 

2000 (RLUIPA).16 The first part of RLUIPA 

protects houses of worship and religious 

schools from abusive land-use regulations, and the second protects the religious 

rights of inmates and other institutionalized persons. The Civil Rights Division 

also enforces the religious freedom rights 

under the Constitution of persons confined to institutions through enforcement 

of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized 

Persons Act (CRIPA),17 and prosecutes 

12 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a).

13 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619.

14 42 U.S.C. §§ 1691, 1691a-1691f.

15 42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2.

1642 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1.

17 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq. 

arson and vandalism of houses of worship 

and religion-based bias crimes against 

individuals under a variety of federal 

criminal statutes. 

B. Responding to a Need

Prior to 2001, except for prosecution of 

religious bias crimes and employment 

cases, the Civil Rights Division exercised 

its jurisdiction to enforce civil rights laws 

with respect to religion sparingly, and had 

never had an attorney charged with 

ensuring that these laws were comprehensively enforced. However, as the United 

States becomes more religiously diverse, 

preventing discrimination based on reliWorshippers at Hale O Kaula Church in Maui, 

Hawaii, who were able to expand their sanctuary 

with help from a Civil Rights Division lawsuit. 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 3 
Department of Justice — Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom 

gion has become even more important. 

The United States today is home to more 

than 2,000 different faiths and denominations.18 Religious discrimination is a growing problem. For example, from 1992 to 

2005, complaints of religious discrimination in employment filed with the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission 

went up 69%.19 During this same period, 

sex discrimination complaints rose 6%,20 

national origin discrimination complaints 

rose 8%,21 and racial discrimination complaints actually decreased by 9.5%.22 Similarly, in enacting RLUIPA in 2000, 

Congress found widespread discrimination against religious institutions by state 

and local officials regarding land-use decisions.23 The attacks of 9/11, and the resulting increase in bias crimes and discrimination against Muslims, as well as Sikhs and 

others mistakenly perceived to be Muslim, 

underscored the need for rigorous enforcement of religious civil rights laws. 

In addition to being religiously diverse, the United States is also a nation of 

deeply religious people, and conflicts can 

arise when people feel they should not 

have to check their faith at the door when 

they go to school or work, or participate in 

activities in the public square. Citizens 

using community centers and other public 

Department of Justice attorneys (l-r) Irfan Saeed, 

Shaarik Zafar, and Special Counsel for Religious 

Discrimination Eric Treene at the 2004 Islamic 

Society of North America Convention in Chicago, 

Illinois. 

facilities, and especially students at public 

schools, often are told by government officials that they cannot express their religion 

while on public property or in government-sponsored programs, based on a mistaken belief that the Constitution’s prohibition on state establishment of religion bars 

individual religious expression. But as the 

Supreme Court has stressed, “there is a crucial difference between government speech 

endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech 

endorsing religion, which the Free Speech 

and Free Exercise Clauses protect.”24 

Schools, senior centers, public parks, and 

18 The Religious Landscape of the United States, U.S. Society and Values Vol. 2 (U.S. Information Agency 1997) 

(available at http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itsv/0397/ijse/ijse0397.htm).

19 EEOC Enforcement Statistics – Religion (available at http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/religion.html).

20 EEOC Enforcement Statistics – Sex (available at http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/sex.html).

21 EEOC Enforcement Statistics – National Origin (available at http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/origin.html).

22 EEOC Enforcement Statistics – Race (available at http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/race.html).

23 See H.R. Rep. No. 219, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. 18-24 (1999). 24 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 302 (2000); Board of Education of Westside Community 

School v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 (1990) (plurality opinion). 

4 Fiscal Years 2001-2006 
PART I. 

Introduction to Religious Freedom Laws Enforced by the Department 

other public facilities are not religionfree zones, and individuals may not be 

denied access, or have their expression 

censored, simply because of their religion. 

To meet all of these concerns, in 2001 

the Department of Justice began to step 

up enforcement of civil rights laws protecting persons from religious discrimination and violence. Then, in 2002, the 

Department of Justice created the position of Special Counsel for Religious 

Discrimination. The Special Counsel is 

charged with coordinating enforcement 

of the civil rights laws addressing religious freedom and religious discrimination within the Civil Rights Division. 

The Special Counsel also is charged with 

engaging in outreach to religious organizations, civil rights organizations, attorneys, and the general public to educate 

them about the Department of Justice’s 

jurisdiction in this area and how to file 

complaints. 

“The record of the Civil Rights Division 

shows a dramatic increase in the number 

of religious liberty cases from the period 

1995-2000 to 2001-2006.” 

The record of the Civil Rights Division shows a dramatic increase in the 

number of religious liberty cases from 

the period 1995-2000 to 2001-2006.25 For 

example, education discrimination cases 

involving religion increased from one 

case reviewed and no investigations in 

the earlier period to 82 cases reviewed 

and 40 investigations in the most recent 

six years; religion cases under the Fair 

Housing Act and ECOA rose from four 

investigations and one lawsuit in 1995­

2000 to 18 investigations and six lawsuits from 2001-2006; religion-related appellate friend-of-the-court, or amicus 

curiae, briefs rose from one to 16; and 

enforcement of RLUIPA, enacted in 

2000, included 118 cases reviewed and 

26 investigations from 2001-2006, resulting in 15 favorable outcomes prior to litigation and 4 lawsuits. 

But the record cannot be measured in 

numbers alone. The Civil Rights Division’s efforts, as set forth in this report, 

have resulted in victories that have 

demonstrated to government officials, 

the courts, and the public that religious 

rights in the United States are rights that 

should be, and will be, protected. They 

include winning the right for a Muslim 

girl to wear a headscarf to school — a case 

that was reported throughout the world. 

They include winning the right of seniors at a Texas senior center to say 

prayers before meals, sing gospel music, 

and hold Bible studies — a case demonstrating that private religious speech that 

takes place on public property is not government religious speech forbidden by the 

Constitution. And they include multiple 

All numbers are for fiscal years. 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 5 

25 
Department of Justice — Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom 

cases winning the right of religious groups 

to equal access to public facilities. The following report details the successes of the 

Department’s religious liberty enforcement in the full range of jurisdictional 

areas: education, employment, housing 

and credit, public accommodations and 

public facilities, zoning and landmarking, 

the rights of institutionalized persons, and 

bias crime prosecutions. 

6 Fiscal Years 2001-2006 
PART II.

Enforcement Results 2001­2006: Education

1995-99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

Religious Discrimination in 

Education Cases

Fiscal Years

Number of Cases

Source: DOJ, Civil Rights Division. 

27

nvestigations

Cases reviewed

in contrast to one review and no

A. Education

Public primary and secondary schools, as well as public colleges and universities, should be

open to all members of the public, regardless of their faith.

Students should not face discrimination or harassment because of

their faith background, their

beliefs, their distinctive religious

dress, or their religious expression. From 2001­2006, the Civil

Rights Division dramatically

increased enforcement of civil

rights protections against religious discrimination in education. During that period, the

Division’s Educational Opportunities Section reviewed 82

cases and opened 40 investigations involving various types of

religious discrimination.26 This is

investigations for the period 1995­2000.

From 2001­2006, the Civil Rights Division filed two consent decrees, reached

one settlement, and filed thirteen friendof­the­court briefs in education cases

involving religion, versus none from

1995­2000.

The Civil Rights Division’s Educational Opportunities Section enforces

Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,27

which prohibits discrimination based on

religion in public primary and secondary schools, as well as public colleges

and universities. Subsection (a)(1) authorizes the Attorney General to bring suit in

response to a written complaint by a

parent that a child is being “deprived by

a school board of the equal protection of

the laws.” Subsection (a)(2) permits the

Attorney General to bring suit upon

receiving a written complaint that a student has been “denied admission to or

not permitted to continue in attendance

26 A case is classified as a review when the Division interviewed the complainant and witnesses, if any. Investigations

include cases in which the Division contacted the school for interviews and/or document requests, or filed legal 

pleadings or briefs.

27 42 U.S.C. 2000c­6.

Fiscal Years 2001­2006         7
Department of Justice — Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom 

at a public college by reason of race, color, 

religion, sex or national origin.” The 

Attorney General has delegated this 

authority to the Civil Rights Division. 

Additionally, Title IX of the Civil Rights 

Act of 196428 permits the Attorney General to intervene in any action in federal 

court, involving any subject matter, 

“seeking relief from the denial of equal 

protection of the laws under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution 

on account of race, color, religion, sex or 

national origin,” if such intervention is 

timely made and the Attorney General 

certifies that the case is of “general public importance.” Enforcement of this provision also has been delegated to the 

Civil Rights Division, and the Division 

has participated in a number of education-related religious discrimination 

cases under Title IX. 

The cases in which the Educational 

Opportunities Section was involved 

from 2001-2006 covered a wide range of 

situations and included allegations of 

discrimination against Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Native American, and Santerian students. Of the forty investigations, fourteen involved harassment by 

teachers or allegations of indifference by 

the school toward harassment by students, eight involved religious expression by students, four involved equal 

access for religious organizations to 

school facilities, four involved exclusion 

from higher educational opportunities 

28 42 U.S.C. 2000h-2. 

based on religious belief, four involved 

issues of student religious dress, three 

involved refusal to provide excused 

absences for religious holidays, two 

involved state scholarships that discriminate against students attending religious 

schools, and one involved an allegation of 

a university’s failure to accommodate the 

religious dietary needs of students. 

Nashala Hearn, who won the right to wear her headscarf to school, on a tour of Washington, D.C. 

Complaints of harassment based on 

religion were the most common problem 

addressed in the Civil Rights Division’s 

cases. Most involved complaints of indifference by schools to student-on-student religious harassment in public primary and secondary schools, but some 

of the cases involved allegations of 

harassment by college professors and 

public school teachers. For example, the 

8 Fiscal Years 2001-2006 
PART II. 

Enforcement Results 2001-2006: Education 

Civil Rights Division 

reached a settlement in 

March 2005 with the 

Cape Henlopen, Delaware School District 

after a fourth-grade 

Muslim student filed a 

complaint that she had 

been harassed by her 

teacher about her faith 

in front of her class, 

including being rid- Assistant Attorney General Wan J. Kim, addressing 

iculed because her religious discrimination against Muslims in a 

mother wore a head- speech to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination 

were suspended for 

handing out candy 

canes to other students 

with religious messages 

attached.29 The court 

agreed that the students’ First Amendment rights had been 

violated. The second 

context is school-sponsored, non-curricular 

expressive activities in 

which students are 

given freedom to 

scarf. As a result, the Committee. 

student was repeatedly harassed by other 

students and missed several weeks of 

school due to emotional distress. The student alleged that the school failed to take 

adequate remedial action. The settlement 

required programs for teaching religious 

tolerance for both teachers and students, 

and special training and monitoring for 

the teacher at issue. Other investigations 

resulted in schools promptly taking corrective action. In some cases, student-onstudent harassment was found but there 

was insufficient evidence of school officials’ indifference to trigger liability. 

The second largest number of cases 

involved religious expression. These cases 

have involved speech in two basic contexts. One context is speech by students 

outside any organized school activity. For 

example, the Division filed a friend-of-thecourt brief in the case of a group of 

Massachusetts high school students who 

choose their own 

speech, and then are censored when 

they choose something with religious 

content. For example, in O.T. v. Frenchtown Elementary School District Board of 

Education,

30 a federal court agreed with the 

Division that a public school student 

whose chosen song for an evening talent 

show at her school was unconstitutinally 

censored because it was a Christian song. 

An example of this in the higher education 

context is the case of Indian River 

Community College in Florida, which told 

the Christian Student Fellowship that it 

could not show The Passion of the Christ on 

campus purportedly on the grounds that 

it was R-rated. However, the Fellowship 

alleged that at least one other R-rated 

movie had been shown on campus and 

that a student-run “No Shame Theater 

Company” performed plays with sexually 

explicit themes. The school reversed 

itself and permitted the film’s showing 

the same day that it received the Civil 

29 Westfield High School L.I.F.E. Club v. City of Westfield, 249 F. Supp. 2d 98 (D. Mass. 2003). 30 No. 05-2623 (D.N.J. Dec. 12, 2006). 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 9 
Department of Justice — Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom 

“At the heart of the school's argument lies 

a widely held misconception of constitutional law that has infected our sometimes 

politically overcorrect society: The Establishment Clause does not apply to private 

action; it applies only to government 

action. . . . [T]he uncontroverted evidence 

shows that those students finding the 

L.I.F.E. Club’s religious message disagreeable merely set the messages aside and 

enjoyed a minty treat for their troubles.” 

— Judge Frank H. Freedman, 

Westfield L.I.F.E. Club v. City of Westfield 

Rights Division’s letter opening an 

investigation. 

The third category of education cases 

involves schools denying religious groups 

access to school facilities after-hours on an 

equal basis with other groups. The Civil 

Rights Division’s Educational Opportunities Section opened investigations in four 

such cases, and the Division’s Appellate 

Section filed appellate briefs in an additional three cases. In 2001, the Supreme 

Court ruled in Good News Club v. Milford 

Central School31 that a school that opened 

its facilities after-hours to a wide range of 

community organizations offering “social, 

civic and recreational meetings and entertainment events, and other uses pertaining to the welfare of the community” 

could not bar the Good News Club, a 

Christian organization that holds weekly 

activities for children involving Bible stories, religious lessons, and songs, from 

31 533 U.S. 98 (2001). 

Members of the Westfield L.I.F.E. Club, who were suspended for handing out candy canes with religious 

messages attached. 

using the facilities on an equal basis with 

other groups. 

Despite the Good News Club decision, 

there has been continued resistance by 

school boards to its requirement of equal 

access. The Civil Rights Division has 

been involved in three types of equalaccess cases involving resistance to Good 

News Club. In the first type, schools argue 

that while they understand that they 

must provide religious community groups 

with the same access as other youth-serving community groups, they do not have 

to provide the religious groups with the 

same means of communicating to students and distributing permission slips 

that are provided to other youth organizations. The Civil Rights Division filed 

friend-of-the-court briefs in two cases 

arguing that Good News Club requires 

equal access to communications media 

such as bulletin boards, tables at back-to10 Fiscal Years 2001-2006 
PART II. 

Enforcement Results 2001-2006: Education 

school night, and “backpack mail.” 

Courts of appeals agreed in both cases.32 

In the second type of equal-access case, 

schools admit that they must allow 

groups like the Good News Club to meet, 

but require them to pay a fee that other 

youth-serving organizations do not have 

to pay. The Civil Rights Division opened 

investigations in two such cases, both of 

which resulted in settlements. The third 

type of equal-access case has involved 

schools saying that while Good News 

Club allows religious organizations an 

equal right to meet in school facilities, 

they may not engage in worship. The 

Civil Rights Division filed briefs in two 

such cases, arguing that worship is a 

form of speech that may not be discriminated against, and in both cases the 

courts agreed.33 

“The Good News Club seeks nothing more 

than to be treated neutrally and given 

access to speak about the same topics as are 

other groups. Because allowing the Club to 

speak on school grounds would ensure neutrality, not threaten it, Milford faces an 

uphill battle in arguing that the Establishment Clause compels it to exclude the Good 

News Club.” 

– Justice Clarence Thomas, 

writing for the Court in Good News Club v. 

Milford Central School (2001) 

The fourth category of education 

cases includes four cases in which students alleged that they were excluded 

from higher educational opportunities 

because of their religious beliefs. For 

example, the Division investigated Texas Tech University over the policy stated 

on a biology professor’s official university website that he would only give 

medical school recommendations to students who would “truthfully and forthrightly affirm” a belief that humans came 

into existence through evolution. The 

investigation was closed when the professor agreed simply to require students to 

explain the scientific theory of evolution. 

The fifth category of cases consists of 

investigations in which students are 

denied the right to wear religious headcoverings at school. For example, in 

Hearn and United States v. Muskogee Public 

School District,

34 the Civil Rights Division 

intervened in the case of a Muslim girl 

told that she could not wear a headscarf 

required by her faith to school. The Civil 

Rights Division’s suit was based on the 

fact that the school was enforcing its uniform policy in an inconsistent manner. 

The case was settled by consent decree in 

May 2004. Two additional headcovering 

cases were resolved after initiation of 

investigations. 

32 Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Stafford Township Sch. Dist., 386 F.3d 514 (3d Cir. 2004); Child Evangelism Fellowship v. 

Montgomery County Pub. Sch., 373 F.3d 589 (4th Cir. 2004). 

33 Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Educ. of the City of New York, 331 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2003); Campbell v. St. Tammany 

Parish Sch. Bd., No. 98-CV-2605 (E.D. La. July 30, 2003). The Bronx Household brief was handled by the Civil Rights 

Division’s Appellate Section and thus is not included in the statistics in this section of the report. As described in 

Section H below, the Civil Rights Division filed a second appellate brief in a further proceeding in the Bronx 

Household case, which is pending. 34 No. Civ. 03 598-S (E.D. Okla. 2003). 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 11 
Department of Justice — Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom 

The sixth category of education cases ministry-training programs at seminaries, 

involves students who are denied did not apply to students using scholarexcused absences for religious holidays. ships for general education at colleges and 

In Scheidt v. Tri-Creek School Corporation, 

35 universities that are religiously affiliated. 

a boy in Indiana was threatened with 

suspension, and his mother was threat- Finally, the Division investigated one 

ened with child neglect, when he missed case involving allegations that a universiseveral days of school for religious holi­ ty did not accommodate the dietary needs 

days. The school permitted only one of Jewish students. 

excused absence per year for religious holidays, even though more days are permitted for secular reasons that included 

attending the state fair and serving as a 

page in the state legislature. The Civil 

Rights Division opened an investigation 

and submitted an amicus brief in a private 

suit filed by the boy’s mother. The school 

board settled and changed its policy to 

permit excused absences for religious holidays. Cases in a different state involving 

similar facts are under investigation. 

The next category involves states discriminating against students using neutrally available scholarships toward education at religiously affiliated schools. In 

Colorado Christian University v. Weaver, 

36 

the Division’s Educational Opportunities 

Section filed a friend-of-the-court brief 

arguing that a Colorado program providing financial aid to Colorado residents 

unconstitutionally bars students from 

using their scholarships to attend religious 

colleges and universities. The brief argued 

that the Supreme Court’s decision Locke v. 

Davey, 

37 which permits states to bar students from using state funds to pay for 

35 No. 2:05-CV-204 (N.D. Ind., complaint filed May 18, 2005). 36 No. Civ. 04-2512 (D. Colo., complaint filed December 6, 2004). 37 540 U.S. 712 (2004). 

12 Fiscal Years 2001-2006 
PART II. 

Enforcement Results 2001-2006: Employment 

B. Employment

People should be hired or not hired 

because of their skills and merit, not 

because of their faith. And people should 

not be forced to choose between their faiths 

and their jobs. 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 196438 

prohibits discrimination in public and private employment. It also requires employers to make reasonable accommodation of 

employees’ religious observances and 

practices, unless doing so would cause 

undue hardship.39 Section 702 of Title VII40 

protects the independence and autonomy 

of religious institutions by permitting them 

to consider religion in hiring decisions. The 

Civil Rights Division has responsibility for 

bringing suits under Title VII against state 

and local governmental employers. Under 

§ 706 of Title VII,41 individual cases of discrimination against state and local governmental entities must be filed in the first 

instance with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which 

can refer cases to the Civil Rights Division. 

The Civil Rights Division then opens a supplemental investigation, if warranted, to 

determine if a lawsuit is appropriate. 

When a pattern or practice of discrimination by a governmental entity is alleged, 

the Civil Rights Division may file suit on its 

own volition under § 707 of Title VII.42 

38 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 39 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). 40 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a).

41 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5.

42 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6.

43 

The Civil Rights Division opened 31 

supplemental investigations in religious 

discrimination cases referred by the 

EEOC from 2001 to 2006, compared to 26 

in the prior six years. The Division 

reached five consent decrees or settlements from 1995-2000 and six from 

2001-2006. The Civil Rights Division 

filed three pattern-or-practice cases 

under § 707 of Title VII involving religious discrimination from 2001-2006, 

compared to none during the prior sixyear period. 

In United States v. Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transit Authority,

43 the Civil 

Rights Division filed a § 707 suit against 

the LA MTA over its policy of refusing to 

accept bus driver applications unless the 

applicant indicated that he or she was 

available to work 24 hours per day, seven 

days a week. The suit alleged that this 

policy discriminated against Sabbathobservant Jews and Christians, and others who must miss work on certain days 

for religious reasons, by failing to make 

any effort to provide them with the religious accommodation Title VII requires. 

The Civil Rights Division reached a consent decree that requires the MTA to 

accept the applications of Sabbath-observant applicants; provide applicants with 

information about their accommodation 

rights; permit drivers to swap assignNo. CV 04-07699 (C.D. Cal., consent decree entered October 4, 2005). 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 13 
Department of Justice — Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom 

ments with other drivers, and when no 

acceptable assignment is possible either 

through use of seniority rights or swaps, 

permit drivers to take temporary leaves 

of absence; and provide information 

about religious accommodation in marketing literature and in its training programs for supervisors. 

Special Counsel for Religious Discrimination Eric Treene 

speaking with Harpreet Singh of United Sikhs after a 

speech at a Gurdwara in Virginia. 

In United States v. New York Metropolitan Transit Authority,

44 the Civil 

Rights Division alleges that the New 

York MTA discriminates against Muslim and Sikh bus and subway drivers by 

refusing to permit them to wear headscarves and turbans. The suit alleges 

that the Muslim and Sikh drivers are forbidden to wear these religious headcoverings with their uniforms, while other MTA 

workers are allowed to wear non-regulation headgear, such as baseball caps, without penalty. The case is pending. 

In United States v. State of Ohio,

45 the 

Civil Rights Division filed suit against 

the State of Ohio over its refusal to 

accommodate certain employees’ religious objections to supporting the state 

employees’ union through compulsory 

fees. The suit alleged that employees 

who are members of churches that have 

“historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting” unions were permitted to pay an 

amount equal to the union service fee to 

a charity mutually agreeable to the 

employee and the union. However, the 

suit alleged that Ohio had refused to 

extend this exemption to state employees with sincere religious objections to 

supporting the union, but who did not 

belong to such churches. The case arose 

out of a complaint from an employee of 

the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 

who is Presbyterian and objected to supporting the union because he alleged 

that the union and its affiliates supported abortion and same-sex marriage. In 

September 2006, the court approved a 

consent decree requiring that all sincere 

religious objectors be permitted to direct 

their fees to charity. 

44 No. CV-04 4237 (E.D.N.Y., complaint filed September 30, 2004). 45 No. 2:05-CV-00799-GLF-NMK (S.D. Ohio, consent decree filed September 5, 2006). The Ohio Civil Service Employees 

Association, AFSCME, Local 11, AFL-CIO was also a defendant in the case pursuant to Rule 19(a) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

14 Fiscal Years 2001-2006 
PART II. 

Enforcement Results 2001-2006: Employment 

The Civil Rights Division also files 

briefs to ensure that Title VII is properly 

interpreted to prevent religious discrimination and protect religious liberty. In 

Baker v. The Home Depot,

46 the Civil 

Rights Division filed a joint friend-ofthe-court brief with the EEOC, arguing 

that offering an employee only the 

morning off to attend worship services 

on the Sabbath was not a reasonable 

accommodation under Title VII when 

the employee’s faith required refraining 

from work on the Sabbath altogether. 

The court of appeals agreed, and remanded the case to the trial court to 

determine whether permitting the 

employee to refrain from work on the 

“The notion that the Constitution would 

compel a religious organization contracting with the state to secularize its ranks is 

untenable in light of the Supreme Court’s 

recognition that the government may contract with religious organizations for the 

provision of social services. . . . Just

because the Constitution may require that 

the content of government-funded services 

be secular does not mean that the 

providers cannot feel a sense of spiritual 

fulfillment in providing them.” 

– Judge Sidney H. Stein

in Lown v. Salvation Army 

Sabbath would be an undue hardship 

for the defendant. 

47 In Lown v. Salvation Army, a group 

of current and former Salvation Army 

employees sued the Salvation Army and 

New York City and State officials, claiming that because the Salvation Army 

contracts with the City to provide a variety of services, including adoption, foster care, hospice care, and many other 

social services, the Salvation Army 

could no longer use religious criteria in 

its hiring and staffing decisions. Section 

702 of Title VII protects the independence and autonomy of religious organizations by exempting them from the 

prohibition against discrimination in 

employment on the basis of religion. The 

plaintiffs, however, argued that it would 

violate the Establishment Clause for the 

Salvation Army to invoke this provision 

when contracting with the government. 

The Civil Rights Division filed a brief 

arguing that so long as the services 

being provided under the contract were 

secular in nature, the Salvation Army 

did not lose its right to define and preserve its character and identity as a religious organization through its personnel practices. The court agreed and ruled 

in favor of the Salvation Army and the 

other defendants. 

46 445 F.3d 541 (2d Cir. 2006). 

47 393 F. Supp. 2d 223 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 15 
PART II. 

Enforcement Results 2001-2006: Housing and Lending Discrimination 

C. Housing and Lending 

Discrimination 

Finding the right home, and finding 

the financing necessary to pay for it, has 

long been part of the American dream. 

That dream should not be denied because of discrimination or harassment 

based on religion. Federal civil rights 

laws protect against denial of housing or 

credit based on religion. The housing 

protections apply to discrimination in 

the sale or rental of housing, but also 

apply to the “terms and conditions” of 

the sale or rental of housing. Thus, if 

people are permitted to put decorations 

on their apartment doors, religious individuals should be able to put religious 

items or decorations on their doors, such 

as a Jewish mezuzah or a cross. Similarly, when condominiums or apartments 

have a common room that can be 

reserved by residents for private activities like parties or book studies, residents seeking to hold a Bible study or 

other private religious activity may not 

be discriminated against. The Civil 

Rights Division has been actively protecting against all forms of religious discrimination in housing and lending. 

The Civil Rights Division’s Housing 

and Civil Enforcement Section enforces 

the Fair Housing Act,48 which prohibits 

housing discrimination on the basis of 

race, color, religion, sex, national origin, 

48 42 U.S.C. § 3601.

49 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691, 1691a-f. 

Finding the right home, and finding the financing necessary to pay for it, has long been part of the American 

dream. That dream should not be denied because of discrimination or harassment based on religion. 

disability, or familial status. It also 

enforces the Equal Credit Opportunity 

Act (ECOA),49 which prohibits discrimination against persons seeking home 

mortgages or other credit based on 

race, color, religion, national origin, sex, 

marital status, age, or because an applicant receives income from a public 

assistance program. 

The Civil Rights Division has succeeded in increasing enforcement of the 

religious discrimination provisions of 

the Fair Housing Act and ECOA over the 

past six years. The Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section opened eighteen 

investigations under the Fair Housing 

Act and ECOA in cases charging religious discrimination from 2001-2006, 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 17 
Department of Justice — Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom

18 Fiscal Years 2001-2006

compared to four from 1995-2000.

These cases covered a wide range

of issues, including harassment

based on religion, denial of housing because of the religion of the

prospective purchaser or renter, and

discrimination in the terms and conditions of housing, including display of religious items on doors and

use of common rooms in apartments. 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section filed six lawsuits under the Fair Housing Act

and ECOA involving religious discrimination claims from 2001-

2006, versus only one lawsuit in

the prior six-year period. The section during this period reached six

consent decrees or settlements,

providing comprehensive relief to

the victims and instituting measures to ensure that the defendants

would not engage in discrimination in

the future.

For example, in United States v.

Hillman Housing Corporation, Hy Meadows,

50 the United States alleged that a

couple’s application to buy an apartment in New York had been denied

because of their faith and ethnicity. The

Department of Justice obtained a consent decree requiring the defendants to

pay damages to the couple and to follow

advertising, record-keeping, and reporting standards to ensure that they do not

discriminate in the future. In United

States v. Fidelity Federal Bank,

51 the Department reached a settlement with a bank

in a case alleging, among other violations of ECOA, that the bank collected

data on credit applicants’ religious affiliation. In addition to paying compensation to victims denied credit, the settlement requires the implementation of a

comprehensive change in policies and

provision of fair-lending training to

employees. 

50 No. 02-0626 (S.D.N.Y, consent decree entered October 27, 2004).

51 No. 02-03906 (E.D.N.Y., filed July 8, 2002).

1995-2000 2001-2006 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

4

6

8

Enforcement of the

Fair Housing Act and ECOA

Number of Cases

Investigation

Lawsuit

Consent Decrees and

Favorab e udgement

F sca Years our DO Civi Rig Divi o
PART II. 

Enforcement Results 2001-2006: Housing and Lending Discrimination 

Religious harassment is a form of 

discrimination barred by the Fair Housing Act. The Civil Rights Division is 

committed to ensuring that people of all 

faiths are secure in their homes, free of 

harassment based on their religion. In 

United States v. Altmayer,

52 for example, 

the Civil Rights Division reached a consent decree in a case alleging that a man 

in a Chicago suburb harassed his neighbors and their children because of their 

Jewish religion and because they were of 

Israeli and Mexican origin. The consent 

decree required the defendant to pay 

$15,000 in damages, barred him from 

harassing his neighbors in the future, 

and required him to attend fair housing 

training. A similar consent decree was 53 reached in United States v. Schmock, in

which the United States alleged that a 

Sikh family was harassed by neighbors. 

While harassment suits usually are 

brought against the individual perpetrating the harassment, sometimes a pattern of harassment is so pervasive, and 

the indifference of a landlord so severe, 

that a landlord can be liable under the 

Fair Housing Act. Thus, in United States 

v. San Francisco Housing Authority,

54 the 

Civil Rights Division brought suit based 

on a number of claims, including the 

Housing Authority’s failure to take 

measures to stop threats and violence 

against Muslim tenants following the 

September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The 

Division obtained a consent decree that 

included compensation for the victims, 

implementation of new policies to address civil rights complaints in public 

housing in San Francisco, and training 

for employees. 

The Civil Rights Division also has 

investigated cases involving various 

forms of denial of equal terms and conditions of housing on the basis of religion that have been resolved prior to filing suit, or are pending. These include 

allegations of denying residents the ability to reserve common rooms for religious purposes on an equal basis with 

other private uses, to display a religious 

statue on the balcony of a residence, and 

to install mezuzahs on doorframes, 

among others. 

52 No. 05-1239 (N.D. Ill., consent decree entered January 18, 2006). 53 No. 5:00-21289 (N.D. Cal., consent decree entered February 26, 2001). 54 No. 4:02-04540 (N.D. Cal., consent decree entered January 16, 2004). 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 19 
PART II. 

Enforcement Results 2001-2006: Public Accommodations and Public Facilities 

D. Public Accommodations 

and Public Facilities 

People should not have to hide their 

faith when they go out in public. When 

going to a restaurant or other business 

open to the general public, people 

should not be turned away or harassed 

by the proprietors or patrons because 

they are wearing a cross, a headscarf, or 

a yarmulke. 

The Civil Rights Division’s Housing 

and Civil Enforcement Section enforces 

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,55 

which prohibits discrimination in public 

accommodations such as restaurants 

and motels on the basis of race, color, 

religion, or national origin. The Department of Justice may bring a suit under 

Title II when there is a pattern or practice of such discrimination. From 2001­

2006, the Division opened eight Title II 

investigations involving religion, compared to one in the period from 1995­

2000. These cases have involved a range 

of issues. For example, the Division settled 

a case in which a restaurant in Springfield, Virginia, told a Sikh man that he had 

to remove his turban to enter the restaurant. The settlement required posting of 

non-discrimination notices and other publication of its non-discrimination policies, 

and training for the restaurant company’s 

employees. Two similar cases in Pennsylvania were resolved quickly by the establishments in response to Civil Rights 

Division investigations. 

55 42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq. 56 42 U.S.C. § 2000b et seq. 

“All persons shall be entitled to the full 

and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and 

accommodations of any place of public 

accommodation . . . without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, 

or national origin.” 

– From Title II of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 

While Title II of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 protects against discrimination 

in public accommodations, which are 

privately owned businesses open to the 

general public, Title III of the Act56 protects against discrimination in public 

facilities, which are publicly owned and 

operated facilities open to the public, 

such as parks and community centers. 

Title III authorizes the Department of 

Justice to bring suit when a person has 

been denied equal access to public facilities on account of race, color, religion, or 

national origin. Just as businesses should 

be open to people of all faiths, who 

should not be required to hide their faith 

to use them, so too should public facilities be open to use by all. The Division 

opened two Title III investigations involving religion from 2001-2006, versus 

none from 1995-2000. 

In November 2003, the Civil Rights 

Division opened a Title III investigation 

of the City of Balch Springs, Texas, after 

the city-run senior center told seniors 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 21 
Department of Justice — Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom 

that they could no longer pray before 

meals, sing Gospel songs, or hold Bible 

studies. All of these activities were initiated and engaged in by the seniors 

alone, and no employee of the center 

was involved. Nonetheless, the city mistakenly believed that the separation of 

church and state required it to implement the ban. In addition to the Civil 

Rights Division investigation, the seniors filed suit alleging that their constitutional rights were violated by the ban. 

After mediation by the Civil Rights 

Division, the city settled with the seniors 

on January 8, 2004.57 

The Civil Rights Division also opened a Title III investigation of the City of 

Terrell, Texas, in May 2004 after the city 

refused to allow a local church to continue renting space in the town’s YMCA, 

which was in a city-owned building that 

the YMCA leased. The city believed that 

permitting worship in a building owned 

by the city would violate the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. The church 

filed suit against the city, arguing that 

based on a long line of Supreme Court 

decisions, cities and towns that offer 

space in government facilities to community organizations for private expression must provide them on an equal 

basis to community organizations that 

wish to use the space for religious 

expression. The city voted to reverse its 

policy in October 2004, and the Civil 

Rights Division subsequently closed its 

investigation. 

Barney Clark, a member of the Balch Springs 

Senior Center, who joined a suit to protect the right 

to pray before meals, hold Bible studies, and sing 

Gospel songs at the center. 

The Civil Rights Division also has filed 

friend-of-the-court briefs advancing the 

principle that citizens wishing to use community facilities for religious expression 

should be granted the same access as 

other citizens. 

In Barnes Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America,

58 the Civil Rights Division submitted a brief arguing that the Boy Scouts’ 

leasing of parkland from the City of San 

Diego does not violate the Constitution. 

57 Barton v. City of Balch Springs, No. 3:03-CV-2258-G (N.D. Tex., complaint filed September 30, 2003). 58 Nos. 04-55732, 04-56167 (9th Cir., brief filed February 15, 2005). 

22 Fiscal Years 2001-2006 
PART II. 

Enforcement Results 2001-2006: Public Accommodations and Public Facilities 

The court below had held that the Boy 

Scouts of America is a religious organization, and therefore leases under which 

the Boy Scouts developed and operated a 

campground and a boating center on city 

parkland violated the Establishment 

Clause. The Civil Rights Division’s brief 

argued that the Boy Scouts’ requirement 

that Scouts be reverent does not make it a 

religious organization. The brief further 

argued that even if it were a religious 

organization, low-cost leases to the Boy 

Scouts, in return for which the Boy Scouts 

invested several million dollars and 

agreed to keep the facilities open to the 

public, were similar to leases San Diego 

made with other community groups to 

develop under-used city properties. Since 

the leasing program did not favor religious organizations, and since the particular leases in question involved making 

land available for the purely secular 

activities of boating and camping, the 

brief concluded that the lease with the 

Boy Scouts did not violate the 

Establishment Clause.59 

Other equal-access cases, involving community groups seeking access to school facilities after hours, are 

addressed in the Education section of this report. See Part II.A., supra. 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 23 

59 
PART II. 

Enforcement Results 2001-2006: RLUIPA — Land Use 

E. RLUIPA — Land Use 

Religious freedom would be an 

empty concept if people did not have the 

right to have a place to gather for worship, religious instruction, and other religious activities. Our Constitution recognizes that religious liberty is not merely a 

right to be exercised individually. The 

Supreme Court has stated that “the ‘exercise of religion’ often involves not only 

belief and profession but the . . . assembling with others for a worship service.”60 

The need for a place to worship has 

long been recognized. For example, the 

Connecticut constitution, enacted in 

1817, provides explicitly that all religious societies and denominations shall 

have the right “to build and repair houses for public worship.”61 The right to 

build, buy, or lease a place to assemble 

for worship is an indispensable part of 

religious freedom. For many faith groups, 

the same is true of schools for religious 

instruction. Religious groups simply cannot exercise their faiths without facilities 

adequate for their needs. 

But houses of worship and religious 

schools often face discrimination from 

local zoning authorities, or face unjustifiably burdensome restrictions on their 

ability to use their property for worship 

60 Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990).

61 C.G.S.A. Const. Art. 7. 

62 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. 63 See H.R. Rep. No. 219, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. 18-24 (1999). 64 Id. at 21. 

65 Id. at 20. 

and religious instruction. In nine hearings over the course of three years that 

led to the enactment in 2000 of the 

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA),62 Congress compiled what it termed “massive 

evidence” of widespread discrimination 

against religious institutions by state 

and local officials in land-use decisions.63 

In particular, Congress found that 

minority religions are disproportionately disadvantaged in the zoning process. 

For example, Congress found that while 

Jews make up only 2% of the U.S. population, 20% of recorded cases involved 

synagogues.64 Faith groups constituting 

9% of the population made up 50% of 

reported court cases involving zoning 

disputes.65 

Congress found that even well-established religious denominations frequently faced discrimination and exclusion. 

Zoning codes and landmarking laws, 

Congress found, sometimes exclude religious assemblies in places where they 

permit fraternal organizations, theaters, 

meeting halls, and other places where 

large groups of people assemble for secular purposes. In other situations, Congress found that zoning codes or landmarking laws may permit religious assemblies only after highly discretionary 

proceedings before zoning boards or 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 25 
Department of Justice — Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom 

landmarking commissions, which can and 

often do use that authority in discriminatory ways.66 

To address these concerns, Congress 

unanimously enacted RLUIPA. RLUIPA 

prohibits zoning and landmarking laws 

that substantially burden the religious 

exercise of churches or other religious 

assemblies or institutions unless it is the 

least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. This prohibition applies in any situation where (i) 

the state or local government entity imposing the substantial burden receives 

federal funding; (ii) the substantial burden 

affects, or removal of the substantial burden would affect, interstate commerce; or 

(iii) the substantial burden arises from the 

state or local government’s formal or 

informal procedures for making individualized assessments of a property’s uses.67 

“The right to assemble for worship is at 

the very core of the free exercise of religion. 

Churches and synagogues cannot function 

without a physical space adequate to their 

needs and consistent with their theological 

requirements. The right to build, buy, or 

rent such a space is an indispensable 

adjunct of the core First Amendment right 

to assemble for religious purposes.” 

– Joint Statement of Senators

Orrin G. Hatch and Edward M. Kennedy, 

Senate Sponsors of RLUIPA 

66 Id. at 19-24. 

67 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a).

68 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b). 

In addition, RLUIPA prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that (1) treat 

churches or other religious assemblies or 

institutions on less than equal terms 

with nonreligious institutions; (2) discriminate against any assemblies or 

institutions on the basis of religion or 

religious denomination; (3) totally exclude religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or (4) unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.68 

In addition to creating a private cause 

of action, RLUIPA authorizes the Attorney 

General to bring suits to enforce it. The 

Attorney General has delegated this 

responsibility to the Civil Rights Division. 

Cases under the land-use provisions are 

handled by the Division’s Housing and 

Civil Enforcement Section. Since 2001, the 

Division has reviewed 118 RLUIPA matters. The Division has opened 26 full-field 

investigations, 16 of which have been 

resolved favorably prior to filing a lawsuit. The Division has also filed four lawsuits, two of which it won through settlement or consent decree, and two of which 

are pending. The Division’s cases have 

been quite diverse. They have involved the 

rights of a Muslim school, two mosques, a 

Jewish boarding school, several synagogues, a Buddhist temple, a Sikh Gurdwara, and churches and schools of various Christian denominations. The Division has also filed seven friend-of-thecourt briefs in significant federal appellate 

cases involving RLUIPA. 

26 Fiscal Years 2001-2006 
PART II. 

Enforcement Results 2001-2006: RLUIPA — Land Use 

Five of the Division’s 26 

investigations have principally involved issues of discrimination based on religious 

or ethnic animus toward the 

particular group denied the 

ability to build or expand a 

religious school or house of 

worship or to occupy an 

existing property. For example, the Division filed suit in 

April 2005 against the city of 

Hollywood, Florida, after it 

denied a permit to an Orthodox Jewish synagogue located 

in a residential neighborhood 

which, the suit alleged, was 

routinely granted to other 

houses of worship.69 The suit 

The Muslim Community Center in Morton Grove, Illinois, which reached 

an agreement with the city to build a mosque with the help of 

Department of Justice mediators. 

alleged that the denial and subsequent 

enforcement actions taken by the city 

against the synagogue were a result of 

discrimination toward Orthodox Jews. 

The Division reached a consent decree 

with the city and the synagogue that 

permits the synagogue to continue to 

operate at the location and to expand in 

the neighborhood in the future. It also 

requires training for city officials. A separate agreement signed at the same time 

required the city to pay $2 million in 

damages and attorneys fees to the synagogue. 

Similarly, a Muslim school in Morton 

Grove, Illinois encountered community 

opposition to its plans to build a mosque 

on its property, some of which appeared 

to be driven by animus against Muslims. 

The Civil Rights Division opened a 

RLUIPA investigation, and, after mediation by the Department of Justice’s 

Community Relations Service, the village reached an agreement that permitted the school to build the mosque subject to certain conditions. Favorable outcomes were also reached prior to filing 

suits in the case of a predominantly 

black Christian church that was denied a 

use permit for a church that it purchased 

from a predominantly white Christian 

church in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania, 

and in the case of a Muslim school in 

Loudoun County, Virginia that faced 

zoning problems that the school alleged 

United States v. City of Hollywood, No. 05-60687 (S.D. Fla., consent decree entered July 7, 2006). 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 27 

69 
Department of Justice — Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom 

were due to anti-Muslim bias. In United 

States v. Village of Airmont,

70 the United 

States alleges that a New York village enacted a ban on boarding schools specifically 

to keep Hasidic Jews, who educate 

their young men in boarding schools 

called yeshivas, from settling in the village. 

to build a new sanctuary on land it had 

occupied for 20 years because its 2.8 acres 

were below the 3 acres now required for 

churches, despite other assemblies being 

permitted on small plots. The Division 

closed its investigation after a state court 

judge struck down the limit and the 

County Board of Commissioners granted 

the necessary permits. 

The case is pending. 

Many of the Division’s 

RLUIPA cases have involved 

jurisdictions that facially discriminate against houses of 

worship in their zoning laws 

by either banning them from 

zones where fraternal organizations, movie theaters, and 

other places of assembly are 

permitted, or by minimumacreage requirements for houses of worship that do not apply 

to secular assemblies. For example, Brighton Township 

denied a permit for an Assemblies of God church to build on 

a 3.25 acre lot, since the zoning 

code had a five-acre minimum 

for churches. However, the 

zoning code specifically stated that there was no miniVictory Family Life Church in Douglas County, Georgia, barred from 

expanding because its 2.8 acres put it below the zoning code’s 3-acre minimum for churches, a requirement that did not apply to secular assemblies. 

mum acreage requirement for adult movie 

theaters and cabarets, assembly halls, and 

fraternal organizations. The Civil Rights 

Division opened an investigation, and the 

Township amended its zoning code. The 

Division opened a similar investigation of 

Douglas County, Georgia after Victory 

Family Life Church was denied the ability 

70 No. 05-Civ. 5520 (S.D.N.Y., filed June 10, 2005). 

71 366 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2004). 

In Midrash Sephardi v. Town of Surfside,

71 two Orthodox Jewish Congregations were barred from meeting in space 

they had rented above a bank in the 

city’s commercial district. The City’s 

zoning code permitted private clubs, 

lodge halls, dance studios, music studios, and language schools in the com28 Fiscal Years 2001-2006 
PART II. 

Enforcement Results 2001-2006: RLUIPA — Land Use 

mercial district, but excluded houses of 

worship. The Civil Rights Division submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 

Circuit, which ruled that the exclusion 

of houses of worship from the commercial district violated RLUIPA. 

The third category of RLUIPA cases 

handled by the Civil Rights Division 

involves zoning decisions that allegedly 

impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a congregation or religious school. These cases often involve elements of the prior two categories of 

cases — allegations of possible discrimination on the basis of religion or ethnicity, or more favorable treatment given to 

secular assemblies than religious ones. 

For example, in United States v. Maui 

County,

72 the Civil Rights Division sued 

the city of Maui after it denied a permit 

for Hale O Kaula, a small, nondenominational Christian church that has held 

services on Maui since 1960, to build a 

church on 5.85 acres of land in an agricultural district. The church encourages 

practitioners to grow food in accordance 

with Biblical principles and live in harmony with the land, and being in an 

agricultural district was integral to its 

worship needs. The county permitted 

various secular assemblies in the district, including rodeo facilities, petting 

zoos, and sports fields. The county subsequently settled with the church, permitting it to build and paying it damages and attorney’s fees. Other cases in 

298 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (D. Haw. 2003). 

this category include Balch Springs, 

Texas, where an investigation led to a 

small, predominantly Hispanic church 

being given the building permits to 

which it was entitled as of right under 

the zoning code,73 and Guru Nanak Sikh 

Society v. County of Sutter,

74 in which a 

Sikh congregation in a California county 

that only permits houses of worship in 

residential and agricultural districts first 

purchased land in a residential district, 

was denied a permit, and then purchased land in an agricultural district, 

only to be denied a permit there as well. 

The United States intervened in this case 

and argued that the congregation’s 

rights under RLUIPA had been violated, 

and the court of appeals agreed. 

The Department of Justice also has 

been active in defending the constitutionality of RLUIPA. The Civil Division 

has intervened in 29 privately filed lawsuits to defend the constitutionality of 

the land-use provisions of RLUIPA. 

73 Templo La Fe Worship Ctr., Inc. v. City of Balch Springs, No. 04-1369 (N.D. Tex. 2004). 

74 456 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 29 

72 
PART II. 

Enforcement Results 2001-2006: Rights of Institutionalized Persons 

F. Rights of Institutionalized 

Persons 

The Civil Rights Division’s Special 

Litigation Section is charged with enforcing federal laws protecting the rights 

of persons in certain state institutions, 

including prisons, juvenile detention 

facilities, mental institutions, and nursing homes. 

Section 3 of RLUIPA75 provides that if 

a regulation imposes a substantial burden on the religious beliefs or practices 

of persons confined to certain institutions, the government must show a compelling justification, pursued through 

the least restrictive means. In addition to 

creating a private cause of action for 

institutionalized persons, RLUIPA also 

authorizes the Attorney General to bring 

suits to enforce this provision. 

Under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA),76 the 

Special Litigation Section of the Civil 

Rights Division can investigate institutional conditions and file lawsuits to 

remedy a pattern or practice of unlawful 

conditions. From 2001 to 2006, the Civil 

Rights Division opened 67 new CRIPA 

investigations and issued 51 “findings 

letters,” which are statements to the state 

or governing authority of violations 

found. In two of these CRIPA investigations, the Civil Rights Division found 

that juveniles in detention facilities in 

Raymond and Columbia, Mississippi 

and in Alexander, Arkansas were being 

denied their constitutional rights by 

being required to participate in religious 

programs or face discipline. In the findings letters in both cases, the Division 

stressed that religious activities can help 

further a juvenile facility’s rehabilitative 

mission, and moreover that juveniles 

confined to a facility have a right under 

RLUIPA to engage in religious activities. 

Thus the institutions can, and should, 

provide opportunities for religious 

instruction and worship, the letters stated. However, the Civil Rights Division 

further stated that the institutions had 

created situations forbidden by the 

Establishment Clause where juveniles 

were required to participate in Christian 

services. In response, the Mississippi facilities changed their policies, and now 

inform juveniles in the facility handbooks that they may request alternatives 

to the Christian services offered at the 

facilities and that they are not required to 

attend services. Similarly, the Arkansas 

Divisions of Youth Services and Human 

Services developed a policy and protocol that have remedied the constitutional problem. 

In addition to enforcing the rights 

established by RLUIPA through CRIPA 

investigations, the Civil Rights Division’s Special Litigation Section has 

opened 24 preliminary inquiries under 

RLUIPA since 2001. In a preliminary in75 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2.

76 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq. 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 31 
Department of Justice — Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom 

quiry, attorneys from the Division correspond with or interview the institutionalized persons, family members, and 

clergy, review applicable institution regulations, review other factual materials, 

and determine if a potential violation 

has been established that justifies opening a formal investigation of the facility. 

These have resulted in one RLUIPA investigation since 2001. The subject matters of the Division’s RLUIPA cases have 

included prisoners seeking access to 

clergy, prisoners seeking kosher meals 

or other special diets, prisoners seeking 

access to religious items or texts, and 

issues involving religious objections to 

grooming or uniform requirements. 

“RLUIPA . . . protects institutionalized 

persons who are unable freely to attend to 

their religious needs and are therefore 

dependent on the government's permission and accommodation for exercise of 

their religion. . . . We have no cause to 

believe that RLUIPA would not be applied 

in an appropriately balanced way, with 

particular sensitivity to security concerns.” 

– Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 

writing for the Court in 

Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005) 

The Department of Justice has also 

been active in defending challenges to 

the constitutionality of the institutionalized persons section of RLUIPA. The 

77 544 U.S. 709 (2005).

78 Id. at 720. 

79 Id. at 721. 

80 Id. at 722-23. 

Department’s Civil Division has intervened to defend the constitutionality of 

this section of RLUIPA in 40 cases. One 

of these cases, Cutter v. Wilkinson,

77 went 

to the Supreme Court, which rejected 

the claim that RLUIPA amounted to 

favoritism toward religion in violation 

of the Establishment Clause. Rather, the 

Supreme Court unanimously held: 

“[W]e find RLUIPA’s institutionalizedpersons provision compatible with the 

Establishment Clause because it alleviates exceptional government-created 

burdens on private religious exercise.”78 

The Court observed that “RLUIPA thus 

protects institutionalized persons who 

are unable freely to attend to their religious needs and are therefore dependent 

on the government’s permission and accommodation for exercise of their religion.”79 The Court, however, stressed 

that it did not view RLUIPA as leading 

to prisoners obtaining their desired religious accommodation in all cases, stating: “We have no cause to believe that 

RLUIPA would not be applied in an 

appropriately balanced way, with particular sensitivity to security concerns. . . .

Lawmakers supporting RLUIPA were 

mindful of the urgency of discipline, 

order, safety, and security in penal institutions.”80 

32 Fiscal Years 2001-2006 
PART II. 

Enforcement Results 2001-2006: Crimes Against Persons and Property Based on Religion 

G. Crimes Against Persons and 

Property Based on Religion 

There is perhaps no religious right as 

basic as the right to gather for worship 

or simply walk down the street without 

fear of being attacked because of one’s 

faith. The Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section, in conjunction with U.S. 

Attorney’s Offices around the country, 

prosecutes violations of criminal civil 

rights statutes. In the area of religionbased bias crimes against individuals, 

these encompass 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy to deprive a person of his or her 

civil rights), 18 U.S.C. § 245 (criminal 

interference with federally protected 

activities), and 42 U.S.C. § 3631 (criminal 

interference with housing rights). 

Two provisions specifically address 

vandalism and arson of religious property and interference with persons’ exercise 

of their religion at houses of worship. The 

Church Arson Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 247, makes it a crime to deface, damage, or destroy religious real property, or 

interfere with a person’s religious practice, in situations affecting interstate commerce. The Act also bars defacing, damaging, or destroying religious property 

because of the race, color, or ethnicity of 

persons associated with the property. 

Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 248 also makes 

it a crime to, “by force or threat of force or 

by physical obstruction, intentionally 

injur[e], intimidat[e] or interfer[e] with 

or attemp[t] to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising 

or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a 

place of religious worship” or to “intentionally damag[e] or destro[y] the property of a place of religious worship.” 

The number of prosecutions of religion-based attacks on individuals rose 

slightly from 1995-2000 compared to 

2001-2006, with four prosecutions in the 

The front door of the Islamic Center of 

Tallahassee, after Charles Franklin drove 

his pick-up truck into it as revenge for 

the 9/11 attacks. Franklin was found 

guilty and sentenced to 27 months in 

prison. 

former and six in the latter. Prosecution 

of arson, threatened arson and vandalism 

against houses of worship declined over 

these periods, however, from 75 in the 

former to 26 in the latter. This was due in 

large part to a rash of church arsons in the 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 33 
Department of Justice — Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom 

mid 1990s, which has since ebbed. Fifty Examples of recent criminal cases 

of these prosecutions were during the involving religion include: 

three-year period from 1996-1998. These 

numbers reflect the decline in all cate- ✦ United States v. Laskey, et al. (D. Or. 

gories of religious bias crimes, which, 2006), in which four members of the 

notwithstanding a rise in bias-motivated white supremacist group known as 

attacks on Muslims after the 9/11 terror- the Volksfront pleaded guilty to 

ist attacks, overall went down by 20% throwing rocks with swastikas 

from 1994 to 2003.81 etched in them through the windows of a synagogue in Eugene, 

Oregon during services. One defen- The Civil Rights dant was sentenced to 15 months 

Conspiracy Statute, imprisonment. The other sentenc18 U.S.C. § 241 ings are pending 

If two or more persons conspire to ✦ United States v. Nunez-Flores (W.D. 

injure, oppress, threaten, or intimi- Tex. 2005), in which a man pleaded 

guilty to throwing a Molotov cock- date any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, tail at an El Paso mosque and placor District in the free exercise or ing another on its utility meter, 

enjoyment of any right or privilege resulting in a 171-month prison sensecured to him by the Constitution or


laws of the United States, or because


of his having so exercised the same;


. . . They shall be fined under this title


or imprisoned not more than ten


years, or both; and if death results


from the acts committed in violation


of this section or if such acts include


kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap,


aggravated sexual abuse or an


attempt to commit aggravated sexual


abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall


be fined under this title or imprisoned


for any term of years or for life, or


both, or may be sentenced to death.


tence. 

✦ United States v. Dropik (E.D. Wis., 

W.D. Mich. 2005), in which a man 

pleaded guilty to burning two 

churches because he was angry at 

African-Americans, resulting in a 

63-month sentence. 

✦ United States v. Bryant and Martin 

(W.D. Va. 2004), in which two men 

pleaded guilty to vandalizing a historical African-American church by 

breaking windows in the sanctuary 

and smashing items throughout the 

church, resulting in sentences of 27 

and 21 months in prison. 

81 Hate Crime Trends in the United States 8 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, November 21, 2005). 

34 Fiscal Years 2001-2006 
PART II. 

Enforcement Results 2001-2006: Crimes Against Persons and Property Based on Religion 

✦ United States v. Franklin (N.D. Fla. 

2003), in which a man was convicted 

of driving his truck through the 

front door of a Tallahassee mosque 

and was sentenced to 27 months 

imprisonment. 

✦	 United States v. Goldstein et al., (M.D. 

Fla. 2003), in which several individuals conspired to attack an Islamic 

Center and gathered weapons and 

explosives to carry out their conspiracy, resulting in a sentence for the 

lead defendant of 151 months in 

prison. 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 35 
PART II. 

Enforcement Results 2001-2006: Religious Liberty in the Courts of Appeals 

H. Religious Liberty in the of the proceedings, as described 

Courts of Appeals below, the appeals court agreed 

with the United States and upheld 

a preliminary injunction in favor of Through participation as friend-of- the church). the-court in significant cases in the 

courts of appeals, the Department of ✦	 Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism v. Justice is committed to ensuring that the 

courts protect religious liberty. From 

2001 to 2006, the Civil Rights Division 

filed 16 appellate friend-of-the-court 

briefs in a broad range of religion cases, 

compared to one brief from 1995-2000. 

This effort so far has been very successful. The courts, in the cases decided durCity of Long Branch, No. 06-1319 (3d 

Cir.) (brief filed June 7, 2006, pending decision) (arguing that a church 

bringing a claim based on RLUIPA’s 

“equal terms” provision need only 

show discrimination against churches as compared to equivalent secular 

assemblies, and need not additional­ ing 2001-2006, have agreed with the ly show a “substantial burden” on its position advocated by the Civil Rights religious exercise).
 Division in almost every case. These


appellate briefs, some of which are ✦ Faith Temple Church v. Town of
 addressed more fully above, are:	 Brighton, No. 06-0354 (2d Cir.) (brief 

filed May 24, 2006, case settled ✦ Westchester Day School v. Village of


Mamaroneck, No. 06-1464 (2d Cir.)


(brief filed August 11, 2006, pending


decision) (arguing that the district


court correctly held that a village


while appeal was pending) (arguing that abuse of eminent domain 

power to seize church land can violate RLUIPA). 

violated a Jewish school’s rights ✦ Living Waters Church of God v. Meri­ under the Religious Land Use and dian Charter Township, No. 05-2309 Institutionalize Persons Act (RLUIPA) (6th Cir.) (brief filed March 15, when it denied it permission to


expand its dilapidated and over­


crowded facilities).


2006, pending decision) (arguing 

that a church denied a permit to 

build in excess of 25,000 square feet 

was substantially burdened under ✦ Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of RLUIPA because the church cannot Education of the City of New York, No. carry out all of its ministries in a 06-0725 (2d Cir.) (brief filed July 16, smaller building). 2006, pending decision) (arguing that 

the school board’s refusal to rent ✦ Faith Center v. Glover, No. 05-16132 school facilities after hours to a (9th Cir. 2006) (brief filed Nov- church on an equal basis with other ember 22, 2005) (arguing that a community organizations violated library that offered space to a wide the Constitution; at an earlier stage 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 37 
Department of Justice — Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom 

range of community groups for 

meetings could not exclude a relia church need not show that there is no plot of land in a city where it 

gious group on the ground that part could locate before it can show a 

of its meetings would include worship activities; court ruled for substantial burden under RLUIPA; 

court agreed and ruled for the plaindefendants, finding worship to be tiff). 

distinguishable from speech with a 

religious viewpoint; petition for ✦ Guru Nanak Sikh Society v. County of 

rehearing pending). Sutter, No. 03-17343 (9th Cir. 2006) 

✦ Baker v. The Home Depot, No. 05-1069 

(arguing as intervenor/amicus curiae 

that when the only zones in a coun-

(2d Cir. 2006) (joint brief with EEOC ty in which a house of worship 

arguing that offering a Sabbathobserving employee the morning could locate were in agricultural 

and residential districts, a Sikh conoff to attend worship was not a rea­ gregation that was denied permits 

sonable accommodation under Title 

VII, since the employee’s religious 

to build on land it purchased first in 

a residential district, and then in an 

requirement was that he refrain agricultural district, and was willfrom all work on the Sabbath; the 

appeals court agreed and reversed 

ing to accept various reasonable 

conditions to ameliorate communithe decision of the district court). ty impact, had demonstrated a substantial burden under RLUIPA; 

✦ Barnes Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America, court agreed and held for the conNos. 04-55732, 04-56167 (9th Cir.) (brief gregation). 

filed February 15, 2005, pending decision) (arguing that San Diego’s low­ ✦ Midrash Sephardi v. Town of Surfside, 

cost lease with the Boy Scouts to allow No. 03-13858-CC (11th Cir. 2004) 

it to operate a campground and a boating center that are open to the public (arguing that a town barring two 

small Orthodox Jewish congregadoes not violate the Establishment tions from locating in its commerClause in light of the fact that the 

Boy Scouts’ requirement of revercial district, but permitting fraternal organizations and other secular 

ence does not make it a religious assemblies, violated the equal-terms 

organization, and since similar leases are offered to many other comprovision of RLUIPA; court agreed 

and ruled for the plaintiff). 

munity groups offering benefits to 

the public). ✦ Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Montgomery County Public Schools, No. 

✦ Saints Constantine & Helen Greek 03-1534 (4th Cir. 2004) (arguing that 

Orthodox Church v. City of Berlin, No. 

04-2326 (7th Cir. 2005) (arguing that 

a school that permitted various 

youth-serving organizations to dis38 Fiscal Years 2001-2006 
PART II. 

Enforcement Results 2001-2006: Religious Liberty in the Courts of Appeals 

tribute permission slips and informational literature about meetings could 

not discriminate against religiousoriented youth organization; court 

agreed and ruled for the plaintiff). 

the entire program under a provision of 

the state constitution requiring “a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools”). 

✦ Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Stafford Township, No. 03-1101 (3d Cir. 

2004) (similar facts to Montgomery 

County; court also found for the 

plaintiff). 

✦ Donovan v. Punxsutawney School District, No. 02-3897 (3d Cir. 2003) 

(arguing that barring a student-run 

Bible club from meeting during a 

school activity period when other 

noncurricular clubs could meet violated the Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C. 

§ 4071 et seq., and the Constitution; 

court agreed and ruled for the club). 

✦ Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of 

Education, No. 02-7781 (2d Cir. 2003) 

(arguing that a church was likely to 

succeed on its claim that the school 

board’s refusal to rent it facilities on 

✦ 

an equal basis with other community 

organizations violated the Constitution; court agreed and upheld preliminary injunction for the church). 

Bush v. Holmes, No. 04-2323 (Fla. 2006) 

(arguing that were the court to construe Florida’s Opportunity Scholarship Program to exclude students in 

religious schools under the State’s “no 

aid to religion” provision, the exclusion would likely violate the United 

States Constitution; court did not 

reach this issue, instead striking down 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 39 
PART III. 

Outreach 

Outreach 

Experience in enforcing civil rights 

over the past 50 years has taught that a 

key to success is developing good working relationships with civil rights and 

community organizations. It is such 

groups on the ground that bring many 

cases to the Department of Justice’s attention, help identify trends and issues, and 

help spread the word about people’s 

rights. The Justice Department’s partnerships with diverse groups and stakeholders are indispensable. 

In the area of religious liberty, since 

2001 the Civil Rights Division has met 

with more than 60 civil rights groups and 

religious denominations about religious 

liberty issues, including organizations 

representing Christians, Jews, Muslims, 

Hindus, Sikhs, and Native Americans. 

Senior Department of Justice officials 

have given speeches on religious liberty 

at events sponsored by the Union of 

Orthodox Jewish Congregations, Campus Crusade for Christ, Christian Leadership Ministries, Agudath Israel, United 

Sikhs, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, 

the North American South Asian Bar 

Association, the National Association of 

Muslim Lawyers, the American-Arab 

Anti-Discrimination Committee, and the 

Sikh American Legal Defense and 

Education Fund, among others. 

The Department of Justice provides a 

number of publications about religious 

liberty. In July 2006 the Civil Rights 

Division sent a letter to every religious 

denominational organization in the counAttorney General Alberto R. Gonzales speaking to Agudath 

Israel on religious discrimination and other issues at a briefing in Washington, D.C. 

try, as well as every regional interfaith 

organization, providing information about 

its religious liberty efforts and enclosing 

copies of several informational brochures. 

Individual or bulk copies of these documents, or additional copies of this report, 

can be obtained free of charge by calling 

the Special Counsel for Religious Discrimination at (202) 353-8622 or by writing to: 

Special Counsel for Religious 

Discrimination 

Office of the Assistant Attorney 

General 

Civil Rights Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

These documents also can be downloaded from the Civil Rights Division website, www.usdoj.gov/crt: 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 41 
Department of Justice — Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom 

1) PROTECTING THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF ALL: FEDERAL LAWS AGAINST 

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION: This 4" x 

9", 11-page color booklet outlines the 

various religious liberty laws that the 

Department of Justice enforces, including information for filing complaints. A web-based version of the 

booklet can be printed by going to 

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/religdisc/ 

religionpamp.htm. 

2) A GUIDE TO FEDERAL RELIGIOUS LAND 

USE PROTECTIONS: This three-page 

color information sheet explains the 

basics of RLUIPA and how the Department of Justice can assist congregations and religious schools when 

their rights are violated. The guide is 

available at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ 

religdisc/rluipa_guide.pdf. 

3) KNOW YOUR RIGHTS: FEDERAL LAWS 

PROTECTING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: This 

one-page color fact sheet provides a 

brief overview of the laws protecting 

individuals and institutions from 

religion-based discrimination, and 

can be printed from the web at 

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/religdisc/know 

_your_rights.pdf. 

4) RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN FOCUS: This 

periodic email update highlights religious liberty cases brought by the 

Department of Justice. To subscribe, 

send an email to Jacqueline.Greene@ 

usdoj.gov. Back issues of this publication are available at http://www. usdoj. 

gov/crt/religdisc/newsletters.html. 

An online version of this report, 

which can be viewed, downloaded or 

printed, is available at: www.usdoj.gov/ 

crt/religious_freedom_report.pdf. 

42 Fiscal Years 2001-2006 
PART III. 

Outreach 

Posters produced and distributed by the Civil Rights Division encourage tolerance 

and accommodation by educating government officials, particularly law enforcement, about common headcoverings worn by Muslims and Sikhs. 

The Civil Rights Division’s experience 

over the past six years has shown that 

there is much that the Department of 

Justice can do to protect people from religious discrimination and enhance the religious freedom of all. The Department of 

Justice has already done much to expand 

enforcement in this area, but with the continued help of civil rights, community, and 

religious organizations, and with the sustained commitment of the Department to 

this important area, there is even more 

progress to be made. 

Fiscal Years 2001-2006 43 
United States Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

www.usdoj.gov/crt

www.FirstFreedom.gov