Court Opinion

ID: 9693701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:57:35.153031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:17.073551
License: Public Domain

STEIN, J.,
dissenting.
The Court today holds that New Jersey’s regulations preventing consumer fraud in the sale of kosher products are facially unconstitutional. The determination whether either the church or the State has intruded impermissibly “into the precincts of the other,” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2112, 29 L.Ed.2d 745, 756 (1971), is profoundly important and often exceedingly difficult. The danger we seek to avoid stems from the belief that “a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion.” Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 1267, 8 L.Ed.2d 601, 608 (1962). I commend and share the Court’s concern for avoiding even the slightest fissure in the constitutional barrier separating church and State. Here, however, the Court goes too far in finding New Jersey’s kosher regulations facially invalid. The Court reaches that conclusion through a strained and technical analysis of the Establishment Clause, ignoring case law and the record before us. It is the first State court to overturn such regulations.
Rather than assisting religion, the regulations reflect the State’s strong secular interest in preventing consumer fraud in the sale and marketing of kosher-food products. Although the majority relies heavily on variant interpretations of nuances in kosher observance, the facial challenge here simply is unrelated to the esoteric disputes that have intrigued talmudic scholars over the centuries. I discern no constitutional prohibition against enforcing the regulations when enforcement entails straightforward, objective, factual inquiries that focus primarily not on whether the supplier of the food complied strictly with the detailed requirements of kosher-food preparation but rather *170on whether the merchant or service establishment has relied in good faith on representations by the supplier that the food has been properly prepared.
The Court reaches its conclusion absent any showing that the regulations are motivated solely by a religious purpose, that enforcement necessarily involves the State in furthering a religion, or that enforcing the regulations entangles the State in religious matters. The majority’s reasoning rests substantially on two contentions: that there is considerable disagreement over the meaning of “kosher,” and that the administrative scheme confers civil authority on religious persons or entities. The language of the regulations and the record before us, however, do not support those conclusions. Plaintiffs have not produced evidence demonstrating either that agreement over the standards for kosher-food preparation is generally lacking or that the extent of disagreement about the meaning of “kosher” is so substantial as to render all enforcement actions invalid. Further, the majority ignores the longstanding and established precedent recognizing that “kosher” has a meaning in the trade sufficiently well-developed to permit enforcement of kosher regulations. If that standard defines “kosher” in most instances, the regulations may be enforced by referring only to objective and, therefore, secular criteria. Consequently, the regulations do not require the State to make religious determinations.
In addition, the regulations do not require enforcement personnel to be members of the clergy. Nor do they require any religious body to be involved in enforcement matters. The terms of the regulations do not even provide for the Advisory Committee referred to by the majority opinion. Thus, the regulations do not confer governmental power on religious personnel. Because I conclude that the regulations may be constitutionally enforced when they entail application of objective, uniform criteria to identify and address instances of consumer fraud in kosher products, I cannot agree that the regulations are facially invalid.
*171I
The facial challenge before the Court arose from an enforcement action brought by the Attorney General against RanDav’s County Kosher, Inc. (County Kosher), alleging violations of several provisions of New Jersey’s regulations governing the preparation, maintenance, and sale of kosher products. See N.J.A.C. 13:45A-21.1 to -21.7, N.J.A.C. 13:45A-22.1 to -22.3 (the regulations). County Kosher challenged the regulations' constitutionality in its affirmative defenses and counterclaims to the enforcement action. The trial court, after hearing oral argument, denied the parties’ respective requests for injunctive relief and determined that the Appellate Division, not the trial court, was the proper forum for County Kosher’s constitutional challenge. A divided panel of the Appellate Division upheld the regulation. 243 N.J.Super. 232, 579 A.2d 316 (1991).
The sole issue before us is whether the regulations are facially unconstitutional. No record has been developed regarding the factual disputes involved in the underlying enforcement action, nor has any fact-finding been conducted. We therefore need not and cannot determine whether the regulations would withstand an as-applied challenge.
Preliminarily, we note that the abbreviated record generated by virtue of the facial challenge presented may have misled the majority in its perception and characterization of the regulatory scheme as one that regulates the “antecedent preparation and maintenance” of kosher products. Ante at 155. That characterization is simply incorrect. The regulations virtually ignore the technical rules and procedures involved in the preparation of kosher products, omitting for example any reference to so basic an element of kashrut as the method of slaughter. Rather, the regulatory approach appears to focus not on whether the slaughterhouse or manufacturer properly observed generally-accepted principles in preparing the kosher-food products but on whether the distributor of the food obtained adequate written verification from its suppliers that the food had been *172properly prepared. In that connection, the regulations contain a so-called “Exculpatory section,” N.J.A. C. 13:45A-21.7, providing that no establishment selling or serving food shall have “committed an unlawful practice” if it relied in good faith on representations of a slaughterhouse, manufacturer, processor, packer, or distributor that the food had been prepared in accordance with established standards.
Accordingly, the regulations concentrate on whether those engaged in the sale or service of kosher-food products have complied with the display and handling requirements, N.J.A. C. 13:45A-21.3, mandating separation of kosher and non-kosher foods, appropriate internal signage in display cabinets, use of separate utensils for meat and dairy products, and display of tags on meat products verifying that washing and deveining standards had been met. The regulations also mandate that all kosher meat and poultry offered for sale contain identification tags that had been affixed by the slaughterhouse on designated parts of meat and poultry disclosing the identity of the slaughterhouse, the date of slaughter, and the name of the person who had sanctioned the slaughter. N.J.A.C. 13:45A-21.1; 13:45A-21.4. Even the Violation Report form reproduced in the record, the use of which has apparently been discontinued, reveals that the enforcement of the regulations focuses almost exclusively on display, labeling, and signage, as well as on misrepresentation of food products as kosher. To the extent that we are informed by the regulations and by the truncated record, the regulatory function — contrary to the majority’s characterization — involves primarily verification of objective and uncontroverted requirements, rather than the highly-technical supervision of the slaughtering and preparation of kosher food.
The record contains minimal evidence regarding whether the regulations’ reference to Orthodox Judaism imposes a religious standard or whether it refers, in most instances, to a uniform, objective, and therefore secular standard for kosher-food processing. To the extent disagreement exists regarding the defi*173nition of “kosher,” the record does not indicate whether the areas of disagreement are so substantial as to render enforcement constitutionally infirm in all or substantially all instances. Contrary to the majority’s contention that the record indicates “considerable disagreement over what precepts or tenets truly represent the laws of Kashrut,” ante at 147, the only reference to that purportedly-broad disagreement is found in an array of articles from various sources attached to the parties’ briefs. For example, the parties have submitted several newspaper articles that allude to disagreements among authorities regarding whether particular practices render food kosher. According to other newspaper articles submitted to the court, some authorities believe that a uniform definition of “kosher,” derived from Orthodox Judaism, resolves the question whether food is kosher in the vast majority of applications, despite disagreements with respect to fringe issues not raised by most enforcement actions. The parties have offered other articles by various rabbis concerning whether particular foods and food products are kosher. Those articles, however, do not indicate whether those foods are involved in a significant proportion of the State’s enforcement actions. Neither do any of the secondary sources surveyed refute the conclusion that widespread agreement exists concerning a significant body of kosher-food-preparation principles.
The record also includes the affidavits of four rabbis, representing each of the four branches of Judaism: Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist. Each of those Rabbis attests that his branch of Judaism recognizes Orthodox Judaism as the source of law regarding kosher preparation of food. Although they each acknowledge some measure of disagreement concerning particular food-preparation practices, all maintain that most kosher practices are governed by unitary, acknowledged standards as interpreted by Orthodox Judaism.
Additionally, the record does not establish that the regulations, on their face, require either the involvement of any religious officials or the employment of persons of a particular *174religious background in enforcement matters. The regulations do not require that a religious official hold any of the enforcement positions. Although Rabbi Dombroff, the current Chief of Enforcement, is a rabbi, rabbinical training is not required for the job. Indeed, the previous Chief of Enforcement was neither a rabbi or an observant Jew.
Further, the role of the State Kosher Advisory Committee (the Committee) is not at issue in this facial challenge because the Committee was established by Executive Order; the regulations do not provide for or refer to such a committee. Even if the Committee’s role was at issue, the parties present no evidence of any specific instance in which the Committee advised enforcement authorities about compliance with the regulations. A deputy attorney general representing the Bureau of Kosher Enforcement (the Bureau) certified that she had had no contact or involvement with the Committee in the two years she had represented the Bureau, and that the Committee had not participated in any of the Bureau’s adjudicatory functions.
II
In considering the constitutional challenge before it, the Court must determine whether the regulations, on their face, violate the First Amendment. As the United States Supreme Court has said, “It has not been the Court’s practice, in considering facial challenges to statutes * * * to strike them down in anticipation that particular applications may [produce unconstitutional results].” Roemer v. Board of Pub. Works, 426 U.S. 736, 761, 96 S.Ct. 2337, 2352, 49 L.Ed.2d 179, 196 (1976). Accordingly, a statute or regulation may be valid on its face but invalid in a particular application. See Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 601, 108 S.Ct. 2562, 2570, 101 L.Ed.2d 520, 535 (1988); Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 682, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 2098, 29 L.Ed.2d 790, 801 (1971) (“We cannot, however, strike down an Act of Congress on the basis of a hypothetical ‘profile.’ ”). Thus, a statute or regulation is facially unconstitutional only if *175the constitution is necessarily violated every time the law is enforced. See Committee for Pub. Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 779-80, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 2968-69, 37 L.Ed.2d 948, 967 (1973) (holding statutes providing maintenance and repair benefits to private schools facially invalid because of inevitable effect of subsidizing religious mission of sectarian schools). That comports with the settled notion that a regulation or statute will be construed to avoid constitutional defects if it is reasonably susceptible of such a construction. New Jersey Bd. of Higher Educ. v. Board of Directors, 90 N.J. 470, 478, 448 A.2d 988 (1982); State v. Profaci, 56 N.J. 346, 350, 266 A.2d 579 (1970).
In considering whether governmental regulation of consumer fraud in the sale of kosher foods violates the First Amendment, we note that
[i]n every Establishment Clause case, we must reconcile the inescapable tension between the objective of preventing unnecessary intrusion of either the church or the state upon the other, and the reality that, as the Court has so often noted, total separation of the two is not possible.
[Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 672, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 1359, 79 L.Ed.2d 604, 609 (1984).]
We are guided by the principle that the Constitution does not “require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.” Id. at 673, 104 S.Ct. at 1359, 79 L.Ed.2d at 610. Because the United States Supreme Court “consistently has declined to take a rigid, absolutist view of the Establishment Clause,” our analysis under this test must entail a careful balancing of all the circumstances. Id. at 678-79, 104 S.Ct. at 1361, 79 L.Ed.2d at 613.
To evaluate County Kosher’s facial challenge to the regulations on Establishment Clause grounds, this Court must apply the standard first articulated in Lemon, supra, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S. Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745. I note initially that the regulations need not be subjected to a strict-scrutiny analysis as articulated in Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982), because they do not discriminate among different *176religions or religious sects. Therefore, under the three-pronged Lemon test, the regulations would be invalid under the Establishment Clause “only if [they are] motivated wholly by an impermissible purpose, if [their] primary effect is the advancement of religion, or if [they] require[ ] excessive entanglement between church and state.” Bowen, supra, 487 U.S. at 602, 108 S.Ct. at 2570, 101 L.Ed.2d at 536 (citations omitted); see also Lemon, supra, 403 U.S. at 612-13, 91 S.Ct. at 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d at 755 (setting forth three-pronged test).
The first prong of the Lemon test evaluates whether the regulations were motivated by a religious purpose. Id. at 612, 91 S.Ct. at 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d at 755; Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at 679-80,104 S.Ct. at 1362-63, 79 L.Ed.2d at 613-14. In order to invalidate state action under this prong, the religious purpose must predominate. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 599, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 2585-86, 96 L.Ed.2d 510, 529 (1987) (Powell, J., concurring); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 56, 105 S. Ct. 2479, 2489-90, 86 L.Ed.2d 29, 43 (1985). Even in the face of substantial benefits to religion, governmental action has been held to be consistent with the Establishment Clause where motivated by a secular purpose. Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at 680, 104 S. Ct. at 1362-63, 79 L.Ed.2d at 614; see Board of Educ. v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 88 S.Ct. 1923, 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1968) (upholding statute that required local public school authorities to lend textbooks free of charge to children in private parochial schools); Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 7, 18, 67 S. Ct. 504, 507, 513, 91 L.Ed. 711, 719, 725 (1947) (upholding statute that authorized reimbursement to parents for monies expended for their children’s bus transportation to parochial school).
Here, the regulations serve the secular purpose of protecting consumers from fraud in the sale of kosher food. As we were informed at oral argument, the kosher-food industry involves a vast commercial market, representing approximately $1.5 billion in sales annually. The industry is particularly susceptible to fraud because consumers cannot readily discern whether food has been prepared in compliance with kosher laws; thus *177non-kosher food products can easily be represented to be kosher. The Division of Consumer Affairs’ statement accompanying the proposed regulations underscores the Division’s intent to protect consumers from misrepresentation of kosher products, regardless of whether the consumer purchased the goods for religious or other reasons:
The proposed new rules make it unlawful for any establishment engaged in the sale of food or food products to sell, offer for sale, serve or possess with intent to sell, any food [that] is falsely represented as Kosher.
********
* * * These rules make it illegal to falsely represent foods as Kosher or Kosher for Passover and thus protect the consumer who, for reasons of religion, conscience, quality or health, intends to purchase Kosher foods.
[16 N.J.R. 220 (Feb. 6, 1984).]
The parties do not contest either the State’s power to promulgate regulations to protect consumers or the secular nature of that power. Indeed, the majority concedes that “the objective of the regulation is to protect against fraudulent sales.” Ante at 166.
. The regulations retain their valid secular purpose despite their incorporation of a religious definition. Cf. People v. Atlas, 183 A.D. 595, 170 N.Y.S. 834, 835 (App.Div.1918), aff'd, 230 N.Y. 629, 130 N.E. 921 (1921) (recognizing that purpose of New York’s kosher law, to prevent fraud, is within the Legislature’s general police power). The mere reference to religion need not render a statute or regulation facially unconstitutional. For example, the Humane Slaughter Act, 7 U.S. C. §§ 1901-1906, withstood an establishment clause challenge although it includes within its definition of humane, “slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith.” See Jones v. Butz, 374 F.Supp. 1284 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 419 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 22, 42 L.Ed.2d 36 (1974). There, the court found a secular legislative purpose in that Congress intended “to establish humane standards for the slaughter of livestock.” Id. at 1293. It concluded that the fact that the Act’s provision “defining humaneness coincided with the method of Jewish ritual slaughter * * * neither advanced nor inhibited religion.” *178Ibid. Similarly, here the regulations refer to a religious definition in order to serve a valid secular purpose of eliminating consumer fraud. Therefore, incorporating Orthodox Jewish standards does not undermine the regulations’ secular purpose.
Further, even if the regulations had been intended in part to accommodate the religious practice of a particular group, they need not be invalidated. The “purpose” prong “does not mean that the law’s purpose must be unrelated to religion.” Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 335, 107 S.Ct. 2862, 2868, 97 L.Ed.2d 273, 282 (1987). The State may respect “the religious nature of our people and accommodate[ ] the public service to their spiritual needs.” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314, 72 S.Ct. 679, 684, 96 L.Ed. 954, 962 (1952). Accordingly, even if the regulations had been designed in part to accommodate consumers who purchase kosher food for religious reasons, they would not violate the “purpose” prong because the regulations nevertheless serve the secular purpose of protecting both religious and non-religious consumers from fraud.
The second prong of the Lemon test provides that the regulations’ principal or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion. Lemon, supra, 403 U.S. at 612, 91 S. Ct. at 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d at 755. In evaluating the effect of governmental conduct under the Establishment Clause, we must determine whether “the challenged governmental action is sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents of the controlling denominations as an endorsement, and by the nonadherents as a disapproval, of their individual religious choices.” Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 597, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 3103, 106 L.Ed.2d 472, 497 (1989) (quoting Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 390, 105 S.Ct. 3216, 3226, 87 L.Ed.2d 267, 281 (1985)). Thus, even if some advancement of religion will result from governmental action, there is no impermissible effect if the “reason or effect merely happens to c-incide or harmonize with the tenets of some * * * religion[ ].” Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at 682, 104 S.Ct. at 1364, 79 L.Ed.2d at 616 (quoting McGowan *179v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 442, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 1113, 6 L.Ed.2d 393, 408 (1961)).
The context of the religious reference or symbol is therefore critical in determining whether governmental action has an impermissible effect. Allegheny, supra, 492 U.S. at 595-98, 109 S.Ct. at 3102-04, 106 L.Ed.2d at 496-98. Explicitly-religious references may consequently be permissible in a context that conveys a secular message and does not communicate an endorsement of any particular religion. See Id. at 618-20, 109 S.Ct. at 3114-15, 106 L.Ed.2d at 510-11 (holding that menorah included in holiday display along with other secular holiday symbols created no impermissible effect); Bowen, supra, 487 U.S. at 604-15, 108 S.Ct. at 2571-78, 101 L.Ed.2d at 537-44 (holding that statute providing funding for services relating to adolescent sexuality and pregnancy, which expressly encouraged federally-supported services to promote the involvement of religious organizations, had no impermissible effect); Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at 671, 681-83, 104 S.Ct. at 1358, 1363-64, 79 L.Ed.2d at 608-09, 615-16 (holding that creche containing both secular and religious representations had no impermissible effect).
I conclude that the regulations prohibiting consumer fraud in the sale of kosher products do not have the impermissible effect of advancing religion. No showing has been made that the State’s enforcement will be perceived as endorsing Orthodox Judaism or as disapproving other religious choices. Enforcement does not encourage consumers to purchase kosher food, nor does it encourage merchants to sell kosher food. Further, because the regulations on their face authorize factual inquiries in order objectively to apply non-disputed kosher principles, the State is not forcing compliance with a particular religious interpretation; rather, it enforces unitary standards that do not favor a particular religion or religious sect.
The regulations’ reference to Orthodox Judaism must be considered in the context of a regulatory scheme focused on *180protecting all consumers of kosher products. As the majority acknowledges, “[t]he false promotion of non-kosher foods harms a variety of consumers” including members of other religions, people with particular health problems, and others who believe kosher meat is superior because it is prepared under close supervision. Ante at 148. The representation that fewer than one-third of the consumers of kosher products are Jewish indicates that the regulations have the effect of protecting a broad group of consumers, not just persons of a particular religion or religious sect. Therefore, enforcement provides no direct support to any particular religious organization. Thus, the regulations do not have an impermissible effect merely because they incorporate a religious reference.
Furthermore, the reference to Orthodox Judaism does not advance a religion by identifying the State with a religion or by creating a symbolic union of government and religion. See Grand Rapids, supra, 473 U.S. at 389, 105 S.Ct. at 3225-26, 87 L.Ed.2d at 281. The majority reasons that such an identification is fostered by the fact that the Chief of the Bureau of Kosher Enforcement and the members of the Advisory Committee are rabbis, and because “those individuals are being used by and for the State in their religious capacity to interpret and enforce state law.” Ante at 164. That assertion ignores the fact that the regulations, on their face, do not require either the Chief or the inspectors to be rabbis or even to be Jewish. Significantly, the Chief of Enforcement who preceded Rabbi Dombroff was not a rabbi or an observant Jew, and one of the current inspectors is not Jewish. Rabbi Dombroff s role here might be more relevant to an as-applied than to a facial challenge. Even in that context, however, that the current Chief of Enforcement happens to be a rabbi cannot be said impermissibly to confer civil authority on a religious person.
Moreover, the regulations themselves do not mention the creation, existence, use, or composition of the Advisory Committee. Putting aside the paucity of evidence regarding the Committee’s actual involvement in enforcing the regulations, the *181Committee is simply not relevant to this facial challenge because it is not referred to within the regulations. Even in an as-applied context, the record does not establish that the Committee has exercised governmental power. The record contains no evidence of a single instance in which the Committee had been consulted or in which it advised the Chief of Enforcement regarding compliance. The sole evidence in the record of the Committee’s involvement is one comment purportedly made by Rabbi Dombroff to County Kosher’s attorney that he consulted with the Committee “when h[e] felt it necessary.” The regulations, therefore, do not require or provide for the intervention of any religious personnel. On their face, then, the regulations do not identify the State with a particular religion, nor do they have the effect of furthering establishment of a religion in violation of the First Amendment.
Under the third prong of the Lemon standard, government action “must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion’ ” in order to withstand an establishment-clause challenge. Lemon, supra, 403 U.S. at 613, 91 S.Ct. at 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d at 755 (quoting Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 674, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 1414, 25 L.Ed.2d 697, 704 (1970)). In applying that test we note that “[t]here is no exact science in gauging the entanglement of church and state,” and emphasize that it is “excessive entanglement” that is prohibited. Roemer, supra, 426 U.S. at 766, 96 S.Ct. at 2354, 49 L.Ed.2d at 199.
The majority determines that the regulations foster excessive entanglement because they “impose substantive religious standards,” ante at 154, and “authorize[ ] the State to monitor the adherence to those standards.” Ante at 155. However, as discussed supra at 146-48, the regulations focus primarily on whether kosher foods offered for sale comply with the various display, identification, and verification requirements; they do not address other aspects of kosher-food preparation, such as the requisite method of slaughtering animals or poultry. Accordingly, the regulations appear to contemplate a relatively unintrusive form of monitoring that attempts to limit the evalu*182ation to objective rather than religious judgments. Thus, the inspection of a kosher-food establishment’s compliance with the regulations involves a routine and objective inquiry concerning whether, for example, the food offered for sale is displayed as either kosher or non-kosher, whether kosher and non-kosher foods are separated, whether identification tags are affixed to the respective parts of kosher meats, and whether the tags on meats indicate that they had been washed and deveined. That an inspector requires no religious training or background to perform those functions is self-evident. The inquiry is essentially the same as that conducted by an inspector evaluating compliance with health and safety regulations. Therefore, rather than policing the “religious purity” of kosher food, the State, through the regulations, merely enforces another of its consumer codes.
The majority also reasons that the regulations foster excessive entanglement because of “differences of opinion * * * with respect to the laws of kashrut.” Ante at 159. Concededly, some religious scholars may disagree over nuances of kosher-food-preparation standards. However, those disagreements are not implicated by the objective regulations at issue here. Even if they were relevant, neither the record nor the secondary sources surveyed establish that those disputes are so pervasive and substantial as to engender a dispute over religious doctrine in the routine enforcement actions contemplated by the regulations. See supra at 172-174. That secondary sources may inform the Court concerning background questions relevant to the litigation before it does not sanction their use by the majority as substantive evidence of central issues vigorously disputed by the parties. Cf. Allegheny, supra, 492 U.S. at 614 n. 60, 109 S.Ct. at 3112 n. 60, 106 L.Ed.2d at 507-08 n. 60 (discussing use of secondary sources). Further, disputes over the various “shades of observance” or of the true nature of Judaism are not germane to our inquiry because they advert to personal choices concerning religious beliefs, not to the stan*183dards for preparation of kosher foods on which a broad range of consumers rely.
Plaintiffs assert that no unitary standard exists for determining whether food is kosher. The only documents in the record supporting that claim are a number of newspaper articles, which are not admissible as evidence of the facts stated therein. State v. Otis Elevator Co., 10 N.J. 504, 509, 92 A.2d 385 (1952); Samuel Sheitelman, Inc. v. Hoffman, 106 N.J.Super. 353, 356, 255 A.2d 807 (App.Div.1969). The record does not reflect that any party requested the Appellate Division or this Court to take judicial notice of any of the articles submitted or of any facts that they recite. Evid.R. 9(3). Had such a request been made, the articles surely would not have been appropriate subjects for judicial notice because they address matters sharply disputed in this case. See Evid.R. 9(2); Essex County Div. of Welfare v. Harris, 189 N.J.Super. 479, 481-82, 460 A.2d 713 (App.Div. 1983). In contrast, the affidavits of rabbis representing each branch of Judaism assert that each branch recognizes Orthodox Judaism as the source of kosher law, and maintain that most kosher practices are governed by unitary principles.
In addition, the conclusion that the regulations are entirely religious contradicts the long-established holdings of many courts, including the United States Supreme Court, that references to Judaism in kosher regulations refer to sufficiently definite and objective standards capable of enforcement by courts when there is no disagreement among religious authorities about whether a particular food is kosher. For example, the United States Supreme Court recognized that a similar New York statute providing consumer protection for kosher foods was not unconstitutionally vague. The Court noted that “the evidence, while conflicting, warrants the conclusion that the term ‘kosher’ has a meaning well-enough defined to enable one engaged in the trade to correctly apply it; at least, as a general thing.” Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U.S. 497, 502, 45 S.Ct. 141, 142, 69 L.Ed. 402, 407 (1925). Similarly, in *184discussing the validity of the New York statute, one court noted that
[i]t is manifest, however, that the Legislature did not intend to use the word “kosher” in an indefinite sense, but evidently in the ordinary sense in which it is used in the trade, which is to designate meat as having been prepared under and of a product sanctioned by said religious requirements, and, therefore, as I view it, the Legislature has itself definitely defined the word “kosher” as used in the statute. This construction leaves the statute'sufficiently definite * * *.
[Atlas, supra, 170 N.Y.S. at 835-36.]
See also National Foods, Inc. v. Rubin, 727 F.Supp. 104, 109 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (acknowledging long-standing recognition of constitutionality of New York’s kosher laws); People v. Goldberger, 163 N.Y.S. 663 (Ct.Spec.Sess.1916) (upholding constitutionality of New York’s kosher regulation). Indeed, courts have not refrained from enforcing New York’s kosher laws. See, e.g., Cohen v. Eisenberg, 173 Misc. 1089, 19 N.Y.S.2d 678 (Sup.Ct.), aff'd, 260 A.D. 1014, 24 N.Y.S.2d 1004 (App.Div.1940); People v. Gordon, 172 Misc. 543, 14 N.Y.S.2d 333 (Ct.Spec.Sess.1939), rev’d on other grounds, 258 A.D. 421, 16 N.Y.S.2d 833 (App.Div.), aff'd, 283 N.Y. 705, 28 N.E.2d 717 (1940).
Other courts have similarly recognized that kosher regulations refer to sufficiently definite and secular standards to warrant enforcement. For example, Maryland’s highest court recently upheld the validity of Baltimore’s city-code provision regulating the sale of kosher foods under Maryland’s state constitution, noting that “[fjactors that make particular items fit for consumption under these dietary strictures can be complex, but the overwhelming majority of these laws are well settled and not subject to dispute.” Barghout v. Mayor & City Council, 325 Md. 311, 600 A.2d 841, 847 (1992); see also Erlich v. Municipal Court, 55 Cal.2d 553, 11 Cal.Rptr. 758, 360 P.2d 334 (1961) (upholding California statute regulating fraud in sale of kosher food as sufficiently definite and referring to generally-recognized laws and customs); Sossin Systems, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 262 So.2d 28, 30 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1972) (Miami Beach ordinance regulating sale of kosher food does not violate Establishment Clause; rather it “serves to safeguard the ob*185servance of [religious] tenets.”); 52 A.L.R.3d 959 § 2 (1973) (noting that courts have generally upheld statutes and ordinances prohibiting misrepresentation in marketing of kosher food against various constitutional challenges).
In addition, the wide spectrum of consumers who apparently rely on representations that food products are kosher underscores the diminishing religious nature of the kosher designation. Cf. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 792, 103 S.Ct. 3330, 3336, 77 L.Ed.2d 1019, 1028 (1983) (recognizing that legislative prayer “has become part of the fabric of our society” in light of unambiguous and unbroken history of use); McGowan, supra, 366 U.S. at 431-38, 444, 81 S. Ct. at 1108-12, 1114-15, 6 L.Ed.2d at 402-06, 410 (considering whether legislation lost its religious character in order to adjudicate constitutionality of Sunday-closing laws); Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, § 14-15, at 1294 (2d ed. 1988) (noting that “[c]learly, practices can outgrow their religious roots * * *.”). Even if religious in origin, the kosher designation serves an increasingly secular role in our society. Thus, to the extent the New Jersey regulations refer to commercially-recognized and sufficiently-definite standards, they are facially valid and do not enmesh the State in monitoring religious practices.
The majority contends that the religious qualifications of the persons selected to enforce the regulations further evidences their sectarian nature. Ante at 156. As discussed, supra at 156-57, the regulations neither require the Chief of the Bureau of Enforcement to be a rabbi nor provide for an Advisory Committee. Thus, unlike either Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, 459 U.S. 116, 125-27, 103 S.Ct. 505, 511-12, 74 L.Ed.2d 297, 306-08 (1982), or Spacco v. Bridgewater School Dep’t, 722 F.Supp. 834, 844-47 (D.Mass.1989), the Chief Enforcer and the Committee have not been invested with the authority to determine or control secular matters. Therefore, the regulations, on their face, do not confer impermissible power on religious persons or bodies.
*186The majority additionally finds that all disputes “would call inescapably on the State to assume a religious role” and “inevitably would entail the application and interpretation of Jewish law.” Ante at 162-63. Although instances may arise in which enforcement actions could involve religious principles, perhaps resulting in an “as applied” challenge to the regulations, the majority , ignores the practical reality that the vast majority of inspections and enforcement proceedings authorized by the regulations will involve application of only objective standards. Noting that aspect of enforcement of kosher laws; one district court recently rejected a claim that an enforcement action pursuant to New York’s kosher statute violated the Establishment Clause precisely because
[n]o facts are alleged in the amended complaint that suggest a theological dispute or the enforcement of one form of religious orthodoxy over another. Hebrew National’s amended complaint alleges no facts showing that the 1987 sanction or the 1989 investigation is based on a theological disagreement. * * * Thus, the facts alleged in the amended complaint do not state a claim of violation of the establishment clause.
[National Foods, supra, 727 F.Supp. at 109.]
See also Korn v. Rabbinical Council, 148 Cal.App.3d 491, 195 Cal.Rptr. 910, 914 (1983) (determining that court has jurisdiction “if, after the application of traditional Judaic law to the facts surrounding the preparation of the specific food in question, Jewish religious authorities do not dispute the characterization of the food as kosher”).
Similarly, whether County Kosher violated the regulations in the underlying enforcement action may be resolved for the most part purely by factual determinations, involving no religious disputes whatsoever. For example, the allegation that County Kosher was storing admittedly non-kosher chicken in its shop can be resolved without any referen.ee to religious doctrine. The record is devoid of evidence to support the conclusion that by enforcing the regulations to identify fraudulent representation of kosher foods, the State necessarily interprets religious law or applies religious principles.
*187When no religious issues are involved, or when kosher law is settled, the regulations may be enforced by reference to neutral principles of law. See Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602-04, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 3024-26, 61 L.Ed.2d 775, 784-85 (1979); Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 708-17, 96 S.Ct. 2372, 2380-84, 49 L.Ed.2d 151, 162-67 (1976); Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449, 89 S.Ct. 601, 606, 21 L.Ed.2d 658, 665 (1969); Elmora Hebrew Ctr. v. Fishman, 125 N.J. 404, 413-16, 593 A.2d 725 (1989). As the New York Court of Appeals recognized in a case concerning the enforcement of a Ketubah, a Jewish document that formed the basis for a marriage, the fact that the subject matter of the dispute “[was] grounded in religious belief and practice does not preclude enforcement of its secular terms.” Avitzur v. Avitzur, 58 N.Y.2d 108, 459 N.Y.S.2d 572, 575, 446 N.E.2d 136, 139, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 817, 104 S.Ct. 76, 78 L.Ed.2d 88 (1983). Similarly, the State may neutrally enforce its consumer-protection laws regarding kosher food in the same manner as the State protects consumers of other goods. Thus, although an “as-applied” challenge to the regulations may be brought when a particular enforcement action raises questions concerning the proper interpretation of kosher law, Market St. Mission v. Bureau of Rooming and Boarding House Standards, 110 N.J. 335, 343-44, 541 A.2d 668, appeal dismissed, 488 U.S. 882, 109 S.Ct. 209, 102 L.Ed.2d 201 (1988), the regulations are facially valid to the degree that they may be applied neutrally, without involving the State in religious matters. In assuming that all disputes would entail application of Jewish law, ante at 162-63, the majority remains preoccupied with those isolated, débatable aspects of kosher-food preparation that may be of theoretical interest to religious scholars, but have virtually nothing to do with this facial challenge.
No evidence before us indicates that any of the prongs of the Lemon test will necessarily be violated by enforcement of the *188regulations. Therefore, I cannot agree that the regulations, on their face, violate the Establishment Clause.
Ill
Because there is no indication that every enforcement action engenders a First Amendment violation, I find no basis on which to conclude that the regulations are facially invalid. Absent a showing that no unitary kosher standard exists or that the religious disagreements over kashrut are so predominant as to arise in each application, the regulations should not be invalidated.
At oral argument, the Attorney General indicated that the regulations were currently undergoing revisions. I would encourage the Attorney General to take advantage of the suggestions presented at oral argument and to consider alternative formulations in order to render the regulations and their enforcement as neutral as possible. On this record, however, I conclude that the regulations have not been shown to be facially invalid.
For reversal and remandment — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK — 4.
For Affirmance — Justice O’HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN — 3.