Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Trinity Lutheran; Transcript Available

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer.  The transcript of the full oral arguments is now available. At issue was the refusal by Missouri's Department of Natural Resources of a grant application by Trinity Church for a grant that would allow it to resurface a playground at its day care and preschool facility on church premises. In refusing the grant, the Department pointed to Missouri Constitution, Art. I Sec. 7, that prohibits public funds from being spent "in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion." (See prior posting.)  Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog reports on the oral arguments.

8th Circuit: Abuse Victim's Defamation Suit Is Untimely

In Couzens v. Donohue, (8th Cir., April 18, 2017), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal on statute of limitations grounds of a defamation suit against the Catholic League for Religious Liberty.  In the suit, plaintiff alleged that defendants published false information to discredit and humiliate him in retaliation his public allegations that he was sexually abused by priests. The court likewise affirmed dismissal of plaintiff's invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. Kansas City Star reports on the decision.

Suit Says Clerk Harassed Same-Sex Couples Seeking Marriage Licenses

A suit was filed earlier this week in a West Virginia federal district court contending that personnel in the Gilmer County Clerk's Office harassed same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses.  The complaint (full text) in Brookover v. Gilmer County, (D WV, filed 4/17/2017), alleges in part:

When Deputy Clerk Debbie Allen saw that a same-sex couple was applying for a marriage license, she ... launched into a tirade of harassment and disparagement. She slammed her paperwork down on her desk, screaming that the couple was an “abomination” to God and that God would “deal” with them.... Another clerk joined in ... by shouting “it’s [Allen’s] religious right” to harass same-sex couples while performing the official state duties of the Clerk’s office.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Enters Housing and Policing Injunctions Against FLDS-Dominated Towns

In United States v. Town of  Colorado City, Arizona, (D AZ, April 18, 2017), an Arizona federal district court took major steps to attempt to normalize the housing and policing situation in the FLDS-controlled twin towns of Colorado City, Arizona and Hilldale, Utah.  The Justice Department sued the towns under the Fair Housing Act and the Policing Act (42 USC §14141).  In introducing its 54-page opinion setting out detailed injunctive relief, the court said;

The constitutional right to free exercise of religion, on the one hand, and the statutory right to housing and constitutional policing, on the other hand, are vitally important to a viable, peaceful community.... Denial of housing rights and lawful policing to some residents at the behest of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ... has cost the cities dearly – millions of dollars – in the past.

.... It is now time for the citizens of Colorado City and City of Hildale to come together and accept the fact that communal ownership of residential property in the Defendant Cities is a thing of the past. All residents of the Defendant Cities must be afforded equal access to housing and residential services, to nondiscriminatory law enforcement, and to free exercise of their religious preferences that are not contrary to law. By this judgment and decree, the court hopes to assist the Defendant Cities and their residents in advancing the protection of civil rights to which they are entitled.

The court ordered the cities to engage an independent monitor to assure housing compliance and hiring of an outside consultant to aid in reorganization and policy changes in the Colorado City Marshall's Office.

Note To Religion Clause Readers

You may have noticed that postings have not appeared in recent days.  I hope to be able to get back to blogging regularly before the end of the month. Please stay tuned.

British Controversy Over Name of Easter Egg Hunt

Washington Post last week reported that in England, Prime Minister Theresa May and the Church of England harshly criticized a move by the National Trust (a charity that promotes conservation) to rebrand its annual Easter Egg Hunt as merely the "Great British Egg Hunt" in order to attract non-Christian children as well. The event is co-sponsored with the candy maker Cadbury whose chocolate eggs are used in the event. Prime Minister May, during her trip to Jordan, said: "I think what the National Trust is doing is frankly just ridiculous. Easter’s very important. It’s important to me, it’s a very important festival for the Christian faith for millions across the world." After the criticism, the National Trust added the word Easter to the description of the event on its website. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Trump Will Host White House Passover Seder

Times of Israel reports that President Donald Trump will host a White House Passover Seder tonight, continuing a tradition begun by President Barack Obama in 2009.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Sohail Wahedi, Council of State of Belgium and the Ban on Wearing Religious Symbols at Public Schools (The Headscarves Judgement), (Oxford Journal of Law and Religion (2016) 5 (3): 624-625).
• Luke Beck, The Australian Constitution's Religious Tests Clause as an Anti-Discrimination Provision, (Monash University Law Review, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 545-578, 2017).
• Corey L. Brettschneider, Praying for America: The Constitutional Ban on Animus-Based and Theocratic Reasoning in the Establishment, Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses, (March 1, 2017).
• Maarc O. DeGirolami, The Bloating of the Constitution: Equality and the U.S. Establishment Clause, (The Social Equality of Religion or Belief (Alan Carling ed. 2016)).
• Stephen R. Munzer, The German Circumcision Controversy — And Beyond, (University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law Online (2017)).
• Shauna Van Praagh, Welcome to the Neighbourhood: Religion, Law and Living Together, (D. Newman, ed., Religious Freedom and Communities (Markham: Lexis Nexis, 2016)).
• Muhammad Masum Billah, Agency Contract under Conventional Law and Islamic Law as Manifested in the Civil Code of Oman: A Comparative Analysis, (Electronic Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Law, Vol. 4 (2016), pp. 109-126).
• Ian Ramsay & Miranda Webster, Registered Charities and Governance Standard 5: An Evaluation, (Australian Business Law Review, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 127-158, 2017).

From SmartCILP:

• Joseph Kary, Judgments of Peace. Montreal's Jewish Arbitration Courts, 1914-1976, 56 American Journal of Legal History 436-489 (2016).
• Kyle C. Velte, All Fall Down: A Comprehensive Approach to Defeating the Religious Right’s Challenges to Antidiscrimination Statutes, 49 Connecticut Law Review 1-54 (2016).
• John Boersma, The Accreditation of Religious Law Schools in Canada and the United States, 2016 BYU Law Review 1081.
• Barry W. Bussey, The Legal Revolution Against the Place of Religion: The Case of Trinity Western University Law School, 2016 BYU Law Review 1127.
• David Little, Human Rights, Religious Freedom, and Peace, 2016 BYU Law Review 1215.
• Michael Quinlan, When the State Requires Doctors to Act Against their Conscience: The Religious Freedom Implications of the Referral and the Direction Obligations of Health Practitioners in Victoria and New South Wales, 2016 BYU Law Review 1237.
• Andrew L. Milne, Sharia and Anti-Sharia: Ethical Challenges for the Cross-Cultural Lawyer Representing Muslim Women, [Abstract], 57 South Texas Law Review 449-468 (2016).
• R.H. Helmholz, The Church and Magna Carta, 25 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 425-436 (2016).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Matzke v. Heyns, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44880 (WD MI, March 28, 2017), a Michigan federal district court adopted in part a magistrate's recommendation and held that authorities are entitled to qualified immunity as to claims by a Wiccan inmate for additional group meetings to celebrate the thirteen lunar Esbats.

In Reed v. Bryant, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45013  (WD OK, March 28, 2017), an Oklahoma federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45715, Feb. 6, 2017), and dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was not provided his religious Kosher diet on one occasion and was removed from the Kosher diet for a violation of rules.

In Fernandez-Torres v. Watts, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46841 (SD GA, March 29, 2017), a Georgia federal district court supplemented and adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48167, Jan. 30, 2017) and dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was not permitted to obtain Santeria bead necklaces from outside sources rather than through the prison's approved vendor catalog.

In Munt v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47991 (D MN, March 29, 2017), a Minnesota federal district court, adopting in part a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48082, Jan. 27, 2017), denied preliminary relief to a Christian inmate who objected on religious grounds to rules that prevent him from hanging a privacy sheet in his cell.

In Sterling v. Sellers, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48700 (MD GA, March 31, 2017), a Georgia federal district court, rejecting parts of a magistrate's recommendations (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49095, Feb. 28, 2017), allowed a Muslim inmate to proceed with various claims as to denial of congregational prayer, inability to celebrate the Eid, and retaliation.

In Horacek v. Heyns, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48778 (WD MI, March 31, 2017), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations and allowed a Jewish inmate to move ahead with his claim that his religious beliefs require that he eat meat or fish on Saturdays and holy days.  In deciding this, the court held that RLUIPA applies even though the prison's food service program did not separately receive federal financial assistance; it is enough that the Department of Corrections does.

No 1st Amendment Bar To Deciding Catholic College's Student Expusion

In Chestnut Hill College v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, (PA Commnwlth. Ct., April 7, 2017), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (an appellate court) held that a Catholic college’s decision to expel a student is reviewable by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.  The college expelled an African American student a few weeks before his scheduled graduation, allegedly because the student retained some of the proceeds from events that were held for a charitable cause.  The student claimed this was a pretext for racial discrimination.

The court held that Catholic colleges and universities are "public accommodations" under the state's Human Relations Act.  It held that adjudicating the claim would not involve unconstitutional entanglement between church and state, saying:

Student’s claims do not require the Commission to construe religious doctrine. Importantly, College did not identify any Catholic doctrine as grounds for Student’s expulsion.

The court also emphasized that the college "did not cite any religious doctrine based defense to Student’s racial discrimination claims."

European Court Says German Church Taxes Do Not Violate Religious Freedom

In Case of Klein and Others v. Germany, (ECHR, April 6. 2017), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Germany's church taxes do not violate Article 9 (freedom of religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  The holding is summarized in the press release on the case issued by the Court:

[I]n these cases the taxes/fees had been levied not by the State, but by the applicants’ churches – which the applicants were free to leave under German law. As such, in most of the cases the levying and calculation of the taxes/fees had been an autonomous church activity, which could not be attributed to the German State.

However, in one case the State had been involved in levying a special church fee on an applicant who was not a member of the relevant church. This was because the fee which had been levied on the applicant’s wife had been subtracted directly from the applicant’s tax reimbursement claim by way of an off-set – therefore subjecting the applicant to his wife’s financial obligations towards her church. However, this off-set had arisen because the couple themselves had chosen to file a joint tax assessment....

DOJ Gives New Emphasis To Combating Religious Hate Crimes

Attorney General Jeff Sessions yesterday issued a Memo (full text) to U.S. Attorney’s Offices and Department of Justice component heads giving an update on DOJ's Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety. The Task Force will work through a number of subcommittees, one of which is a Hate Crimes Subcommittee. The Memo reads in part:

We must also protect the civil rights of all Americans, and we will not tolerate threats or acts of violence targeting any person or community in this country on the basis of their religious beliefs or background.  Accordingly, the Hate Crimes Subcommittee will develop a plan to appropriately address hate crimes to better protect the rights of all Americans.  As with many other areas of the Task Force's work, we are already making significant progress toward our goal of a safer America.  Recently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working with law enforcement partners in Israel and elsewhere, helped secure the arrest of a man believed to be responsible for the recent surge in threats of violence against Jewish community centers and synagogues.  I commend their outstanding efforts.

CNN reports on the Sessions Memo.

Objectors To Assisted Suicide Lack Standing To Challenge Vermont Law

In Vermont Alliance for Ethical Health Care, Inc. v. Hoser, (D VT, April 5, 2017), a Vermont federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a suit challenging Vermont's law which protects physicians who prescribe a lethal dose of medication to terminally ill patients who meet specified requirements.  Plaintiffs, two organizations whose members are healthcare providers holding religious and ethical opposition to assisted suicide, sought injunctions shielding from professional disciplinary action healthcare providers who for religious or ethical reasons refuse to inform patients that assisted suicide is an available option.  the court said in part:

The prospect of imminent harm through the filing of disciplinary proceedings in the future is highly unlikely. The parties largely agree on a solution to their dilemma which satisfies both sides. They agree that making a false statement or ignoring a patient's inquiry is wrong. Both agree that directing a patient to a website explaining the conditions under which assisted suicide might be available will neither violate religious principles nor fall short of the physician's obligation to provide information to the patient.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Williams v. Bedison, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42553 (ND TX, March 23, 2017), a Texas federal district court adopted in part a magistrate's recommendations (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42629, March 3, 2017) and dismissed an inmate's complaint that no separate services are held for Moorish Science Temple of America members.

In Chichakli v. Cheatham, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43408 (SD FL, March 22, 2017), a Florida federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate's complaint that an officer insulted his Jewish faith, and that he was denied access to his prayer book, bible and tefillin for 42 days while he was in segregated detention.

In Moir v. Amdahl, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43462 (SD IL, March 24, 2017), an Illinois federal district court permitted an inmate who was a member of the Al-Islam faith to move ahead with a claim that on two occasions he was prevented from attending Jumah services and was targeted for harassment because of his race and religion.

In Kugler v. Rao, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44044 (CD IL, March 24, 2017), an Illinois federal district court rejected religious objections to taking psychtropic drugs raised by a civilly committed inmate, finding that forcible administration did not violate his rights under RLUIPA. Plaintiff was a Satanist who followed the Ninth Enochian Key.

In Seagraves v. Treachler, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44210 (D NJ, March 27, 2017), a New Jersey federal district court permitted an inmate to file an amended complaint charging the warden with denying Muslim inmates' requests for vegetarian meals.

In Koch v. Carlisle, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43141 (WD OK, March 24, 2017), an Oklahoma federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44531, March 2, 2017) and allowed a Satanist inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was denied the right to celebrate the Festival of the Winter Solstice on the proper date.

UN Experts Urge Russia to Drop Extremism Suit Against Jehovah's Witnesses

Yesterday, in anticipation of today's hearing before Russia's Supreme Court, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights issued a press release urging the Russian Federation to drop a suit brought under Russia's anti-extremism legislation against all Jehovah's Witnesses congregations. According to the press release, which quotes three UN human rights experts:

"This lawsuit is a threat not only to Jehovah’s Witnesses, but to individual freedom in general in the Russian Federation...."

"The use of counter-extremism legislation in this way to confine freedom of opinion, including religious belief, expression and association to that which is state-approved is unlawful and dangerous, and signals a dark future for all religious freedom in Russia...."　

The condemnation follows a lawsuit lodged at the country’s Supreme Court on 15 March to declare the Jehovah’s Witnesses Administrative Centre ‘extremist’, to liquidate it, and to ban its activity. 　

A suspension order came into effect on that date, preventing the Administrative Centre and all its local religious centres from using state and municipal news media, and from organizing and conducting assemblies, rallies and other public events.

5th Circuit Hears Arguments On Mississippi's Conscience Protection Law

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Barber v. Bryant.  In the case, a Mississippi federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Mississippi House Bill 1523, the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act.  The law protects a wide variety of conduct, or refusals to provide goods and service, based on a religious or moral belief that: (1) marriage is a union of one man and one woman; (2) sexual relations should be reserved to heterosexual marriage; and (3) gender is an immutable characteristic determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth. (See prior posting.)  Buzzfeed has extensive coverage of the oral arguments.

7th Circuit En Banc: Title VII Bars Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In an important decision handed down yesterday, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc held in an 8-3 decision that under title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination.  In Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, (7th Cir., April 4, 2017), Chief Judge Wood in her majority opinion stated in part:

The logic of the Supreme Court’s decisions, as well as the common-sense reality that it is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex, persuade us that the time has come to overrule our previous cases that have endeavored to find and observe that line.

The lawsuit was filed by an adjunct professor who was rejected for full time positions and whose part-time contract was not renewed. She believes these actions were taken because she is a lesbian.

Judge Posner filed an interesting concurring opinion focusing on the issue of originalism in statutory interpretation.  He said in part:

It is well-nigh certain that homosexuality, male or female, did not figure in the minds of the legislators who enacted Title VII. I had graduated from law school two years before the law was enacted. Had I been asked then whether I had ever met a male homosexual, I would have answered: probably not; had I been asked whether I had ever met a lesbian I would have answered “only in the pages of À la recherche du temps perdu.” Homosexuality was almost invisible in the 1960s. It became visible in the 1980s as a consequence of the AIDS epidemic; today it is regarded by a large swathe of the American population as normal. But what is certain is that the word “sex” in Title VII had no immediate reference to homosexuality; many years would elapse before it could be understood to include homosexuality.

A diehard “originalist” would argue that what was believed in 1964 defines the scope of the statute for as long as the statutory text remains unchanged, and therefore until changed by Congress’s amending or replacing the statute. But as I noted earlier, statutory and constitutional provisions frequently are interpreted on the basis of present need and understanding rather than original meaning.

Judge Flaum joined by Judge Ripple also filed a concurring opinion.

Judge Sykes, joined by Judges Bauer and Kanne dissented, saying in part:

The majority deploys a judge-empowering, common-law decision method that leaves a great deal of room for judicial discretion. So does Judge Posner in his concurrence. Neither is faithful to the statutory text, read fairly, as a reasonable person would have understood it when it was adopted. The result is a statutory amendment courtesy of unelected judges. Judge Posner admits this; he embraces and argues for this conception of judicial power. The majority does not, preferring instead to smuggle in the statutory amendment under cover of an aggressive reading of loosely related Supreme Court precedents. Either way, the result is the same: the circumvention of the legislative process by which the people govern themselves.

Advocate reports on the decision.

Court Dismisses Fanciful Suit Designed To Discredit Same-Sex Marriage

A Kentucky federal district court has dismissed a rather fanciful lawsuit filed by opponents of same-sex marriage designed to emphasize plaintiffs' belief that only traditional marriage should be recognized.  In Sevier v. Bevin, (ED KY, March 31, 2017), the court describes plaintiffs' claims:

They identify themselves as "machinist" and "zoophile", respectively, and, together, allege the Commonwealth violated the following constitutional rights by denying Sevier's request for a marriage license permitting him marry his laptop and Ording's request for a marriage license permitting her to many an animal: (1) the right to due process; (2) the right to equal protection; (3) the right to freedom of association; and ( 4) the right to travel. They also claim that the denial of their request for a marriage license is a violation of the Supremacy and Establishment Clauses of the United States Constitution, and also amounts to discrimination on the basis of race.

The court concluded that: "The Plaintiffs' Complaint or Amended Complaint fail to establish any plausible entitlement to relief. "  In a press release on the decision, Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver said: "To marry a laptop computer or a parrot is nonsense, but the same was said about same-sex marriage, and yet there are now five lawyers on the U.S Supreme Court who pulled that rabbit out of a hat."

Case Charging HUD With Antisemitism In Investigation Moves Ahead

In Township of Lakewood, New Jersey v. Castro, (D NJ, April 3, 2017), a New Jersey federal district court refused to dismiss on the pleadings a lawsuit against the Department of Housing and Urban Development alleging that its investigation of the housing assistance program in Lakewood, New Jersey reflected hostility toward Jews and the practice of Orthodox Judaism. Among other things, the court found that "Plaintiffs’ allegations plausibly suggest HUD’s conduct imposed a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ exercise of their faith, in violation of the RFRA...." HUD's action ultimately resulted in administration of housing funds being transferred away from Lakewood.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Rafael Domingo, God and the Secular Legal System: Introduction, (Cambridge University Press, 2016).
• Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr., Agora, Dignity, and Discrimination: On the Constitutional Shortcomings of 'Conscience' Laws that Promote Inequality in the Public Marketplace, (Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 20, 2017).
• Rafael Domingo, Why Tolerate Religion? A Response to Brian Leiter, (March 21, 2017).
• Jonathan R. Cohen, A Genesis of Conflict: The Zero-Sum Mindset, (17 Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 427 (2016)).
• Ioana Cismas, Reflections on the Presence and Absence of Religious Actors in Transitional Justice Processes: On Legitimacy and Accountability, (Roger Duthie and Paul Seils, eds., Justice Mosaics: How Context Shapes Transitional Justice in Fractured Societies (ICTJ, 2017), pp. 302-343.
• Nuno Ferreira, Commentary on the Re-Written Judgment in R (on the Application of Begum) V. Governors of Denbigh High School, (Helen Stalford, Kathryn Hollingsworth and Stephen Gilmore, Children’s Rights Judgments, Hart, 2017 (Forthcoming)).
• Anthony Michael Kreis, Against Gay Potemkin Villages: Title VII and Sexual Orientation Discrimination, (96 Texas Law Review Online (2017).
• Thomas Wooden, Indigenous Sacred Sites as Cultural Property, (RUMLAE Research Paper No. 17-05 (2017).
• Peter J. Smith & Robert W. Tuttle, Civil Procedure and the Ministerial Exception, 86 Fordham Law Review (Forthcoming).

From SSRN (Legal History):

• Nico Schröter, Nico, Order, Authority, and Law: On the Development of Modern Conceptions of Political Order, Legitimate Rule, and Law and How They are Challenged, (LSE Law Review vol. 2 (2017), pp. 24-44).
• M.C. Mirow, Juan Solórzano Pereira,(in Rafael Domingo and Javier Martinez-Torron, Great Christian Jurists in Spanish History (Cambridge University Press, 2017)).
• C.G. Bateman, Supreme Court of the Roman Empire: Constantine's Bishops,(March 21, 2017).

From SmartCILP:

• Nathalie Martin, Right Scholarship and the Goddesses of Commercial Law, 34 Columbia Journal of Gender & Law 124-158 (2016).
• Kim E. Clark, Critical Race Theory, Transformation and Praxis, 45 Southwestern Law Review 795-823 (2016).
• James G. Wilson, Bridging the Secular-Religious Divide with Assistance from the Buddha, [Abstract], 45 Southwestern Law Review 861-895 (2016).
• Stacy A. Scaldo, Seditious Acts of Faith: God, Government, Conscience, and Boiling Frogs, 29 Regent University Law Review 87-121 (2016-2017).
• Chief Judge Glen A. Huff, Repairing Our Foundation Through Christian Scholarship, 29 Regent University Law Review 123-132 (2016-2017).
• Eric G. Osborne & Michael D. Bush, Rethinking Deference: How the History of Church Property Disputes Calls Into Question Long-Standing First Amendment Doctrine, 69 SMU Law Review 811-842 (2016).
• Allan W. Vestal, Fixing Witness Oaths: Shall We Retire the Rewarder of Truth and Avenger of Falsehood?, [Abstract], 27 University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy 443-504 (2016).