Showing posts with label Kapparot. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kapparot. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 28, 2023

Kapparot Protesters Lose Suit Against City

In Karlan v. City of Los Angeles, (CA App., Nov. 27, 2023), a California state appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by protesters who objected to an Orthodox synagogue's pre-Yom Kippur kapparot ritual in which chickens are killed and their carcasses are discarded.  According to the court:

The complaint alleged the City abused its discretion and endorsed the exercise of religion by refusing to enforce Penal Code section 597, which prohibits the intentional and malicious killing of animals, against Kapparot practitioners. The complaint also alleged violations of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Acts ... and the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976... against Captain Vernon for his threats to arrest appellants if they used a projector or amplified sound during their protest....

The order appellants seek in this case—“to compel [the City] ‘to make enforcement decisions without regard to religion’”—would control the manner in which the City exercises its discretion to enforce criminal laws. This type of order is barred under the rule codified in Civil Code section 3369....

Appellants here fail to demonstrate how the City acted unreasonably and arbitrarily. Appellants admit their purpose in filing this action was to obtain a ruling as to whether “religious motivation [can lawfully] create[ ] an exemption from prosecution” under Penal Code section 597. Appellants’ pursuit of a definitive ruling means the issue remained unsettled at the time the City made its choice not to enforce the law....

... Appellants identify no allegation in which Captain Vernon threatened them with violence beyond his threats of arrest. Without more, appellants have failed to plead sufficient facts to establish violations under the Bane and Ralph Act....

Appellants finally contend ... violation of the Establishment Clause..... Raised for the first time on appeal, appellants contend they have taxpayer standing to assert this claim. Appellants’ failure to present this theory in the trial court and adequately brief the issue on appeal has forfeited the argument....

Tuesday, August 04, 2020

Anti-Kapparot Group Renews Attempt To Get NYC Police Enforcement of Health Code

As previously reported, in 2018 New York's highest court refused a writ of mandamus to require enforcement of public health and animal cruelty laws against the Jewish pre-Yom Kippur religious practice of kaporos using live chickens. The court held that mandamus cannot be used to order discretionary enforcement action.  Now a motion to renew the request for a mandamus petition has been filed, alleging that the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed new evidence relevant to the claim. In Alliance to End Chickens as Koporos v. New York City Police Department, (NY Ct. Sup. Ct.) a motion and affidavit (full text) filed 7/6/2020, focuses in large part on the animal-to-human spread of COVID-19, saying in part:
99. In light of the health, economic, and financial devastation caused [by] Covid-19, in light of how this pandemic [has] caused our lives to come to a grinding halt, in light of the hundreds of thousands of lives lost worldwide, and in light of the fact that Covid-19 originated from a live animal wet market, we cannot allow our police department to pick and choose what lows to enforce when it comes to the health code. Too much is at stake, which we all so painfully are currently aware of.
JTA reports on these developments. Attorney for plaintiffs issued a press release on the filing.

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Certiorari Denied In Challenge To Kaporos Ritual

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied review in Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v. New York City Police Department, (Docket No. 18-1322, certiorari denied 5/28/2019). (Order List.)  In the case, New York state's highest court agreed that a petition for a writ of mandamus to require enforcement of public health and animal cruelty laws against the Jewish pre-Yom Kippur ritual of kaporos should be denied. (See prior posting).

Thursday, November 22, 2018

9th Circuit: Animal Rights Group Lacks Standing To Challenge Kapparot Practices

In United Poultry Concerns v. Chabad of Irvine, (9th Cir., Nov. 20, 2018), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an animal rights group lacks standing to sue a Jewish religious organization for violating California's Unfair Competition Law. The suit challenged Chabad's sponsoring of kapparot -- an atonement ritual carried out before Yom Kippur involving the use and slaughter of live chickens.  The district court had reached the merits of the claim and had held that the acceptance of a donation in connection with the performance of religious ritual is not covered by the state's Unfair Competition Law. (See prior posting.) The 9th Circuit, by contrast, held that plaintiff was not injured by Chabad's actions and so lacks Article III standing. It vacated the district court's judgment and ordered the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports on the decision.

Thursday, November 15, 2018

New York's Top Court Denies Mandamus In Battle Against Kaporos Ritual

In Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v New York City Police Department, (NY Ct App, Nov. 14, 2018), New York state's highest court agreed that a petition for a writ of mandamus to require enforcement of public health and animal cruelty laws should be denied. According to the Court:
Plaintiffs allege those laws are routinely violated when thousands of chickens are killed during the religious practice of Kaporos performed in certain Brooklyn neighborhoods prior to Yom Kippur....
Enforcement of the laws cited by plaintiffs would involve some exercise of discretion.... Moreover, plaintiffs do not seek to compel the performance of ministerial duties but, rather, seek to compel a particular outcome. Accordingly, mandamus is not the appropriate vehicle for the relief sought.
WABC reports on the decision.

Friday, September 15, 2017

Animal Rights Group Sues Police Over Lax Enforcement Against Kapparot Ritual

As the Jewish High Holidays approach, animal rights groups in California are again (see prior posting) attempting to stop the practice of using chickens for the pre-Yom Kippur ritual of kapparot. The complaint (full text) in Animal Protection and Rescue League v. City of Los Angeles, (CD CA, filed 9/12/2017), contends that the the Los Angeles and Irvine police departments are violating the Establishment Clause by "actively protecting, encouraging and ratifying illegal conduct solely because it is motivated by religious belief." Plaintiffs say they want to make citizens' arrests of those who kill and discard chickens in their presence, but that police are deployed in large numbers to prevent such arrests. They say that under California Penal Code Secs. 597(a) and 599c, all intentional killing of animals, except when used for food, are outlawed. Orange County Register reports on the lawsuit. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Court Says Kaporos Ceremony Not Covered By Unfair Competition Law

In Animal Protection and Rescue League, Inc. v. Chabad of Irvine, (CA Super. Ct., June 23, 2017) a California trial court ruled that a challenge by an animal rights group to the Jewish pre-Yom Kippur ritual of kaporos should be dismissed.   The suit alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law which prohibits unlawful business practices, contending that the manner in which chickens used in the ritual were kept, slaughtered and disposed of violates various state and local laws.  The court held however that the kaporos ceremony is not a "business act or business practice," explaining:
Chabad-Irvine's purchase of chickens for the participants to use in the ... Kaporos ritual does not transform its conduct from that of a synagogue meeting ... the religious and spiritual needs of the community to that of a commercial enterprise....
... [M]any religious services or ceremonies result in donations being solicited and made (e.g. when offering plates or baskets are passed among a congregation during a religious service...). But that does not convert those religious activities, rituals and observances into business practices.
First Liberty issued a press release announcing the decision and also provides links to the pleadings and court orders in the case. Orange County Register reported on the decision.

Wednesday, June 07, 2017

New York Appeals Court Dismisses Suit Opposing Kaporos Ritual

In a 3-2 decision, a New York state appellate court has dismissed a mandamus action seeking to require the New York Police Department and the New York City Health Department to enforce various Health Code, animal cruelty and other laws to stop the Orthodox Jewish ritual of kaporos.  The pre-Yom Kippur ritual involves using live chickens (which are later slaughtered) in an atonement ceremony.  In Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v New York City Police Department, (App. Div. June 6, 2017), the majority held that mandamus is available only to enforce a non-discretionary duty on the part of government officials.  Here the laws that plaintiffs seek to require defendants to enforce involve judgment and discretion of law enforcement officials.  Justice Gesmer (joined by Presiding Justice Andrias) dissented.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Court Dismisses California Law Challenge To Chabad's Kapparot Ceremony

In United Poultry Concerns v. Chabad of Irvine, (CD CA, May 12, 2017), a California federal district court dismissed a suit by an animal rights organization claiming that the annual Kapparot ceremony conducted by an Orthodox Jewish organization violates California's Unfair Competition Law.  The UCL provides civil remedies for “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” The complaint alleges that the ritual as implemented by Chabad of Irvine violates the state's ban on "intentional and malicious killing of animals" other than for use as food (California Penal Code Sec. 597(a), 599c).  Chabad charges $27 to each person for furnishing and disposing of the chicken used in the pre-Yom Kippur ceremony. (See prior posting.)

In dismissing the lawsuit, the court said:
The Court cannot find, and Plaintiff does not cite a single case in which the acceptance of a donation in connection with the performance of religious ritual has been treated as a “business act” under the UCL. Moreover, the Court finds that Defendant Chabad of Irvine does not participate nor compete as a business in the commercial market by performing a religious atonement ritual that involves donations. For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Chabad of Irvine for a violation of the Unfair Competition Law (B.P.C. § 17200 et seq.)
First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.  Jewish Press reported on the decision.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

TRO Lifted In Challenge To Kaporos Ceremonies

Just as Yom Kippur was beginning on Tuesday evening, a California federal district court dissolved a TRO that it had issued last week (see prior posting) in a challenge under California's business practices law to the pre-Yom Kippur ritual of kaporos. In addition to lifting the TRO, the court ordered the parties to meet to set a date for a preliminary injunction hearing. (Full text of court order). The case has attracted significant attention, including the filing of an amicus brief by a Houston law professor Josh Blackman. AP reports on developments. The Atlantic says that the restraining order had no effect because defendants (Chabad of Irvine) had not scheduled a ceremony.  Instead Jews performed the koporos ceremony at a local slaughterhouse because of changes in California law.

Sunday, October 09, 2016

California Court Issues TRO Against Kaporos Practices

As previously reported, in late September an animal rights group filed suit against Chabad of Irvine in a California federal district court challenging Chabad's promotion of the pre-Yom Kippur ceremony of kaporos that involves use of live chickens which are then slaughtered. (Complaint in United Poultry Concerns v. Chabad of Irvine, (CD CA, filed 9/29/2016)). The complaint contended that defendants are in violation of California's unfair business practices law. On Oct. 6, the court on its own motion ordered plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. (Full text of court order.)  On Oct. 7, plaintiff filed a response (full text) arguing in part:
UPC has standing under the Unfair Competition Law based on its diversion of organizational resources spent addressing Defendants’ unlawful activity and attempting to convince authorities to take action. 
The court was apparently convinced.  It issued another order (full text) on Oct 7 granting plaintiff a temporary restraining order barring defendants from killing chickens or other animals in exchange for a fee or donation in violation of California Penal Code Sec. 597(a). It set a hearing on whether to order a preliminary injunction for October 13, the day after Yom Kippur-- effectively barring the pre-Yom Kippur practice by defendants for this year.

Wednesday, October 05, 2016

Suit Claims Kaporos Violates California's Business Practices Law

A lawsuit was filed last week in a California federal district court by an animal rights group challenging the legality under California law of the pre-Yom Kippur ritual of kaporos (or kapparot) practiced by many observant Jews.  The ritual involves waving a live chicken overhead to symbolically transfer one's sins to it, and then slaughtering the chicken. The complaint (full text) in United Poultry Concerns v. Chabad of Irvine, (CD CA, filed 9/29/2016) alleges that the ritual as implemented by Chabad of Irvine constitutes an "unlawful business practice" under California's Business and Professions Code because the practice violates the state's ban on "intentional and malicious killing of animals" other than for use as food (California Penal Code Sec. 597(a), 599c).  The complaint adds:
taking out vengeance on an innocent animal for one’s own shortcomings is exactly the type of societal evil the legislature sought to prohibit in enacting this provision. 
According to the complaint Chabad charges $27 to each person for furnishing and disposing of the chicken, making a $25 profit per chicken. The suit seeks a preliminary and permanent injunctions and declaratory relief. On Monday, UPC issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Thursday, September 10, 2015

Suit Challenges Kapparot Ceremonies Under California's Unfair Competition Law

In Los Angeles a group of animal rights activists have filed a state court lawsuit seeking to stop public kapparot ceremonies.  The Jewish Journal reports on the lawsuit, filed August 26,  challenging the pre-Yom Kippur ceremony which uses live chickens that are subsequently slaughtered.  Apparently, at least in previous years, in the Pico-Robertson neighborhood kapparot has been promoted with booths set up in parking lots, large banners and barkers in chicken costumes. Some say that the anti-kapparot protests in the Pico-Robertson area of Los Angeles have now driven the practice underground.

The lawsuit contends that the practice violates California's Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200- 17210). The law's definition of unfair competition includes "any unlawful ... business act or practice."  A suit for an injunction and damages may be brought by "a person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition."  The complaint, filed on behalf of seven plaintiffs, claims that in transporting, storing, and slaughtering the chickens, and later disposing of their blood and fecal matter, the six synagogues and five individuals named as defendants violate an average of eleven laws. Plaintiffs claim interesting losses to give them standing: expenses for travel to kapparot protests, time lost from work as a result of attending the protests and the cost of printing leaflets. One plaintiff claimed veterinarian bills for two chickens she rescued from one of the synagogues named as a defendant.