Capitol Hill Landlord Ordered Jewish Tenant To Take Down Scripture

In a recent matter, The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ)simultaneously fought against religious discrimination and protected the First Amendment rights of a woman from Washington, DC. The woman that the ACLJ represented was Jewish and newly returned from a trip to Israel. In keeping Jewish tradition, she fastened a small mezuzah that she had purchased in Israel to the doorpost of her residence. A mezuzah is a piece of parchment in a decorative case that is inscribed with specific Hebrew verses from the Torah. This ancient tradition is based directly off the Bible’s commandments in Deuteronomy 6:9 and Deuteronomy 11:20 stating “Now this is the commandment, the statues, and the ordinances, which the Lord your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it – And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates.” In order to fulfill this obligation, Jews place extremely small scriptures from these sections of the Torah into decorative casings and keep them on their doorposts at all times. Shortly after affixing her mezuzah to her doorpost she was informed by her landlord’s agent that she must removed it. In an attempt to push back, she replied that this was apart of her religious practice as a Jew. The Building Management replied to her complaint that they were aware that this was a religious practice, however, they would make no exception and that other Jews have previously been forced to remove their mezuzahs as well. The provisions within the Building Rules, guidelines that the landlord requires all tenants to abide by, state that no door mats or door hangings are permitted. The ACLJ reviewed the matter and took representation on the tenant’s behalf. The ACLJ’s legal team sent a written letter to the landlord that laid out of the facts and the law and addressed the religious discrimination exhibited on the tenant. Despite the Building Rules, under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act (Fair Housing Act), barring Jewish tenants from affixing mezuzahs is religious discrimination. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, and disability, along with other provisions that inhibit this practice. Upon receiving the letter, the landlord retracted his statements and permitted the use of the mezuza.

In speculation, what might have happened if the landlord continued this policy? What would the ruling have been in court? This is a problem stemming from the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. Turning toward precedent rulings, I determine that the Court would rule in favor of the tenant and the ACLJ. In the landmark case Cantwell v. Connecticut, the arrest of Newton Cantwell and his sons for proselytizing a Catholic neighborhood with Jehovah Witnesses beliefs was deemed unconstitutional. The reasoning for this was that requiring the Cantwells to receive a solicitation license to practice his religion is a direct burden on his religion. Requiring the woman to not practice her religion due to a certain rule can be seen as a direct burden. In McDaniel v. Paty, a provision in the Tennessee constitution that prohibited ministers from serving in the state legislator was deemed unconstitutional. The Court ruled that making an individual surrender their religious rights in order to be considered for a job is a violation of the First Amendment. Having this provision acts as a direct burden on religion. This is similar to the situation with the tenant and landlord. In that case, instead of losing a potential job, the woman could have lost her home due to her practice of religion. In all instances discussed, a direct burden has been exhibited and has been deemed unconstitutional.

If this case were to go to the Supreme Court, I believe that the tenant and the ACLJ would become victorious. However, there is an oppositional position to my view. Not only did this tenant’s actions violate a building policy, a policy that all tenants must follow, but the policy was facially neutral in the first place. The rule did not require certain religions to stop practicing their religion. The rule only stated that there cannot be doormats or ornaments hanging on doorposts, and all tenants had to abide by this. I do not find this argument compelling. I agree that this policy is facially neutral, however, in practice it is not neutral towards religion. This policy specifically targets the Jewish faith. Only Jews are required to affix mezuzahs to their doorposts as a religious practice. This policy does not affect any other religion besides Judaism, and therefore, it is unconstitutional. In addition, multiple landmark court cases set a precedent for this case that would overshadow this opposing opinion. Continuing, the action exhibited by the landlord violates law. The landlord’s actions violate the Civil Rights Act, probably the most important piece of legislation in United States history. Discrimination based on religion is deemed illegal in this case. So, the reasoning behind the policy, previous court rulings, and cannon law lead me to believe that the Court would rule in favor of the tenant in this case.