Hindu Temple Society of North America v. New York Supreme Court

The Becket Fund is defending the Hindu Temple Society of North America, the nation's oldest and most influential Hindu temple, in litigation before the New York federal and state courts. The Temple, located in Borough of Queens in New York City, is the target of a hostile takeover attempt by six insurgents, some of whom rarely if ever attend the Temple.

In response to the hostile takeover attempt, trial court judge Justice Joseph G. Golia and his appointed referee, Long Island lawyer Anthony J. Piacentini, are forcibly restructuring the Temple. Instead of allowing the Temple to govern itself in the traditional Hindu religious manner, the court is forcing the Temple to adopt a congregational structure similar to that of a Baptist church.

To defend the Temple against this unprecedented invasion of its religious autonomy, The Becket Fund filed a federal lawsuit (PDF format) on August 4, 2004, on behalf of the Temple, its Trustees, and several ordinary devotees of the Temple who want to keep the government out of the Temple's affairs. The suit, which was filed in Brooklyn at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, argues that local courts are aiding the hostile takeover of the Temple in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and seeks an injunction (PDF format) barring this activity.

In the federal lawsuit, The Becket Fund argues that Justice Golia and Referee Piacentini have used their judicial offices to take control of the Temple, to stop its devotees from worshipping the way they want, to censor the Temple's speech, and to impose a voting membership requirement, including the definition of who is a Hindu. All of these actions violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and are especially disturbing because they allow non-Hindu state actors to profane the Temple. If these orders are allowed to stand, they will have the effect of transferring complete control of the Temple-even who decides which priests will be hired and what gods will be worshipped-to self-appointed insurgents. The complaint states that the court has "absolutely refused to provide any-much less a 'full and fair'-opportunity to litigate Plaintiffs' constitutional defenses to such actions."

The Becket Fund has also asked the federal court to issue an injunction barring the local court from further activity that would jeopardize the rights of the Temple and its devotees. If successful, the federal suit would prevent the State from enforcing an unprecedented intrusion into the religious affairs of a faith community.

On September 2, 2004, ten organizations--representing various religious denominations--submitted an amicus (friend of the court) letter (PDF format) in support of The Becket Fund's motion for a preliminary injunction against the defendants of the federal suit. The Hindu American Foundation, a human rights organization that promotes the Hindu and American ideals of understanding, tolerance, and pluralism, presented the letter on behalf of AGNI Corporation, the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, the Hindu Human Rights Group, the Hindu International Council Against Defamation, Hindu University of America, Ile Obatala Oya, Kanchi Kamakoti Seva Foundation, Navya Shastra, and the Queens Federation of Churches.

The amici explain that the state court system's rulings ignore how Hinduism is traditionally practiced. "[B]ecause Hindu temples, both in India and abroad, have not traditionally had 'memberships,' several communities in the U.S. govern their temples similarly to those in India and abroad, entrusting management of temple affairs to a Board of Trustees," the letter states. "However, regardless of the construct of self-governance used by any temple in the United States, this is a function that must be left strictly in the control of adherents of the particular faith and not in the hands of the government."

The letter goes on to note, "Clearly in violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to equal protection under the law, the New York Religious Corporations Law (“RCL”) distinguishes between different faiths, providing legal benefits and custom-tailored laws to majority religious organizations such as, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and Roman Catholic churches, while minority religious organizations, such as Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist, are pigeon-holed into two ambiguous subsections referred to as 'Free Churches' and 'Other Denominations' where laws are not individualized to best fit their needs and in some cases, may impose legal disadvantages."

On September 15, 2004, Judge Dearie decided to abstain from hearing the case despite the "important First Amendment concerns" raised by The Becket Fund, because he felt that the Temple and its devotees could obtain redress in state court. This assumption was revealed to be hollow when Justice Golia denied the devotees the right to intervene in the case on December 9, 2004. The devotees thus have had the courtroom doors shut in their faces at both the federal and state level. The Becket Fund immediately appealed Judge Dearie's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and filed its brief (PDF format) in that appeal on January 18, 2005.  The case was argued before a panel of the Second Circuit on June 14, 2005 and is now awaiting judgment.

While prosecuting the federal lawsuit, The Becket Fund has also sought redress for the Temple in the New York state courts. In November 2004, the Becket Fund filed an appeal (PDF format) with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, seeking to overturn Justice Golia's and Mr. Piacentini's intrusions into the Temple's sacred space. As a part of that appeal, the Becket Fund filed a motion for stay, vacatur, and expedited appeal (PDF format) on December 8, 2004, that asks the Appellate Division to stay the lower court's actions or vacate its own order to hold elections in the Temple.  On June 30, 2005, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who is defending the state in the federal court action, intervened in the state court action, asking the Appellate Division to "revise[ ] and correct[ ]" its erroneous decision to order the Temple to create members and then hold referee-run elections.  The appeal is still pending before the Appellate Division.

There is a final note of irony to the Temple's struggle with the State: the Temple is located in Flushing, the birthplace of religious freedom in North America. The Flushing Remonstrance of 1657 is the predecessor to the First Amendment and one of the oldest expressions of religious freedom in the world. It reproved the Dutch colonial Governor Peter Stuyvesant for his attempts to ban Quakers, a reviled religious minority at the time. Bowne Street, on which the Temple stands, is named after John Bowne, the English resident of New Amsterdam whom Governor Stuyvesant banished from the colony for allowing Quakers to hold religious services in his home. (You can read more of the history of the remonstrance here.)

Articles & News Items

• "Nation's largest Hindu Temple sues NY Supreme Court," August 4, 2004
• "The New York Times, Hindu Temple to Challenge State Judge on Religious Grounds," August 4, 2004
• "MSN India, Hindu Temple condemns US judge," August 4, 2004
• "Times Ledger, Flushing temple claims bias, takes lawsuit to federal court," August 12, 2004
• "Religion News Service, Hindus Wage Legal Battle for Control of Temple," August 17, 2004
• "New York Newsday, Judge to decide First Amendment question," August 27, 2004
• "New Indian Express, New York's Hindu temple attracts media spotlight," August 27, 2004
• "The New York Daily News, Temple's fate up in the air," August 28, 2004
• "Appellate Division Stay Motion," January 25, 2005
• "Appellate Division Brief," January 25, 2005
• "New York AG Spitzer Files Brief Supporting Hindu Temple Society," July 11, 2005
• "Resounding Victory for Hindu Temple Society," March 10, 2006