(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The juvenile court awarded the father sole legal and physical custody and ordered that the mother have no visitation with the child. The mother appealed the order arguing that the juvenile court had no jurisdiction to make such an order because the child resides in South Carolina. The appeals court held that the initial child custody determination was made in California and that California courts retained exclusive and continuing jurisdiction.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The juvenile court awarded joint custody to the father and mother as part of an order terminating dependence jurisdiction. The father challenged the decision on the grounds that the mother engaged in acts of domestic violence against her male companion. The appeals court held that Family Code section 3044 does not apply to dependency proceedings and that the award of joint custody was not an abuse of discretion.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reverse order. Santa Clara County Department of Child Services brought a motion to adjust father’s child support payments to make up for arrears. The trial court granted the County’s motion but awarded credit to the father for period of incarceration. The County appealed on the grounds that trial court lacked authority to retroactively adjust father’s arrears. The appeals court agreed and reversed in part.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Held that a legal guardian’s occasional methamphetamine use outside of home and while child was in the care of another adult does not support dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.

(California Court of Appeal) - Order terminating parental rights and freeing child for adoption was reversed and remanded for determination of whether the child is a Chukchansi Indian. If child found to be an Indian child as defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act, juvenile court ordered to proceed in accordance with ICWA.

(United States Second Circuit) - Denied. In a 6-5 vote, the panel majority declines to rehear the case en banc, holding that the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 creates a privately enforceable right for foster parents to sue states for costs related to child care. Five judges dissent.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order for juvenile reunification with parents. The trial court found that reunification was in the best interest of the children even though the children were taken away because of child abuse. The appeals court held that the trial court findings were not supported by substantial evidence.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed order imposing sanctions as to Trigger and reversed as to Taeb. Defendant Taeb and his attorney Trigger appealed order for sanctions for failure to appear for trial. Sanctions were based on Trigger’s misrepresentation to the court that she was ready for trial, when in fact she was not.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed order terminating father’s parental rights. Father presented no reasoned argument why there was an error in terminating his rights and he waived his challenge to the order.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed as to Father only. Father of juveniles appealed from the denial of his motion to modify judgement claiming that he was not given adequate notice of dependence proceedings for two of his children. The appeals court found that the Hague Service Convention applies because Father is a resident of Mexico and that the Department of Children and Family services failed to comply with the Hague Convention.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 dispute involving the standing of a tax exempt claimant to intervene in a challenge to an unrelated action on the constitutionality of claimed exemptions, IRC sections 107 and 265(a)(6), judgment of the district court denying intervention is affirmed in part and vacated in part because motion to intervene as a matter of right is thwarted by the presumption of adequate representation, where the district court erred in apply an incorrect rule on the issue of permissive intervention.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a dispute arising from the revocation of plaintiff's religious tax exempt status, RPTL section 420-a (1)(a), judgment of the appellate division reversing revocation is affirmed, because defendant-township failed to prove its burden that the subject property is now subject to taxation where the sole use of the property has been the operation of a summer camp with a religious curriculum.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a dispute involving the scope of Treasury Regulation section 25.2522(c)-3(b)(1) and arising from the transfer of membership units in an LLC partly as a gift and partly by sale to two trusts with simultaneous gifts of LLC units to two charitable foundations under a reallocation clause, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where Section 25.2522(c)-3(b)(1), upon trigger of the reallocation clause, does not bar a charitable deduction equal to the value of the additional units the foundations will receive.

(United States First Circuit) - In a joint appeal from a judgment of the district court arising from the criminal prosecution of defendants for tax evasion and related charges and involving allegations of defendants' use of charitable donations to finance an Islamic jihadist group, convictions and sentencing are reversed with respect to the court's overturn of the jury's conviction on the conspiracy counts, and affirmed with respect to all other convictions.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an interlocutory appeal from a judgment of the district court denying defendant's motion for summary judgment in a Title VII complaint alleging religious discrimination, judgment is reversed where the plain language of 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-1(a) bars plaintiff's claims.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - District Court affirmance of bankruptcy court order confirming Chapter 11 reorganization plan of nonprofit public charity is vacated and case remanded where: 1) bankruptcy court did not make specific factual findings explaining why it approved and included certain release, injunction, and exculpation provisions applicable to nondebtors; and 2) appeal was not equitably moot.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division affirming the dismissal of plaintiff's action to enjoin demolition of a church building, judgment is affirmed because Section 5 of the Religious Corporations Law vests approval authority for all actions taken by the trustees of an incorporated Catholic church in the archbishop or bishop of the diocese to which that church belongs, and therefore does not require that the demolition of the church be authorized by the parishioners.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a tax-exempt charitable organization's action against a school district seeking to recoup erroneously paid taxes, summary judgment in favor of the school district is affirmed, where: 1) the school district was entitled to rely on the one-year statute of limitations in Education Law section 3813(2-b) rather than the general six-year period for contract actions; and 2) the taxpayer's cause of action for money had and received accrued when it paid the taxes, which was more than one year before it filed suit.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - On petition for a redetermination of federal income tax deficiencies brought by a 501(c)(4) nonprofit homeowners association, the Tax Court's ruling against the association is affirmed, where the net income derived by the association from its parking lots and beach club benefitted the private interests of the association members rather than the general public, and therefore was not "substantially related" to the association's purpose of promoting social welfare, but rather was taxable as "unrelated business taxable income" under IRC sections 511-513.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a challenge to federal statutory restrictions on certain types of advertising by public broadcast TV stations, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the FCC is: 1) affirmed in part, where 47 U.S.C. section 399b(a)(1), restricting paid advertisements for goods and services on behalf of for-profit corporations, was not an unconstitutional speech restriction under the intermediate scrutiny standard; 2) reversed in part, where sections 399b(a)(2) and (3), restricting public-issue advertisements and political advertisements, were unconstitutional speech restrictions under intermediate scrutiny, as there was no evidence of harm to a substantial governmental interest.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a trespass suit brought by a grocery store against a church soliciting donations in front of the store, summary judgment in favor of the store is affirmed, where: 1) the church's solicitation was not protected by In re Lane (1969) 71 Cal.2d 872, because there was no relation between the church's expressive activities and the store's location; and 2) the church did not contend or present evidence to establish that the store or the sidewalk in front was a public forum within the meaning of Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit brought by two nonprofit veterans organizations against the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Ninth Circuit en banc holds: 1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to reach the plaintiffs' statutory and due process challenges to alleged delays in the provision of mental health care and to the absence of procedures to challenge such delays; 2) the district court lacked jurisdiction to reach the plaintiffs' claims related to delays in the adjudication of service-related disability benefits; 3) the district court had jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs' challenges to the alleged inadequacy of the procedures at the regional office level; and 4) the district court properly exercised that jurisdiction to deny the plaintiffs' claim on the merits.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an action by a Virginia non-profit corporation organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide "accurate and truthful information about the public policy positions of Senator Barack Obama," contending that it was "chilled" from posting information about then-Senator Obama because of the vagueness of a Commission regulation, 11 C.F.R. section 100.22(b), and a Commission policy, published at 72 Fed. Reg. 5595 (Feb. 7, 2007), relating to whether plaintiff has to make disclosures or is a "political committee" (PAC), the District Court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) neither the regulation nor policy are unconstitutionally broad and vague in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments; and 2) it correctly applied the "exacting scrutiny" standard applicable to disclosure provisions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit by two former ministers against the Church of Scientology claiming they were forced to provide labor in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, district court's judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed, as the plaintiffs have not established a genuine issue of fact regarding whether they were victims of forced-labor violations. Moreover, the district court was right to recognize that courts may not scrutinize many aspects of the minister-church relationship in basing its rulings on the ministerial exception.

(United States First Circuit) - In a dispute between two monasteries for copyright infringement of a religious text, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed, as the plaintiff has established both elements of an infringement claim of actual copying and actionable copying, and all of the defenses set forth by the defendant are without merit.

(United States Second Circuit) - In plaintiffs' suit alleging violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) over a longstanding land-use dispute to build a church and a school, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) the town violated the Church's rights under RLUIPA; 2) the town lacked a rational basis for delaying and denying the church's project and therefore violated the church's Free Exercise rights; 3) the church has adequately established a class-of-one Equal Protection claim; and 4) the district court's injunction was specifically tailored to the injury the church had suffered and did not exceed the district court's discretion.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit brought by non-citizen religious workers and their employers challenging a Justice Department regulation governing the process by which religious workers can apply for adjustment of status pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1255(a), judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) the regulation does not impose a substantial burden on plaintiffs' exercise of religion and therefore does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; 2) the regulation does not violate Equal Protection principles because it does not target any religious group, but rather, the regulation affects all members of the fourth-preference visa category who have been admitted on employment-based visas; and 3) there is no violation of plaintiffs' due process rights because the regulation does not bar religious workers from applying for adjustment of status.

(United States Supreme Court) - In plaintiffs' section 1983 suit against several police officers alleging that the prohibition of carrying pictures of aborted fetuses during their demonstrations violated their First Amendment rights, the Fourth Circuit's judgment affirming the district court's grant of plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction but denial of attorney's fees, on the ground that plaintiff is not a prevailing party because he did not secure monetary damages, is vacated and remanded where a plaintiff "prevails" when actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant's behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff. Here, the injunction ordered the defendant officials to change their behavior in a way that directly benefited the plaintiff.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a religious organization's suit against a subdivision of a national anarchist group under the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and common law trespass, district court's sanction order granting attorneys' fees and costs to non-parties, which followed the quashing of a subpoena seeking identifying information for seven e-mail account holders, is reversed where Rule 45(c)(1) cannot properly support a sanction where the cost of complying with the subpoena is minimal and there is no showing that the subpoena was facially defective or issued in bad faith.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an unlawful detainer action between two non-profit religious organizations, trial court's order compelling defendant's pastor, who was not a party to the action, to sign the written settlement agreement in his individual capacity, is reversed and remanded where: 1) the parties' oral settlement agreement did not require the pastor to release any personal claims against the plaintiff or sign a written agreement purportedly conforming to the oral settlement in his individual capacity; and 2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the pastor.

(California Court of Appeal) - Judgment quieting title of disputed property to plaintiff is affirmed, where: 1) defendant nonprofit religious organization's status as a "public benefit corporation" does not make it a "public entity" immune from adverse possession under Civil Code section 1007; 2) a nonprofit religious organization's "welfare exemption" from property taxes means that no such taxes were "levied and assessed" on the property during the years it qualified for the exemption; and thus, 3) under the plain and binding language of Code of Civil Procedure Code section 325, the adverse possessor is consequently excused from the usual requirement that he pay taxes on the disputed land for five years.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In this case, petitioner, a not-for-profit theater corporation, filed applications for real property tax exemptions with respondent assessor and was denied. Petitioner then commenced this RPTL article 7 proceeding for review of its tax assessments. Order of the Appellate Division granting the petition is affirmed, where: 1) the statute does not elevate one exempt purpose over another, and under the circumstances, the use of property to provide staff housing is reasonable incidental to petitioner's primary purpose of encouraging appreciation of the arts through theater; and 2) petitioner has demonstrated that it is entitled to an RPTL 420-a tax exemption.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In this case, petitioner, a not-for-profit religious corporation that owns real property, commenced proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 and RPTL article 7 after respondent Board of Assessment and Review for the Town of Catskill refused petitioner's applications for tax-exempt status pursuant to RPTL 420-a. The Appellate Division's grant of the petitions is affirmed, where petitioner adequately established its entitled to the RPTL 420-a exemption, as the proof at trial established that petitioner "exclusively" utilized the property in furtherance of its religious and charitable purposes.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In this case, the district court's judgment in favor of defendants Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, finding them statutorily exempt from state and local taxation of real property transfers and finding that Congress had the constitutional authority to exempt defendants from such taxation, is affirmed, where: 1) the transfer taxes at issue here are excise taxes, and the statutory carve-outs allowing for taxation of real property encompass only property taxes, not excise taxes; 2) because Congress had power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the secondary mortgage market, it had power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to ensure the preservation of defendant organizations by exempting them from state and local taxes; and 3) the exemptions do not violate the Tenth Amendment.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action brought under 45 U.S.C. section 1983, seeking to enjoin the California Attorney General from requiring plaintiff to disclose the names and contributions of the it's "significant donors" on Internal Revenue Form 990 Schedule B, which plaintiff must file with the state in order to maintain its registered status with the Registry of Charitable Trusts, the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed where: 1) the disclosure requirement did not injure plaintiff's exercise of the First Amendment rights to freedom of association; and 2) the disclosure requirement is not preempted by Congress for privacy purposes under 26 U.S.C. section 6104, part of the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute between two factions of a church over control of church property, the trial court's judgment is affirmed over meritless claims that it erred: 1) when it found in favor of respondents based on appellants' excommunication from the Holy Hill Community Church (Church) by the Western California Presbytery (WCP); 2) by admitting evidence of events occurring after the cross-complaint was filed; and 3) when it prevented appellants' counsel from cross-examining a representative of the WCP whose testimony was sought by respondents.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action alleging that a church, doing business as a camp, fraudulently concealed information from parents about a camp employee's suspected molestation of their minor daughter at its summer camp, the petition for writ of mandamus is granted because under the facts of this case disclosure of suspected molestation by a camp employee was within the scope of the camp's duty to minor and her parents.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an action seeking attorneys fees under 26 U.S.C. section 7431(c)(3), following a settlement between the IRS and plaintiff over the disclosure of an unredacted version of plaintiff's donor list, filed as part of plaintiff's required IRS Form 990, the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for attorneys fees is affirmed where the government's litigation position regarding actual damages was substantially justified under 26 U.S.C. section 7430 (c)(4)(B).

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action brought by two nonprofit organizations challenging the California Attorney General's collection of IRS Form 990 Schedule B forms, containing identifying information for their major donors, under California's Supervision of Trustees and Fundraisers for Charitable Purposes Act, Cal. Gov't Code section 12584, the district court's preliminary injunction for plaintiffs is modified to prohibit making the information public but permit defendant to keep collecting the data for enforcement

(California Court of Appeal) - In a property tax refund action based on the welfare exemption set forth in Revenue and Taxation Code section 214, the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the State Board of Equalization's (SBE) interpretation of section 214 was clearly erroneous; 2) the SBE's advisory rule regarding who must file a welfare exemption is not binding and therefore should not be given independent legal effect; and 3) the County failed to establish that the trial court should have denied a tax refund because plaintiff's claims were tardy and its claim forms were incomplete.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case concerning the ownership of property that belonged to the Dioceses before the disaffiliation of a majority of members from the Episcopal Church in the U.S., the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed where, although the trial court made certain errors, applying neutral principles of law, the property belongs to plaintiffs.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a putative class action against an employer, alleging it has not maintained its pension plan in compliance with the the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. section 1001 et seq., the District Court's partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where pension plan was subject to the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and did not qualify for ERISA’s church-plan exemption.

(United States First Circuit) - In an appeal of a tax court decision affirming a determination by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that he owed $3.790 million in income taxes and penalties on $5.65 million in bank deposits petitioner made and interest earned from 1995 to 2002, the tax court determination is affirmed over petitioner's contentions that these deposits were not his taxable personal income but the program income of a social welfare organization that had tax-exempt status pursuant to section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. section 501(c), where an organization distinct from petitioner did not exist during the applicable tax years.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a motion for a preliminary injunction sought by three religiously-affiliated non-profit corporations to prevent the enforcement of the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act, the district court's denial of the motion is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's are not entitled to a preliminary injunction based on their free exercise claims; 2) the Act is a neutral lawof general applicability, which survived rational basis review; and 3) plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a dispute over the control of two nonprofit entities associated with the Sikh Dharma religious community, the district court's dismissal of the claims, as foreclosed by the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, is vacated where: 1) based only on the pleadings, the claims were not barred by the First Amendment's ministerial exception; and 2) the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not apply because the claims could be resolved by application of neutral principles of law without encroaching on religious organizations' right of autonomy in matters of religious doctrine and administration.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action brought by a member of a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation to inspect the corporation's membership list, and other books and records, the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate to compel inspection, on grounds that the member sought the inspection for an improper purpose, unrelated to his interest as a member of the corporation, and findings that the corporation did not timely challenge the request for the membership list as required by statute, and therefore ordered the list disclosed, is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the member sought the information for an improper purpose; and 2) the corporation's challenge to disclosing the membership list was not barred by statute.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case to decide whether the City and County of San Francisco can compel state universities that operate parking lots in the city to collect city taxes from parking users and remit them to San Francisco, the trial court's denial of the City's petition for writ of mandate is affirmed where the California Constitution's 'home-rule provision' -- which grants charter cities broad powers, including the power to tax -- does not create an exception to the long-recognized doctrine that exempts state entities from local regulation when they are performing governmental functions.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) against church-affiliated nonprofits that run hospitals and other healthcare facilities, brought by current and former employees of the hospitals, alleging that the hospitals' pension plans do not fall within ERISA's church-plan exemption because they were not established by a church, the Seventh Circuit's judgment affirming the District Court's decision that a plan must be established by a church to qualify as a church plan, is reversed where a plan maintained by a principal-purpose organization qualifies as a 'church plan,' regardless of who established it.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld the constitutionality of California's requirement that charitable organizations must disclose the names and addresses of certain large contributors. Two nonprofit organizations contended that the disclosure requirement infringed their First Amendment right to free association. Disagreeing, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the disclosure requirement survived exacting constitutional scrutiny because it was substantially related to an important state interest in policing charitable fraud. The panel reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in the state's favor.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a Roman Catholic Diocese's petition to remove an individual from her position as trustee of an individual's trust and for damages. Held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing the trustee from liability for actions she took reasonably and in good faith.