Committees in both houses of the General Assembly are scheduled in the next few days to take up a bill that would erase a state law that codifies the United Methodist Church’s bylaws giving it property rights of its churches.

Helping to lead the charge on the bills are members of Sunnyside New Life Community Church in Frederick, whose legal battle with its former denomination I’ve written about in the past. They will be part of two busloads of supporters making the trip to the Senate on Thursday and House of Delegates on Tuesday.

Pastor Kenneth Mitchell, Sunnyside’s spiritual leader, said the law is causing particular hardships for small, historically-black churches such as Sunnyside, which ended up about $100,000 in debt after taking out a mortgage on its property for the first time and paying legal fees associated with its litigation with the UMC.

Mitchell, who will be testifying before lawmakers, said supporters are “very confident and very hopeful” the bill will past this year after failing in previous sessions. The Senate bill is sponsored by Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, D-Baltimore City. The lead sponsor for the identical House bill is Del. Hattie N. Harrison, D-Baltimore City

“This time the issue is not localized in one county,” Mitchell said. “This is across the state.”

I received an unexpected email earlier this week from the Sunnyside New Life Community Church in Frederick inviting me to their “Liberty Through the Cross” event Sunday at Tuscarora High School.

I wrote last year about Sunnyside, founded by descendants of freed slaves, and its efforts to own its property despite splitting from the United Methodist Church in 2008. The Baltimore-Washington Conference of the UMC had filed a lawsuit against Sunnyside claiming the parent denomination owned the property once Sunnyside left the flock based on UMC bylaws.

The lawsuit settled in December with Sunnyside paying the UMC $50,000 for the property.

“We are elated,” Roxanne Weedon-Thrasher, the church’s administrator, told me Thursday. “A lot of us are still pinching ourselves.”

The congregation has been contacted for advice by other churches in a similar position as Sunnyside, but the victory came with a price. The church had to take out a mortgage on the property for the first time and, with legal fees, is about $100,000 in debt.

So Sunnyside now holds regular fundraisers. Sunday’s event features Pastor (and state Sen.) C. Anthony Muse, who is bringing along his choir and congregation from the Ark of Safety Christian Church in Upper Marlboro.

“It’s a huge struggle but we are faithful people,” Weedon-Thrasher said. “If God brought us through that, anything is possible.”

The kids are back to school and you’re at work. Take a minute to check out some law links to start the week.

• Copyright laws might prevent public consumption of the Savory collection — a treasure trove of jazz recordings from the 1930s and 1940s.
• Two couples with ties to the Maryland legal community made the New York Times Weddings/Celebrations page.
• Virginia’s AG says the state can further regulate abortion clinics.
• The Maryland Injury Law Blog is supporting sitting judges Laura Kiessling and Ronald Jarashow in the race for Anne Arundel County Circuit Court judge — even though they say only 11 people could make an informed decision in that race.
• Lots of students on other career tracks work for free in summer internships, but law schools in Florida are refusing to post requests seeking summer associates who will work for free because of labor laws.
• More and more are leaving big law behind.
• The Huffington Post has a Q&A with Pastor Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church.

My cover story in Monday’s Maryland Lawyer about the Sunnyside church talks about state law governing corporate and property rights of religious entities. There was one question I could not answer before my deadline: where did this 1976 law come from?

(Unfortunately, there is no quick link to the statute. If you want to see it, click here, then “Maryland Code”, “Corporations and Associations,” “Title 5. Special Types of Corporations,” “Subtitle 3. “Religious Corporations.”)

I had heard that former Gov. Marvin Mandel testified in the General Assembly on the law’s history this past session. Mandel told me Monday the same thing he told the House Committee about the law.

“I still think it’s unconstitutional,” he said. “The state shouldn’t get involved in religion.”

Yet it was Mandel who introduced the legislation at the request of the Episcopal Church, which was having an “internal battle over its assets.” He said he made his reservations about the bill known, but ultimately signed it into law because the factions had decided the bill was best the way to solve the problem. (For what it’s worth, Mandel is Jewish.)

The Sunnyside case is the first time in 35 years legislators looked at a law Mandel thought would have been long gone from the books by now.

“No one’s questioned it up until this time,” he said. “I was surprised no one stepped forward and contested it.”

The former governor added that he would be keeping an eye on the Sunnyside case as it makes its way through the courts.

Happy Monday! Here are some law links to start your day:

• Did you know it’s legal to marry your first cousin in Maryland? Legislators, including the powerful head of the House Judiciary Committee, want to change that.
• The ever-fiery Page Croyder says district court judges are handsomely compensated for doing not much work. Anyone want to respond to her allegations?
• It was really tough to get a job as an associate at a top law firm in 2009, even if you were graduating from an excellent law school.
• It’s four years to the day since Clarence Thomas’ last question at oral arguments. A new paper argues that his silence hurts the court and his own reputation.
• Last Wednesday, an Iowa prosecutor returned from a lunch break in a murder trial with ash on his forehead. The defense attorney objected, saying it might sway the jury, the judge agreed, and the prosecutor wiped it off. Thoughts?
• The lady who crusaded against dog poop on the streets of New York, leading the city to enact a pooper-scooper law, has died at age 99. Sounds like she was a real pistol.

As if this article about the challenges being made against a “post-theist” councilman in Asheville weren’t interesting enough, there’s also the Maryland connection. As the story notes, Maryland is one of a handful of states with a constitutional clause requiring “a declaration of belief in the existence of God” from state office-holders (see Article 37 of the Declaration of Rights).

Rest assured, the Free State hasn’t tried to enforce the requirement since 1961, when the U.S. Supreme Court found it unconstitutional in Torcaso v. Watkins, a case involving a Maryland notary public. In 1978 — a mere 17 years later – the wording of the oath of office was changed in response to Torcaso, but Article 37 has never been amended to delete the requirement itself. That’s understandable, given the difficulties of amending the state constitution. Can you imagine getting 60% of the state’s lawmakers to back the idea of excising God from anything, let alone the Declaration of Rights? My guess is that it would have been easier back in the ’60s.

If your kid’s teacher makes disparaging comments about religion, is it a First Amendment Establishment Clause violation?

The 9th Circuit will consider that question. The WSJ Law Blog writes:

The teacher, James Corbett of Capistrano Valley High School in Mission Viejo (which graduated former Los Angeles Raider Todd Marinovich) referred to Creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense” during a 2007 lecture. Corbett made a host of other controversial statements as well. One of his students, Chad Farnan, sued Corbett and the school district, alleging a violation of his First Amendment Rights.

In May, a federal judge in Santa Ana, Calif., James Selna, granted summary judgment, partly in favor of Farnan and partly in favor of the defendants. Click here for the opinion. Specifically, Judge James Selna ruled that the “superstitious nonsense” comment violated Farnan’s rights, but ruled that nearly two dozen statements did not. Both sides appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

What do you think? Was the teacher out of line? Constitutionally? Professionally?

There’s just too much good law-related stuff out there this morning to tell you all about! Here’s a special, miniature (fun size, if you will) law round-up:

• John Bratt of the Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog says he’s glad he doesn’t work for Doug Gansler. Bratt noted my colleague Steve Lash’s report that assistant attorney general Brian Kleinbord is the attorney of record for Maryland v. Shatzer, which Gansler argued in the Supreme Court yesterday. “You know what that means?” Bratt writes. “It means that Kleinbord and the other lawyers wrote the briefs and did all the work. Now that it is time for argument, the guy at the top of the letterhead is swooping in to take advantage of all of the attention, and the glory if he wins.”
• The guy who wants the military to combat proselytizing of soldiers and cadets is suing to get a former Navy chaplain to “stop asking Jesus to plunder my fields… seize my assets, kill me and my family then wipe away our descendants for 10 generations.” The former chaplain says he was just quoting Scripture and never incited violence against Mikey Weinstein, though he said he “pray[s] the Psalm that his days are few.”
• This line from The National Law Journal’s account of the opening day of the Supreme Court term yesterday is hilarious: “Justices Breyer and Clarence Thomas spent several minutes during arguments peering at the marble friezes of lawgivers on the walls of the Court high above them, apparently noticing new features they hadn’t seen before from their earlier vantage points.” I really can’t add anything to that.

The Post had a story the other day on Christian real estate agents who market themselves to other Christians. Not that it’s an exclusive phenomenon — there are Jewish referral networks and agencies that cater to observant Muslims, for example — but in recent years, the Post says, “an increasing number of real estate agents have begun using Christian messages to market their businesses.”

From the article:

Nonetheless, groups such as the Christian Real Estate Network, or brokers such as [Philip] DeLizio, are walking a fine line, even if they use a disclaimer, said Connie Chamberlin, president of Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia, a nonprofit group dedicated to fighting housing discrimination.
“If this said black real estate network, or white real estate network — looking for a white real estate agent to buy or sell a home? — how would that sound?” Chamberlin said. She added that eventually the courts will weigh in. “Some day one of these things is going to be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court — because there is so much of it.”

What do you think? Have you seen this type of religion-centered pitch among lawyers?

CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer

Army Spc. Jeremy Hall doesn’t mind putting his life at risk to protect his country. What he does mind is having religious beliefs pushed on him by the government — and being punished for his lack of faith.

That’s why he filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, among others, claiming that his First Amendment right to religious freedom had been violated.

According to CNN, Hall, a former Baptist-turned-atheist, claims that the military discriminates against non-Christians. Unlike most plaintiffs, Hall isn’t asking for money. Instead, he wants the military to guarantee religious freedom for all soldiers.

What do you think? Should the military be allowed to encourage religious exercise and accommodate religion, or does the First Amendment prohibit any commingling of church and state?

CHRISTINA DORAN, Assistant Legal Editor