Religion Clause

Wednesday, October 01, 2025

FBI Cuts Ties With ADL

The FBI has announced that it is cutting its ties with the Anti-Defamation League. According to Fox News, Patel told them:

James Comey disgraced the FBI by writing ‘love letters’ to the ADL and embedding agents with an extreme group functioning like a terrorist organization and the disgraceful operation they ran spying on Americans. That was not law enforcement, it was activism dressed up as counterterrorism, and it put Americans in danger.

That era is finished. This FBI formally rejects Comey’s policies and any partnership with the ADL.

Fox News goes on to report:

The ADL has recently faced backlash from Elon Musk and Republican lawmakers for listing Turning Point USA (TPUSA), Charlie Kirk's organization, as an extremist group....

In a post on X, Elon Musk said:

The FBI was taking their “hate group” definitions from ADL, which is why FBI was investigating Charlie Kirk & Turning Point, instead of his murderers …

In response to the criticism, the ADL announced that it is taking its Glossary offline, saying:

With over 1,000 entries written over many years, the ADL Glossary of Extremism has served as a source of high-level information on a wide range of topics for years. At the same time, an increasing number of entries in the Glossary were outdated. We also saw a number of entries intentionally misrepresented and misused. Moreover, our experts have continued to develop more comprehensive resources and innovative ways to provide information about antisemitism, extremism and hate.

At ADL, we always are looking for how we can and should do things better. That's why we are moving to retire the Glossary effectively immediately. This will allow ADL to explore new strategies and creative approaches to deliver our data and present our research more effectively. It will keep us focused on ensuring we do what we do best: fighting antisemitism and hate in the most impactful ways possible.

President Sends Yom Kippur Greetings to the Jewish Community

The White House today posted President Trump's Message on Yom Kippur (full text) which begins today at sundown. The message says in part:

As you observe this blessed day, my Administration is working to strengthen our proud national tradition of religious liberty, end faith-based persecution, and further the sacred cause of peace both at home and abroad.

We wish the Jewish faithful a meaningful Sabbath of Sabbaths. May you be inscribed in the Book of Life, may God bless you, and may He continue to bless the United States of America.

Kansas Supreme Court: Expanded Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate Is Not in Conflict with Title VII

In Powerback Rehabilitation, LLC v. Kansas Department of Labor, (KS Sup. Ct., Sept. 26, 2025), the Kansas Supreme Court in a 4-2 decision, upheld a Kansas statute (K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663) that requires employers to grant religious exemptions from any Covid vaccine mandate without inquiring into the sincerity of an employee's asserted religious belief. Powerback was subject to federal Medicaid rules that required it to impose a Covid vaccine mandate on its employees. Medicaid incorporated into its rules federal Title VII standards which allow employers to question the sincerity of an employee's religious belief. The Supreme Court rejected the trial court's holding that the Kansas statute was pre-empted by federal law. The Kansas Supreme Court said in part:

Powerback's argument is simple and alluring at first blush. It simply points out that "federal law contemplates an inquiry into the sincerity of an employee's purported religious beliefs. [K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663] specifically disallows this same inquiry. The Vaccine Act thus forces Powerback to make an impossible decision between compliance with Kansas law or compliance with federal law." But this framing of the problem incorporates a deft sleight-of-hand. Because federal "contemplation" is not a mandate. That is, nowhere in the federal regulations ... is an employer subject to the Vaccine Mandate required to inquire into the sincerity of an employee's religious beliefs. At most, the employer is permitted to make this inquiry....

Thus, Powerback could have granted a religious exemption to Keeran that was consistent with both Title VII (as incorporated into the Vaccine Mandate) and with K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663 by simply not inquiring into Keeran's religious sincerity.

The dissent rejects this conclusion on the grounds that Title VII's allowance of what the dissent characterizes as a "meaningful interactive process with the employee" is actually a "federally granted right" which state law cannot "nullify" or "forbid" an employer from exercising.... If this were true, the dissent would be correct. But it is not true. Indeed, the dissent has dramatically misunderstood—and in fact inverted— Title VII. The statutory framework adopted by Congress in Title VII does not define or create any genuine "rights" in employers. It is instead entirely about protecting and preserving the rights of employees not to be discriminated against....

Justice Stanridge, joined by Justice Rosen, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Under longstanding Supremacy Clause doctrine, state law must yield where compliance with both state and federal law is impossible, or where state law frustrates Congress' objectives. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663 fails on both counts....

Title VII embodies a carefully calibrated framework, one that protects religious exercise while preserving the ability of employers to safeguard legitimate operational and safety interests. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663 is incompatible with that framework in two respects. It makes compliance with both state and federal law impossible, and it obstructs the objectives of Congress by replacing a balanced system with one of absolute deference. Either defect alone is sufficient for preemption; together, they leave no room for doubt. Because Kansas has attempted to supplant federal law with a contradictory regime, I would hold K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663 is preempted by the Supremacy Clause.

Kansas City Star reports on the decision.

Teacher Loses Challenge to School's "Controversial Issues" Policy

In Cahall v. New Richmond Exempted Village School District Board of Education, (SD OH, Sept. 29, 2025), an Ohio federal district court dismissed a teacher's constitutional challenges to a 3-day suspension she received for violating the school's "controversial issues" policy. Plaintiff, a third-grade math and science teacher, added four books with LGBTQ+ themes to a book collection in her classroom that students can read during in-class free time. In upholding the school's action, the court said in part:

To the extent that [plaintiff] relies on the Free Exercise Clause... —teachers do not have a First Amendment right (whether under its free speech component or its free exercise component) to make their own “curricular and pedagogical choices” in a public school.... If Cahall wants to keep religious materials for her own use—for example, a Bible in a desk drawer that she reads herself during free time—the analysis gets more difficult. Or similarly if she wants to speak as a citizen on matters relating to LGBTQ+ or other issues—for example, commenting at a Board meeting.... But the District pays her to instruct students, and as part of that, it has the right to specify the materials that she uses to accomplish that objective....

Cahall also invokes the Establishment Clause. Her claim ... appears to be that the District chose to treat other religious expressions, by other school personnel, better than hers.... But assuming that is her claim, ... she has not plausibly alleged that a similarly-situated employee was treated more favorably, and thus has not plausibly alleged that the District is favoring one religion over another.

If instead she is arguing that she has some kind of constitutional right to share her religiously motivated beliefs, the Establishment Clause actually works against her.

The court also rejected vagueness and equal protection challenges.

Tuesday, September 30, 2025

Religious Liberty Commission Holds Hearing on Religious Liberty in Education

The Religious Liberty Commission yesterday held a four-hour hearing on Religious Liberty in Education. (Video of full hearing.) The hearing included a tribute to Charlie Kirk, and panels on Teacher and Coach Perspectives; Protecting the Religious Identity and Autonomy of Faith-Based Schools; and Faith-Based Schools and the State. The Lion reports on the testimony of various witnesses before the Commission.

DOJ Brings FACE Act Suit Against Antisemitic Protesters

In a press release and at a news conference (video) the Justice Department announced that for the first time it has filed a civil complaint under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act against organizations and individuals who, in 2024, targeted a New Jersey synagogue in a protest that escalated into violence. The complaint (full text) in United States v. Party for Socialism and Liberation New Jersey, (D NJ, filed 9/29/2025), alleges in part:

28. The event at Congregation Ohr Torah was to include prayer, a religious memorial service for the late Rabbi Avi Goldberg, a Torah sermon, religious songs with biblical verses, prayerful dancing, educational activities about the religious obligation to live in Israel, a real estate fair, and a festive barbecue in the synagogue’s parking lot—all part of the religious observance....

73. Defendants Sharif and Jane Doe used vuvuzelas as weapons to drown out the religious service, making it impossible for worshipers to hear the memorial service and Torah sermon, effectively denying access to the event. Blowing vuvuzelas to disrupt a religious event is not protected speech, as blowing a vuvuzela does not convey a message and was used by Defendants Sharif and Jane Doe as a method of physical harm, intimidation, and disruption reasonably known to lead to permanent noise-induced hearing loss....

75. Motivated by antisemitic animus, Sharif charged at Glick with intent to cause serious bodily harm and, after Camins identified Silberberg as “the Jew,” assaulted Silberberg by grabbing his throat, placing him in a chokehold, tackling him down a hill, and further dragging him across the synagogue property....

The suit seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages and civil penalties.

Washington Examiner reports on the lawsuit.

As reported by NorthJersey, in February the Essex County, New Jersey, prosecutor filed criminal charges of bias intimidation, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose and unlawful possession of a weapon against the pro-Israel counter protesters at the event who are alleged to be the victims in DOJ's complaint.

Massachusetts Appellate Court Reverses Dismissal of Vaccine Exemption Claim

In June v. UMass Memorial Healthcare System, (MA App., Sept. 29, 2025), a Massachusetts state appellate court reversed a trial court's dismissal of a state law religious discrimination suit brought by an operating room surgical technician who was denied a religious exemption from the health care system's Covid vaccine mandate. In denying an accommodation, the system's religious exemption committee said:

This requester asserts they cannot receive the COVID-19 vaccines based on their Christian faith because they will 'genetically alter' their body. This is patently false -- none of the COVID-19 vaccines genetically alter the body or change a person's DNA. Reliance on demonstrably false information cannot be a basis for a religious accommodation."

In reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment, the appellate court said in part:

A plaintiff, like the plaintiff here, who believes that she was created in God's image and that her body is a temple of God and thus needs God's approval to expose her body to foreign substances, expresses a religious belief. Moreover, a plaintiff who prays to God and receives a "distinctive message from my God" acts in accordance with religious beliefs when she follows those divine instructions.

To this, UMass Memorial interposes the objection that "this would create a blanket privilege allowing employees to opt out of any and all employer requirements simply by stating they prayed and received guidance." Although UMass Memorial is free to argue to a jury that the plaintiff is not telling the truth, "[i]t is not permissible for a judge to determine what is or is not a matter of religious doctrine." ...

Here, the summary judgment record reveals a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether accommodating the plaintiff's religious beliefs would cause an undue hardship to UMass Memorial.

Boston Herald reports on the decision.

Monday, September 29, 2025

Justice Department Issues Opinion to EEOC On Impact of Recent Developments for Federal Employees

Earlier this month, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an advisory opinion Religious Liberty Protections for Federal Employees in Light of Recent Legal Developments, 49 Op. O.L.C. __ (Sept. 18, 2025). The opinion was requested by the Acting Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission who wanted to know the extent to which 1997 Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace and a 2017 Memorandum Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty remain operative. OLC responded that recent developments require two exceptions to continuing to enforce those prior directives:

First ... the Supreme Court held in Groff that an employer experiences “undue hardship” only where the burden posed by an accommodation would be “substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.”... Thus, under Title VII, an agency cannot deny a religious accommodation if the burden imposed on the agency by the accommodation in the context of the agency’s work is insubstantial. Agencies should therefore disregard references in the 1997 Guidelines to the “de minimis” standard as inconsistent with their statutory obligations....

Second, the 1997 Guidelines provide that, although agencies generally may not “restrict personal religious expression by employees in the Federal workplace,” agencies must restrict such expression where it “creates the appearance, to a reasonable observer, of an official endorsement of religion.”... Again, that restriction reflected Supreme Court precedent that has since been abrogated....

The 1997 Guidelines’ “official endorsement” test thus creates a special restriction on religious expression without a constitutionally valid justification.

... [O]ur conclusion that the “appearance of official endorsement” test can no longer be enforced does not mean that all religious expression in the workplace must be permitted. Nor does it mean that the Constitution imposes no limits on religious conduct or expression by government employees. The Supreme Court has never cast doubt on the principle that government employers can prohibit disruptive or coercive behavior by their employees regardless of the religious nature of that conduct.

The OLC Opinion also went on to provide that telework as a form of religious accommodation for federal employees may still be used despite President Trump's directive to federal employees to return to in-person work.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Friday, September 26, 2025

Mother Loses Free Exercise Challenge To Violence Against Women Act

In United States v. Gaviola, (ED CA, Sept. 25, 2025), a California federal district court held that enforcement of 18 USC §2262(a)(2) does not violate the free exercise rights of a California mother who arranged for her 16-year-old son to be forcibly transferred to a religious boarding school in Missouri. The son had previously obtained a temporary restraining order against his mother prohibiting her from contacting him. He had also filed a petition to become an emancipated minor. 18 USC §2262(a)(2), which is part of the Violence Against Women Act, criminalizes causing a person to travel in interstate commerce by force, coercion, duress or fraud where that violates a state court protection order. According to the court:

Gaviola asserts that her decision to cause her child, MV, to cross state lines in order to enroll him in a Christian school “reflects her sincerely held religious beliefs and her absolute right to direct her child’s religious and moral education.”... As such, she claims that “[p]rosecuting her under 18 U.S.C. § 2262 for this conduct imposes a substantial burden on her free exercise of religion, as it effectively penalizes her for making a constitutionally protected choice.”

In rejecting her claim, the court said in part:

Section 2262 is neutral. It does not single out religion or religiously motivated conduct for special burdens; it applies regardless of the defendant’s beliefs. It is generally applicable because it uniformly prohibits all persons from violating protection orders; it does not afford discretion to grant exceptions for secular motivations (e.g., employment, education, medical reasons) while denying them for religious ones. The government’s interest—interstate enforcement of state court orders and protection of victims of domestic violence—applies equally across the board. Thus, under Smith, § 2262 is a classic example of a neutral, generally applicable law whose enforcement does not trigger strict scrutiny, even if a defendant claims her conduct was religiously motivated....

Moreover, if the Court set aside Smith and applied strict scrutiny, Gaviola’s arguments still fails....

Gaviola does not raise a claim or defense under the RFRA. However, whether under Gaviola’s interpretation of a First Amendment challenge or one under the RFRA, the “net effect” is the same: “the government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion if and only if the government’s action can survive ‘strict scrutiny.’” ...

As previously discussed, the Court does not doubt the sincerity of Gaviola’s religious beliefs. The Court will also assume, without deciding, that prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2262(a)(2) substantially burdens her exercise of religion. Even so, the government’s interests are compelling.

The federal government has a paramount interest in protecting victims of domestic violence, including by ensuring the enforceability of state-court protection orders and preventing their evasion through interstate travel. Enforcing § 2262—as well as other provisions of the Violence Against Women Act—advances these compelling interests, such as safeguarding children, upholding judicial orders, and deterring interstate abduction....

Court Refuses to Dismiss Case on Misappropriation of Tithed Funds Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Leach v. Gateway Church, (ED TX, Sep. 17, 2025), a Texas federal district court refused to dismiss a class action suit on behalf of Gateway Church members and tithers alleging misappropriation of tithed funds. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs allege Defendants induced Plaintiffs to donate money to Gateway by falsely representing fifteen percent (15%) of all donations would be distributed to global missions and Jewish ministry partners... [and that] Defendants guaranteed Plaintiffs a refund of their donated funds if Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with Gateway’s use of such funds.... Plaintiffs’ efforts to seek transparency and substantiation for Gateway’s use of Plaintiffs’ donations or to otherwise recover any allegedly misappropriated tithe funds have not been successful....

Because Gateway’s membership exceeds 100,000 members since its founding, Plaintiffs allege the proposed class will consist of “tens of thousands of persons,” including members that do not reside in Texas....

The court held that it was not required to abstain from hearing the case on the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act which directs class actions to state courts when there is minimal diversity of citizenship between members of the class and defendant.

The court also refused to dismiss the case on ecclesiastical abstention grounds. The court said in part:

Defendants argue neutral principles of law cannot resolve Plaintiffs’ claims because “Plaintiffs’ claims necessarily touch on the religious doctrine and practice of tithing and intrude in Gateway’s internal affairs and administration”...

At this stage ... Defendants have not established the disputed financial expenditures from Plaintiffs’ tithes were approved by a committee or governing body based on Gateway’s religious doctrine.... Second, Defendants have not pointed to any church policy outlining that its contested expenditures were justified by Gateway’s religious teachings.... Third, the Parties have not alleged they have differing definitions of “Jewish ministry partners” or any other term at issue....

... Plaintiffs’ claims seemingly address Defendants’ non-religious conduct: acts of concealment; discrepancies in the reconciliation of donated funds balances; unaccounted for donations; financial irregularities; and lack of transparency or substantiations for Gateway’s use of Plaintiffs’ donations.... The Court acknowledges the act of tithing is a religious act, but Plaintiffs do not dispute their tithing; rather, Plaintiffs allege their tithes were fraudulently allocated and Defendants misrepresented critical facts to Plaintiffs before tithing....

Ministry Watch reports on the decision.

Canceling Church's Sunday Lease on School Gym Violated 1st Amendment

In Truth Family Bible Church Middleton v. Idaho Housing and Finance Association, (D ID, Sept. 22, 2025), an Idaho federal district court held that plaintiff's First Amendment rights were violated when its lease to use a public charter school's gymnasium for Sunday services was terminated. The court said in part:

... Truth Family had a month-to-month lease with Sage International Network of Schools (“SAGE”), a public charter school, where they would pay rent for the use of the school’s gymnasium on Sundays for church services.... SAGE submitted an application to IHFA to participate in the Public Charter School Facilities Program [under which] it could receive bonds for facility improvements and construction.

IHFA reviewed SAGE’s application and indicated the lease with Truth Family could be a problem because the bond proceeds could not be used for religious purposes under Article IX Section 5 of the Idaho Constitution (otherwise known as the “Blaine Amendment”).... Ultimately, SAGE decided to terminate the lease in order to proceed with bond financing.....

IHFA did not single out Truth Family’s lease in a way that was neutral or generally applicable, and SAGE did not terminate Truth Family’s lease in a manner that was neutral or generally applicable. Therefore, Truth Family met its burden of showing there was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause here....

To refuse the issuance of bonds to anyone who contracts with a religious organization to use their facilities is likely not narrowly tailored to any government interest that could possibly be served by the Blaine Amendment....

... [T]he government is still indicating a preference for a certain religion or non-religion when it excludes another. When Truth Family was prevented from using facilities to participate in worship services, that indicated IHFA and SAGE’s preference for non-religion in violation of the Establishment Clause....

SAGE terminated the lease solely due to Truth Family’s status as a religious organization. While the motivation might have been money rather than a direct issue with the message itself, the result is the same: Truth Family could no longer spread its message at the school because it was a religious one. This is a violation of the Free Speech Clause, and summary judgment is proper....

Idaho Ed News reports on the decision.

Thursday, September 25, 2025

9th Circuit: Employee's Objection to Covid Vaccine Accommodation Was Not Religious

In Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center, (9th Cir., Sept. 23, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed a district court's dismissal of a suit under Title VII and a parallel Oregon statute brought by Sherry Detwiler, the medical center's Director of Health Information. Detwiler initially objected on religious grounds to her employer's Covid vaccine requirement. She was granted an exemption, conditioned, in part, on her having weekly antigen testing. She objected to that accommodation because she believed the ethylene oxide used in obtaining a nasal swab for the test was carcinogenic. She told her employer in part:

I have asked God for direction regarding the current COVID testing requirement. As I have prayed about what I should do, the Holy Spirit has moved on my heart and conscience that I must not participate in COVID testing that causes harm. If I were to go against the moving of the Holy Spirit, I would be sinning and jeopardizing my relationship with God and violating my conscience . . .

As a Christian protecting my body from defilement according to God’s law, I invoke my religious right to refuse any testing which would alter my DNA and has been proven to cause cancer. I find testing with carcinogens and chemical waste to be in direct conflict with my Christian duty to protect my body as the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Detwiler asked instead either for saliva testing or remote work. The majority said in part:

The Ninth Circuit has not yet endorsed a test for determining the nature, whether religious or secular, of a belief underlying a Title VII claim....

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need not establish her belief is consistent, widely held, or even rational. However, a complaint must connect the requested exemption with a truly religious principle. Invocations of broad, religious tenets cannot, on their own, convert a secular preference into a religious conviction....

The District Court acknowledged the sincerity and religiosity of Detwiler’s belief in her body as a temple and even the implied prohibition on ingesting harmful substances. Therefore, at issue is Detwiler’s belief that the testing swab is harmful, and specifically that EtO is a carcinogen. This belief is personal and secular, premised on her interpretation of medical research. In essence, Detwiler labels a personal judgment based on science as a direct product of her general religious tenet. Yet, her alarm about the test swab is far too attenuated from the broad principle to treat the two as part of a single belief....

Invocation of prayer, without more, is still insufficient to elevate personal medical judgments to the level of religious significance.... Indeed, crediting every secular objection bolstered by a minimal reference to prayer as religious “would amount to a blanket privilege and a limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted obligations.”

Judge VanDyke filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

By affirming the district court, the majority creates a circuit split. When faced with the question of whether religious objections to COVID-19 policies mirroring Detwiler’s objection were sufficiently pled, our sister circuits have consistently answered in the affirmative....

To work well, the majority’s mode of analysis must be capable of objective, impartial, and consistent application. If not, such analysis opens wide the door to the discriminatory treatment of religious beliefs. Those beliefs christened by a judge as “truly religious” will be protected, and those condemned as too mixed with “secular” beliefs will be left unprotected. The majority’s approach requires the impossible—we are judges, not theologians or philosophers. Judges are ill equipped to parse mixed claims into the “truly religious” and “purely secular” silos that the majority purports to discern....

Salem Reporter reports on the decision.

Monday, September 22, 2025

President Sends Rosh Hashanah Greetings

Rosh Hashanah-- the Jewish New Year-- begins at sundown this evening. The White House today posted a Presidential Message on Rosh Hashanah. In it, President Trump said in part:

As the Jewish community gathers for this special time of spiritual renewal, my Administration recommits to upholding religious liberty and ending faith-based persecution—including the scourge of anti-Semitism. Above all, we pledge to build a future of peace—and to recognize the dignity imprinted on every human soul.

Another Suit Challenges Texas' Law Requiring 10 Commandments in Classrooms

On August 20 a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring 11 Texas school districts from complying with Texas SB 10 that requires posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Five days later, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a press release directed the school districts that were not defendants in the litigation to comply with SB 10. (See prior posting.) Today, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against 14 more of Texas' 1207 school districts seeking an injunction barring those districts from complying with SB 10. The 67-page complaint (full text) in Ringer v. Comal Independent School District, (WD TX, filed 9/22/2025) alleges in part:

... [P]ermanently posting the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom—rendering them unavoidable—will unconstitutionally harm the Plaintiffs. The displays will pressure students, including the minor-child Plaintiffs, into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state’s favored religious scripture. The displays will also send the harmful and religiously divisive message that students who do not subscribe to the Ten Commandments—or, more precisely, to the specific version of the Ten Commandments that S. B. 10 requires—do not belong in their own school community, pressuring them to refrain from expressing any faith practices or beliefs that are not aligned with the state’s religious preferences. And the displays will substantially interfere with and burden the right of the parents-Plaintiffs, who are Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Baha’i, Humanist, or nonreligious, to direct their children’s education and upbringing when it comes to religious questions and matters.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Sunday, September 21, 2025

Texas Governor Signs Ban on Mail-Order Abortion Drugs

On Sept. 17, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 7 (full text), a complex 20-page law aimed at preventing the shipment from out-of-state of abortion-inducing drugs. The key section of the law provides:

... [A] person may not: (1) manufacture or distribute an abortion-inducing drug in this state; or (2) mail, transport, deliver, prescribe, or provide an abortion-inducing drug in any manner to or from any person or location in this state....

The law then sets out lengthy lists of exceptions, including any action taken by a pregnant woman in attempting to induce an abortion.

The ban is enforceable through a qui tam action by any person, with certain exceptions. To deal with plaintiff's standing, the Act provides:

An action brought under this section must be brought in the name of the qui tam relator, who is an assignee of this state’s claim for relief. Notwithstanding any other law, the transfer of this state’s claim to the qui tam relator is absolute, with the state retaining no interest in the subject matter of the claim.

An action may not be brought against a pharmaceutical manufacturer, distributor or common carrier unless it is shown that the defendant failed to adopt and implement a policy to comply with the law.

If a plaintiff is successful, the court is to award not less than $100,000. If the plaintiff is the woman who was pregnant or a relative of the unborn child, plaintiff is to retain the entire award. If the suit is brought by someone else, plaintiff is to retain $10,000 and the remainder is to be placed in trust for a charitable organization selected by plaintiff.

Reuters reports on the governor's action.