Religion Clause

Thursday, May 07, 2026

ADL Releases 2025 Antisemitism Data

The Anti-Defamation League yesterday released its Audit of Antisemitic Incidents 2025. The Audit reported in part:

The year 2025 was the third-highest year on record for antisemitic incidents since the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) began tracking them in 1979.

Each year, the ADL tracks incidents of antisemitic harassment, vandalism and physical assault in the United States in our annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents. While incidents of harassment and vandalism decreased significantly in 2025 from record highs in 2023 and 2024, physical assaults this past year were higher than ever before. In 2025, there was an average of 17 incidents per day, compared to an average of eight incidents per day between 2020 and 2022....

In 2025, ADL tracked 6,274 antisemitic incidents in the United States. This was 33% lower than the 9,354 incidents tabulated in 2024, but five times higher than a decade ago....

In 2025, three people were killed in antisemitic attacks....

Wednesday, May 06, 2026

President Declares May As Jewish American Heritage Month

On Monday, President Trump issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring May as Jewish American Heritage Month. The Proclamation reads in part:

Throughout this historic year, we rejoice in the triumph of the American spirit and rededicate ourselves to the cause of liberty and justice for all. In special honor of 250 glorious years of American independence and on the weekend of Rededicate 250 — a national jubilee of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving — Jewish Americans are encouraged to observe a national Sabbath. From sundown on May 15 to nightfall on May 16, friends, families, and communities of all backgrounds may come together in gratitude for our great Nation. This day will recognize the sacred Jewish tradition of setting aside time for rest, reflection, and gratitude to the Almighty.

This month, we celebrate the contributions that Jewish Americans have made to our way of life, we honor their role in shaping the story of our Nation, and we remember that religious devotion, learning, and service to others are enduring pillars of a thriving culture....

ED Says Smith College Should Lose Title IX Exception for Single-Sex Colleges Because It Admits "Biological Men"

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced on Monday that it has opened a Title IX sex-discrimination investigation of Smith College for admitting transgender women to the all-women's school. The DOE announcement said in part:

Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened an investigation into Smith College, one of the nation’s largest all-women's colleges, for admitting biological men and granting them access to women-only spaces, including dormitories, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletic teams....

Title IX contains a single-sex exception that allows colleges to enroll all-male or all-female student bodies—but the exception applies on the basis of biological sex difference, not subjective gender identity. An all-girls college that enrolls male students professing a female identity would cease to qualify as single sex under Title IX.

When an institution holds itself out as being an all-women’s college, it is not just promising to deliver female-only dorms and bathrooms, and single-sex athletics; it is also committing to maintain a student body that makes possible a particular form of sorority and camaraderie....

The investigation stems from a civil rights complaint filed last year by the advocacy organization Defending Education. Politico reports on the Department's action.

Prosecution Need Not Refer to Defendant by His Religious Name During His Criminal Trial

In United States v. Green, (WD VA, May 4, 2026), defendant was charged with failing to update his sex offender registration. In a pretrial motion, defendant asked that he be referred to by his Hebrew Israelite religious name--Dalayah Yashar’Al-- during his upcoming trial. Defendant contended that the failure to do so would violate his 1st Amendment free exercise rights as well as his rights under RFRA. The court said in part:

Defendant may refer to himself as Mr. Yashar’Al throughout the upcoming trial. But the court and the government need not do so. Even assuming Defendant has legally changed his name under Michigan common law, the name “Deon Green” may appear in records necessary to prove the government’s case. A categorical prohibition on the court or the government from using the name “Deon Andre Green” risks confusing and misleading the jury....

... Defendant offers no argument that the court and the government’s use of his birth name in court will pressure him to modify his beliefs or to choose between his beliefs and a government benefit....

... Moreover, the government’s inclusion of Defendant’s preferred name in the indictment is an adequate religious accommodation....

... [T]o avoid confusion, the court will instruct the jury that Defendant—born Deon Green—has adopted the name Dalayah Yashar’Al, and that the two names refer to the same person....

Tuesday, May 05, 2026

Kentucky Trial Court Holds Definition of "Human Being" In Abortion Statute Is Void for Vagueness

In Sobel v. Coleman, (KY Cir. Ct., May 1, 2026), a Kentucky state trial court issued a declaratory judgment holding that the definition of "human being" in the Kentucky abortion statute is void for vagueness. The suit was brought by a Jewish woman who wants to become pregnant through the transfer one of nine embryos created during previous IVF treatment. She contends that the statutory definition of "human being" as any member of the species homo sapiens from fertilization to childbirth creates uncertainty as to whether she could be prosecuted over the subsequent disposal of unused embryos.

While Kentucky’s Fetal Homicide Statute expressly exempts persons participating in IVF treatments from prosecution, the state's general homicide law contains no such exception. The trial court said that reliance on a 2004 Kentucky Supreme Court case that found that the definition of "human being" in one Kentucky law could not be applied to the general homicide statute is unwarranted because that opinion was rooted in a discussion of "viability" as used in Roe v. Wade.

The trial court went on to say:

Kentucky is one of many states in our nation grappling with questions of reconciling post-Dobbs abortion restrictions with accessibility to IVF processes. However, whereas other states have addressed this legitimate concern through legislative action, our Commonwealth has attempted to address this concern merely through the procurement of non-binding Attorney General Opinions....

As reflected in the ... Attorney General’s non-binding advisory opinion, a prosecutor today may read the statute as clearly providing no such avenue for the prosecution of Ms. Kalb for her involvement in IVF processes. However, Ms. Kalb and others seeking to expand their families through IVF procedures have no binding assurance against the possibility that a prosecutor tomorrow interprets the statute differently and uses it as the basis for a prosecution.

The trial court however rejected a second claim by plaintiff that Kentucky's abortion laws violate the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court said in part:

Plaintiff argues that the first commandment of her Jewish faith instructs her to “be fruitful and multiply”. Plaintiff wishes to honor this commandment through the use of IVF. Plaintiff argues that the HLPA, which currently provides no specific exemption for IVF and which defines human life as beginning at the moment of conception, places an unconstitutional burden upon her ability to honor her religious commandments through IVF processes....

... Plaintiff is a woman of Jewish faith and to be fruitful and multiply is the first commandment in the Torah, the foundational text of Judaism. Be fruitful and multiply is also a foundational principle for Christians as articulated in Genesis 1:28 and often referred to as the “creation mandate”. Similar commandments or mandates are present in the holy texts of other religions including Islam and Hindu....

However, the Court does not believe that the HLPA unconstitutionally burdens Ms. Kalb from exercising her religious beliefs any more than it burdens followers of Christianity, Islam or Hindu from exercising their religious beliefs. Thus, any burden created by the HLPA is a religiously neutral, general burden upon virtually any Kentuckian of faith seeking to participate in IVF. The United States Supreme Court has effectively held that a government act that places a neutral and generally applicable burden upon individuals of differing religious beliefs is constitutionally permissible....

Louisville Public Media reports on the decision.

Egyptian Court Dismisses on Procedural Grounds Suit Over Easter as National Holiday

ADF International on April 30 reported:

An Egyptian court has declined to rule on a petition to establish Easter as a national holiday, indicating that the Prime Minister should instead determine the matter. Religious freedom advocates from across Christian denominations plan to appeal the decision, seeking to remove longstanding barriers to Christian observance of Easter.

The failure to recognize Easter as an official holiday in the country leaves in place conditions that force Egyptian Christians to choose between participating in Easter worship or facing serious civil, professional, and academic penalties.

The court rejected the petition on procedural grounds, stating that the petition falls under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, not the court....

A December decision by the Ministry of Manpower granting leave to Christian private-sector workers did not extend to the public sector and created disparities among Christian denominations by granting more paid leave days to Coptic Christians than Evangelicals or Catholics.

The Court’s ruling leaves these gaps unaddressed, failing to provide consistent protection across sectors and communities....

The full text of the court's opinion does not appear to be available online.

Sham Ennessim, a holiday celebrating the beginning of Spring, is a public holiday in Egypt. It falls on the Monday after Easter.

Monday, May 04, 2026

Supreme Court Grants 1-Week Administrative Stay of 5th Circuit's Abortion Drug Decision

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito this morning granted an administrative stay until 5:00 PM on May 11th in Danco Laboratories, L.L.C. v. State of Louisiana (full text of Order) and in Genbiopro, Inc. v. State of Louisiana (full text of Order). Justice Alito is responsible for receiving Emergency Petitions from the 3rd and 5th Circuits. The administrative stay of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal's May 1 decision (see prior posting) means that mail order delivery of the abortion drug mifepristone can continue at least temporarily. A response to the pharmaceutical companies' petition for a longer stay of the 5th Circuit's decision must be filed by Louisiana by 5:00 PM on May 7. CNN reports on today's action by Justice Alito.

Sunday, May 03, 2026

Mifepristone Makers Ask Supreme Court to Stay 5th Circuit's Ruling Ending Mail-Order Delivery of Abortion Drug

As previously reported, last Friday the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal of the FDA's 2023 ruling that removed the requirement that the abortion drug mifepristone be prescribed only after an in-person visit with a doctor. The FDA ruling permitted out-of-state doctors to prescribe mifepristone which then could be delivered by mail. Within one day of the 5th Circuit's ruling, two pharmaceutical manufacturers that had intervened as defendants in the case in the lower courts filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to stay the 5th Circuit's ruling while appeals continue. Alternatively, they seek immediate Supreme Court review. They also ask for an immediate administrative stay of the 5th Circuit's judgement while the Supreme Court is considering their petition.

The 56-page petition (full text) in Danco Laboratories, L.L.C. v. State of Louisiana, Ct. filed 5/2/2026) contends in part that Louisiana lacks standing to challenge the FDA ruling and that the 5th Circuit's judgment "injects immediate confusion and upheaval into highly time-sensitive medical decisions."

SCOTUSblog reports on the case and traces much of the background to the present filing.

Suit Challenges Idaho's Ban on Transgender Use of Gender-Conforming Bathrooms

Six transgender residents of Idaho filed a class-action lawsuit last week in an Idaho federal district court challenging recently enacted HB 752, an Idaho law that prohibits "knowingly and willfully enter[ing] a restroom or changing room in a government-owned building or a place of public accommodation ... that is designated for use by the opposite biological sex of such person...." The statute includes exceptions to the ban for various emergency, health-related and similar situations. A violation is punishable by up to one year in prison. A second violation within five years is punishable by up to five years in prison. The complaint (full text) in Jackson-Edney v. Labrador, (D ID, filed 4/29/2026), alleges that the law is void for vagueness and violates the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating on the basis of sex and transgender status. It also contends that it violates plaintiffs' right to informational privacy by compelling disclosure of a person's transgender status.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Friday, May 01, 2026

5th Circuit Stays FDA Ruling That Allows Mail Order Delivery of Mifepristone

In State of Louisiana v. Food and Drug Administration, (5th Cir., May 1, 2026), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal of the FDA's 2023 ruling that removed the requirement that the abortion drug mifepristone be prescribed only after an in-person visit with a doctor. The FDA ruling permitted out-of-state doctors to prescribe mifepristone which could be delivered by mail. The district court refused to stay the FDA action because the FDA was conducting its own review of its 2023 action. The 5th Circuit disagreed. First, it held that Louisiana has standing to challenge the FDA's action, saying in part:

... [T]he agency’s 2023 REMS causes “federal interference with the enforcement of [Louisiana] law,” which gives Louisiana standing to challenge it...

Louisiana provided hard evidence linking thousands of dollars in Medicaid costs to care stemming from out-of-state mifepristone. As the district court correctly held, that “alone [is] sufficient to establish Louisiana’s standing.”...

Every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban on medical abortions and undermines its policy that “every unborn child is human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person.” La. Stat. Ann. § 40:1061.1(A)(1) (2022). Once lost, that sovereign prerogative of protecting unborn life cannot be regained by legal remedy. And because FDA “is entitled to sovereign immunity,”... Louisiana’s financial harms are also irremediable.

... [T]he agency “essentially acknowledged APA procedural deficits with respect to mifepristone” by “stating that [its] intention to review the mifepristone regulatory framework was precipitated by ‘the lack of adequate consideration underlying the prior REMS approvals.’”

Based on the same defects, our court has previously concluded that FDA’s actions here were likely unlawful....

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Court Orders Action to Protect Reputation of Party Sanctioned by Rabbinical Court

In In re Bain v. Strulovitch, (Westchester Cty. NY Sup. Ct., April 29, 2026), a New York state trial court found itself in the middle of a dispute between business associates over whether their business issues should be decided by a rabbinical court or a civil court, and if the former, which rabbinical court.

Samuel Strulovitch began an arbitration proceeding against Jonathan Bleier before a rabbinical court in Rockland County. At issue was ownership interests in a nursing home. Moshe Bain then filed an arbitration action in a different rabbinical court in Brooklyn claiming that he had a right of first refusal as to the nursing home. That rabbinical court issued an order restraining Strulovitch from taking any action to enforce the arbitration award issued by the Rockland rabbinical court until the Brooklyn rabbinical court issued a decision. Bain also filed suit in a New York civil court, and the court issued an injunction barring Strulovitch from taking any action to confirm the disputed Rockland County rabbinical court decision.

Despite that injunction, Strulovitch instituted another arbitration proceeding in a different Brooklyn rabbinical court, contending that the civil court's injunction did not prohibit a new suit. That rabbinical court issued a summons to Bain. According to the New York trial court:

When Bain asked Strulovitch to withdraw the proceeding, he asserted that Bain was free to ignore the summons. According to Bain, this is simply impossible; one of the rabbis on the panel told Bain’s counsel that ignoring it may result in a “seruv,” a “letter of recalcitrance. He may be subject to all forms of communal sanctions and societal pressures due his flagrant violation of Jewish law.” Strulovitch’s representative reiterated the seriousness of ignoring the summons, stating to Bain that “This is serious and the lawyer cannot protect you from your hashem and your religious obligations. If you get a siruv [sic] everyone will know that you do not listen to Beis din.”

When the parties appeared in Court on the Order to Show Cause .. Strulovitch argued that the Court had no jurisdiction over the arbitration because it is a religious matter....

The matters that Strulovitch has raised with the Beis Din, however, are not religious, as clearly stated in the summons (hazmana)....

In this matter, the Court will only need to apply neutral principles of secular law to the issues raised herein. There is, thus, no First Amendment reason to deny the motion....

With respect to Bain’s contention that Strulovitch violated the stay imposed by the Court because the arbitral panel issued a seruv to Bain ..., the Beis Din replied that “‘We want to make it very clear that neither Strulowitz nor his agents requested the seruv after the TRO was issued. The BD issued it of its own volition as a response to the chutzpah of enjoining a litigant from pursuing his Halachic rights to a Din Torah.’”

Given this letter, ... the Court denies the request to sanction Strulovitch. There is no evidence that Strulovitch or any of his representatives, secular or religious, have violated the Court’s rulings. ...

To rectify the potential damage to Bain's reputation in the religious community resulting from the issuance of the seruv by the Beis Din, Strulovitch must take all steps necessary to have the Beis Din withdraw it, including withdrawing the entire proceeding.

President's Task Force on Anti-Christian Bias Issues Report

Yesterday, the President's Task Force to Eradicate anti-Christian Bias issued a report (full text) titled Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias within the Federal Government. The 197-page Report (with an additional 368 pages of Exhibits) focuses on policies of the Biden Administration, and concludes in part:

The Task Force found that, in its zealous pursuit of its preferred policies and constituents, the Biden Administration engaged in anti-Christian bias, seeking to limit Christians’ ability to act in concert with their sincerely held beliefs in their homes, in the workplace, and in the public square. At times, it went still further, leading Christians to reportedly choose between their beliefs and compliance with federal law. And, most troublingly, the Biden Administration is alleged to have prosecuted and jailed peaceful Christian pro-life demonstrators, terminated or harassed Christian workers who did not comply with the vaccine mandates, targeted Christian organizations with IRS inquiries, and subjected Christian schools to excessive fines. Taken together, the findings presented by the Task Force raise serious concerns about whether certain Biden-era policies and practices were administered in a manner consistent with the Constitution and applicable federal law. These concerns implicate core American commitments—religious liberty, equal treatment, and the rule of law—that protect all Americans of faith and conscience....

Our Nation’s forefathers recognized that our most essential rights are given to us by God and are not bestowed by civil government. By design, the Constitution and federal law limit the government’s reach into speech and religion to protect those inalienable rights from the vicissitudes of politics and changing times. Americans have been promised freedom of religion, not just in the privacy of their homes and four walls of their churches, but to daily walk in accordance with their religious teachings and conscience in the public square.

The National Catholic Register summarizes the Report. The Freedom from Religion Foundation issued a press release strongly criticizing the Report.

T-Shirt Slogans Were Not the Exercise of Religion

In Spihes v. Smith, (D KS, April 29, 2026), a Kansas federal district court dismissed most of the claims brought by a Christian citizen journalist and activist challenging his removal from several demonstrations at the Kansas Capitol Statehouse grounds because of the slogans on shirts he was wearing. He also challenged a new policy on use of the Capitol grounds that has been promulgated by the Kansas Department of Administration.

The court dismissed plaintiff's claim that his removal from two events violated his rights under the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act. The court said in part:

The complaint alleges Plaintiff was wearing a t-shirt that said “Rolling with Jesus and my AK” to each of the events.... Further, at the March 28, 2025, event Plaintiff carried a sign that said, “Bet these pussies won’t blaspheme Islam next.” ... At the June 14, 2025, event, Plaintiff carried a sign that read “Illegals Drain American Resources” and “Deport Feminist Bitches First then Illegals.”...

Signs about immigration policy, much like signs about environmentalism, are not religious expressions. Additionally, Plaintiff’s sign at the March 28, 2025, event, despite referencing Islam, is not religious exercise either, as it is merely a sign designed to score a political point about how society approaches a religion. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this is an exercise of his religion.

Finally, Plaintiff’s shirt that states he is “Rolling with Jesus and [his] AK” is similarly just a statement about a religion, not the exercise of a religion....

The court also dismissed plaintiff's claim that the new policy on use of the Capitol grounds violates plaintiff's free exercise rights. The court said in part:

Plaintiff claims that the new Capitol Use Policy “requires Dr. Spiehs to impose no limitations or restrictions to participants in his permitted event based upon ‘sexual orientation, gender identity, or genetic information.’” ... Plaintiff argues that this policy would force him to “use or employ people who are not his coreligionists: those who do not share, and who behave in ways antithetical to, his Christian beliefs and messaging.”... While Plaintiff does not object to having the “identified categories of individuals” present, he complains that the wording of the policy, specifically the use of the word “participate”, prevents him from limiting his usage of “vendors, staff, or volunteers” based upon their sexual orientation... Plaintiff explains that allowing “transgender, LGBTQ, or feminist” individuals to participate in his event would violate his religious convictions.....

The law before the court is one that is neutral and generally applicable. The post-July 1st Capitol Use Policy does not “facially target religion” nor is it “established for the purpose of targeting religion” and therefore does not trigger strict scrutiny.... The court does not view the word “participation”, as used in the policy, as imposing a requirement to hire individuals to whom Plaintiff has a religious objection.

The court allowed plaintiff to move ahead only on a 4th Amendment claim and a narrow free speech claim.

Thursday, April 30, 2026

White House Posts Presidential Message Marking 419th Anniversary of the Cape Henry Cross

Yesterday, the White House posted a "Presidential Message on the Anniversary of the First Landing and the Raising of the Cape Henry Cross" (full text). In it, the President says in part:

On this day 419 years ago, America’s birthright of faith was anchored in the sand when a courageous group of adventurers, explorers, and settlers planted a glorious wooden cross at the crest of Cape Henry, Virginia—a consecration of the new frontier that laid the foundation for the greatest Republic in the history of the world. Today, our Nation pays tribute to the heroes who landed at Cape Henry in the spring of 1607, and we pledge to pioneer a future that once again upholds our traditions, cherishes our values, and places our trust in Almighty God.

On April 26, 1607, 104 men completed a daring voyage across the Atlantic in search of opportunity in the Americas. Commissioned by King James I and the Virginia Company of London, they were guided by a noble mission: to extend Christendom’s dominion in the New World, secure their prosperity, and spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ....