Divorce Action Should Be Dismissed Because Couple Were Never Validly Married in the Coptic Church

In Funti v. Andrews, (NY App., Jan. 6, 2026), a New York state appellate court held that a divorce action should be dismissed because the parties, who had not taken out a marriage license, were never validly married in the first place. New York Domestic Relations Law provides parties are validly married even when they did not take out a marriage license if the marriage has been "solemnized in the manner heretofore used and practiced in their respective societies or denominations...." The trial court had concluded that the parties were married after analyzing the Coptic ceremony they were part of on the day their child was baptized. (See prior posting.) The appeals court held, however, that the court instead should have relied upon the undisputed testimony of a Coptic bishop that detailed the requirements for a valid Coptic wedding. The appellate court said in part:

We find that this case falls squarely in the ... category of cases where the court can make a determination about what is required for a ceremony to be solemnized in the manner used and practiced in a given religious denomination without becoming entangled in a religious dispute. There is no dispute in this case about what the requirements are for a marriage to be solemnized in the Coptic Church. Bishop David laid out what the requirements are for solemnization, which were affirmed by defendant’s expert....

Since the record in the present case contains undisputed evidence of what the Coptic Church requires for a valid marriage, a determination of whether the ceremony was properly solemnized does not require inquiry into religious doctrine, but only into the requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 12.... 

... [W]e now apply the facts to the neutral standard provided by the Bishop’s undisputed testimony about what is required for a ceremony to be properly solemnized in the Coptic Church. 

Based on the neutral standard provided by the Bishop’s undisputed testimony, we find as a matter of law that the parties’ ceremony was not solemnized under the Domestic Relations Law....

Finally, even assuming that the parties’ alleged marriage could not be evaluated using neutral principles of secular law because plaintiff disputed what is required for a marriage to be properly solemnized in the Coptic Church, defendant’s motion should still have been granted. In this alternative scenario ...  a determination as to whether the parties were married in a religious ceremony could only be made by “analyzing the various and customary rites, customs, and practices of the [Coptic] religion,” and thus would improperly involve the court in a religious matter.... Any finding as to whether there was a solemnized marriage sufficient to meet the requirements of Domestic Relations Law §§ 12 and 25 could thus offend the First Amendment, which ... prevents civil courts from engaging in an analysis of religious doctrine...

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Magistrate Says Claims Against School for Ignoring Antisemitism Should Not Be Dismissed

In In re Claims of Avi Polischuk as Parent of D.P. v. Massapequa Union Free School District, (ED NY, Jan. 5, 2026), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended that the parent of a Jewish middle school student be allowed to move ahead with claims that the school ignored antisemitic actions directed at his son by other students.  The court described the antisemitic incidents:

... D.P. was being harassed by another student, Defendant S.W. on the basis of his religion. Specifically, in the school lunchroom S.W. asked D.P. if he was Jewish and then yelled "Heil Hitler" at him.... This treatment escalated to a physical attack on November 9, 2023, during which S.W. stabbed D.P. multiple times with a pencil causing physical injuries and resulting in S.W.'s suspension for a "short" and "insufficient" period. ...

This assault, however, is not the only example of antisemitism within the District. As far back as 2017 a swastika and the word "Hitler" were spray painted on a public school.... On a separate occasion ...Plaintiff was told by another family that District students "hurled antisemitic statements" at their son, and despite the parents' complaints, the District did nothing.... Still another set of parents reported that when their daughter passed around her yearbook for signatures, it came back with a swastika on it.... A complaint was made by the parents and again nothing was done....

The magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to give rise to an Equal Protection claim under Section 1983 as well as to a claim under Title VI, under the New York State Human Rights Law, and a claim for negligence, but that municipalities are not liable for punitive damages for violations of these provisions.

Street Preachers' Challenges to Noise Ordinance Fail

 In Cabral v. City of Fort Myers, Florida, (MD FL, Jan. 6,2026), a Florida federal district court dismissed a First Amendment challenge to Fort Myers' Noise Ordinance brought by three Christian street preachers. The challengers were cited for violating the Ordinance's ban on drivers, passengers or pedestrians producing amplified sound that can be heard over 25 feet away. The court rejected plaintiffs' facial and their as-applied challenge to the Ordinance, saying in part:

You don’t get to strike down a city’s noise-control policy just because it might catch a few conversational speakers in its net; you have to show that the net is designed so poorly that it catches a substantial amount of protected speech....

An as-applied challenge against the City ... requires a showing that the City itself—not just an officer with a badge and a misunderstanding of the word “pedestrian”—has a policy of targeting speech it doesn’t like. But Plaintiffs don’t seem to make such a claim. Instead, they allege the Ordinance was inapplicable to them. Even if true, such facts don’t alone trigger the First Amendment....

Though styled as an as-applied challenge under the First Amendment, Plaintiffs’ free exercise claim reads as a Fourteenth Amendment selective enforcement claim....

Plaintiffs claim that the Ordinance was enforced against them while other individuals were making amplified noise audible from 25 feet away.... But Plaintiffs don’t allege that these other individuals weren’t also cited for violating the Ordinance. Nor are these other individuals alleged to have been producing sound on public property. Without those specific facts, the allegation of targeting is just a hunch, not a plausible legal claim.

9th Circuit: Church Autonomy Doctrine Allows Churches to Hire Only Co-Religionists Even for Non-Ministerial Positions

In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Washington v. Brown, (9th Cir., Jan. 6, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Washington's Law Against Discrimination against a Christian ministry that gives hiring preference to co-religionists for non-ministerial positions. The court said in part:

The freedom of religious institutions to establish their own doctrine and faith is so fundamental that they may categorically hire and fire their ministers without regard to anti-discrimination laws—even if the termination is for non-religious reasons.  Simply, the government has no business in policing who spreads the word on behalf of churches, synagogues, mosques, religious organizations, and other similar institutions.  

But the church autonomy doctrine is not so narrowly drawn.  The First Amendment may also shield religious institutions’ hiring of non-ministerial employees when it involves matters of faith and doctrine.  For example, a religious institution may decide that its religious mission is best served by hiring only employees who adhere to and follow its religious beliefs—even for those not acting in ministerial roles. The religious institution may also believe that it can more effectively promote its view of moral and spiritual well-being if its own employees do not lead lives contrary to the institution’s teachings....

But unlike with the ministerial exception, the church autonomy doctrine only protects Union Gospel’s non-ministerial hiring decisions based on religious beliefs.  So Union Gospel cannot discriminate on any other ground.  And our decision is limited to religious organizations like Union Gospel.  We do not consider the scope of the doctrine on other types of entities run by religious institutions, such as businesses or hospitals....

Yakima Herald Republic reports on the decision. 

Wyoming Supreme Court Strikes Down State's Abortion Bans

In State of Wyoming v. Johnson, (WY Sup. Ct., Jan 6, 2026), the Wyoming Supreme Court by a vote of 4-1 held that Wyoming's nearly total abortion ban and its medication abortion ban violate Art. I, §38, of the Wyoming Constitution which provides that every competent adult has the right to make his or her health care decision, subject to reasonable and necessary restrictions imposed by the legislature. The majority opinion for 3 justices held that the decision whether to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a woman's own health care decision, and the right to make health care decisions protected by Art. I, §38 is a fundamental right. The majority rejected the state's argument that abortion is not health care and is not the woman's own health care decision since a fetus is involved.

The majority went on to hold that restricting a fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny and the state had not shown that the state's abortion laws are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The majority rejected the state's argument that the statutory exceptions to the abortion ban make the law narrowly tailored to protect unborn life without unduly infringing on a woman’s fundamental right to make the health care decision to have an abortion.

Justice Fenn filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I agree with the majority the decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a woman’s own health care decision....  However, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that strict scrutiny applies to the right recognized in Article 1, § 38 of the Wyoming Constitution.  I would find Article 1, § 38 allows the legislature to enact reasonable and necessary restrictions that do not unduly infringe on the right to make one’s own health care decisions.  Because the State failed to meet its burden of proving the Abortion Statutes meet this standard, I would find the statutes are unconstitutional and affirm the district court’s decision.

Justice Gray filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

I ... do not dispute that article 1, section 38 creates a fundamental right to make one’s own health care decisions.  I disagree, however, that strict scrutiny applies.  Under the plain terms of article 1, section 38(c), a restriction on a competent adult’s right to make his or her own health care decisions will pass constitutional muster if the legislature could “determine” such restriction was “reasonable and necessary . . . to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.”  When properly construed, the abortion statutes constitute a “reasonable and necessary” restriction by the legislature on the right of a pregnant woman to make her own health care decisions for the purpose of preserving prenatal life at all stages of development.  The abortion statutes do not violate article 1, section 38. 

Wyoming Public Media reports on the decision.

Cert. Filed In Case Challenging Religious Non-Discrimination Rule for State Grant Program

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the Supreme Court in Youth 71FiveMinistries v. Williams, (Sup. Ct., certiorari filed 1/5/2026). In the case (full text of appeals court opinion), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a rule of the Oregon Department of Education barring religious discrimination by grantees in selecting employees insofar as it applies to grant-funded programs, but not as it applies to petitioner's selection of speakers to spread its Christian message through programs that are not funded by state grants. The certiorari petition defines the questions presented by the appeal as:

1. Whether a religious organization can raise the First Amendment right to religious autonomy as an affirmative claim challenging legislative or executive action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, like other constitutional right, or whether the doctrine may only be asserted as an affirmative defense after a suit has been filed, as the Ninth Circuit held here. 

2. Whether a state violates the First Amendment by conditioning access to a public grant program on a religious organization waiving its right to employ coreligionists, including for ministerial positions.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review. 

Indiana Asks Court to Vacate 2002 Injunction Barring 10 Commandments Monument at Statehouse

Last week, Indiana's Attorney General filed a motion in an Indiana federal district court asking the court to vacate an injunction it issued in 2002 enjoining the governor from erecting a proposed Ten Commandments monument on the Indiana statehouse grounds.  The motion (full text) in Indiana Civil Liberties Union v. Braun, (SD IN, filed 12/29/25), reads in part:

In 2002, this Court permanently enjoined the Governor of Indiana from “taking any steps to erect, on the grounds of the Indiana Statehouse,” a proposed monument that depicts the Ten Commandments, Bill of Rights, and preamble to the Indiana Constitution.... The Court entered the injunction only after the Seventh Circuit held that similarly situated plaintiffs had standing to challenge the placement of such monuments and this monument’s placement would violate the Establishment Clause principles laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman.....   

Not long ago, however, the Supreme Court announced that Lemon has been “abrogated” and that Establishment Clause claims instead must be evaluated based on history and tradition.... Viewed through the lens of this Nation’s history and traditions, erecting the monument raises no Establishment Clause concerns.... That substantial change in law renders it improper to maintain the injunction.  

Substantial changes in standing doctrine provide a second, independent reason for vacating the injunction.... Now that Lemon is no longer good law, there is no longer any basis for holding that an offended observer has standing to bring an Establishment Clause claim. That, too, makes relief from the final judgment proper. 

The Attorney General also filed a 20-page Brief In Support of the Motion. In a press release announcing the court filing, the Attorney General said in part:

The monument—a gift from the Indiana Limestone Institute—displays the Ten Commandments on one large side, the Bill of Rights on the opposite side, and the Preamble to the Indiana Constitution on the smaller sides. A similar monument stood peacefully on the Statehouse lawn for over 30 years until it was vandalized in 1991....

The monument remains in Bedford, Indiana, and would be placed near its original intended location if the court grants the motion.

WTHI-TV News reports additional background information.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Blair Major, Between Freedom and Neutrality: Servatius v Alberni School District and the Problem of Judicial Gaslighting (December 19, 2025).
• Mustak Ahmed, The Weaponisation of Amnesty: Terrorism, Executive Decisions, and National Security in Bangladesh, (December 23, 2025).
• Shucheng Wang, The Varieties of Protestant House Churches Beyond Authoritarian Legality, (November 01, 2025).
• Matthew Cavedon, Eden America: John Locke and the School of Salamanca on Natural Property Rights, (Cambridge University, Press Elements in Law and Religion (under contract).
• Russell Bell, The Structural Necessity of Thought Control: Why Theocracy and Intellectual Freedom Are Logically Incompatible, (December 13, 2025).
• Russell Bell, Early Christian Authority Conflicts and Textual Preservation: The James-Paul Dispute and Its Impact on Alternative Christian Literature, (November 26, 2025).
• Russell Bell, Religious Reasoning in Nuclear Command Authority: Constitutional Crisis, Algorithmic Warfare, and Emergency Democratic Response During Real-Time Threshold War, (December 03, 2025).
• Advaith Sri Krishna Datta Mamidanna & Yug Gattani, Emergency Powers and Constitutional Morality: Re-examining Article 356 through S.R. Bommai, (December 17, 2025).
• Nicolin Decker, The Continuity vs. Conscience Doctrine (CVC): The Mappability Boundary in Artificial Systems and Human Rights, (December 26, 2025).
• Habiba Danjuma, & Abubakar Yusuf Mamud, Religious Freedom, Violence, and International Policy: Assessing Nigeria’s Designation as a Country of Particular Concern for Alleged Christian Persecution, (December 22, 2025).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Godfrey Lukindo J, Probate in Islamic Law Tanzania, Law and Practice Concern 1/3 Principle Properties to Wakf, (December 26, 2025).
• Ahmer Bilal Soofi, From Revelation to Legislation, (December 02, 2025).
• Ahmer Bilal Soofi, ‘Inna’: The Solemn Affirmation of Allah in the Quran, (December 20, 2025).
• Sonny Bhagat, The Raid on Somnath: Ghaznavid Ambitions and Divine Destiny in Futuh-us-Salatain (August 12, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Journal of Catholic Legal Studies, Vol. 63 (2025).
• Symposia, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, Vol 25, Issue 2 (2025).
• Kyle Reinhard, Myths and Magical Thinking: American Civil Religion, the Establishment Clause, and "Codified Irrationality" in Anti-CRT Measures, 37 Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development  287-376 (2025).
• Michael Zuckert, William J. Brennan Lecture. Brennan, Madison, and Freedom of Religion, 49 Oklahoma City University Law Review 305-318 (2025).

Corporate Governance in Sharia Compliant Banking Institutions Explored

A series of papers have been posted on SSRN from students at STEBank (Jakarta, Indonesia). The papers focus on corporate governance issues in Islamic banking:

• Ilham Pajar Berutu, Analysis of the Influence of Sharia Compliance and Good Corporate Governance on the Sustainability and Customer Trust of Sharia Banks: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Malaysia, and England (November 19, 2025).
• Shafaunnisa Mufidah, Good Corporate Governance and Sustainability Principle in Islamic Banking in Indonesia, (November 20, 2025).
• Saripudin Sarip, The Role of Good Corporate Governance in Maintaining Ethics and Compliance in Islamic Banking: Challenges and Solutions in the Digital Age, (November 19, 2025).
• Sella Sudrajat, Good Corporate Governance in Driving Corporate Performance and Sustainability in the Modern Era (November 17, 2025).
• Nia Kanialistiowati, Concepts and Principles of Good Corporate Governance in Islamic Banking and Its Differences from Conventional Banking, (November 19, 2025).
• Andy Rifqi Kurniawan & Sjafruddin Prawiranegara, Islamic Business Ethics as the Foundation of Sharia Good Corporate Governance for Sustainability, (November 20, 2025).
• Almira Azmi Sabila, Good Corporate Governance as a Pillar of Sustainability and Resilience in Islamic Banks in Modern Indonesia, (November 19, 2025).
• Lilis Ainul Yaqin, The Implementation of GCG for the Sustainability of Islamic Banks in Indonesia Post-COVID-19 Pandemic, (November 17, 2025).

California's Law Combatting Antisemitism In Public Schools Survives Constitutional Challenge

In Prichett v. Bonta, (ND CA, Dec. 31, 2026), a California federal district court refused to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of California AB 715 which is directed at preventing antisemitism in the curriculum of public schools. Among other things, the new law provides that the Biden Administration's National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism should be a basis to inform schools on how to identify, respond to, prevent, and counter antisemitism. Plaintiffs are California teachers and students who allege that AB 715 violates their free speech rights and is overbroad and void for vagueness. The court said in part:

Teacher Plaintiffs worry that AB 715 exposes them “to charges of unlawful discrimination and corresponding discipline if they convey ideas, information, and instructional materials to their students that may be considered critical of the State of Israel and the philosophy of Zionism—thus, creating a chilling effect and infringing on the First Amendment rights of both the teacher and student.” ...Student Plaintiffs allege ...that AB 715 undermines their “rights to receive information” related to “Palestinian and Arab culture” because teachers will be forced to self-censor to remain within the confines of AB 715....

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument that the uncertainty created by AB 715’s inexact definition of antisemitism casts an unconstitutional pall over the entire bill....

Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the California legislature’s references in AB 715 to the Biden National Strategy ... were unconstitutional. However, even if Plaintiffs had proved that those two references were unconstitutional, the Court could, and would, properly sever those two references from the remainder of AB 715....

While Teacher Plaintiffs’ claims pass the standing hurdle, those claims are not currently ripe for adjudication....

As public-school education belongs to the government, the government may regulate Teacher Plaintiffs’ speech to accord with the government’s educational goals. It is of no significance that the curricula and the attendant speech required to teach it may advance a single viewpoint to the exclusion of another....

The Court does not find the word antisemitism in AB 715 to be vague....  A reasonable person reading AB 715 would sufficiently understand what the legislature meant by the word “antisemitism.”...

The Forward reports on the decision.

Catholic Church Sues Over Historic Preservation Designation

 A Catholic church has filed suit in an Indiana federal district court charging that actions of the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission and Metropolitan Development Commission designating a former church building as a landmark and prohibiting its demolition violate the church's free exercise rights. The complaint (full text) in St. Philip Neri Catholic Church Indianapolis, Inc. v. Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission, (SD IN, filed 12/30/2025), alleges that the historic church building which is in substantial disrepair was deconsecrated in 2019. Catholic canon law imposes specific requirements regarding removal of religious symbols and limits the purposes for which the building can be reused after its deconsecration. The complaint alleges in part:

75. On its face, the Preservation Plan thus invokes the color of state law to unlawfully impose IHPC authority over religious features and aspects of this Catholic Church property, including the immovable religious symbols on the exterior of the Church Building....

95. The October 1, 2025 IHPC hearing was dominated by efforts by officials and commenters to critique and even to ridicule the religious determinations of Plaintiff and individuals associated with the Archdiocese and St. Philip Neri, to substitute their judgments about Roman Catholic religious doctrine for that of the Plaintiff, and to disrupt and intrude on the religious autonomy of the Plaintiff.

96. Multiple governmental officials provided their statements and opinions on what “the Church” is and what Roman Catholicism requires of Plaintiff, creating a decision-making environment for the Demolition Application that was entangled with religious opinions and distorted religious concepts....

168. The MDC’s adoption of 2024-HP-001 requires the Plaintiff to maintain a church that is closed, deconsecrated, and no longer usable as a church at considerable expense and prevents them from selling the property due to the concern that the church building could in the future be put to a forbidden use in violation of Roman Catholic canon law.

World reports on the lawsuit.

Happy New Year 2026! A Letter To Readers.

Dear Religion Clause Readers:

Happy New Year 2026! 

Thank you for your loyal readership. I hope that you continue to find Religion Clause a valuable source of information on the intersection of law, religion and public policy. If you do, please recommend it to your friends and colleagues.

In 2025, issues of religion often took center stage as the President created a federal Religious Liberty Commission, as the IRS concluded that clergy could endorse political candidates in their sermons, and as the President focused on oppression of Christians in countries such as South Africa and Nigeria. The federal government leveraged concerns about antisemitism on college campuses to disrupt research and battle admission procedures at leading universities in the country. The proper response to gender dysphoria in minors was often framed in religious rather than medical terms as Biblical passages were cited to reject the reality of gender transition.

In 2025, free exercise concerns continued to overwhelm anti-establishment objections as the Supreme Court endorsed parents' right to opt their children out of religiously objectionable public-school instruction. Meanwhile states continue to test the limits on religion in publicly funded schools.

Some commentators have suggested that developments at the federal level in 2025 can best be described as promotion of "Christian nationalism.". I continue to wonder whether that term should be seen as pejorative or merely descriptive of those who believe that the United States is or should be a "Christian nation."

Religion Clause has always been a niche blog which has particularly attracted lawyers, social scientists, advocacy organization personnel, law school faculty, journalists, clergy, legislative and executive branch staff, students and others working professionally or avocationally interested in church-state relations and religious liberty issues.  I invite your feedback on whether it continues to serve this purpose.

The Religion Clause website is the most effective way of accessing posts, ad-free.  However, Religion Clause posts are also available through e-mail subscriptions, through X (formerly known as Twitter) and through Facebook, though the format, accompanying advertising, and availability of posts through these channels are handled by third parties over whom I have little or no control.

As always, I have attempted to retain Religion Clause's objectivity and its policy of linking to extensive primary source material. I hope that the blog continues to have a reputation for reliability at a time when the objectivity of social media is increasingly called into question.

I want to extend a special thanks to those of you who have sent me leads to developments of interest.  I have tried to acknowledge them in the posts that they generate. To all my readers, feel free to contact me by e-mail (religionclause@gmail.com) in response to this post or throughout the year with comments or suggestions. All of your emails are read, even though I apologize that I am often unable to respond to all of them.

It seems likely that religion will continue to animate much of the political, social and cultural conversation in 2026.  Religion Clause will try to keep you up to date on all of it.

Best wishes for a year of civil and respectful discussion,

Howard Friedman