Religion Clause

Wednesday, February 11, 2026

House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Supreme Court's Decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor

Yesterday, the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education held a hearing titled Defending Faith and Families Against Government Overreach: Mahmoud v. Taylor. A video of the entire hearing, written prepared statements of the subcommittee chairman and four witnesses, as well as the Committee's "Hearing Recap" are all available here on the Subcommittee's website. Three of the witnesses strongly supported the Supreme Court's Mahmoud decision, while one of the witnesses argued that Mahmoud went too far in permitting parental opt outs. UPI reported on the hearing, saying in part that "Republicans expressed concern ... about school districts ignoring the ruling, while Democrats voiced fears that the ruling condoned discrimination." [Thanks to Zalman Rothschild for the lead.]

RLUIPA Claim for Polluting Burial Sites of Enslaved Ancestors May Move Ahead

In Inclusive Louisiana v. St. James Parish, (ED LA, Feb. 9, 2026), a Louisiana federal district court refused to dismiss claims against St. James Parish contending that plaintiffs have been harmed by land use decisions that have concentrated polluting industrial sites in majority black areas between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. The affected area has a particularly high cancer rate. Plaintiffs are an advocacy organization, a Baptist church whose members claim descent from formerly enslaved people, and a faith-based organization advocating for an end to petrochemical industries in the area. The court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with claims under the 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment and the Louisiana Constitution. It also allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their claim that defendants' actions have violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, saying in part:

... Plaintiffs in the case allege that Defendants “have implemented land use regulations in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.” ... Plaintiffs specifically designate three of Defendants’ acts that “have burdened Plaintiffs’ members’ ability to pray upon the unmarked cemeteries of enslaved ancestors by permitting the construction of industrial facilities upon these cemeteries.”...

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs do not meet the definition of “claimants” under the statute because they have not alleged an ownership or other property interest in the land at issue in the case....

... Plaintiffs allege that “plantation owners were legally required to set aside land for burying the people they enslaved, . . . that graves were often marked by trees to identify them for loved ones and descendant communities, and preserved by laborers and farmers.”.... These allegations are more than sufficient to create a plausible claim that these pieces of land were “dedicated” as cemeteries for their ancestors, cemeteries which have since “been transformed into an industrial site, to be exploited for material gain.” However, even absent these specific and well-researched allegations, the fact that the plantation owners buried the bodies of the people whom they enslaved on these plots of land seems sufficient to constitute an intention to dedicate. Therefore, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs have a property interest in the plots of land at issue—the unmarked cemeteries of enslaved people on the Formosa and SLM plots—to assert a plausible claim under the RLUIPA’s Substantial Burden clause....

The second claim under RLUIPA has been brought against Defendants by only one Plaintiff, Mount Triumph Baptist Church. Specifically, Mount Triumph alleges that Defendants have implemented land use regulations that protect Catholic and majority-white churches from industrial development through required buffer zones, but that also permit such development in the immediate vicinity of majority-black churches with no such protection. Because Defendants have not specifically moved to dismiss this claim, the Court does not feel the need to discuss this claim, other than to say that Mount Triumph has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face....

Suit Challenges Michigan Ban on Discrimination Because of Pregnancy Termination

Last week, two pro-life organizations filed suit in federal district court against Michigan officials challenging on 1st and 14th Amendment grounds 2023 amendments to state anti-discrimination laws that prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of termination of pregnancy. The law already included a ban on discrimination on the basis of pregnancy or childbirth. The 82-page complaint (full text) in Right to Life of Michigan v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 2/6/2026) alleges in part:

Recent changes to Michigan’s employment law force religious and pro-life groups to employ and associate with persons who do not share or live by—and may even oppose—the organizations’ beliefs on human life. This violates the First Amendment. Plaintiffs Right to Life of Michigan (Right to Life) and Pregnancy Resource Center (PRC) recruit, hire, and retain only employees who adhere to, agree to abide by, and can effectively communicate their pro-life views. This employment policy puts them at odds with Michigan’s new law. Right to Life and PRC bring this suit to ensure they can continue to serve Michiganders without diluting their pro-life views through the lukewarm or hostile hires Michigan’s law demands....

The complaint alleges seven causes of action ranging from infringing free speech and free exercise rights to infringing the right to refrain from taking human life. Zeale reports on the lawsuit.

Tuesday, February 10, 2026

Court Rejects Free Exercise Defense Raised by Protesters Charged With Trespass

In Hubersberger v. State of Arizona, (AZ App., Feb. 9, 2026), an Arizona state appeals court, rejecting a free exercise defense, refused to dismiss complaints charging four protesters with criminal trespass. According to the court:

... Appellants, motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs, participated in a protest against Raytheon because of its role as a weapons supplier to Israel and the bombings occurring in Gaza. Appellants’ demonstration occurred on private property, and their stated purpose was to disrupt Raytheon’s daily operations by blocking Raytheon workers from entering the facility....

Appellants moved to dismiss the complaints against them pursuant to FERA [Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Act], arguing that because their protest was motivated by their religious faith, their arrest and prosecution substantially burdened their free exercise of religion....

Appellants do not dispute on appeal that the government had a compelling interest to protect the peace and Raytheon’s private property rights. We therefore only address the second prong of the FERA analysis: whether the arrest and prosecution of Appellants was the least restrictive means in which the government could have furthered its interests in this case....

We, like the superior court, find nothing on the record to indicate that Appellants would have left Raytheon’s private property without state intervention....

Appellants next assert ... that the arrest alone was sufficient to further the government’s interest, therefore their continued prosecution necessarily does not meet the least restrictive means test....

We also conclude that analyzing whether the prosecutor should or should not bring charges “would plunge courts far too deep into the business of reviewing the most basic exercises of prosecutorial discretion.”...

Religious Liberty Commission Holds Hearing On Antisemitism

The Religious Liberty Commission yesterday held a hearing on combating antisemitism and upholding religious freedom. A video of the full 5-hour hearing, held at the Museum of the Bible, is available here from C-Span. JNS reported on the hearing, saying in part:

A U.S. Religious Liberty Commission hearing on antisemitism in Washington, D.C., on Monday featured testimony about the challenges facing Jews in American society that digressed, at times, into questions about whether it is antisemitic to oppose Israel.

The commissioners, whom U.S. President Donald Trump appointed in May, questioned witnesses from religious organizations, college campuses and the administration about their experiences and possible legal and cultural remedies to Jewish bigotry during four hours of panels.

One of the commissioners, Carrie Prejean Boller, a former Miss California who is now a conservative activist and commentator, peppered witnesses about Israel’s conduct in Gaza and her interpretation of the Roman Catholic position on Zionism....

Lawsuit Challenges Makeup and Operation of Trump's Religious Liberty Commission

Yesterday, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and Interfaith organizations filed suit challenging the legality of the Religious Liberty Commission that President Trump created last May. The complaint (full text) in The Interfaith Alliance v. Trump, (SD NY, filed 2/9/2026), contends that the Commission violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, alleging in part:

3. This case challenges the composition and secrecy of the Religious Liberty Commission. While this body is ostensibly designed to defend “religious liberty for all Americans” and celebrate “religious pluralism” it actually represents only a single “Judeo-Christian” viewpoint. It held its first three meetings at the Museum of the Bible and has closed its meetings with a Christian prayer “in Jesus’ name.” Only one of its members is not Christian and the Christian members do not represent the full diversity of the Christian faith. The Commission’s meetings have repeatedly referenced the belief that the United States was founded as a “Judeo-Christian nation” and the membership reflects that viewpoint. All members of the Commission advocate for increased religiosity, and specifically their brand of “Judeo-Christian” religiosity, in public life....

8. The Commission has also disregarded basic transparency requirements, including by failing to disclose transcripts, agendas, and other materials that would allow Plaintiffs and the public to follow and understand the Commission’s work.....

The suit asks the court, among other relief, to:

Order Defendants to employ good faith efforts to appoint a properly qualified representative from the excluded viewpoints; ...

Enjoin Defendants to attach to any reports or recommendations produced by the Commission a disclaimer stating that the report was produced in violation of FACA’s requirement that the Commission’s membership be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented....

Interfaith Alliance issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Monday, February 09, 2026

Arizona Trial Court Strikes Down 3 Laws Restricting Abortions

In Isaacson v. State of Arizona, (AZ Super. Ct., Feb. 2, 2026), an Arizona trial court struck down three Arizona statutes that restrict a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. A 2024 Amendment to Arizona's state constitution prohibits the state from restricting pre-viability abortions unless the law is for the limited purpose of maintaining the health of the person seeking an abortion and does not infringe on that person's autonomous decision making. The court held that this provision invalidates (1) Arizona's ban on seeking an abortion because of a fetal abnormality; (2) Arizona's requirement a physician perform an ultrasound and deliver state-mandated information to a person seeking an abortion 24 hours before carrying out the procedure; and (3) Arizona's ban on use of telemedicine to provide abortion inducing drugs.

Arizona's Attorney General in a press release said in part:

Today's ruling is a major victory for Arizona women, families, and their doctors. The court has affirmed what we've known all along: the abortion restrictions challenged in this case are unconstitutional.

According to AP, Republican legislative leaders had intervened in the case to defend the restrictions. Senate President Warren Petersen's office said the decision will be appealed.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Ministerial Exception Bars Student Chaplain's Title IX and FLSA Claims

In Davenport v. Episcopal Health Services, Inc., (ED NY, Feb. 5, 2026), a New York federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine bars Title IX and Fair Labor Standards Act claims by a student chaplain in an Episcopal hospital. The court said in part:

Plaintiff Archbishop Russell Davenport served as a chaplain at St. John’s Episcopal Hospital South Shore [EHS]... as part of the hospital’s clinical pastoral education program. But he claims the hospital never paid him for spiritual and clinical counseling that he performed for patients after his shift ended. He separately claims that the hospital improperly rejected his sexual harassment complaint against a fellow chaplain but suspended him when another employee filed a complaint against him....

Plaintiff contends that EHS is not a religious group because the complaint “makes no allegations about the religious origins or continuing religious purpose of the hospital.” ...

Like the Department of Pastoral Care, the CPE program offers “pastoral services to patients and community members.” ... Its chaplains perform religious rituals and rites, worship with patients, and offer spiritual counsel.... The CPE’s work therefore also vests in Defendants a critical aspect of its religious entity—even if its services are not strictly Episcopalian. That indisputably religious service renders St. John’s and EHS religious groups....

Plaintiff insists that the ministerial exception does not apply to students. But he adduces no authority why the exception excludes those who administer religious services simply because they obtain “professional training and education for ministry” part-time....

The ministerial exception applies to Plaintiff’s wage-and-hour claims. Just “as the initial function of selecting a minister is a matter of church administration and government, so are the functions which accompany such a selection,” including “determination of a minister’s salary.”...

Sunday, February 08, 2026

Texas AG Sues to Close Down CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood in State

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed suit in a Texas state trial court against CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood asking for an injunction barring these organizations from engaging in any activities in the state of Texas. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Muslim Brotherhood, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 2/5/2026), alleges in part:

The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical terrorist organization that exists to usurp governmental power and establish dominion through Sharia law. For three decades, it has covertly operated in the United States under the name “CAIR”—the Council on American-Islamic Relations—as its American affiliate. The group is not peaceful. It is not tolerant. It does not respect the freedom to practice other religions or sects, including Christianity and Judaism. Instead, ... the Muslim Brotherhood ... has systematically engaged in political assassinations and terrorist attacks to accomplish its goal of a global Islamic caliphate....

Last November, the governor of Texas issued a Proclamation declaring CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood to be a Foreign Terrorist and Transnational Criminal Organizations under Texas law. (See prior posting.)

The Texas Attorney General has issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Friday, February 06, 2026

DOJ Settles RLUIPA Zoning Dispute with Pennsylvania Town

In June 2025, the Justice Department instituted an investigation of alleged RLUIPA violations by the Borough of Kingston, Pennsylvania. At issue has been the application of a 2023 Kingston zoning ordinance to attempts by the Orthodox Jewish Chabad organization to locate sites for places of worship and other religious facilities for its growing population. (See prior related posting.) On Wednesday, the Justice Department announced that it had reached a settlement agreement with Kingston. To implement the agreement, the government filed a lawsuit against Kingston and along with it filed a proposed consent order (full text). The complaint (full text) in United States v. Borough of Kingston, (MD PA, filed 2/4/2026), alleges in part:

107. Kingston acted in violation of RLUIPA by “impos[ing] or implement[ing] a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(l)....

110. Kingston’s enactment and application of the 2023 Zoning Ordinance, and Kingston’s conduct described in this Complaint, constitute the imposition or implementation of a land use regulation that unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction in violation of RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3)(B).

The consent order requires Kingston to make various amendments to its zoning ordinance.

Trump Announces May Event to "Rededicate America as One Nation Under God"

President Trump yesterday delivered lengthy remarks (full transcript) at the National Prayer Breakfast held at the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C. His remarks included the following announcement:

In the last 12 months, young Americans attended church at nearly twice the rate as they did four years ago.... Some churches are seeing a 30 percent, 50 percent, or even 70 percent increase in the number of converts, and also the number of people going to church every week.

To support this exciting renewal this morning, I’m pleased to announce that on May 17th — 26th — that we’re inviting Americans from all across the country to come together on our National Mall to pray, to give thanks, and to — We are going to do something that everyone said, like, that’s tough. We’re going to rededicate America as one nation under God.

Education Department Issues Guidance on School Prayer

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Education issued a 9-page "Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools" (full text). An accompanying Press Release included this summary:

Key Points of the Guidance:

Students, teachers, and other school officials have a right to pray in school as an expression of individual faith, as long as they’re not doing so on behalf of the school.
Public schools may not sponsor prayer nor coerce or pressure students to pray. For example, a school principal may not lead a prayer at a mandatory school assembly.
Public schools can regulate student speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.” For example, a student can’t pray out loud during math class in a way that prevents others from learning, provided such disruptions are handled consistently with other forms of speech.
Religious speech should be treated the same as secular speech. For example, an essay with religious content should be graded by the same academic standards as a secular essay of similar quality.
Religious student organizations should likewise be treated the same as secular student organizations. For example, if a school offers support or recognition to secular student clubs, it must provide the same support to religious student clubs.

Thursday, February 05, 2026

9th Circuit: Prison May Not Revoke Religious Diet Privilege Because Inmate Did Not Strictly Adhere to It

In Harris v. Muhammad, (9th Cir., Feb. 4, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a California federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to a Buddhist inmate who had been taken off of the prison's Religious Meat Alternative Program (RAMP) because he often purchased non-Halal food from the prison commissary. Plaintiff was a Nichiren Buddhist. On advice of the prison chaplain, Harris chose RAMP, a halal compliant diet, as the closest to his Nichiren Buddhist belief that he should eat natural foods that are not highly processed. His precise diet that was unavailable did not require halal certification. The district court held that taking Harris off of RAMP was not a substantial burden on his religious exercise since his religion did not require him to limit his intake to halal meat. The 9th Circuit said in part:

By conditioning his ability to receive the diet which most aligns with his beliefs on whether he keeps Islamic dietary laws, Harris has shown a substantial burden on his religious exercise. ...

Holding otherwise imposes a judicial assessment of what diet is required by Harris’s Nichiren Buddhist faith....

Judges ought not be Pharisees, decreeing from on high what practices are relevant to a prisoner’s understanding of his own faith. See Matthew 23:23. ... And if external forces cause Harris to fall short of the exact dictates of his religion, it is for him and his conscience, not us as courts, to decide what compromises are appropriate. Thus, it is sufficient that Harris asserts that he sincerely believes that the RMAP program “is closest to his spiritual needs.” In holding that an Islamic diet is not required by Harris’s Buddhist faith, the district court erred by discounting Harris’s own understanding of his faith....

... Harris’s departures from the Islamic diet—or even a Buddhist diet—do not demonstrate that his beliefs do not require him to adhere to that diet if possible. “[A] sincere religious believer doesn’t forfeit his religious rights merely because he is not scrupulous in his observance; for where would religion be without its backsliders, penitents, and prodigal sons?” ...

Each man’s faith is his own, and judges must avoid questioning whether a prisoner has strictly abided by the letter of his own sincere belief.

The district court erred by considering these backslides as part of a centrality inquiry (i.e., concluding that expulsion from RMAP would not affect Harris’s ability to practice his own religion)....

Although courts may not determine what actions are dictated by a plaintiff’s personal religious beliefs, a court may determine whether those beliefs are sincerely held..... RLUIPA does not entitle insincere believers in the “Church of Surf ‘n’ Turf” to luxury lobster and steak dinners. But it also protects the rights of sincere believers, who may not fully adhere to their stated beliefs.

Neither the district court nor the prison inquired into the sincerity of Harris’s beliefs, only their centrality to his religion. The district court should consider that issue in the first instance....

New York Mayor Selects Director of Liberal Jewish Advocacy Group as Antisemitism Office Head

Numerous media sources report that New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has chosen Phylisa Wisdom to head the New York Mayor's Office to Combat Antisemitism. Wisdom is currently executive director of the liberal Jewish advocacy group New York Jewish Agenda. The Forward reports:

Wisdom, 39, has aligned herself with some of the positions Mamdani has taken on countering antisemitism, including opposition to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which considers most forms of anti-Zionism as antisemitic. Mamdani has thus far declined to say how his administration will define antisemitism when determining which cases to investigate or pursue. While leading a Zionist organization, Wisdom has also called for more sympathy toward Palestinians, and in November 2023, Wisdom’s group, under her leadership, spearheaded a statement by liberal Jewish elected officials calling for a bilateral ceasefire in Gaza.

In her new role, Wisdom will serve as Mamdani’s point person to the Jewish community. Her appointment is another signal that Mamdani’s anti-Zionist posture will continue to factor importantly into his leadership of the city, which is home to the largest concentration of Jews outside Israel. Her challenge will be facilitating dialogue with people who hold widely diverging viewpoints, without overriding a mayor whose positions on Israel are deeply held and long-standing.

Fellowship of Christian Athletes Can Move Ahead Against School Officials on Two Counts

In Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. District of Columbia, (D DC, Feb. 3, 2026), the D.C. federal district court found that Fellowship of Christian Athletes' (FCA) claims against D.C. public schools and two school officials were not moot even though the school system revised its rules to allowed religious student organizations to give preference to members of the organization's religious affiliation. The school had originally revoked recognition of FCA because FCA required that students serving in a leadership capacity subscribe to a Statement of Faith and a policy of sexual purity. The court held that the individual defendants had qualified immunity as to FCA's various 1st Amendment claims, to their claims under RFRA, the Equal Access Act and the Equal Protection Clause. The court said, however:

Chancellor Ferebee and CIO Ruiz are not entitled to qualified immunity as to Counts VI and VII. FCA alleges that the defendants selectively enforced DCPS’s Anti-Discrimination Policy on the basis of viewpoint (Count VI) and that enforcement of the policy against FCA violated FCA’s First Amendment right to expressive association (Count VII)....

In light of this Supreme Court and circuit case law, the Court concludes that the law was “sufficiently clear” that a “reasonable official” would have known that the challenged actions violated FCA’s First Amendment free speech and expressive association rights....

Wednesday, February 04, 2026

RFRA Defense to Indictment of Church Leader for Distributing Ayahuasca Fails

In United States v. Codi, (ND AL, Feb. 2, 2026), an Alabama federal district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss a criminal indictment charging her with possession of a controlled substance with an intent to distribute and with conspiracy. Defendant operated a website on behalf of her church, the "Temple of Umi", which sponsored ayahuasca retreats. Defendant claimed that the indictment violated her rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Equal Protection clause. The court said in part:

... [T]he parties stipulated that the court could - for the purposes of the hearing - assume without deciding that Defendant is able to establish a prima facie case under RFRA. As such, the only issues left to be decided at this stage based on the hearing testimony were (1) whether the government had a compelling governmental interest in enforcing the Controlled Substances Act against Defendant and (2) whether the criminal prosecution of Defendant was the least restrictive means of achieving that interest....

... Defendant had been offered a plea agreement which would allow for pre-trial diversion and tolling of the Speedy Trial Act so long as she took the steps to obtain permission to legally handle DMT - either by filing a lawsuit or applying for a DEA exemption.... Defendant had been given that offer as recently as a week before the hearing and rejected the offer each time it was presented. The Government argues this shows that prosecution is the least restrictive means necessary because Defendant was provided with a reasonable, less restrictive alternative, but rejected it....

... The Government has shown there is a compelling interest in preventing the diversion of DMT to secular users because, based on the evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing, there is a realistic probability and historical evidence of such diversion....

The Government presented evidence ... that the Temple of Umi is a business open to the public, with a nominal sign-up process. There was also evidence that emphasizes the non-religious benefits of ayahuasca and ayahuasca ceremonies put on by the Temple. In addition, the Government presented evidence that participants in the ayahuasca consumption ceremonies are not screened for their religious beliefs and thus it is easy for secular participants to obtain DMT at these ceremonies....