Lower Court Applies Supreme Court's Classroom Religious Opt-Out Decision

In Alan L. v. Lexington Public Schools, (D MA, Dec. 30, 2025), a Massachusetts federal district court, relying on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, held that the father of a 5-year-old kindergartener has the right to opt his child out of classroom lessons and activities that deal with sexual orientation and gender identity and violate plaintiff's Christian religious beliefs. Plaintiff identified ten books of concern. The court's injunction (full text) provides in part:

3. Defendants shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.L. is not taught or otherwise exposed to the content of the Identified Books, whether in the classroom or any other school setting. 

4. By January 20, 2025, defendants shall provide plaintiff with copies of any Other LGBTQ+ Educational Materials in their possession. 

5. By January 27, 2025, plaintiff shall specifically identify in writing any Other LGBTQ+ Educational Materials that he contends would burden his free-exercise rights by “substantially interfer[ing] with” J.L.’s “religious development” or posing a “very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices” he wishes to instill in J.L.   

6. After receipt of plaintiff’s written response, defendants shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.L. is not taught or otherwise exposed to all Other LGBTQ+ Educational Materials identified by plaintiff, whether in the classroom or any other school setting....

9. Defendants shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.L. is able to receive reasonable and age-appropriate alternative instruction during any time he is removed from his classroom or any school assembly or activity in order to comply with this order.....

Senate Confirms Antisemitism Envoy; Other Religious Freedom Spots Remain Unfilled

As part of a single Senate vote confirming 97 pending nominations for various federal offices, the U.S. Senate on  December 18, by a vote of  53-43, confirmed the nomination of Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun to be the State Department's Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism. In a December 23 press release, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom welcomed the Senate's action, and added:

USCIRF has recommended filling other key positions to advance freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) abroad. These include the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, Special Advisor for International Religious Freedom at the National Security Council, Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues, and Special Coordinator on Tibetan Issues. Nominations made in 2025 expire on December 31, requiring reappointments in 2026 should the positions not be filled at that time. In addition to the key IRF related positions, placing ambassadors or special envoys in countries that USCIRF recommends for Country of Particular Concern or Special Watch List designations further facilitates advancing religious freedom.

In April, President Trump nominated Mark Walker, a former Baptist minister and former congressman, to be Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom (see prior posting), but the Senate has failed so far to hold a hearing on his nomination. According to a December 15 report by NBC News, Walker's confirmation is being blocked by North Carolina Senator Tedd Budd who defeated Walker in the 2022 Republican primary for U.S. Senate.

RFRA Challenge to Connecticut Removal of Religious Exemption from School Vaccines Survives

In We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. State of Connecticut Department of Education, (CT Super, Dec. 16, 2025), a Connecticut state trial court dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds a number of state constitutional and statutory challenges to Connecticut's removal of religious exemptions from its school vaccination requirements. The court dismissed plaintiffs' free exercise, equal protection, right to education, substantive due process, and right to equal educational opportunity claims. However, the court held that the waiver of sovereign immunity in Connecticut's Religious Freedom Law allows a challenge under that statute to move forward.

Bishop Held Personally Liable for Failure of Catholic Hospital's Pension Plan

The Pillar this week reported on an interesting jury award in litigation over the failure of a Catholic hospital's pension plan.  The report says in part:

Albany’s retired Bishop Edward Scharfenberger filed for bankruptcy this month, shortly after a New York court assigned him personal liability for the failure of a shuttered Catholic hospital’s pension plan.

In a December 12 judgement, Scharfenberger, who led the Albany diocese from 2014 until October of this year, was assigned 10% personal liability in a $54 million judgement for compensatory damages against the former board of St. Clare’s Hospital, which closed in 2008.

The bishop immediately filed for bankruptcy protections, with his personal assets estimated to cover between 2 and 5 percent of his liability for the hospital pensions.

The ruling is unique in that it held personally liable the bishop, as well as his deceased predecessor Howard Hubbard and deceased former diocesan vicar general, but not the Diocese of Albany as a corporation.

The ruling could end up reshaping the landscape of Catholic institutions in America — and will almost certainly trigger a national rethink about bishops’ involvement with Catholic institutions.

[Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.] 

Top 10 Religious Liberty and Church-State Developments of 2025

Each year in December, I attempt to select the most important church-state and religious liberty developments of the past year.  My choices are based on the importance of the development to law or policy. With each pick, I link to one or a few of numerous postings on the topic. Appraising the likely lasting significance of developments in 2025 has been particularly difficult. The selection of top stories obviously involves a good deal of subjective judgment. Indeed, as religion, culture and politics increasingly overlap, there are even questions about whether certain developments should be seen as "religion" stories at all. I welcome e-mail comment at religionclause@gmail.com on my choices. Here are my Top Ten picks:

1. President Trump issues an Executive Order on Combatting Antisemitism. The Trump Administration reaches settlements with some universities, such as Columbia and UCLA, that were charged with antisemitism. The Administration continues to pursue other universities, such as Harvard, for Title VI violations charging antisemitic discrimination.

2. President Trump issues an Executive Order eliminating the recognition of transgender individuals by federal agencies in their policy statements and rules, requiring instead recognition only of immutable biological classifications. The Supreme Court upholds Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The 6th Circuit says Michigan's ban on conversion therapy for minors is unconstitutional. Battles continue over disclosure to parents of students' social transitioning in school. HHS proposes to bar hospitals receiving federal funds from performing gender-affirming care for minors.

3.The Supreme Court says parents have the right to opt children out of class discussions that undermine their family's religious beliefs.

4. Texas and Oklahoma attempt to introduce more religious content into public school classrooms.

5. The IRS says houses of worship can endorse political candidates.

6. Abortion access continues to be the subject of controversy after the reversal of Roe v. Wade.  The 4th Circuit says state abortion bans are not pre-empted by FDA regulation of mifepristone. Texas bans mail-order abortion drugs.  The 2nd Circuit says information about abortion pill reversal is protected speech.

7. President Trump issues an Executive Order creating the Religious Liberty Commission.

8. The Supreme Court splits 4-4 on the constitutionality of state-funded religious charter schools. A new test case is being assembled.

9. The Department of Homeland Security rescinds its "Sensitive Locations Policy" that severely limited the situations under which immigration enforcement actions could take place at churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship, as well as at various other locations. Suits challenge the DHS action with initial success.

10. The Defense Secretary says he will strengthen the military Chaplain Corps by requiring it to focus on religious faith rather than emotional support.

The Religion News Association has focused on a rather different list of developments for its Top 10 Religion Stories of 2025. Its picks are not limited to legal developments.

President Issues Christmas Message

The White House today posted a Presidential Message on Christmas (full text). It reads in part:

... The birth of Jesus revealed the perfect expression of God’s boundless love and His desire to be close to His people.  More than two centuries later, we continue to rejoice in the gift of God’s only begotten Son as the graces of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection continue to pour out upon all who believe.

This Christmas, we also give thanks for the many blessings that God has bestowed upon our great Nation.... As President, I will never waver in defending the fundamental values that make America the greatest country in the history of the world—and we will always remain one Nation under God.

Today, especially, we also remember the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who are unable to be with their families.....

... To every American, and to those celebrating around the globe, we wish you a very Merry Christmas!

Catholic Bishop Excuses Those Who Fear ICE Detention from Attending Christmas Mass

The Catholic Bishop of Columbus (Ohio) this week issued a Decree (full text) granting a dispensation from participating in Christmas Mass to parishioners who fear being detained by ICE on their way to or from Mass.  The Decree reads in part:

Recent days have seen an increase in immigration enforcement in the Diocese of Columbus, causing a rise in fear and feelings of anxiety among out immigrant communities....

The Christian faithful have an obligation, which is disciplinary law of the Church, to participate in Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation, including the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord.... The fear associated with this recent activity of immigration enforcement may deter some of the Christian faithful from fulfilling their obligation to assist at Mass, which would be detrimental to their spiritual welfare.

The diocesan bishop is able to dispense the faithful from disciplinary laws ... when it contributes to their spiritual welfare....

... I hereby dispense from the obligation to attend Holy Mass, all those persons who reasonably fear being detained, even those with proper legal documentation, who fear separation from the families, experience intimidation because of their status or ethnic background, or other actions of immigration enforcement. This dispensation will last through the Christmas Season, which ends with the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord on January 11, 2026.

The Christian faithful who make use of this dispensation are strongly encouraged to engage in spiritual practices during this time....

A video statement from Bishop Fernandes announcing and expanding on the dispensation is available on the Diocese's website.

Muslim Employee's Risk of Discipline for Taking Prayer Breaks Was Too Speculative to Create Title VII Violation

In Zienni v. Mercedes-Benz, (11th Cir., Dec. 22, 2025), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim by a Muslim employee of Mercedes-Benz that he had been denied a religious accommodation in violation of Title VII. The court said in part:

... Zienni worked on a moving assembly line ... where he was given a scheduled lunch break and two other scheduled breaks.  As a practicing Muslim, Zienni was required to pray five times a day at predetermined times, based on the sun’s position in the sky.   The times to pray changed daily and often fell outside the scheduled breaks.  When it was time to pray, without specific permission from a supervisor, Zienni would flag a team leader down who would either personally cover Zienni’s station or have a coworker do so.  A supervisor with MBUSI, not Zienni’s team leader, observed Zienni praying during an unscheduled break and said that he would not be allowed to take those breaks—an explicit denial of his religious accommodation.  Despite this conversation, Zienni kept taking unscheduled breaks, never missed a prayer, and was never disciplined....

Zienni argues that he experienced harm because he was exposed to the risk of discipline for taking additional breaks.  But MBUSI never disciplined or threatened to discipline Zienni.  Further,... his ability to take unscheduled breaks was not a term or condition of employment for Title VII purposes.  Zienni rests on a speculation about what would have happened if he was caught praying during an unscheduled break....  Thus, any risk of discipline that Zienni experienced was too speculative to show a change in a term or condition of his employment.    

The court also rejected Zienni's argument that the psychological harm he suffered constituted a Title VII violation.

California Policy Barring School's Disclosure of Student's Change in Gender Expression Is Unconstitutional

In Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, Dec. 22, 2025), a California federal district court held unconstitutional the policy of California school boards that bars public school teachers and staff from informing parents about changes in a child’s gender expression unless the child consents. The court concluded:

[The policies] harm the parents by depriving them of the long-recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children, and by substantially burdening many parents’ First Amendment right to train their children in their sincerely held religious beliefs.  And finally, they harm teachers who are compelled to violate the sincerely held beliefs and the parent’s rights by forcing them to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students.

Justifying its conclusion, the court said: 

The constitutional question is about when gender incongruence is observed, whether parents have a right to be informed and make the decision about whether further professional investigation or therapy is needed.  Put another way, the question is whether being involved in potentially serious medical or psychological decision-making for their school student is a parent’s constitutional right. It is. "Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state...."

The State Defendants argue... that a parent “does not possess a religious exercise right to dictate that a school reject their child’s gender identity.”...  Nevertheless, this Court disagrees....

Defendants concede that parents “may find notification that their child is expressing a transgender identity at school helpful in the general exercise of their right to direct a religious upbringing for that child.” ... So, the State Defendants are aware that notification would be helpful to religious parents, but provide no room for those parents to exercise those federal constitutional rights.... [T]he California state education parental exclusion policies provide no exceptions for religious parents....

The four teacher Plaintiffs and class representatives sincerely hold religious beliefs that that are being severely burdened by the imposition of the parental exclusion policies....

The teachers successfully make out a First Amendment freedom of speech claim when they are compelled to speak in violation of the law or to deliberately convey an illegal message....

Daily Wire reports on the decision.

Ministerial Exception Does Not Apply to Hostile Work Environment Claims Where Religious Doctrine Is Not Implicated

In Boliak v. Reilly, (NY App., Dec. 18, 2025), three employees of a Catholic high school brought hostile work environment claims alleging that the school's principal regularly subjected them to vulgar, sexist, ageist, racist and homophobic remarks and epithets. One of the employees also brought a defamation claim. A New York state appellate court held that the trial court improperly dismissed the hostile work environment claims under the ministerial exception doctrine, saying in part:

... [I]n the absence of controlling caselaw, we follow the 9th Circuit's approach and find that the ministerial exception should not be extended to apply to conduct such as unlawful harassment simply because such conduct is perpetrated by a religious employer.... [T]here is no First Amendment reason to permit the ministerial exception to shield a religious institution from its "obligation to protect its employees from harassment when extending such protection would not contravene the Church's doctrinal prerogatives or trench upon its protected ministerial decisions"....

Here, plaintiffs are correct that there is no religious justification for Father Reilly's appalling conduct, and analyzing their hostile work environment claims would not require the Court to improperly interfere with religious doctrine or defendants' personnel decisions. Accordingly, plaintiffs' hostile work environment claims should not have been dismissed on the basis of the ministerial exception....

The Court, however, held that the defamation claim was properly dismissed, saying in part:

The comments made by Father Reilly and defendant Gregory Manos about Boliak are not subject to the ministerial exception because they do not implicate matters of religious doctrine and practice.... However, the comments are nevertheless subject to a qualified privilege, as they were made by Father Reilly and Manos in furtherance of a common interest of a religious organization.... The record shows that the alleged defamatory statements were privileged because Manos and Father Reilly made them to each other and to others charged with supervision of Boliak....

HRD reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Restrictions on Off-Campus Christian Religious Instruction for Elementary Students

Suit was filed last week in a Washington federal district court challenging the restrictions that Everett, Washington school officials have placed on the operation of a parent-run program that offers elementary school students off-campus, non-denominational Christian instruction during lunch, recess and free periods. Plaintiffs contend that the school has violated their free speech and free exercise rights. The complaint (full text) in Inc. v. Everett Public School District, (WD WA, filed 12/19/2025), alleges in part:

First, the District evinced open hostility to LifeWise specifically (and religion generally) through District Board Directors’ numerous hateful public comments.  Then, the District coupled that vocal animus with action, and imposed policies on LifeWise that hinder its operations and violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights in three ways: 

a. First, Defendants have taken steps to prevent members of the school community from learning about the services LifeWise offers.  They did this by banning LifeWise from participating in the District’s community fair, prohibiting LifeWise from displaying flyers in school lobbies next to flyers for other organizations, and (in one instance) rejecting LifeWise’s electronic flyers from the school’s distribution system because of their religious content.  Each of these constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.  

b. Second, Defendants uniquely burden LifeWise, students who participate in LifeWise, and those students’ parents by requiring an onerous permission-slip policy to excuse them for off-campus religious instruction.... 

c. Third, when a student returns from off-campus religious instruction hosted by LifeWise, the District requires her to keep LifeWise educational religious materials sealed “in an envelope” in her “backpack,” so she cannot access them the rest of the school day....

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Defense Secretary Says He Will Strengthen Chaplain Corps

Last week, in an announcement posted on X (formerly Twitter), Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he will take steps to strengthen the armed forces' Chaplain Corps. The Hill quotes portions of Hegseth's remarks:

In an atmosphere of political correctness and secular humanism, chaplains have been minimized, viewed by many as therapists instead of ministers. Faith and virtue were traded for self-help and self-care....

If you need proof, just look at the current Army Spiritual Fitness Guide. In well over 100 pages, it mentions God one time. That’s it. It mentions ‘feelings’ 11 times. It even mentions ‘playfulness,’ whatever that is, nine times. There’s zero mention of virtue. The guide relies on new age notions...

These types of training materials have no place in the War Department. Our chaplains are chaplains, not emotional support officers, and we’re going to treat them as such....

This follows a hearing earlier this month by the government's Religious Liberty Commission on Religious Liberty in the Military. (See prior posting.) Last week, the Justice Department's Office of Public Affairs issued a Statement on the Department of War's Strengthening of the Chaplain Corps saying in part:

“The Religious Liberty Commission applauds Secretary Hegseth and the Department of War’s quick action to restore the military chaplaincy to its full strength and influence in our armed forces,” stated Religious Liberty Commission Chairman, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. “As we were reminded at our Commission hearing last week, the chaplaincy is foundational to the American military—a source of spiritual strength so that our servicemembers continue to serve as a force for good in the face of evil and oppression. Tragically, past administrations sought to undermine the spiritual and strategic role of the military chaplaincy.”

Last week, the American Humanist Association issued a press release criticizing Hegseth's action, saying in part:

Hegseth’s broadside against the Army Spiritual Fitness Guide – including putting scare quotes around “faith” traditions he doesn’t recognize or value – is an attack against any member of the military who doesn’t practice his form of conservative Christianity.

Hegseth tries to hide this by attacking “secular humanism.” But the irony is that, despite the fact that certified humanist chaplains serve Americans every day in hospitals, prisons, and college campuses across the country, they are not allowed to serve in the military.

Every single member of our military, regardless of their religious beliefs – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, humanist, or anything else – deserves access to a chaplain who will support their well-being.

But it’s clear Hegseth doesn’t understand what this means – because his directive stands in direct contradiction to the Standards of Practice for Professional Chaplains agreed to by all credentialing bodies for chaplains. Those standards include a recognition that chaplaincy does involve emotional care – and emphasizes providing care for diverse beliefs, not mocking them....

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]