Texas Governor Declares CAIR Foreign Terrorist and Transnational Criminal Organization

Texas Governor Greg Abbott yesterday issued a Proclamation (full text) designating the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as Foreign Terrorist and Transnational Criminal Organizations under Texas law. The Proclamation, after three pages of introductory "Whereas" clauses, reads in part:

I, Greg Abbott ... do hereby:

(1) Designate both the Muslim Brotherhood and its successor organization CAIR as Foreign Terrorist Organizations under Texas Penal Code §71.01(e), and thereby subject those organizations, and any persons promoting or aiding their criminal activities, to the heightened penalties authorized by Chapter 125 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code; and

(2)  Designate both the Muslim Brotherhood and its successor organization CAIR as Transnational Criminal Organizations and proscribed entities under Texas Property Code §5.254(a)(2)(A), and thereby subject those organizations, and their affiliates and members, to Chapter 5 of the Texas Property Code, which prohibits them from purchasing or acquiring land in Texas.

In a press release announcing his action, Governor Abbott said in part:

The Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR have long made their goals clear: to forcibly impose Sharia law and establish Islam’s ‘mastership of the world... The actions taken by the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR to support terrorism across the globe and subvert our laws through violence, intimidation, and harassment are unacceptable.... These radical extremists are not welcome in our state and are now prohibited from acquiring any real property interest in Texas.

CAIR responded to the Governor's action with a letter (full text) saying in part:

As you know, your proclamation has no basis in law or fact. You do not have the authority to unilaterally declare any Americans or American institutions terrorist groups, nor is there any basis to level this smear against our organization....

CAIR has spent 30 years vocally speaking up against all forms of bigotry, including anti-Black racism, Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism and antisemitism, as well as all forms of unjust violence, including hate crimes, ethnic cleansing, genocide and terrorism. ...

Sadly, your office has spent months stoking anti-Muslim hysteria to smear American Muslims critical of the Israeli government. By defaming another prominent American Muslim institution with debunked conspiracy theories and made-up quotes, you have once again shown that your top priority is advancing anti-Muslim bigotry, not serving the people of Texas. 

Unlike your office, which has unleashed violence against Texas students protesting the Gaza genocide to satisfy your AIPAC donors, our civil rights organization answers to the American people, relies on support from the American people, and stands up for American values.

We have successfully sued you three different times for shredding the First Amendment for the benefit of the Israeli government, and we are ready to do so again if you attempt to turn this publicity stunt into actual policy.

Axios reports on these developments.

Award of Attorney's Fees Not Barred by Church Autonomy Doctrine

In Coronado-Arrascue v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs, (CO App., Nov. 13, 2025), a Colorado state appellate court held that the dismissal on church autonomy grounds of a priest's defamation suit against his former diocese does not preclude the award of attorney's fees by the court to the Diocese. The court said in part:

[Plaintiff] contends that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the award.  In support of this contention, he reasons that because the court determined that the church autonomy doctrine divested it of subject matter jurisdiction to consider the substance of his claims, it follows that the church autonomy doctrine also divested the court of subject matter jurisdiction to consider the Diocese’s request for an award of fees and costs.  Second, Coronado-Arrascue contends that resolving the Diocese’s request for fees and costs would require the court to become “excessively entangled” with religion in violation of the church autonomy doctrine.  We reject both contentions....

... [T]he unambiguous language of section 13-17-201 and section 13-16-113(2) provides that an award of fees and costs is mandatory regardless of whether a complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  ...

 So, regardless of the court’s decision on the merits of Coronado-Arrascue’s claims, its assessment of whether there was a basis to award the Diocese its fees and costs was a separate determination.

... [I]t wasn’t necessary, as Coronado-Arrascue claims, for the court to “probe internal ecclesiastical matters” to determine whether there was a basis to award fees and costs.  Rather, the court was only required to examine the face of his complaint to determine whether the substance of Coronado-Arrascue’s claims were pleaded in tort.

[Thanks to John Melcon for the lead.]

Court Enjoins School Districts from Complying with Texas Mandate to Post 10 Commandments in Classrooms

In Cribbs Ringer v. Comal Independent School District, (WD TX, Nov. 18, 2025), a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring 14 Texas school districts from complying with SB 10, a recent Texas statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. The court concluded that the case is factually indistinguishable from the U.S. Supreme Court's 1980 decision in Stone v. Graham. The court held that the Supreme Court's later decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District abandoned the Lemon test in Establishment Clause cases, the Supreme Court "gave no indication it was abrogating or overruling any of its public school cases." The court said in part:

Even if Kennedy undermined Stone to some extent, it would still control this case. Lower courts must apply controlling Supreme Court precedent even when it appears to rest on "reasons rejected in some other line of decisions."

Eleven other Texas school districts were previously enjoined from complying with SB 10. (See prior posting.) 

ACLU issued a press release announcing yesterday's decision.

Texas AG Sues Challenging Exclusion of Sectarian Employment from Work-Study and Similar State Programs

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton last week filed suit in a Texas state trial court against the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and its Board members claiming that conditions imposed in the state's work-study program, its WORKS internship program for college students, and its Adult Career Education grant program for non-profit institutions cooperating with educational institutions in job training violate the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise clause. The complaint (full text) in Paxton v. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 11/12/2025), alleges in part:

To participate in the Work-Study Program, however, an eligible institution or other employer must provide employment to an eligible student “in nonpartisan and nonsectarian activities.”... These requirements effectively eliminate religious organizations with only sectarian employment opportunities from participating in the Work-Study Program and condition the receipt of State funds on nonsectarian use. The Work-Study Program also excludes students “enrolled in a seminary or other program leading to ordination or licensure to preach for a religious sect or to be a member of a religious order” from participating and receiving state funds.... This amounts to a wholesale exclusion of certain people—no matter how needy—from state benefits under the program based solely on the religious character of their course of study.,,,

And like the Work-Study Program—to be eligible to participate—employers in the WORKS Program must provide employment in nonsectarian activities to students in the program....

 A rule established by the Board ,,, prohibits organizations receiving ACE Grant Program funds from using the funds for “religious activities, such as sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization.”...

... When a state program is otherwise generally available, use-based conditions like the Sectarian Exclusions and Use Restriction are impermissible under the First Amendment.... Moreover, such laws targeting religious practice are not facially neutral and are, therefore, subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment....

The AG's office issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. The Black Chronicle reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit Remands Discrimination Suit Against Third-Party Health Plan Administrator

In Pritchard v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, (9th Cir., Nov. 17, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded to the district court a suit contending that Blue Cross, when acting a third-party administrator for a health care plan of a religious organization, is liable under the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act for enforcing the employer's  religious-based exclusion of coverage for gender dysphoria. The court held that ERISA does not require plan administrators to administer terms of the plan that are illegal. It also held that Blue Cross cannot not invoke RFRA as a defense because neither its religious exercise, nor that of its employees, officers or shareholders are impacted by its paying for treatment for gender dysphoria. Also, it held that RFRA does not apply to suits in which the government is not a party. However, the court remanded the case so that the district court could reconsider whether the policy exclusions discriminate on the basis of sex in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Skrmetti.

Judge Rawlinson filed a concurring opinion saying in part:

... I part company with the majority’s analysis that goes beyond a discussion of the Supreme Court’s holding in Skrmetti and a remand for the district court to apply Skrmetti in the first instance.

Out Smart reports on the decision.

Cert. Denied in Football Pre-Game Public Prayer Controversy

Today the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association, (Docket No. 24-1261, certiorari denied 11/17/2025). (Order List.). In the case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech and free exercise claims by a Christian school that was refused the use of a stadium's public address system for a pre-game prayer at the FHSAA state championship football game in which it was playing. The court held that pre-game PA announcements at state championship games are government speech and government control of its own speech does not violate rights of private individuals. (See prior posting.)

Old Order Amish Practices Do Not Justify Termination of Foster Care Placement

 In In re M.B., (WV Sup. Ct., Nov. 13, 2025), the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals rejected an attempt to remove a two-year old child from his Old Order Amish foster parents who had previously adopted the child's three sisters. The petitioner was a guardian ad litem for the child. The foster parents and the state Department of Human Services opposed the attempt to remove the child. The trial court had denied the motion to remove. According to the state Supreme Court, petitioner contended that the child should be removed from his foster parents' home where he had been since shortly after his birth because the foster parents could never permanently adopt the child. The court said in part:

The petitioner offers several bases for her contention that the foster placement here cannot lead to permanent placement. First, the petitioner contends that the foster parents, being members of an Old Order Amish community, would restrict M.B.’s formal education to grades one through eight and thus deprive him of his constitutional right to a thorough and efficient education. See W. Va. Const. art. XII, § 1.2  The petitioner also argues that remaining with Amish foster parents would not be in M.B.’s best interests because he would not have regular pediatric checkups, would not be vaccinated, would not be exposed to technology, and would not learn to drive. Finally, the petitioner suggests that M.B.’s adoption into the Amish community is problematic, at best, in that the community might not welcome a biracial child....

The respondent, the West Virginia Department of Human Services, and the foster parents, argue that to the contrary, it is in M.B.’s best interests to remain in what all parties acknowledge to be a loving home with the foster parents and his three siblings, who are part of the family unit....

We begin by recognizing that this issue is unique: whereas the relevant precedents guiding our consideration all involve the right of parents to the free exercise of their religion versus the interest of a state in establishing and enforcing educational standards, this case involves the right of a child to receive an education that meets this State’s educational standards....

Here, the constitutional argument in the petitioner’s brief consists of two sentences that could most charitably be deemed conclusory.... We easily conclude that these thirty-six words are insufficient to preserve the complex, many-layered argument that the petitioner attempts to raise: whether high school is a necessary component of a “thorough and efficient” education and, if so, whether a child’s right to that education outweighs the Amish parents’ right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs, which beliefs preclude formal schooling after eight years....

The court then turned to petitioner's claims based on West Virginia's Foster Child Bill of Rights. The court said in part:

The petitioner appears to view each and every provision of the FCBR as mandatory, i.e., one strike and you’re out. However, our precedents make clear that with the exception of subsections (a)(1), (2), and (3), the provisions of the FCBR constitute an interwoven set of factors to be considered and weighed in making a determination of whether a foster child’s placement is in his or her best interests.

Justice Bunn filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Armed with little more than a list of ways the Amish lifestyle diverges from the mainstream, the GAL presented the circuit court with no evidence that M.B. is or will be deprived of the nurturing and care to which he is entitled as a foster child.

Justice Trump filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I would have addressed the circuit court’s misapplication of Yoder to make absolutely clear that neither the lower courts nor the DHS should ever subordinate the best interests of a foster child to the interests of foster parents—based on the foster parents’ “free exercise rights” or any other factor—in an abuse and neglect proceeding.

Justice Ewing filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I write separately to emphasize that the outcome of this appeal turns on the specific circumstances presented; namely, M.B.’s very young age, the strength of the bond he has formed with the foster parents over the course of his young life, and the foster parents’ adoption of M.B.’s three biological siblings.

Senior Status Justice Hutchinson filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

There was no showing by anyone establishing that it was in M.B.’s best interest to remove him from his foster home....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Yaroslav Kotylko, Alternative (Non-Military) Service In Taiwan: Legal Regulation and Comparative Analysis With The Ukrainian Experience, (29 Public Administration and Regional Development 661-693 (2025)).
• Nicholas Aroney, Religion and State Across the Public-Private Divide: A Conceptual Extension of the Loop Model (October 10, 2025).
• William Bunting, Fulfilling America's Unfinished Promise of Individual Liberty: A Second Bill of Rights, (Stetson University College of Law Research Paper Forthcoming).
• Manish Oza, Justiciability in Private Law: Religion and Politics, (Osgoode Hall Law Journal, (forthcoming)).
• Yehia Mekawi, Representing Islam, Recognising Islam: A Single-Case Study of the Grande Mosquée de Bruxelles, (Journal of Muslims in Europe, volume 14, issue 3, 2025).
• Konrad Duden, Gender Self-Determination and Cross-Border Mobility -Recognition of a Changed Gender Entry and Free Movement within the EU, (October 31, 2025).
• Kate Redburn, Skrmetti Beyond Scrutiny, (139 Harv. L. Rev. 167 (2025)).
• Zubair Abbasi, Sacred Texts and Profane Realities: Islamic Criminal Laws (Ḥudūd) and Children's Rights in Pakistan (June 01, 2025).
• Deborah Tuerkheimer, Threats to Contraception, (November 07, 2025).
• Emmanuel Ladji Inga, Safeguarding Muslim Women's Religious Rights Trough State Liability? An Amicus Curia Brief, (June 30, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Joshua Segev, Judges in Their Own Cases: Biblical Kings and Supreme Court Justices, 39 Touro Law Review 1147-1218 (2024).
• Christopher C. Spinosa, Jr., Breaching the Walls of the Inviolable Citadel: The Supreme Court's Treatment of the Lemon Test and Its Progeny, 39 Touro Law Review 1299-1351 (2024).
• Keren Kendil, School Choice & Religious Discrimination: A Story of the Illusory "Wall of Separation," Sour "Lemon Tests," and Overgrown "Baby Blaines", 39 Touro Law Review 1219-1250 (2024).
• Brian Muff, Livin' on a Legislative Prayer: How Prayer at a School Board Meeting Survives under an Exception to the Establishment Clause, 39 Touro Law Review 1251-1297 (2024).

Certiorari Filed in Exclusion of Catholic Schools from Colorado's Preschool Program

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed last week with the U.S. Supreme Court in St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton v. Roy, (Sup. Ct. filed 11/13/2025). In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the nondiscrimination requirements of Colorado's Universal Preschool Program do not violate the free exercise or expressive association rights of Catholic schools that are excluded from the program because they insist on considering the sexual orientation and gender identity of a student and their parents in making decisions on who will be admitted. (See prior posting.) According to the petition for review:

The decision below exacerbates a 7-4 split [among Circuits] over the test for determining whether a law is generally applicable under the Free Exercise Clause.

Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for Supreme Court review.

New Executive Order on Foster Care System Includes Focus on Religious Concerns

President Trump yesterday issued an Executive Order titled "Fostering the Future for American Children" (full text). The Executive Order is designed to modernize the foster care system and support those transitioning out of the system. The Executive Order. reads in part: 

Sec. 1 ...Some jurisdictions and organizations maintain policies that discourage or prohibit qualified families from serving children in need as foster and adoptive parents because of their sincerely-held religious beliefs or adherence to basic biological truths....

 Sec. 4.  Maximizing Partnerships with Americans of Faith. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Director of the White House Faith Office and the Director of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, shall:

     (a)  take appropriate action to address State and local policies and practices that inappropriately prohibit participation in federally-funded child-welfare programs by qualified individuals or organizations based upon their sincerely-held religious beliefs or moral convictions; and

     (b)  take appropriate action to increase partnerships between agencies and faith-based organizations and houses of worship to serve families whose children have been placed in foster care or are at risk of being placed in foster care.

Scripps News reports on the Executive Order.

Catholic Bishops Issue Special Pastoral Message on Immigration

Yesterday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, gathered at their Fall Plenary Assembly, issued a Special Pastoral Message on immigration. (Press release and full text). The Special Message-- the first since 2013-- was adopted by the Plenary Assembly by a vote of 216 in favor, 5 opposed, and 3 abstentions. The Special Pastoral Message reads in part:

... We are disturbed when we see among our people a climate of fear and anxiety around questions of profiling and immigration enforcement. We are saddened by the state of contemporary debate and the vilification of immigrants. We are concerned about the conditions in detention centers and the lack of access to pastoral care. We lament that some immigrants in the United States have arbitrarily lost their legal status. We are troubled by threats against the sanctity of houses of worship and the special nature of hospitals and schools. We are grieved when we meet parents who fear being detained when taking their children to school and when we try to console family members who have already been separated from their loved ones....

... We bishops advocate for a meaningful reform of our nation’s immigration laws and procedures. Human dignity and national security are not in conflict. Both are possible if people of good will work together....

... We oppose the indiscriminate mass deportation of people. We pray for an end to dehumanizing rhetoric and violence, whether directed at immigrants or at law enforcement. We pray that the Lord may guide the leaders of our nation, and we are grateful for past and present opportunities to dialogue with public and elected officials....

Andrea Lucas Named Chair of EEOC

Last week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that Andrea R. Lucas has been designated by President Trump as Chair of the Commission. She has been a member of the Commission since 2020. She was confirmed by the Senate in July 2025 to serve a second term on the Commission. She has been serving as Acting Chair of the EEOC since January of this year. (Background.) According to Lucas' biography on the EEOC website:

She prioritizes evenhanded enforcement of civil rights laws for all Americans, including by rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination; protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination; defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights, including women’s rights to single-sex spaces; protecting workers from religious bias and harassment; and remedying other areas that have been historically under-enforced by the agency.

On Oct. 7, the U.S. Senate confirmed Brittany Panuccio as an EEOC member, restoring sufficient members for a quorum. The EEOC lost its quorum when President Trump removed two Biden-appointed Commissioners in January. (Background.)

The EEOC administers federal laws barring employment discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of religion.

Religious Based Proxy Advisors Challenge New Texas Regulatory Law

Texas S.B.2337 enacted by the Texas legislature earlier this year imposes new disclosure requirements on proxy advisory services that provide advice or research to institutional investors on how to vote on shareholder proposals if the service bases its advice in whole or part on non-financial factors such as environmental and social goals, corporate governance, or diversity, equity or inclusion. Suit was filed this week in a Texas federal district court challenging the law on free speech and vagueness grounds. Two of the plaintiffs have a specific religious focus. A third focuses on sustainability issues.  According to the complaint (full text) in Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility v. Paxton, (WD TX, filed 11/10/2025)

6. Plaintiff Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) is a coalition of investors who believe their faith or their values should—and as fiduciaries must—guide their investing decisions, including their investment stewardship. Plaintiff United Church Funds (UCF) is a faith-based organization that provides investment services to United Church of Christ (UCC) churches and other faith-based nonprofit organizations nationwide.  Plaintiff Ceres is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the notion that accounting for sustainability is a financial imperative for companies.

The complaint goes on to contend: 

7. The State of Texas can disagree with ...  Plaintiffs ICCR’s and UCF’s view that their values and religious beliefs are relevant to investment-related decisions. What it cannot do is compel Plaintiffs to speak in furtherance of Texas’s views about these issues. 

75. ... SB 2337’s stated goal of “prevent[ing] fraudulent or deceptive acts and practices in this state,” S.B. 2337 § 1(4), is mere pretext for regulating disfavored views, rendering the Act’s stated interest unlikely to be genuine....

80. The Act discriminates based on the content of speech and is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest and thus violates the First Amendment.  

81. Because it subjects only certain speech with a certain viewpoint to rigorous regulation, SB 2337 discriminates based on viewpoint, in violation of the First Amendment. Worse, it compels private speakers to adopt and parrot the government’s viewpoint on hotly contested topics and to align with management views.

Baptist News Global reports on the lawsuit.