Denial of Burial Permit Did Not Violate 1st Amendment or RLUIPA

In Baxter v. San Berdino County, (CD CA, May 5, 2026), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing plaintiff's challenges to a refusal by the county to grant him a permit to bury the remains of his father on his own property. The court rejected plaintiff's RLUIPA claim. RLUIPA would apply here only if the land use regulation involved the government's making an individualized assessment of the proposed use of the land. According to the court, "Plaintiff's permit was denied pursuant to non-discretionary health and safety statutes."

The court rejected plaintiff's First Amendment free exercise claim because the statute requiring burial of human remains in a cemetery is neutral and generally applicable. It rejected his equal protection argument because there were no facts indicating religious discrimination against him. It rejected his procedural due process claim because Plaintiff did not allege facts that establish a property interest in the human remains.

Court Dismisses Claim That Microchipping Plaintiff's Dog Violated Plaintiff's Free Exercise Rights

In Stokes v. City Dogs Animal Control, (ND OH, May 12, 2026), an Ohio federal district court dismissed a pro se plaintiff's claim that his free exercise rights were infringed when his service dog was microchipped by animal control officers without his consent. When plaintiff's car broke down, he temporarily abandoned it by the side of the road with his dog inside it. Plaintiff was homeless at the time. Police came upon the car and called animal control officers to have them take custody of the dog. A Cleveland ordinance requires animal control officers who recover an abandoned dog to embed a microchip in the dog for future identification. They did so. Plaintiff sued seeking $10 million in damages, contending, among other things, that it violates his religious beliefs to have his dog microchipped. The court said in part:

 “It is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants' interpretations of those creeds.”... Courts may not “presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim.”... Therefore, the Court takes seriously Plaintiff’s religious objection.   

Still, even construing the record in favor of Mr. Stokes, he fails to state a claim for a violation of his Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment or retaliation against them.  At the pleading stage, the record shows that Mr. Stokes objected to Defendant’s actions not for religious reasons, but for a series of other reasons that the Constitution does not protect.  Therefore, the complaint fails to raise his right to relief on these grounds above the speculative level and fails to state a plausible claim for relief on these bases.

Supreme Court, Through Stays While Appeals Continue, Allows Continued Mail-Order Delivery of Mifepristone

The Supreme Court today, in a 7-2 decision in Danco Laboratories, LLC v.  Louisiana, (Sup. Ct., May 14, 2026), granted a stay while appeals continue of the 5th Circuit's decision that had barred telehealth prescribing and mail order delivery of the abortion drug mifepristone. The majority granted the stay in a one-paragraph order.

Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

... [I]t is a criminal offense to ship mifepristone for use in abortions. The Comstock Act bans using “the mails” to ship any “drug . . . for producing abortion.” 18 U. S. C. §1461.  A neighboring provision makes it a felony to use “any express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service” to ship “any drug . . . designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.” §1462(c)....

... Applicants are not entitled to a stay of an adverse court order based on lost profits from their criminal enterprise. They cannot, in any legally relevant sense, be irreparably harmed by a court order that makes it more difficult for them to commit crimes.

Justice Alito also filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

...  What is at stake is the perpetration of a scheme to undermine our decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ... which restored the right of each State to decide how to regulate abortions within its borders. 

... [W]ithout any current indication that the FDA plans to resume enforcing the in-person-dispensing requirement, there is no reason to believe that the manufacturers could not continue their current distribution practices....

If the FDA were to execute an abrupt about-face and commence enforcement of the in-person-dispensing requirement, the manufacturers could promptly reapply for stays at that time.  But even were that to happen, the manufacturers have not shown that they would suffer irreparable injury....

NBC reports on the decision. 

4th Circuit Upholds Exclusion of Theology and Religion Majors from Virginia's College Tuition Grant Program

In Hall v. Fleming, (4th Cir., May 13, 2026), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of a Virginia Tuition Assistance Grant Program that denies grants to undergraduate students studying in programs that provide religious training or theological education, The court said that the facts of this case are directly analogous to those in the Supreme Court case of Locke v. Davey which upheld the constitutionality of a Washington tuition grant program with nearly identical exclusions. So, in the court's view, the only question is whether the later Supreme Court decisions in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, and Carson v. Makin effectively overruled Locke. The court held that the Supreme Court has not overruled or abandoned its decision in Locke, saying in part:

... [I]n the absence of any statement from the Supreme Court questioning or rejecting Locke’s holding, it is still the law.  We must therefore faithfully apply it.

Judge Richardson filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I write separately because Locke was wrongly decided.  It betrays the founding generation’s commitment to religious liberty, and the Supreme Court should formally overrule it.  But, until the Court does, Locke binds us—even as a moth-eaten shell of its former self.

Exclusion of Religious High Schools from Vermont's Tuition Payment Program Does Not Violate Free Exercise Clause

In Mid Vermont Christian School v. Saunders, (D VT, May 12, 2026), a Vermont federal district court upheld against constitutional attack a Vermont statute that reduces from 48 to 18 the number of independent schools that are eligible for town tuition payments, i.e. tuition payments for enrollment by students who live in districts that do not have a public high school. The reduction of 30 schools eligible for payments included the elimination of all 14 of the Catholic and Christian schools that were previously eligible. Rejecting plaintiff school's free exercise and equal protection challenges, the court said in part:

If the only issue was whether the language of the statute was neutral, the State would win in a walk....

Mid Vermont has a second string to its bow. Drawing on the "animus" cases such as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm 'n...., it offers evidence of what it describes as prejudice against public support for religious schools by some of the legislators who voted for Act 73. Whether this court should consider subjective evidence of legislative intent to restrict the free exercise of religious belief is a relatively novel issue....

The statements of the nine legislators identified by Mid Vermont are a thin basis for describing Act 73 - or just Section 21 - as motivated by religious animus. None of the statements were made in floor debate or as part of the Act's legislative history. Instead, most were made in response to an opinion survey and indicate no more than opposition to public funding of religious schools. They cannot reasonably be said to show "pervasive religious intolerance and hostility"....

Finally, Mid Vermont relies on statements by administration officials opposing public funding for religious schools.... It is a step too far, however, to attribute the views of executive officials to state legislators.....

If the court is correct in identifying Act 73 as a statute that is neutral as to religion, then its constitutionality is subject to a rational basis test. It is likely to pass such a test since it addresses multiple issues of educational policy through a program of comprehensive reform....

Agriculture Department Employees Sue Secretary Alleging Establishment Clause Violations

Seven employees of the Department of Agriculture and a federal employees' union filed suit yesterday against the Department and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins contending that:

[The Secretary]  has adopted a practice of sending increasingly proselytizing communications to the entire USDA workforce, promoting her own preferred brand of Christian beliefs and theology to the captive audience of employees that report to her, directly or indirectly. 

The complaint (full text) in National Federation of Federal Employees v. Rollins, (ND CA, filed 5/13/2026), alleges that the Secretary's communications to employees, particularly her highly religious 2026 Easter Message, violate the Establishment Clause. The complaint alleges in part:

52. Individual Plaintiffs feel that the Secretary is pressuring them to believe in her faith or act as if they share the same faith as the Secretary. Given the Secretary’s clear religious preference, Individual Plaintiffs feel intimidated from expressing their own beliefs at work and compelled to shape their behavior accordingly and hide their own beliefs. 

53. Individual Plaintiffs fear being singled out and disfavored for not being religious, not believing in the brand of Christianity that the Secretary espouses, or for having a different religion.... 

54. Individual Plaintiffs also fear retaliation for objecting to the Secretary’s preaching from the public office that she occupies.

Democracy Forward issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

DHS Seeks Land Near Catholic Shrine for Border Wall Construction

 As reported by Axios, the Department of Homeland Security is seeking to take by eminent domain 14 acres of land belonging to the Catholic Diocese of Las Cruces, New Mexico. According to the complaint (full text) in United States v. 14.259 Acres of Land, (D NM, filed 5/7/2026), the land is being acquired to use for roads, fencing, vehicle barriers, security lighting, cameras, sensors, and structures that will be part of President Trump's border wall. The land is at the base of Mount Cristo Rey. At the top of the mountain is a 29-foot-tall limestone statue of Jesus. Each Fall, on the Feast Day of Christ the King, thousands climb the mountain to participate in a Mass. According to Mint, the Diocese will raise defenses under the Free Exercise clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Noise Ordinance Arrest Did Not Violate First Amendment or State RFRA

In Acevedo v. Zatora,(ND IL, May 11, 2026), an Illinois federal district court dismissed plaintiff's claims that police officers violated his free speech and free exercise rights when they arrested him for violating Chicago's noise ordinance. The ordinance prohibits amplified sound on public property that is louder than average conversational level at 100 feet distance. Acevedo and six others set up a microphone on a public sidewalk across from a Planned Parenthood clinic. Acevedo contends that his amplified speech was no louder than permitted under the Ordinance. The court said in part:

Acevedo’s First Amendment grievance ... is not with the noise ordinance’s constitutionality, either facially or as applied to his circumstances. He instead challenges defendants’ decision to arrest him for violating the noise ordinance despite his compliance with it and purportedly owing to his protected speech. This claim is indistinguishable from Acevedo’s First Amendment retaliation claim ... where he alleges that he was unjustly arrested in retaliation for his protected speech, despite his compliance with the noise ordinance....

In dismissing Acevedo's retaliation claim, the court concluded that Acevedo was arrested for disobeying an officer's order to stop using the microphone, not because of the religious or political content of his speech.

The court also dismissed Acevedo's claim against the city of Chicago. Acevedo contended that the city has a policy of  "preventing Christian street preachers (and presumably others) from using voice amplification on the public way by misapplying the noise ordinance to prohibit all amplified religious speech (and possibly other speech) regardless of volume or compliance with the ordinance’s actual requirements." The court said that the complaint did not give the city fair notice of the action Acevedo was challenging. The court said in part:

Do officers involved in the allegedly problematic practice exclusively target Christian street preachers engaged in religious speech, or do the officers also target street preachers of “all” faiths and other individuals not engaged in religious speech at all? Do officers consistently invoke the noise ordinance when they encounter Christian street preachers, or do they arrest Christian street preachers for other alleged infractions and without invoking the noise ordinance at all.

Dismissing Acevedo's claim under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the court said in part:

Acevedo has not alleged that he faced a “coercive choice” between abandoning his religious convictions or complying with a City regulation. Rather, Acevedo alleges that he did comply with the City’s ordinance while exercising his religious convictions.

The court allowed Acevedo to move ahead on his 4th Amendment false arrest claim.

Ohio AG Resigns to Take Position with Christian Legal Advocacy Organization

Dayton Daily News last week reported that term-limited Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has resigned, effective June 7, in order to take a position with the Christian legal advocacy organization Alliance Defending Freedom. ADF issued a press release last week announcing Yost's appointment, saying in part:

Alliance Defending Freedom CEO, President, and Chief Counsel Kristen Waggoner announced Thursday that Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost will join ADF as Vice President of Strategic Research and Innovation.

ADF is the world’s largest legal organization committed to advancing every person’s God-given right to live and speak the truth. With litigation and public policy spanning six continents, ADF fights in the most consequential legal and cultural battlegrounds of our time—preserving free speech, religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage and family, and parental rights....

In his new role, Yost will focus on expanding ADF’s strategic research capabilities and developing innovative approaches to advancing freedom globally....

USCIRF Urges President to Fill Position of Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom yesterday issued a statement (full text) urging President Trump to select a nominee to fill the position of Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, and urging the Senate to swiftly confirm the nomination. The USCIRF Statement says in part:

President Trump has engaged in some important IRF policy decisions, including the designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern and the expansion of visa restrictions against IRF violators and their families.... However, the present lack of ambassadorial leadership on IRF matters prevents the U.S. government from fulfilling its potential in leading global efforts to advance this vital issue—a problem that can be solved through a swift nomination and confirmation process.

As previously reported, in April 2025, President Trump nominated Mark Walker, a former Baptist minister and former congressman, to be Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. However, the Senate failed to hold a hearing on his nomination which was being blocked by North Carolina Senator Tedd Budd who defeated Walker in the 2022 Republican primary for U.S. Senate. So last January, Walker withdrew his name from consideration for the ambassadorship and instead accepted an appointment by President Trump as Principal Advisor on Global Religious Freedom to the State Department. His term in that position expired last month.

Nebraska Supreme Court Rules on Non-Custodial Parent's Right To Influence Children's Religious Upbringing

In Munsell v. Munsell, (NE Sup. Ct., May 8, 2026), the Nebraska Supreme Court modified a trial court's divorce decree in a dispute over who could decide whether the divorced couple's children would attend a church camp. The trial court's decree had allowed the mother (Libby) who had sole custody to prevent the father (Jacob) from enrolling the children in church camp during his parenting time.  The Nebraska Supreme Court disagreed. The court said in part:

Jacob and Libby were raised in the same religion as that of the church Jacob currently attends. Jacob testified the church follows the tenet that women should be “subservient” to men and that the church should be led by men. During their marriage, the parties and the children attended the church. However, Libby testified that she “left the church” about 5 months before filing for divorce, no longer agreed with some of the church’s teachings, and did not like that ... wom[e]n were silenced and subjugated.” She also testified that she did not like the “culture of fear and shame that the church brings on”....

Jacob’s parents live on the church camp’s property as care takers. Jacob testified the church camp was a “huge part” of his life....

As this appeal illustrates, the state-law right of a legal custodian to make fundamental decisions about a child’s educational and religious upbringing can conflict with the non-custodial parent’s fundamental right to influence the religious upbringing of the child during his or her parenting time. The U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in on the difficult question of how to properly balance these conflicting rights in the context of divorce proceedings....

 ... [I]in our de novo review, we see an absence of evidence that allowing the children to attend the church camp would pose “an immediate and substantial threat to a child’s temporal well-being.”...

Accordingly, we see no basis to restrict Jacob’s ability to enroll the children in the church camp during his parenting time.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Chad G. Marzen & William Woodyard, Pope Francis: The Progressive Pope of American Jurisprudence, (May 06, 2026).
• Christopher D. Hampson, For the Word of God is Posted and Passive, (University of Florida Levin College of Law Research Paper, Forthcoming).
• Vincent Bocchinfuso, How Hate Learned to Speak: Civil Rights Language, Institutional Shielding, and Reciprocal Standards, (May 08, 2026).
• Sachin Gupta, Sungjin Kim & Anirban Mukherjee, Is Volunteering a Gateway to Increased Monetary Giving? Evidence from a Field Experiment, (Marketing Letters, volume 37, issue 1, 2026).
• Aaron J. Saiger & Abner S. Greene, Religious Schools and the Secular State:  A Dialogue, (42 J. L. & Religion__ (2027)).
• Abu Hayyan Saeed, Human Reason, God, and Faith : A Kantian, Classical, Comparative Western, Eastern and Religious Perspective, (May 01, 2026).

From SSSRN (Reproductive Rights):

• David S. Cohen & Rachel Rebouche, The Origin and Future of Shield Laws, (94 UMKC L. Rev. 541 (2026)).
• Carole J. Petersen, From the Right to Choose to the Virtuous Victims?: Advocating for Reproductive Justice in the United States After Dobbs, (54.1 Denver Journal of International Law & Policy 1-26 (2025)).
• Eve Hanan, Presumed Guilt: Epistemic Closure in Pregnancy Prosecutions, (December 31, 2025).

From SSRN (Transgender Rights):

• Marc Spindelman, United States v. Skrmetti: On Realism, Reason, and Hope, (April 15, 2026).
• Susan Keller, The Double-Edged Rhetoric of Parental Rights: Conflicts between Freedom and Control in Cases Concerning Transgender Youth, (21 Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy (2026)).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Oruj Ismayilov, Destiny, Free Will, and Divine Justice: An Analysis of the Concept of Trial and the Metaphysics of Oppression through a Qur'anic Perspective, (December 18, 2025).
• Abu Hayyan Saeed, The Evolution of Islamic Thought: Practical Implementation of the Qur'anic System and Related Studies, (February 04, 2026).
• Azfar Samin & Bashir Malik, The Qur'an, Hadith, and the Debate on Marriageable Age: A Textual Analysis, (September 30, 2025).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Marek Antos, Filip Horak, Filip Jeline & Ondřej Preuss, Religious Neutrality and Treaty-Based Privileges: The Czech Constitutional Court on the Holy See Concordat, (May 04, 2026).
• Nikhil Dongre, Refugee Protection in India in the Absence of Specific Legislation: Legal Analysis, (May 01, 2026).

Released-Time Provider Sues School District After Termination For Facebook Posting

Suit was filed last week in a Georgia federal district court by a Christian ministry-- Sweet Onion Christian Learning Center-- that has offered released time off-campus religious instruction for students attending Vidalia, Georgia High School.  School officials canceled the released time program because of Facebook posts by Sweet Onion's executive director which criticized a proposed property tax increase for the city's schools. The complaint (full text) in Sweet Onion Christian Learning Center, Inc. v. Youmans, (SD GA, filed 5/8/2026), alleges that the cancellation violates the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as the Georgia Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The complaint reads in part:

2.... After learning about the posts, Superintendent Reid secretly investigated the Center and learned an unremarkable fact—the Center, a Christian ministry, provides Christian education. This led her to report to the Board that, in addition to the problems with the Facebook posts, Rev. Youmans’ instruction “reflected a particular interpretation of the Bible” that wasn’t presented in a “neutral or well-balanced manner.” Either way, Defendants punished Rev. Youman, his ministry, and the students at Vidalia High simply because Defendants disagreed with Rev. Youman’s constitutionally protected expression.  

3. Under the First Amendment, Rev. Youmans had a clearly established right both to criticize a proposed tax increase and to teach the Bible from his religious perspective. By punishing him and his ministry for his criticism and religious instruction, the Board and Superintendent Reid violated that right....

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

9th Circuit: Requested Religious Exemptions from Vaccine Mandate Would Have Imposed Undue Hardship

In Williams v. Legacy Health, (9th Cir., May 6, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a hospital system's refusal to grant religious exemptions from its Covid vaccine mandate to Vancouver, Washington hospital employees whose duties put them in close contact with patients or staff. The court upheld the dismissal of plaintiffs' Title VII religious discrimination claims.  It concluded that granting the requested religious exemptions would have imposed "undue hardship" on Legacy Health. The court said in part:

At the time it denied Employees’ exemption requests, Legacy forecast an acute strain on its business of providing safe and effective medical care to the public. The COVID-19 Delta variant had just emerged, and Legacy predicted a surge of hospitalizations across its eight locations. In that context, Legacy reasonably sought to ensure that its employees were vaccinated. The statistical evidence available to Legacy revealed that high vaccination rates, while not a panacea, reduced overall transmission risk. Vaccination also proved highly effective at preventing infection in the healthcare setting, where other measures like social distancing were impractical or “impossible,” as one expert explained. By contrast, Legacy’s unrebutted epidemiological expert evidence showed that unvaccinated “frontline workers,” like Employees, faced a unique risk of infection—and that any infections could contribute to “significant outbreaks among patients [and] colleagues.” 

Vital Law reports on the decision.

Tribes Sue to Stop Drilling in Black Hills

Nine Native American tribes located in South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska have filed suit in a South Dakota federal district court challenging the federal government's approval of extensive drilling for graphite, with attendant ground-disturbing operations, in Black Hills National Forest. The complaint (full text) in Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, (D SD, filed 4/30/2026), alleges in part:

5. Before approving the Project, the USFS failed to engage in meaningful, mutual, and legally required government-to-government consultation with Plaintiff Tribes, as required by federal law,....

7. The USFS categorically excluded the Project from the proper environmental, public, and cultural resources review required by NEPA....

21.  Plaintiff Tribes consider Pe’Sla to be one of the most precious sacred sites in the heart of Ȟe Sápa. It is in the middle of the place where Plaintiff Tribes originated, and it is central to their existence. Pe’Sla is home to hundreds of cultural properties and numerous historic sites, archeological sites, cultural sites, and Traditional Cultural Properties ....

28. Plaintiff Tribes and their members use and value the lands at Pe’Sla for traditional, cultural, and religious purposes, including prayer, ceremonies, cultural activities, and traditional youth camps....

60. The Project will disturb and harm historic, archaeological, and cultural sites at Ȟe Sápa and Pe’Sla, the lands, water, natural resources, and fish and wildlife at Ȟe Sápa and Pe’Sla,and the Plaintiff Tribe’s traditional, cultural, and religious use of Ȟe Sápa and Pe’Sla....

AP reports on the lawsuit.