Religion Clause

Thursday, March 19, 2026

4th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In 3 Employment Discrimination Cases Involving Religiously Affiliated Institutions

On March 17, the U.S.4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in three cases of interest:

(1) In Zinski v. Liberty University, Inc., (audio of full oral arguments) the court heard an appeal in a Virginia federal district court case. The district court had refused to dismiss a Title VII sex discrimination lawsuit against Liberty University brought by a former employee whose employment as an IT Apprentice was terminated because she underwent a male to female sex transition. (See prior posting).

(2) In Doe v. Catholic Relief Services, (audio of full oral arguments), the court heard an appeal in a Maryland federal district court case that held that the religious corporation exemption from the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act does not apply to the termination of spousal health care benefits of the same-sex spouse of a data analyst and advisor working for Catholic Relief Services. (See prior posting.)

(3) In General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Horton, (audio of full oral arguments) the court heard an appeal in a Maryland federal district court case which denied a preliminary injunction in a suit challenging the Maryland Supreme Court's interpretation of the religious exemption in the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act. The Maryland Supreme Court has held that the exemption is limited to claims brought by employees who perform duties that directly further the core mission of the religious entity. (See prior posting).

President Issues Eid al-Fitr Message

The White House yesterday posted a Presidential Message on Eid al-Fitr which reads:

The First Lady and I send our best wishes to every American celebrating Eid al-Fitr.

Eid al-Fitr, also known as the Festival of Breaking the Fast, unites Muslim families, friends, and communities in honor of their spiritual devotion at the conclusion of Ramadan. It also serves as a reminder of the foundational American principle of religious liberty, which my Administration is fighting for every day.

We offer our warmest greetings for a blessed Eid al-Fitr to all who celebrate.

Husband's Religious Objections to Divorce Were Inappropriate Basis for Sanctions or Restraining Order

Hoch v. Hoch, (CA App., Feb. 17, 2026) (certified for publication 3/12/2026), is an appeal from family court orders relating to sanctions and domestic violence restraining orders (DVRO) issued in marriage dissolution proceedings involving a Jehovah's Witness couple. Among other holdings, the California state appellate court reversed the DVRO issued against the wife and affirmed the DVRO against the husband. The court also reversed monetary sanctions issued against the husband under Section 271 of the Family Code, but affirmed other monetary sanctions issued against him. The court said in part:

Michael contends that imposition of sanctions against him under section 271 violated his rights under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. He claims that as a practicing and devout member of the Jehovah’s Witness faith, he could not stipulate to allowing Marcie to amend her petition for legal separation to allege dissolution instead without violating his religious beliefs.

We need not address whether the sanctions against Michael under section 271 violated his constitutional right of free exercise of religion. The trial court abused its discretion under section 271 by imposing monetary sanctions against Michael for not stipulating to permit Marcie to amend her petition for legal separation by converting it into one for marital dissolution. Stipulating by its nature is not obligatory. Michael expressed what he believed to be a “conscientious” reason for declining to stipulate: Due to his religious beliefs, he was not comfortable with “facilitating” a divorce. Whether or not that reason amounts to a legitimate claim under the federal constitution’s free exercise of religion clause is a question we need not decide. Michael’s concern was reasonable and, it appears to us, held in good faith. No evidence was presented that would lead us to conclude to the contrary....

Among the actions which the family court cited as giving rise to a restraining order [against the husband] was Michael’s “inappropriate use of religion to control [Marcie], including, but not limited to, in the instant marital dissolution action.”... The only such instance of inappropriate use of religion expressly identified by the family court was “compelling [Marcie]’s filing of a dissolution action because [Michael] wanted to control whether or not [Marcie] could seek a legal separation and, later, a dissolution of marriage.” We need not decide whether the court infringed Michael’s right of free exercise in order to conclude this was an erroneous ground for a restraining order. Michael had a statutory right not to agree to a legal separation if he did not want one. The other grounds cited by the trial court are, however, sufficient in themselves to support the DVRO against Michael.

Wednesday, March 18, 2026

European Court Says German Catholic Organization Cannot Dismiss Employee Who Left the Church

In Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung, (CJ EU, March 17, 2026), in a referral from the Federal Labor Court (Germany), the Court of Justice of the European Union, interpreted Council Directive 2000/78 that, among other things, bans employment discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. The Court said in part:

2. The request [for a Preliminary Ruling] has been made in proceedings between the Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung (a Catholic association counselling on pregnancy, Germany) ... and JB concerning the legality of the dismissal of the latter on the grounds of an alleged infringement of the duty to act in good faith and with loyalty to the Association’s ethos....

24. JB, who is the mother of five children, entered the service of the Association in 2006. Until her parental leave, which began on 11 June 2013 and which ended on 31 May 2019, she was entrusted with pregnancy counselling. In October 2013, JB, under the procedure provided for by the national provisions, declared before the competent local authority that she was leaving the Catholic Church. The grounds she stated for leaving the Catholic Church were that the Diocese of Limburg levied, in addition to the State church tax, an additional church levy on Catholic persons who, like JB, are in an interfaith marriage with a high-earning spouse.

25 After unsuccessfully attempting to persuade JB to rejoin the Catholic Church, the Association, on 1 June 2019, dismissed JB on the grounds that she had left that church.... [I]n the pregnancy counselling service in which JB was working the Association employed four employees who were members of the Catholic Church and two employees who were not members of that church....

... [T]he Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules: Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/78 ... must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a private organisation the ethos of which is based on a religion may require of an employee who is a member of a certain church practising that religion not to leave that church during the employment relationship, on pain of dismissal or, in order to continue the employment relationship, to rejoin that church after leaving it, even though-- that organisation employs other persons to carry out the same duties as those of the employee in question, without requiring that those persons be members of that church, and – that employee does not openly act in a manner that is antagonistic to the church concerned, where ... those occupational requirements are not genuine, legitimate and justified having regard to that organisation’s ethos.

The July 2025 Opinion of the Advocate General, the Court's Press Release on the case, and the Court's explanatory video on the case are available from the Court's website.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

President Issues St. Patrick's Day Message

Yesterday, the White House posted President Trump's Presidential Message on Saint Patrick’s Day and Irish American Heritage Month. The Message reads in part:

Today, and throughout the month of March, I join the Irish American community and all American citizens in celebrating the bond between our two nations and commemorating the towering life and legacy of Saint Patrick—the patron Saint of Ireland and an immortal icon of faith, freedom, and fortitude.

Born in the fourth century, Saint Patrick spent his life traversing the rugged frontiers of medieval Ireland to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Celtic people. In the face of relentless persecution, imprisonment, and even assassination attempts, he ventured into unknown lands and hostile territory to proclaim the truth, fearlessly obeying Christ’s command to “make disciples of all nations.” Tradition holds that, during 40 days of prayer and fasting on a mountaintop, he banished all serpents and demons off of the Emerald Isle and taught the mystery of the Holy Trinity to pagans using the three-leaved shamrock, setting untold hearts on fire for Christ.

To this day, Saint Patrick lives on in our country and around the world as a heroic Christian witness, a testament to the power of prayer, and a timeless exemplar of the strength of the Irish people. In the 19th and 20th centuries, millions of Irish natives brought his faith and missionary spirit across the Atlantic and onto American shores....

As we celebrate 250 glorious years of American independence, we also pay tribute to the distinct role of Irish Americans in our national journey....

Tuesday, March 17, 2026

President's Religious Liberty Commission Holds Hearing on Religious Liberty in Healthcare

Yesterday, the President's Religious Liberty Commission held its Sixth hearing, this one on religious liberty in health care. The hearing was held in Washington, DC, at the Museum of the Bible. Some 15 witnesses testified before the Commission. (Video of the 4-hour long hearing.) According to a Justice Department press release:

... The hearing included panels with testimony from medical professionals, parents and students impacted by vaccine mandates, human trafficking survivors, and social services providers. The hearing’s objective was to understand the threats to religious liberties in the medical field from ethical and practical perspectives and identify opportunities to secure religious liberty in this context for the future.

“Today, President Trump's Religious Liberty Commission hearing focused on healthcare, including foster care and social work, and it featured heartbreaking testimony from ordinary Americans who courageously and compassionately stood up to tackle problems like homelessness, human trafficking, and drug addiction,” said Chairman Dan Patrick. “Yet, instead of receiving support from their government, they had their God-given religious liberty rights violated, were threatened with long jail sentences and were fired from their jobs. This hearing, yet again, highlighted the need for our Commission and its important work. Unsurprisingly, nearly all of these violations occurred in Democrat states during the Biden Administration. Later this year, the Commission will deliver strong recommendations to President Trump to ensure believers never have their religious liberty rights violated again, whether in healthcare or any other facet of American society.”

The press release also provides biographical information on all the witnesses.

Court Permanently Enjoins Enforcement of Arkansas Law Requiring 10 Commandments in Every Classroom

In Stinson v. Fayetteville School District , (WD AR, March 16, 2026), an Arkansas federal district court issued a permanent injunction barring the state from enforcing Arkansas' statute that requires the posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. The court, finding both Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause problems with the law, said in part:

... [T]he State makes three important factual stipulations about Act 573:

(1) “Act 573 does not direct teachers to provide instruction about the Ten Commandments or about the displays.”

(2) “Act 573 does not require classroom instruction, and it does not require that the Ten Commandments be incorporated into public school curriculum.”

(3) “There is no requirement for teachers, other school officials, or students to interact with, bring attention to, or even acknowledge the posters in any way.”

In other words, the State admits there is no educational purpose in displaying the Ten Commandments—no teaching, no learning, and no curricular integration.

The Court is “reluctan[t] to attribute unconstitutional motives to the State[ ], . . . when a plausible secular purpose . . . may be discerned from the face of the statute.”... But here, a plausible secular purpose is expressly disavowed. Act 573’s purpose is only to display a sacred, religious text in a prominent place in every public-school classroom. And the only reason to display a sacred, religious text in every classroom is to proselytize to children. The State has said the quiet part out loud....

Act 573 is subject to strict scrutiny because it is denominationally preferential and burdens parent-Plaintiffs’ right to direct their children’s religious upbringing.

Arkansas Advocate reports on the court's decision.

9th Circuit Again Upholds Transfer of Apache Religious Site to Copper Company

In Arizona Mining Reform Coalition v. U.S. Forest Service, (9th Cir., March 13, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals once again upheld the transfer of 2500 acres of National Forest land that includes Apache ceremonial religious ground to Resolution Copper Mining LLC. The land, for which Resolution Copper will transfer 5000 acres of land located elsewhere, contains nearly 2 billion metric tons of copper. The San Carlos Apache Tribe claimed that the transfer violates their free exercise rights protected by the 1st Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The 9th Circuit, sitting en banc, had previously rejected similar claims brought by Apache Stronghold, a non-profit organization representing the interests of certain members of the Tribe. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs in the current litigation unsuccessfully attempted to discredit the continuing viability of that prior decision. The court said in part:

... [T]he Lopez Plaintiffs ... argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor ... abrogated Apache Stronghold by clarifying the meaning of a “religious burden.” In their view, Mahmoud stands for the proposition that the court must determine if “looking to ‘the specific religious beliefs and practices asserted,’ the challenged government actions pose an ‘objective danger,’ or ‘very real threat’ to the claimant’s religious exercise, thus ‘substantially interfer[ing]’ with it.”... By contrast, the Lopez Plaintiffs argue, the Apache Stronghold majority rejected an inquiry into the relative objective or subjective nature of an asserted interference with religious practice in favor of an inquiry focused on coercion.

But this view of Mahmoud does not survive scrutiny. As an initial matter, the Supreme Court itself declined to rehear its denial of certiorari in Apache Stronghold... Regardless, the Lopez Plaintiffs misrepresent the thrust of Mahmoud by selectively quoting from it. Their focus on the “objective danger” language ignores that Mahmoud centers on (1) the education context and (2) policies that directly coerce or indirectly compel behavior at odds with individual religious beliefs or practices, not involving the disposition of government property....

... We nonetheless recognize that this land transfer will fundamentally alter the nature of the land, including destruction of those sites sacred to the Tribe, the Lopez Plaintiffs, and similarly situated Native individuals. Despite those grave harms to Native religious practice, Congress has chosen to transfer this land, and Plaintiffs have not raised any viable challenges to that decision....

Monday, March 16, 2026

9th Circuit Denies En Banc Review of Spa's Policy on Transgender Women, With Unusually Controversial Dissent

Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, (9th Cir., March 12, 2026), is the denial of a panel and en banc rehearings to two Korean Spas that lost their 1st Amendment challenges to application of Washington state's anti-discrimination provisions to the spas admission policies. The spas admitted only "biological women", including transgender women who had received gender confirmation surgery. They excluded transgender women who had not completed that surgery. The original 3-judge panel denied a rehearing, but issued an amended majority opinion amending the opinion originally issued on May 29, 2025 (full text of original opinion). The court then denied en banc review. Three opinions dissenting from the denial of en banc review were filed. Judge VanDyke's dissenting opinion led to an unusual Statement concurred in by 27 Ninth Circuit judges saying:

The American legal system has long been regarded as a place to resolve disputes in a dignified and civil manner or, as Justice O’Connor put it, to “disagree without being disagreeable.”1 It is not a place for vulgar barroom talk. Nor is it a place to suggest that fellow judges have “collectively lost their minds,” or that they are “woke judges[]” “complicit” in a scheme to harm ordinary Americans. That language makes us sound like juveniles, not judges, and it undermines public trust in the courts. The lead dissent’s use of such coarse language and invective may make for publicity or entertainment value, but it has no place in a judicial opinion. The lead dissent ignores ordinary principles of dignity and civility and demeans this court. Neither the parties nor the panel dissent found it necessary to invoke such crude and vitriolic language. Decorum and collegiality demand more.

Friday, March 13, 2026

Oklahoma AG Sues to Overturn Charter School Board's Strategic Factual Record In Rejecting Religious School

As previously reported, in May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court split evenly, 4-4, on the constitutionality Oklahoma funding a religiously sponsored charter school. The even split was caused by Justice Barrett recusing herself, apparently because of her connection to those promoting the school. Subsequently, a new test case was created, as the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation applied to create for a statewide virtual high school. (See prior posting.) This Tuesday, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board voted to reject the Ben Gamla School's most recent application and gave as its formal reason only that under Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school and must be nonsectarian. The next day, Oklahoma's Attorney General filed suit against the Charter School Board in an Oklahoma state trial court contending that there were additional unrelated reasons for rejection of Ben Gamla's application. The suit seeks a writ of mandamus to require the Board to identify and incorporate into the record other valid, non-constitutional grounds for the rejection.

The petition (full text) in Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, (OK Dist. Ct., filed 3/11/2026), alleges in part:

[T]he Board's refusal to list all of the reasons for rejecting the revised application is not coincidental. It is a deliberate decision designed to avoid issues of state law when Ben Gamla files a lawsuit seeking to overturn the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision in Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board.... Oklahoma law does not permit the Board to strategically withhold valid grounds for rejection....

Presumably, if other grounds for the application denial were included, the U.S. Supreme Court might refuse to decide the federal constitutional issue posed by state funded religious schools on the ground that there were other reasons for the Board's rejection of the Ben Gamla application.

VINnews reports on the lawsuit.

Cemetery Loses Free Exercise and Establishment Clause Challenges to Permit Denial

In Steelmantown Church v. Carlton County, Minnesota, (D MN, March 11, 2026), a Minnesota federal district court dismissed claims under the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses, RLUIPA, and Minnesota law brought by a nonprofit corporation that was refused permission to establish a cemetery that would perform "green burials." While Minnesota law allowed "religious corporations" to establish private cemeteries, Steelmantown was not formed as a Minnesota religious corporation. The court, explaining its rejection of Steelmantown's 1stAmendment claims, said in part:

... [E]stablishing and operating a cemetery of any sort is not inherently or exclusively a religious practice, and Section 307.01 on its face does not “aid or oppose particular religions” or “establish[] a denominational preference.”... The statute expressly authorizes “any private person” or “any religious corporation,” regardless of whether they adhere to any religious faith, to establish a private cemetery on land the person or corporation owns.... The statute’s reference to “any religious corporation,” meaning those incorporated under Chapter 315, establishes only a preference toward a specific type of incorporated entity, not a particular religious faith or denomination....

Steelmantown effectively seeks preferential treatment because of its religious beliefs that a secular but otherwise identical institution—that is, a foreign nonprofit corporation whose “identity and mission” are not “derived from religious or spiritual traditions,” ... would not receive in the same circumstances. If anything, that outcome would appear to be closer to a violation of the Establishment Clause than the conduct Steelmantown challenges here....

Steelmantown’s claim, in essence, appears to be that its religious practices are burdened by the requirement to incorporate (or reincorporate) under Chapter 315.... But nowhere does Steelmantown allege any facts that show this requirement “significantly inhibit[s] or constrain[s]” any “conduct or expression that manifests some central tenet” of its religious beliefs, “meaningfully curtail[s]” its “ability to express adherence” to those beliefs, or denies it a “reasonable opportunity to engage in those activities.” ... It does not explain, for instance, why maintaining its status as a foreign nonprofit corporation under Chapter 303 is central to its ability to express its religious beliefs or engage in its religious practices. Nor does Steelmantown allege facts that suggest the requirement “operates so as to make the practice of [its] religious beliefs more expensive.”...

Thursday, March 12, 2026

5th Circuit: Principal Lacks Qualified Immunity for Barring Teachers' Praying in View of Students

In Barber v. Rounds, (5th Cir., March 9,2026), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Texas high school principal Bryan Rounds does not have qualified immunity as to a teacher's First Amendment claims in a suit challenging his prohibition on teachers' engaging in any prayer that students might observe. The dispute grew out of the principal cautioning teachers in connection with a staff "See You At the Flagpole" event. The court said in part:

Barber asserts that the complaint alleges a blanket prohibition by Rounds on teachers engaging in any prayer that students might observe—regardless of whether the prayer was connected to a student-led event. Rounds, on the other hand, urges a narrower, contextual reading: that his directives were limited to ensuring teachers did not participate in the student-initiated SYATP gathering.

Barber’s reading is consonant with the complaint’s language. Her pleading alleges that Rounds told her she could not pray “in the presence of students” and could not engage in prayer where she would be “visible to students,” even away from the flagpole and even “when the teachers [are] not on school time.” ...

The second question is whether the First Amendment rights at issue were clearly established when Rounds’s challenged conduct occurred....

Barber contends that Kennedy [v. Bremerton School District] supplied the requisite clarity. Again, it does. As Barber points out, Kennedy expressly rejected the proposition that religious expression by a public-school employee may be restricted merely because students might observe it. The Kennedy Court rejected the rule that “visible religious conduct by a teacher or coach” may “be deemed—without more and as a matter of law—impermissibly coercive on students.” 597 U.S. at 540.

Vital Law reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Library's Policy on Use of Meeting Room

Suit was filed this week in an Alabama federal district court by Eagle Forum, a Christian community educational organization, challenging the policy of the Tuscaloosa Public Library that bars use of its large meeting room by "religious or sectarian groups for the purpose of preaching or otherwise demonstrating the beliefs of their members." The complaint (full text) in Eagle Forum of Alabama v. Tuscaloosa Public Library Bord of Trustees, (ND AL, filed 3/10/2026), alleges in part:

101. By putting Eagle Forum to a choice between exercising its religious beliefs through faith-based programming at its events and using the Rotary Room, the Defendants burden and “penalize[ ] the free exercise of religion.” ...

112. There is no compelling government interest to justify these content- and viewpoint-based restrictions, and the Reservation Policy is not narrowly tailored to advance any compelling governmental interest.

113. Even if the Rotary Room could only be considered a limited public forum ... it is well established that “speech discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be excluded from a limited public forum on the ground that the subject is discussed from a religious viewpoint.”

The complaint also alleges that the library's policy violates the Equal Protection clause and the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment.

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

Wyoming Governor Signs Heartbeat Abortion Law While Expressing Concern Over Its Constitutionality

On March 9, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon signed Enrolled Act No. 29 / House Bill 126, the Human Heartbeat Act (full text), into law (press release). The law prohibits an abortion when there is a detectable fetal heartbeat. The only exception is a "medical emergency", defined as a need to terminate a pregnancy to avert the mother's death or where there is serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.

The law then sets out an alternative less-restrictive set of provisions which will take effect only if fetal heartbeat ban is found to be unconstitutional. These are the provisions that were in effect before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs. These provisions ban abortions after viability, except when necessary to preserve the woman from an imminent peril that substantially endangers her life or health. These alternate provisions also require that in most cases an abortion patient be given an opportunity to view an active ultrasound. The alternative provisions also set out lengthy procedures where a minor is seeking an abortion.

Governor Gordon's Signing Letter (full text) questions the constitutionality of the new law. It says in part:

Despite the upright, moral intentions of HEA 29, I believe this act very likely puts us back in the all too familiar and unfortunate territory of pro-life litigation....

The central obstacle remains the Wyoming Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 1, Section 38 of the Wyoming Constitution in State v. Johnson...

In the Johnson case, the Wyoming Supreme Court by a vote of 4-1 held that Wyoming's nearly total abortion ban and its medication abortion ban violate Art. I, §38, of the Wyoming Constitution which provides that every competent adult has the right to make his or her health care decision, subject to reasonable and necessary restrictions imposed by the legislature. (See prior posting).

The Governor's signing letter also said that he would have preferred if the law had contained exceptions for rape and incest.

WyoFile reports on these developments.

Wednesday, March 11, 2026

County Employee Sues Over Denial of Religious Accommodation So He Could Avoid Celebrating Pride Month

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court by an employee of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works alleging that the county violated Title VII as well as the 1st and 14th Amendments and California law by denying him a religious accommodation so he would not have to celebrate Pride Month. The complaint (full text) in Batman v. Los Angeles County, (CD CA, filed 3/10/2026), alleges in part:

4. Beginning in March 2023, the County directed all of its government departments to ensure that the “Pride Progress Flag” was flown at every government department.... The policy revisions also directed the government offices to adopt ways to demonstrate that all government offices celebrate so-called “Pride Month” and make its celebration overt, express, and universal.

5. As a result of his sincerely held religious beliefs and a conflict with his employer’s open and notorious celebration of something Batman considers a sin, Batman requested a simple accommodation of working remotely during the one month of the year that his employment requirements conflict with his sincerely held religious beliefs.....

82. Rather than provide Batman a reasonable accommodation that was plainly available and not burdensome to anyone, Batman was instructed that he could simply use the back entrance....

83. The Department also suggested to Batman that he seek mental health counseling for any distress he may feel as a result of the conflict between his sincerely held religious beliefs and the Department’s denial of his requested accommodation.... In other words, the Department suggested to Batman that his religious beliefs required mental health counseling rather than accommodation.

The complaint sets out at length the Biblical basis for plaintiff's beliefs.

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

Federal Jury Awards Muslim Inmates $667,000 After Guards Violently Disrupted Their Prayers

In a press release, CAIR Legal Defense Fund announced that on Monday a jury in federal district court in the Eastern District of Missouri has awarded $667,000 in damages to eight Muslim inmates whose prayer gathering was broken up by prison guards who pepper-sprayed them. The complaint (full text) in Clemons v. Precythe, (ED MO, filed 3/2/2023), alleged in part:

1. With the permission of state prison guards and officials, nine Muslims gathered for prayer on the evening of February 28, 2021. They did so in their housing unit, just as they had hundreds of times in the months preceding the sadistic, violent attack that gives rise to this action.

2. As Plaintiffs ... stood shoulder to shoulder in prayer, out of the blue, Defendant Basham ordered that there be no more praying in the housing unit. Two plaintiffs—Kent and Smith—abruptly stopped their prayers and stepped away. The others sought to quickly finish up. Nevertheless, five were pepper sprayed and one was viciously beaten, just because they prayed.

3. Viewing Muslims as nothing more than a gang, more than a dozen guards participated in this violent episode. The brutality began as an effort to disrupt Muslims praying together but morphed into a protracted effort to punish those who prayed—dispersing Plaintiffs throughout the state via transfers and otherwise retaliating against them.