President Sends Rosh Hashanah Greetings

Rosh Hashanah begins this evening at sundown. Today the White House posted a Presidential Message (full text) offering greetings to the Jewish community on the occasion. The Message reads:

Melania and I send our warmest greetings to the entire Jewish community on Rosh Hashanah—the Jewish New Year and the first of the High Holy Days.

The Jewish community around the world marks the anniversary of when the Almighty created Adam and Eve and the story of humanity began.  These two days open a solemn season of prayer, repentance, and spiritual renewal in preparation for Yom Kippur. 

My Administration reaffirms our steadfast commitment to ushering in a historic renewal of faith across our country, eliminating the scourge of anti-Semitism, and defending the sacred right of religious liberty for every single American.

May you be inscribed in the Book of Life. Wishing you a Happy, Healthy, and Sweet New Year!

Court Enjoins Enforcement Against Synagogue's Voluntary Security Team of Ban on Firearms in Houses of Worship

In Silver Spring Jewish Center, Inc. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, (D MD, Sept. 10, 2026), a Maryland federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement against plaintiffs of Montgomery County's ban on possession of firearms in their place of worship. The court however refused to issue a broader injunction against other portions of the Ordinance.  Silver Spring Jewish Center is an Orthodox synagogue that has implemented its own security plan which includes a trained, armed security team made up of volunteer synagogue members. The county Ordinance impacts those volunteers and also prevents the synagogue's rabbi who walks to synagogue on the Sabbath for religious reasons from carrying a firearm because he walks past other places of public assembly. The court concluded that a portion of the Ordinance likely violates both the Second Amendment and the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise clause. The court said in part:

... [T]he sources on which Defendants rely do not demonstrate that the historical analogues for firearm restrictions in places of worship were well-accepted....

Therefore, SSJC and Rabbi Shapiro, at this preliminary stage, have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits as to their as-applied Second Amendment claim of the Code’s firearm restrictions as to places of worship....

SSJC and Rabbi Shapiro allege that “[h]alachically, reliance on volunteer members of the community, rather than outsourcing the religious obligation to others, is preferred under Jewish Law” and cite the following sources in support: Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin 41a; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 250:1....

... The beliefs of SSJC and Rabbi Shapiro are sincere.  Accordingly, at this stage, SSJC and Rabbi Shapiro have demonstrated a burden on their sincere religious practice. Because SSJC and Rabbi Shapiro have shown a burden on their religious exercise, the next step is to evaluate whether the law is neutral and generally applicable....

... [B]ecause the challenged provisions of Chapter 57 apply differently as to places of worship in comparison to not only fraternal lodges, but numerous other privately owned businesses and properties, these portions of the Code are not neutral and generally applicable....

Overall, Plaintiffs demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits as to their as-applied Free Exercise challenge to Section 57-1(1)(B) and Section 57-11(a) regarding the restriction of firearms in their respective place of worship....

The claim regarding all buffer zones, however, fails at this stage.  Because Rabbi Shapiro must walk to the synagogue on certain days, and thus cannot avail himself of the provisions in Section 57-10—which allows vehicle transportation of firearms even within 100 yards of a place of assembly ...he contends that the buffer zones for other places of public assembly suffer from the same constitutional infirmities as the ban on firearm possession within a place of worship.  That does not necessarily follow.  A different provision is at work—one that applies to all designated places of public assembly.  The 100-yard restriction is a neutral and generally applied provision and only a rational basis must be shown. 

SSJC and Rabbi Shapiro allege that the prohibition on carrying firearms at houses of worship violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by “telling religious institutions what items worshippers may ‘possess’ in places of worship and how religious institutions may (and may not) protect worshippers during their worship.” ...  Plaintiffs argue that the choice of how a religious institution protects itself is an internal management matter that is “essential to [its] central mission.”...

... [A] single trial court decision is an insufficient basis on which to conclude that a religious organization’s need to provide security translates into the absolute right to provide that security through an armed volunteer group.  In any event, at this early stage, with the likelihood of success findings on the other First Amendment claim and the Second Amendment claim as to houses of worship, it is not necessary to proceed further on this claim....

Links to some of the pleadings in the case are available here. New Civil Liberties Alliance issued a press release announcing the decision.

LDS Church Not Negligent in Failure to Act Against Sex Abuse by Church Elder Against His Daughter

In Doe v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (D OR, Sept. 8, 2026), an Oregon federal district court dismissed negligence claims against the LDS Church brought by the survivor of sexual abuse perpetrated by her father, Craig Ford, while he was an Elder in the Church. Plaintiff was adopted by the Ford family in 2014 and Craig Ford began sexually abusing her a year later when she was 15 years old. In April 2016, Jennifer Ford reported her husband's misconduct” to an LDS Stake President. In February 2017, an LDS bishop was informed about allegations against Craig and that he was living alone with his daughter. No LDS official took any action. The court said in part:

Plaintiff argues that there are several sources that create a duty that required Defendants to protect her from her father’s abuse: (1) common law ordinary negligence; (2) special relationship or circumstances, including a statutory duty to report and negligent performance of an undertaking; and (3) a failure to warn.... However, Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to show Defendants owed Plaintiff a legal duty to protect her from abuse by her father that occurred outside of any church function or facility....

Plaintiff unconvincingly argues that Defendants’ failure to act was in fact an affirmative action that created a foreseeable risk of additional sexual, verbal, mental, and emotional abuse.  No reasonable factfinder could agree based on the alleged facts....

Because Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient for an ordinary negligence claim, she must allege the existence of a special relationship or special circumstances that imposed a duty on Defendants....

An allegation of church membership by itself does not create a special relationship.... 

While at times Plaintiff was under the supervision of Defendants, she does not allege that any of the abuse she suffered occurred during those times of supervision. Any special duty of care that existed when Plaintiff was under the control of Defendants ended when she returned to her father’s custody....

... And Plaintiff does not point to controlling authority that convinces this Court that Oregon’s reporting statutes alone are sufficient to manufacture a negligence claim under a special negligence theory....

If Plaintiff’s claim was permitted to advance, any well-intentioned entity with generalized policies aimed at preventing and responding to sexual abuse could be subject to liability for harm caused outside their supervisory control. Plaintiff’s preferred understanding of negligence law would likely discourage such entities from developing or maintaining any sexual abuse-related policies at all. This Court is not willing at this time to test such a prediction....

Finally, Plaintiff asserts that because Defendants had specialized knowledge of the abuse and its severe, foreseeable consequences, they had a duty to warn Plaintiff of long-term emotional and psychological injuries resulting from continued abuse....

... [A] trier of fact could not reasonably find that a warning from Defendants would have prevented the harm. Plaintiff already knew of the harm (e.g., continued sexual abuse by her father) by the time Defendants learned about the abuse. Moreover, government authorities were already investigating the alleged abuse by the time Defendants first learned about it....

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Religious Greetings at Gate of Air Force Base Provokes Controversy with Defense Secretary

 A new controversy over religion in the military has erupted between Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the advocacy group Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF). According to an MRFF, by Sept. 2 it had received 27 complaints from military personnel at Kirtland Air Force Base that guards at the base entrance were greeting everyone entering with "God bless you." MRFF in turn complained to the Air Base and the greetings stopped.

Responding on Sept. 4 with posts on X, Secretary of War Hegseth said:

The MRFF is a radical anti-Christian, pro-atheist group that attacks any/all faith inside the @DeptofWar. We will never cave to them. The @usairforce will confront this.

And Air Force Chief of Staff, General Ken Wilsbach posted:

Defenders at our gates not only protect our installations by also welcome everyone entering courteously and professionally. The Department of the Air Force's Policies are unchanged. We are not restricting the use of common greetings while entering our bases.

Military.com reports on the controversy.

Maine's Compulsory School Vaccination Law Upheld

In We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Makin, (D ME, Sept. 8, 2026), a Maine federal district court rejected free exercise and Establishment Clause challenges to Maine's compulsory vaccination law for school children. Plaintiff contended that Maine's removal of religious exemptions from the law render it unconstitutional. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs argue 20-A M.R.S. § 6355 is neither neutral nor generally applicable and, separately, that even if it is neutral and generally applicable, it substantially interferes with Mr. Childs’s right to direct his son’s religious upbringing .... 

... [W]hen the Maine Legislature repealed the religious and philosophical beliefs exemption in 2019, it repealed all personal belief exemptions, “and thus did not single out religion alone.” ... Neither the Legislature’s choice to eliminate certain exemptions, nor the process by which it did so, demonstrates hostility to religion....

... [T]he medical exemption serves rather than undermines Maine’s interest in health and safety. ...

Second, the medical exemption is bounded in a way a religious exemption is not. It rests on an individualized, evidence-based judgment from a licensed provider—subject to professional discipline—and statewide medical exemption rates have stayed below 1.5% in every surveyed grade cohort since 2018....

... [B]ecause Plaintiffs have identified neither a comparable secular activity treated more favorably than religious conduct nor a mechanism for individualized exemptions, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claim that § 6355 is not generally applicable. ...

Mr. Childs ... argue[s] that § 6355 burdens his right to direct his son’s religious upbringing because compliance would require him to authorize a vaccination he considers an act of sin, thereby undermining his ability to instruct his son in their shared faith and its demands.... On this record, the Court finds that Mr. Childs holds this belief sincerely. Even so, Plaintiffs have not shown that the burden Mr. Childs describes shares the same character of the burden Yoder, Mahmoud, and Mirabelli address. Those cases do not measure a burden by how heavily it presses on the parent who bears it. They measure whether the State has stepped into the relationship between parent and child to compete for the child’s own beliefs. In each case, the challenged practice reached the child directly, through the school itself, by exposing the child to—or facilitating—values contrary to those the parents sought to instill.....

5th Circuit Hears Arguments on Ending Mailing of Mifepristone While Litigation Over FDA Rule Moves Forward

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in State of Louisiana v. FDA, (5th Cir., argued 9/9/2026) (audio of full oral arguments). In the case, Louisiana challenged the FDA's 2023 ruling that removed the requirement that the abortion drug mifepristone be prescribed only after an in-person visit with a doctor. Initial skirmishing that went up to the Supreme Court focused on whether a court would freeze the FDA's 2023 ruling while litigation went forward. The 5th Circuit had barred telehealth prescribing and mail order delivery of the abortion drug mifepristone while it considered the case. The Supreme Court granted a stay of the 5th Circuit's order. In yesterday's argument, Louisiana again asked the 5th Circuit to issue an order under 5 USC §705(a) that would suspend while appeals move forward the FDA's removal of the requirement for in-person dispensing of the abortion drug.

Courthouse News Service reports on the arguments.

EEOC Outlines Its Progress in Fighting Religious Discrimination

On Monday, the EEOC issued a press release (full text) titled EEOC Delivers on Administration Priorities and President Trump’s Executive Orders. A significant portion of the release is devoted to the EEOC's protection of religious freedom since the beginning of the Trump Administration. The press release says in part:

Since January 2025, the EEOC has filed 16 religious discrimination lawsuits and recovered over $63 million on behalf of religious workers via public and private pre-litigation voluntary resolutions, as well as litigation settlements.

It goes on to detail over 30 cases involving anti-Christian bias or antisemitism in which the EEOC since January 2025 has filed suit or in which it has obtained a significant settlement in conciliation proceedings or after filing suit or in which it has obtained a favorable court judgment.

Other portions of the press release deal with the EEOC's attacks on DEI-related race and sex discrimination; its protection of American workers from preferences for foreign workers; protection of women's sex-based rights at work; and reform of the complaint process for federal workers.

Supreme Court Review Sought in Denial of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Requirement for Student Attending Online School

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed last week with the U.S. Supreme Court in Perry v. Marteney, (Sup.Ct., cert. filed 9/4/2026). In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that West Virginia's law that requires children attending school in the state to be vaccinated against a number of infectious diseases may be constitutionally applied to a student attending the state's online public school over the religious objections of the student's parents, even though the vaccination requirement does not apply to home schooled children or those educated in learning pods or in microschools. The 4th Circuit said in part: "[T]he Perrys do not allege that K.P.’s desire to attend the Virtual Academy is religiously motivated, so this is merely an instance of West Virginia treating some secular activity more favorably than other secular activity...." (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

New Jersey Expands Protections for Providers and Recipients of Reproductive Health Care; Catholic Conference Provides Guidance for Protesters

On August 20, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill signed S2260 (full text) into law. The governor's press release announcing the signing of the bill describes it:

The legislation, S2260/A2218, signed today expands existing protections for reproductive healthcare patients and providers. New protections include:

Helping patients physically access care by making it a crime to injure, threaten, intimidate, or physically block patients or providers, or to damage property in an effort to interfere with reproductive healthcare services;

Empowering patients and providers by allowing them to take legal action against individuals who interfere with their access to or delivery of protected care; and

Protecting healthcare providers from professional penalties or adverse actions involving their medical malpractice insurance for providing reproductive healthcare that is legal in New Jersey. 

The legislation also expands New Jersey’s shield laws by expressly including gender-affirming care in the definition of protected reproductive healthcare services. This extends existing protections to patients seeking and providers delivering gender-affirming care in New Jersey. These protections include:

Protecting patient information related to reproductive healthcare from disclosure without prior authorization, as provided by law;

Restricting State entities from assisting certain out-of-state investigations or legal proceedings that seek to impose liability for providing or receiving protected reproductive healthcare; and

Protecting professional licenses by preventing licensing boards from taking action against a provider solely for providing protected reproductive healthcare.

In response, the New Jersey Catholic Conference has issued guidance for anti-abortion protesters in a document titled FAQs Regarding S2260 & Pro-life Activities. It advises in part:

Our call to be a peaceful, prayerful presence for mothers and their children has not changed. This new law does not stop you from praying, witnessing, or offering help outside a facility — it simply draws a clear line around a small set of specific actions. You are encouraged to be aware of that line, stay confidently on the right side of it, and continue this important ministry without fear....

YOU ARE FREE TO: Stand and pray on the public sidewalk; Hold signs; Offer a pamphlet or speak to someone once, as they approach; Sing, read Scripture, or hold a peaceful, stationary vigil; Film, photograph, or post about your own vigil

SIMPLY AVOID: Blocking or standing in a driveway, entrance, or exit; Following or continuing to talk to someone after they say no; Touching, grabbing, or making physical contact with anyone; Threatening, or using/threatening force against, anyone; Physically stopping someone from moving; Making it difficult for someone to access the facility; Damaging the facility's or anyone's property....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Shucheng Wang, Law and Religion as an Interdisciplinary Field in Legal Education: Reflections from the Australian School (July 30, 2026).
• Craig B. Mousin & Chris Inserra, Messengers of Hope: Responding to the Voices of the Persecuted to Reverse the Erosion of Refugee Rights (February 09, 2026).
• Naomi R. Cahn, Maxine Eichner & Mary E. Ziegler, "For Their Benefit": The Lost History of Parental Consent and Minors' Rights, 114 Calif. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2026).
• Emir Dini, Beyond the EEOC: The Case for Privatizing Civil-rights Enforcement, (September 03, 2026).
• Jessica Clarke, B.P.J.'s Deviation From Heightened Scrutiny, Yale Law Journal Forum (forthcoming)).
• Erik Encarnacion, Discrimination as Bad Faith, (August 28, 2026).
• Samuel L. Bray, Scandal as a Concept in Anglican Canon Law, (August 26, 2026).

From SSRN (Legal Issues in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America):

• Natia Nakashidze, The Intersection of Civil and Ecclesiastical Orders and Its Property and Status Implications in Georgia, (August 29, 2026).
• Syed Muaz Shah, The Age of Marriage in Pakistan: An Islamic Jurisprudential Perspective from Recent Rulings of Federal Shariat Court and their Impact on Legal Landscape, (Human Rights Review, Volume IX, 2026, pp. 38-63).
• Divya Parmar, Recognition Undone: The Transgender Persons Amendment Act, 2026 and the Return of Social Morality, (Mainstream, Vol. 64, No. 16, 12 June 2026).
• Ayomikun Kuewumi, The Legal Status of Lgbtqia+ Persons in Nigeria: A Critical Examination of Criminalisation, Fundamental Rights and Human Rights, (July 27, 2026).
• Paulo Gracino Junior, Tiago Meireles do Carmo Morais & Mayra Goulart da Silva, Waiting for the Barbarians: Neoliberalism, Antagonism and the Discursive Construction of Evangelical Masculinism in Brazil, (August 31, 2026).

From SmartCILP:

• Songfeng Li, In Defense of the Ten Commandments in Public Spaces: An Analysis Based on the Supreme Court's New Judicial Standard, 79 Arkansas Law Review 41-80 (2026).
• Jack Thorlin, Federalist Politics and the Elusive Original Meaning of the Free Exercise Clause, 75 Catholic University Law Review 476-539 (2026).
•  Zachary Runge, Comment. The Ministerial Exception and Defamation: Navigating Churches' Autonomy and Their Communications, 53 Pepperdine Law Review 363-392 (2026).

Catholic Sisters Challenge Illinois End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act

Several orders of Catholic sisters as well as Chicago Archbishop Cupich filed suit yesterday in an Illinois federal district court challenging the constitutionality of requiring them to comply with Illinois End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act. The 93-page complaint (full text) in Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm, Inc. v. Prince, (ND IL, filed 9/3/2026) alleges in part:

9. Through its euphemistically-named End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act, and the Act’s incorporation of burdens imposed by the Health Care Right of Conscience Act, Illinois has conscripted even religious healthcare providers and institutions to participate in the provision of physician-assisted suicide. 

10. Beginning September 12, medical providers caring for terminally ill Illinois residents will have to proactively inform and counsel their patients about their “option” to kill themselves....

12. These national and international norms against doctors raising assisted suicide with their dying patients exist for good reason. Public health researchers have extensively documented that an increase in the public discussion of suicide is often followed by an increase in suicide rates....  

23. The Court can address these problems by enforcing federal law and the First Amendment and finding that Illinois cannot coerce religious providers in this way. That approach would leave the End-of-Life Options Act generally in force. Alternatively, the Court could also invalidate the entire End-of-Life Options Act, because it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Supremacy Clause. 

24. Either way, Illinois’ effort to control religious providers and their patients is unlawful and cannot stand.

Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Catholic World Report discusses the lawsuit.

United Methodist Parent Body Sues Local Church Over Amendments to Governing Documents

Last month, the parent body of the United Methodist church in Texas filed suit in a Texas state trial court against a Dallas Methodist congregation alleging that the congregation improperly amended its governing documents to eliminate its affiliation with the parent body. The amended petition (full text Petition) in Horizon Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church v. Highland Park Methodist Church, Inc., (TX Dist. Ct., filed 8/18/2026) alleges in part:

24. On November 16, 2022, without seeking or obtaining consent from the District Superintendent as required by the [Book of] Discipline or providing any notice to the Charge Conference or the Conference, HP Corporation filed its Restated Certificate of Formation .... In pertinent part, the Restated Certificate changed the corporation's name to Highland Park Methodist Church and removed all references to The United Methodist Church, the Conference, and the Discipline.

25. HP Corporation also adopted amended bylaws in November 2022 which ... i) removed all references to the United Methodist Church, the Conference and the Discipline; ii) removed the rights of HP Church's Professing Members to participate in any matter "affecting or involving the church"; iii) reserved for the Church Council the right to determine the denomination of HP Church; and iv) provided that the Church Council is chosen only by itself and answerable only to itself....

27. Despite [this]... HP Church still holds itself out as a United Methodist Church....

30. ... The Conference maintains that a decision to withdraw from a religious faith or denomination is a personal one, guaranteed by both the United States Constitution, and -- in Texas-- by the Texas Constitution. However, the question here is whether a governing body of a local church may formally attempt to sever the church's connection to a denomination while continuing to accept the benefits and identity of that denomination.

Plaintiff asks for a declaratory judgment setting out the rights, status and other legal relations between the congregation and the parent Conference. After asking for that relief, the Petition goes on to say:

34. The matters above involve initial determination of neutral questions of law regarding he rights and status of the entities involved.... However, answers to certain of these questions implicate ecclesiastical matters; the internal affairs..., the governance..., and the administration of the United Methodist Church and its local churches.

D Magazine reports on the lawsuit.

Court Allows Suit by Jewish School Denied Zoning Approval to Move Ahead

Bet Midrash Ohr Hachayim Hakadosh, Inc., v. City of Hollywood, Florida, (FL Bkr., Aug. 28, 2026), is a civil rights action being pursued in federal bankruptcy court because plaintiff is in Chapter 11 federal bankruptcy proceedings and the case is related to those proceedings. The court said in part:

Plaintiff Bet Midrash Ohr Hachayim Hakadosh, Inc., is a Jewish religious nonprofit that operates a synagogue. It purchased commercial property ... in Hollywood, Florida with the intention of opening a K–12 Jewish day school. To do so, it needed a special exception under the City of Hollywood’s Zoning and Land Development Regulations. The City denied Bet Midrash’s special exception application. Bet Midrash contends the denial was unconstitutional – that the City applied a zoning scheme that has already been found unconstitutional in another case by a District Court Judge in this District, and that the denial violated its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Defendant City of Hollywood moved to dismiss the complaint ..., arguing that the special exception criteria are facially neutral and generally applicable, that they are subject only to rational basis review....

... [T]he City argues that the as-applied challenge ... is deficient because Bet Midrash does not allege that the City applied the special exception criteria in a manner that was hostile to its expressive activity, or that the City selectively enforced the special exception provision against it.... Second, Bet Midrash argues that it is engaged in First Amendment protected activity – operating a synagogue and seeking to expand into religious education – and that the Free Exercise Clause protects that activity...

The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. Religious education – particularly the operation of a Jewish day school by a religious nonprofit that also operates a synagogue – is a form of religiously motivated conduct protected by the Free Exercise Clause.  At the pleading stage, the Court accepts these allegations as true. Whether Bet Midrash can ultimately prove that its proposed school constitutes protected religious exercise is a question for another day. For now, the allegations are sufficient....

Maine Supreme Court Upholds Ending Mother's Sharing in Control of Daughter's Religious Upbringing

In Bickford v. Bradeen, (ME Sup. Ct., Sept. 1, 2026), the Maine Supreme Court upheld a trial court's decision to modify an order originally issued in 2013 that gave the separated parents of an infant daughter shared parental rights on all matters. In modifying the order, the trial court concluded that the parties were unable to co-parent on matters of the child's religious upbringing (as well as on medical decision making for the child). The Amended Order allocated religious decision making (as well as medical decision making) to the father. The mother contended that the Amended Order's provisions on religious decision making violated her 1st Amendment rights. The Maine Supreme Court upheld the trial court's modifications, though on different grounds than the trial court used. The Supreme Court said in part:

... [W]e determine that the [trial] court erred by applying strict scrutiny.  We instead conclude that courts may always use the best-interest standard to allocate parental rights between two parents, and that the Constitution protects the religious rights of parents by prohibiting religious bias or hostility from influencing a court’s best-interest analysis.

The Maine Supreme Court described the evidence that led to the trial court's conclusion: 

[The mother, Emily] Bickford started attending church services at Calvary Chapel Greater Portland in May 2021, bringing the child to multiple services per week....

 ... Calvary Chapel teaches the Bible “verse by verse, chapter by chapter.”  This entails sermons that include ... “quite vivid description[s]” of Hell....  [The church's pastor] testified that he preaches about the “Second Coming of Christ,” which will involve “seven years of . . . pure hell on earth under the persecution of ...  the Antichrist” for those who have not “accept[ed] the terms of God.”  

The child has experienced fear and anxiety associated with these teachings.  The child has asked [her father, Mathew] Bradeen a lot of questions about Heaven and Hell and about why Bradeen and his other child would not be in Heaven with her.  The child has left notes around Bradeen’s house because she fears that the Second Coming is approaching and that Bradeen will be left behind.  The child has experienced panic attacks related to these topics.

Bradeen reached out to Bickford to express his concerns.... Bickford’s response was that she lives under God’s law, not the state’s law.  Bickford does not believe the child is, or should be, experiencing any anxiety, because she and the child “just pray” and “give it to God.”...

In a press release, Liberty Counsel that represents the mother said it will petition The U.S. Supreme Court for review.  AP reports on the decision.