Religion Clause

Tuesday, July 21, 2026

Catholic Sisters Sue To Invalidate New York's Assisted Suicide Counseling Requirement

Last week, four Orders of Catholic Sisters along with the Catholic Diocese and Bishop of Rockville Centre, New York, filed suit in a New York federal district court challenging, at least as applied to them, the constitutionality of New York's Medical Aid in Dying Act as it interacts with the state's Palliative Care Information Act. Labelling these a "Suicide Counseling Mandate", the 102-page complaint (full text) in Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm, Inc. v. James, (ND NY, filed 7/17/2026) alleges in part:

13. The many New York nurse practitioners, doctors, mental health professionals, hospitals, and care homes with religious or moral objections to participating in assisted suicide will have nowhere to go, because New York’s purported “opt-out” is among the narrowest in the nation, and doesn’t apply at all to independent assisted living facilities, including those run by the Benedictine Sisters. The Catholic patients who wish to die without being offered the chance to kill themselves at their lowest moment will be left out in the cold.....

15. First, the First Amendment’s protected sphere of church autonomy requires the government to respect and stay out of matters of governance within religious institutions, such as how the Catholic Church chooses to implement its beliefs on the sanctity of human life and the decision of religious communities to form themselves around those same principles.

16. Second, its protection of the free exercise of religion prohibits the government from burdening the sincere religious beliefs of Plaintiffs and the patients they serve unless the state is furthering an interest of the highest order and using the least restrictive means to do so—an exceedingly high bar Defendants cannot meet.

17. Third, its protections against religious gerrymanders prohibit the government from enacting legal burdens that fall uniquely on religious adherents—such as those who object to providing assisted suicide.

18. Fourth, its protections against compelled speech prevent the government from forcing Catholic doctors and nurses to speak the government’s preferred, supportive message of assisted suicide.

19. And fifth, its protections for freedom of association allow the Catholic Church, its various communities, and the patients they serve, to organize themselves into like-minded communities with the same values and beliefs—the mission of which is to live faithfully according to those beliefs, for however long or short a time....

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

Britain Proposes Reform of Laws on Religious and Non-Religious Marriage Ceremonies

On July 16, the United Kingdom's Ministry of Justice published an Open Consultation Document titled Tying the Knot: Reforming Weddings Law in England and Wales (full text). The forward to the Document reads in part:

Current weddings law is still built on rules dating back to the 18th and 19th centuries. It belongs to a different age and no longer reflects the diverse society we are today. The result is a system that is complicated, inconsistent and sometimes unfair, treating different groups in different ways.

The Anglican, Jewish and Quaker faiths each have their own legal framework, while every other religious group must fit within a single set of rules, which often fail to reflect their traditions. Civil weddings are governed by another set of rules altogether. And non-religious belief organisations, including Humanists, cannot conduct legally binding weddings at all.

The law also places outdated restrictions on where people can marry and how their ceremony can be conducted.

This complex mix of laws can cause real problems for couples, particularly those who want a religious wedding. Some feel forced to pay for two different ceremonies, one legal and one belief based. Some enter into a marriage that isn’t legally recognised. Others feel they have little choice but to marry in a way which doesn’t reflect their beliefs, marring what should be a joyous occasion....

Non-religious couples also face unnecessary challenges, including being confined to choosing a location from a limited range of approved buildings. Yet there is no reason a wedding taking place on a beach, in a forest, or in a family garden can’t carry the same dignity and importance of a wedding held in a more traditional venue....

These reforms will create a modern framework that reflects our society today – giving couples more choice over who officiates over their wedding, where they can marry and how they celebrate one of the most important days of their lives....

But we are also clear that reform must not come at the expense of safeguards. Our proposals preserve the dignity and significance of marriage..... We will also strengthen protections against forced, predatory and sham marriages – to ensure marriages are always entered into freely, with informed consent, and are not used to exploit vulnerable people or gain unfair advantage....

The proposals are open for online comment from the public until September 24. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Monday, July 20, 2026

Texas Court Holds That Hindu Temple's Bylaws Are Invalid

In Sri Shirdi Sai Baba Temple of Austin v. Lam, (TX Bus. Ct., July 14, 2026), the Texas Business Court's holding that a non-profit corporation's Certificate of Formation controls over by-laws that conflict with the Certificate of Formation settled a complex battle over control of a Hindu Temple. The Temple's Certificate of Formation placed management of the Temple in a board of directors and stated that the Temple "will have no members." In 2024, the Temple's Board resigned in the wake of a fraudulent donation-matching scheme that was discovered at the Temple. The new Board adopted Bylaws that purported to vest control of the Temple in a General Body of Trustees, defined as devotees who contribute a one-time membership fee of $20,000. An attorney advised the Board that the bylaws were invalid. Nevertheless, one faction went ahead and held an election of a new Board by the Trustees. The court refused to issue a declaratory judgment that would have validated the election, saying in part:

Texas courts apply a “neutral principles methodology,” under which they lack jurisdiction to decide, and “must defer to the decisions of appropriate ecclesiastical decision makers” with respect to, “questions of an ecclesiastical or inherently religious nature,” but “apply neutral principles of law to non-ecclesiastical issues involving religious entities,” including issues of corporate formation and governance, “in the same manner as they apply those principles to other entities and issues.” This case presents a non-ecclesiastical issue of corporate governance that can be decided by neutral application of Texas corporate law, such that the Court has jurisdiction.

Friday, July 17, 2026

Pastor's Suit for Breach of Contract and Defamation Is Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Lovelace v. Mt. Zion Baptist Church, (MI App., July 15, 2026), a Michigan state appellate court, invoking the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, affirmed a trial court's dismissal of contract and defamation claims by a pastor whose employment contract was cancelled by a vote of church members. The court said in part:

We first address plaintiff’s ... theory ... that the church breached the agreement by terminating him for actions he was contractually permitted to take. This theory would require a civil court to decide whether church leadership correctly concluded that plaintiff had “abused his authority”.... That inquiry would require the court to decide questions of church governance and authority. “Under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, apparently derived from both First Amendment religion clauses, civil courts may not redetermine the correctness of ... some decision relating to government of the religious polity.”...

Here, plaintiff asks us to determine that the church and its leadership exceeded their authority when they called the April 2022 meetings to discuss his future as senior pastor and invited guest pastors to oversee those meeting....

Under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, a civil court may not decide those questions because it would generally be inconsistent with religious liberty for civil courts to “inquire into the regularity of the proceedings of church tribunals having cognizance of such matters....

... [E]ven the seemingly straightforward question whether the termination process in plaintiff’s employment agreement was followed cannot be answered here through neutral legal principles without infringing on the religious liberty of the church and its members....

... [P]laintiff’s tortious-interference claim fails because he cannot establish that the individual defendants were third parties to the employment agreement. And even if plaintiff could satisfy that threshold requirement, adjudicating the breach and justification elements of his claim would require the resolution of ecclesiastical questions...

Plaintiff’s defamation theory is that the individual defendants stated that he lacked authority to access the church’s bank accounts, and that this statement was false because his employment agreement gave him broad authority over the church’s spiritual and secular affairs....

For the statement to be actionable, however, a civil court would have to determine that it was false.... The statement ... would be provable as false only if the trial court parsed the agreement and determined which powers belonged to the senior pastor.

2nd Circuit: Supreme Court's Title VII Test Was Not Applied by Trial Court in Religious Accommodation Case

In Bergin v. New York State Unified Court System, (2d Cir., July 15, 2026), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a York federal district court's ruling in favor of a court officer who was denied a religious exemption from the New York State Court System's Covid vaccine mandate. The 2nd Circuit held that the district court had applied an old Title VII test developed by the 2nd Circuit instead of the test developed by the Supreme Court in its 2015 Abercrombie & Fitch case. It remanded the case for the district court to apply the correct test. The court said in part:

In Abercrombie, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff need not inform her employer of the need for accommodation in order to state a Title VII claim, but that she must demonstrate that the employer acted out of a desire to avoid offering an accommodation. Our prior rule—which did include an employer-knowledge requirement and did not expressly require a showing of motive—was abrogated by Abercrombie.

The Western New York Daily Record reports on the decision.

Thursday, July 16, 2026

White House Posts Presidential Message on Birthday of St. Francis Xavier Cabrini

Yesterday, the White House posted a "Presidential Message on the Birthday of Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini," which reads in part:

... Arriving in New York City in 1889 with nothing but their unshakable faith in Almighty God, Mother Cabrini and her sisters opened hospitals, orphanages, and schools that comforted the sick, cared for children, and provided for the weary. Mother Cabrini’s work rekindled the faith of thousands of Catholics and prepared generations to flourish as proud Americans....

... Her tireless pursuit of the common good, her unceasing devotion to Jesus Christ, and her measureless generosity embody the very virtues that have made America the greatest force for good the world has ever known.

In recognition of her incredible life of service to God and country, Pope Pius XII canonized Mother Cabrini in 1946, making her the first American citizen ever proclaimed as a Catholic saint. As we celebrate her enduring legacy today, we pledge to safeguard the precious freedoms she cherished so deeply, to usher in a historic resurgence of faith across our land, and to steward the full glory of the American promise for generations to come.

European Parliament Resolution Condemns Abduction, Forced Conversion and Child Marriage of Religious Minorities in Pakistan

On July 9, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution (full text) on the abduction, forced conversion and child marriage of Hindu and Christian girls in Pakistan. It reads in part:

A. whereas Maria Shahbaz, a Christian girl from Lahore, was 13 when she was abducted and forced to convert to Islam and marry her abductor;... whereas ... in March 2026 Pakistan’s Federal Constitutional Court upheld her conversion and marriage and ordered her to remain with her abductor;

B. whereas there is a persistent and well-documented pattern in Pakistan of abduction, forced conversion and forced marriage of underage girls from Hindu, Christian and other religious minorities...

C. whereas the Pakistani Government recently proposed a national framework to end child marriage aimed at strengthening the protection of minors; whereas legislation against child marriage raising the minimum age of marriage to 18 years was adopted in some provinces, which, however, lack enforcement;...

[The European Parliament] 1. Strongly condemns the abduction, forced conversion to Islam, child marriage and ruling in the case of Maria Shahbaz, and similar abuses of underage girls from religious minorities in Pakistan;...

4. Strongly condemns the systematic persecution of Christians in Pakistan and stresses that the abduction, forced conversion and child marriage of Maria Shahbaz must be seen in the wider context of discrimination, violence and intimidation faced by the country’s Christian community; demands that Pakistan repeal its blasphemy laws and end the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities....

7. Encourages Pakistan to create a national mechanism for handling complaints from families of abducted or forcibly converted girls from minorities, and calls for comprehensive support for victims, ...; calls for addressing the root causes of forced marriage and conversion, including gender inequality, poverty, social exclusion and discrimination based on caste, gender and religion....

Faith and Freedom reports on the Resolution.

2026 Index of States' Legal Protection of Religious Liberty Released

The First Liberty Institute this week released its fifth annual report on Religious Liberty in the States (full text). According to First Liberty:

The 2026 index evaluates 50 distinct legal protections, grouped into 20 safeguards, that states can adopt to support religious freedom in daily life from education and health care to family law, economic life, and religious practice. As with previous editions, the index tracks changes over time and ranks each state based on the percentage of possible safeguards it has adopted.

The top 5 states in this year's index are Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, Montana and Illinois.

Wednesday, July 15, 2026

11th Circuit Rejects Claim That Covid Requirements Violated Employees' Religious Beliefs; Criticizes Counsel's Briefing

In Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., (11th Cir., July 10, 2026), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by four employees of Atlas Air complaining about the company's policies on masks, testing and vaccination during the Covid pandemic. The court said in part:

The plaintiffs first allege that Atlas Air created a work environment hostile to their religious beliefs, in violation of Title VII. They say that Atlas Air’s “repeated attempts to coerce” them into getting vaccinated constituted “unwelcomed harassment.”...

... [P]laintiffs do not allege any facts indicating that Atlas Air intended to discriminate against their religious beliefs. In fact, the allegations suggest the opposite. Under its policy, Atlas Air exempted from its vaccine requirement employees who professed a sincere religious objection to the Covid-19 vaccine. Instead, they had to wear a mask at work and test once a month. The plaintiffs now seem to assert that these accommodations are also hostile to their religion. The problem with this argument is that there is nothing to back it up in the pleadings....

... [W]e have saved the worst for last. The plaintiffs’ counsel Anthony F. Sabatini’s filings are riddled with citations to nonexistent, “hallucinated” cases. His opening brief relies on at least eight such cases, including one purportedly decided by this Court. After the defendants identified this problem, Sabatini acknowledged in his (untimely) proposed reply brief that those citations were “erroneous or unverifiable,” and sought to withdraw his reliance on eight listed cases. At this point, things go from bad to worse: the eight cases Sabatini “withdrew” did not match a single one of the eight hallucinated cases in his opening brief. And not only were they not the right cases—all eight were also hallucinated....

Whatever the merits of artificial intelligence, it is no substitute for actual intelligence....

In a separate order, this Court, through the Chief Judge, will refer the matter to the Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct.

Artist's Suit Over Removal of Trump with Jesus Painting Is Dismissed

In Rose v. Arts Bonita, Inc., (MD FL, July 12, 2026), a Florida federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, a complaint against the city and the organizer of an art festival held in a public park in Bonita Springs, Florida. A painting of Jesus blessing President Trump, displayed at the festival by plaintiff Julia Rose, was removed by the festival organizer and Rose was told to leave. The court said in part:

To start, Rose has not alleged that the City took any direct action to infringe on her First Amendment rights. The City itself was not at the art festival. Rose does not claim that municipal employees asked her to leave, nor does she suggest they had any problem with her art. Instead, her grievance lies against a private organization and its director....

... [E]ven if the art festival's conduct could somehow be pinned on the City, Rose's claim runs into another wall. A municipality cannot be held liable simply because it ... permits an event whose organizers allegedly violate the Constitution. There is no respondeat superior liability for civil rights violations....

The court rejected plaintiff's claim under the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:

To be sure, getting removed from an art show because of religious content might look and feel like discrimination. But there is a fundamental difference between an act of discrimination and a government-imposed burden on the exercise of religion. ...

The Court concluded:

... [T]he Court cannot say a more carefully drafted pleading would be entirely devoid of merit. When a pro se plaintiff's complaint falls short, she generally gets another bite at the apple if a better-drafted version might state a claim.... So while the City's motion to dismiss is granted, the door is not slammed shut. Rose may file an amended complaint within fourteen days of this order.

Tuesday, July 14, 2026

Federal Court Certifies to Michigan Supreme Court Questions on Michigan's Abortion Discrimination Ban

In Right to Life of Michigan v. Nessel, (WD MI, July 10, 2026), two pro-life organizations, Right to Life of Michigan and Pregnancy Resource Center, brought a 1st Amendment challenge to 2023 amendments to Michigan's Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act. Among other things, those amendments expanded the definition of sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of the termination of a pregnancy. The state moved to dismiss the complaint claiming that there is no realistic threat of enforcement against these organizations. The court, in a 63-page opinion, concluded that whether there is a realistic threat of enforcement depends on how several provisions of the Act are interpreted. Therefore, it certified to the Michigan Supreme Court five interpretive questions on the applicability of the Act to organizations like plaintiffs.

The court said in part:

Defendants argue that ELCRA is narrow; in their view, the statute only prohibits discrimination against employees whose “medical history includes an abortion.”....

Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that ELCRA is broad. In their view, the statute not only prohibits adverse action based on the employee’s decision to terminate a pregnancy but rather extends as far as protecting employees that “advocat[e] on behalf of someone else’s right to” terminate a pregnancy..... Effectively, then, the statute would prohibit them from taking any adverse action against anyone who expresses pro-choice beliefs.

The questions that the court certified include whether the Act prohibits pro-life organizations from refusing to recruit, hire or employ, or recruit as volunteers, not only those who have had an abortion, but also those who advocate for abortion; those who associate with people who have received an abortion; or those who express pro-choice viewpoints? It also asked the same questions as to the ban on discrimination by public accommodations. Finally, it asks about excluding abortion coverage from health care packages.

The court issued a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo while the Michigan Supreme Court is considering the certified questions. The court observed:

If the Michigan Supreme Court concludes that ELCRA covers all of Plaintiffs’ conduct, they are likely to succeed on the merits of their expressive association claim....

If the Michigan Supreme Court finds that ELCRA does not apply to plaintiffs’ conduct, Plaintiffs still achieve a favorable result....

Michigan Advance reports on the decision.

Israeli Knesset Passes Controversial Basic Law on Torah Study

Israel's Knesset yesterday passed a controversial "Basic Law" providing:

Torah study is a fundamental value in the heritage of the Jewish people and in the State of Israel.

According to Times of Israel:

The legislation makes Torah study the only value explicitly enshrined in one of Israel’s quasi-constitutional Basic Laws, which act in place of a written constitution. Haredi parties have pushed to pass the law as part of their broader effort to preserve blanket military service exemptions for ultra-Orthodox men, while opponents argue it effectively elevates Torah study above all other national values and will weaken efforts to penalize yeshiva students who disobey draft orders.

Efforts to draft Haredi men, and ultra-Orthodox resistance to that effort, has sparked a fierce debate in Israeli society and the halls of the Knesset, especially as the IDF has warned repeatedly that it faces an urgent manpower shortage....

While the final version of the legislation no longer explicitly equates Torah study with military service, following pressure from Likud, opponents argue that, even in its pared-down form, the law grants constitutional recognition to Torah study alone, elevating it above other national values, while tens of thousands of reservists continue to serve during the ongoing war....

Monday, July 13, 2026

Detainee Sues Wrong Parties Over Available Religious Texts on Jail's Android Tablets

In Coleman v. LVMPD, (D NV, July 8, 2026), a Nevada federal district court at the screening stage dismissed with leave to amend a religious discrimination complaint filed by Oronde Coleman, a pre-trial detainee at the Clark County Detention Center (CCDC). According to the court:

Coleman generally sues Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) and ViaPath, the owner and provider of android tablets at CCDC....

Coleman alleges the following. He is a religious member of the House of Yahweh.... Coleman needs the Book of Yahweh and the Book of Yahweh Study Guide to worship his religion. However, the ViaPath tablets do not contain either of those ebooks even though they have other religious books for other religions such as Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Latter-Day Saints, Orthodox Hindu, Buddhist, Jehovah's Witness, Moorish American, Nation of Islam, and Sundar Gutka. LVMPD had approved these religious texts to be on the android tablet but discriminated against the House of Yahweh.

When Coleman reached out to ViaPath to add the Book of Yahweh onto ebooks, ViaPath responded that it was not a recognized religion, and they would not add it to the contents of the tablets. Coleman told ViaPath that he needed the two books to give praise to his heavenly father and his son in their rightful names. ViaPath told Coleman to write a grievance to LVMPD's religious services unit. Years ago, Coleman wrote grievances to the religious services unit, who told him they do not stock those books....

Although Coleman could potentially state colorable First Amendment free exercise of religion and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims, he does not do so in his complaint because he has not established that ViaPath and LVMPD are the parties he should be suing. I thus dismiss the complaint but grant Coleman leave to amend....

Coleman's complaint does not allege how ViaPath is a state actor other than its apparent contract with LVMPD. This alone is insufficient to establish that ViaPath is a state actor who deprived Coleman of his federal rights....

Coleman does not allege that his inability to obtain House of Yahweh religious books is due to a LVMPD custom or policy....