KY Supreme Court: Denial of Zoning Permit to Church Did Not Violate RLUIPA

In Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic, (KY Sup. Ct., Dec. 18,2025), the Kentucky Supreme Court held that RLUIPA was not violated by denying a conditional use permit to a church that wished to build a grotto to honor the Virgin Mary’s appearance at a grotto in Lourdes, France. The Court concluded that denial of a permit and variances did not impose a substantial burden on the church's religious exercise. The court said in part:

Here, St. John ... has presented no evidence of any expenses it incurred due to any mandate from the Board.  Indeed, it concedes that in 2021 it “voluntarily” submitted an application for a grotto that was smaller in size than it originally intended....  Additionally, there can be no serious contention that St. John was uncertain of the likelihood that its applications would be denied pursuant to the applicable zoning ordinance.  St. John’s own application letter to the Board acknowledged that “the creation of any type of accessory space to the existing church is not directly permitted by the current local zoning ordinance” because the ordinance required it to be located adjacent to an arterial street to obtain a conditional use permit.  (Emphasis added).  For the same reason, it cannot be said that St. John has not imposed a burden upon itself.... St.  John had every reason to know, and in fact explicitly acknowledged, that building the grotto was not permitted by the ordinance.

Justice Thompson filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

While I agree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that ... RLUIPA was not violated, this issue was the only issue presented by the motion for discretionary review filed by Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. (the Church) and the only matter which should have been considered by this Court. 

Since the singular issue to be determined by this Court was whether a RLUIPA violation had occurred, that is where all discussion should have been confined. I therefore must dissent with regard to the majority’s repetition of the Court of Appeals’ erroneous analysis of, and criticism of, the determinations made by the Park Hills Board of Adjustment ... to authorize a variance and issue a conditional use permit.

HHS Proposes Rules to Bar Hospitals from Performing Gender Affirming Care to Minors

The Department of Health and Human Services today published in the Federal Register two Releases proposing rule changes that would effectively ban almost all U.S. hospitals from providing pharmaceutical or surgical gender-affirming care to children and adolescents under 18 years of age. One Release is titled Prohibition on Federal Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program Funding for Sex-Rejecting Procedures Furnished to Children. The second Release is titled Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Hospital Condition of Participation: Prohibiting Sex-Rejecting Procedures for Children. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announced the Proposed Rules yesterday in a Press Release and in a "Declaration" titled Safety, Effectiveness, and Professional Standards of Care for Sex Rejecting Procedures on Children and Adolescents.  According to the Press Release:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today announced a series of proposed regulatory actions to carry out President Trump’s Executive Order directing HHS to end the practice of sex-rejecting procedures on children that expose young people to irreversible harm. These procedures include pharmaceutical or surgical interventions of specified types that attempt to align a child’s physical appearance or body with an asserted identity different from their sex.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will release a notice of proposed rulemaking to bar hospitals from performing sex-rejecting procedures on children under age 18 as a condition of participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs. Nearly all U.S. hospitals participate in Medicare and Medicaid and this action is designed to ensure that the U.S. government will not be in business with organizations that intentionally or unintentionally inflict permanent harm on children....

CMS will release an additional notice of proposed rulemaking to prohibit federal Medicaid funding for sex-rejecting procedures on children under age 18. The same prohibition would apply to federal Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding for these procedures on individuals under age 19. Currently, 27 states do not provide Medicaid coverage of sex-rejecting procedures on children....

6th Circuit: Michigan's Ban on Conversion Therapy for Minors Violates 1st Amendment

In Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee, and Hillsdale Counties v. Whitmer, (6th Cir., Dec. 17, 2025), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Michigan's ban on licensed therapists engaging in conversion therapy with minors violates the 1st Amendment's free speech protections.  The court said in part:

 “As a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”...  The law at issue here does that:  it bans counseling “that seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behavior or gender expression[,]” among other things.  M.C.L. § 330.1100a(20).

Worse, the Michigan law discriminates based on viewpoint... Specifically, the Michigan law forbids counseling that “seeks to change” a child’s “sexual orientation or gender identity” to align with the child’s religious beliefs or biological sex....  But the law expressly permits “counseling that provides assistance to an individual undergoing a gender transition”.... The law omits a similar carveout for sexual orientation.  Thus, ...the Michigan law codifies “a particular viewpoint—sexual orientation is immutable, but gender is not—and prohibit[s] the therapists from advancing any other perspective.” ...

So HB 4616 finds itself in a constitutional no-man’s land, absent some exception that liberates it from First Amendment scrutiny altogether.  The district court thought that exception came by way of “the broad power of States to regulate the practice of licensed professionals[.]” ...

But it takes more than a general tradition of regulation, in some domain of human activity, to validate content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech....

For HB 4616 to survive strict scrutiny, the defendants must show that its restrictions on speech are the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest....  The defendants have not come close to making that showing; indeed they have hardly tried....

Judge Bloomekatz filed a lengthy dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The majority opinion overrides Michigan’s judgment about the efficacy and harms of conversion therapy by declaring that regulations of medical treatments are subject to “the strictest of scrutiny” whenever the regulated treatment is delivered via words....  The majority opinion reaches that result by saying that psychotherapy consists of “spoken words and nothing more,” and then affords it the same protection as speech in the public square or a conversation between friends....  I disagree.  

Not all words receive the same First Amendment protection, as is evident from the law’s long tradition of subjecting speech that administers a medical treatment to lesser First Amendment scrutiny.  Far from being “words and nothing more,” psychotherapy is an evidence-based medical intervention provided by trained licensed professionals, and it falls within the state’s historic power to regulate medicine.  By affording the words therapists say while providing psychotherapy the highest constitutional protection possible, the majority opinion ties states’ hands as to medically-repudiated practices like conversion therapy, and its reasoning threatens to subject wide swaths of medical regulations to strict scrutiny. 

What’s more, the majority opinion reaches this result even though all agree that the Supreme Court is poised to resolve the same issue in Chiles v. Salazar.... 

AP reports on the decision.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Invalidates Religion-Based Social Study Standards

In Randall v. Fields, (OK Sup. Ct., Dec. 16, 2025), the Oklahoma Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision held that the Oklahoma State Board of Education violated the Open Meeting Act when it approved the 2025 Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies. Plaintiffs had objected to the new Standards because of their religious content. According to the Court:

¶4 Petitioners are Oklahoma taxpayers who object to their tax dollars being used to promote religion in a public school. They allege the 2025 Standards interfere with their ability to direct and control the upbringing of their children including moral religious training and education they teach their children. They allege the 2025 Standards favor Christianity over all other religions in violation of the religious freedoms guaranteed by statutes and the Oklahoma Constitution. Petitioners allege that promotion and favoritism of Christianity will cause their children to feel ostracized and harm their education. Petitioners raising their children in the Christian faith allege the 2025 Standards promote theological doctrines and ideas contrary to the parents' Christian beliefs and their children will also be similarly harmed.

¶5 Petitioners object to the 2025 Standards requiring teachers to teach and students to learn that events depicted in a Bible are historical facts. Petitioners allege historicity of these events is disputed. Petitioners object to 2025 Standards requiring teachers to teach and students to learn that the validity of results in the 2020 Presidential Election should be questioned, and that the COVID 19 virus was caused by a leak in a laboratory in China. Petitioners point to Superintendent Ryan Walters' public statements asserting that the 2025 Standards were created and adopted to promote Judeo-Christian values and to teach a Bible as a "foundational text, helping students understand its undeniable influence on our nation's history and values." Petitioners allege the 2025 Standards require teaching stories and events depicted in a Bible to first and second grade students, and the material is not appropriate for students who are usually 6-8 years of age.

Oklahoma Voice reports on the decision.  (See prior related posting.)

Firing of Synagogue Religious Teacher for Anti-Israel Blog Post Is Upheld By NY's Top Court

In Sander v. Westchester Reform Temple, (NY Ct. App., Dec. 16, 2025), the New York Court of Appeals (New York's highest court) affirmed the dismissal of a suit alleging that plaintiff was fired from her position with a synagogue in violation of §201-d of New York's employment discrimination law. That section prohibits, among other things, discharging an employee because of the person's legal recreational activities. Plaintiff was fired from her teaching position at a Reform synagogue less than three weeks after she began because of a blog post critical of Israel and Zionism that she co-authored. Plaintiff claimed that her firing was because of blogging which is a lawful recreational activity. The majority opinion by Judge Halligan, joined by 4 other judges, held that her suit should be dismissed under the ministerial exception doctrine. The opinion said it was unnecessary to decide whether of not blogging is a "recreational activity" under §201-d.

Judge Rivera filed a concurring opinion relying on the exclusion in §201-d for activities that create a material conflict of interest relating to the employer's business interest.

Judge Troutman concurred in the result for the reasons stated by the appellate court below, namely that plaintiff was not discharged for the activity of blogging, but for the content of the blog post.

CAIR Sues Florida Over Terrorism Designation

As previously reported, earlier this month Florida Governor Ron DeSantis issued an Executive Order designating CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations), as well as the Muslim Brotherhood, as terrorist organizations under state law. Now CAIR has filed suit in a Florida federal district court challenging the consitutionality of the Governor's action. The complaint (full text) in CAIR-Foundation, Inc. v. DeSantis, (ND FL, filed 12/15/2025), alleges in part:

By issuing this order, Defendant DeSantis has violated the U.S. and Florida Constitutions, as well as federal and state laws. He has usurped the exclusive authority of the federal government to identify and designate terrorist organizations by baselessly declaring CAIR a terrorist organization. He has violated the Constitution’s guarantee of due process by unilaterally declaring CAIR a terrorist organization and then ordering immediate punitive, discriminatory action against CAIR and its supporters....

The designation in the Executive Order imposes burdens on Plaintiffs’ speech and expressive activities by attaching an unauthorized terrorism designation, directing law enforcement agencies to “undertake all lawful measures” pursuant to that designation, and altering Plaintiffs’ legal status with respect to the State in a manner that chills and burdens protected expression. Such burdens are unconstitutional viewpoint-based penalties.....

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

2nd Circuit Upholds Prison's Restriction of Inmate's Access to Smudging Ritual

In Baltas v Jones, (2d Cir., Dec. 15, 2025), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a prisoner's free exercise claim. The court said in part:

Baltas argues that Defendant Jones (a Garner Deputy Warden) violated Baltas’s First Amendment right to free exercise of his religion by forbidding him from engaging in the Native American “smudging” ritual while in Garner’s restricted housing unit (“RHU”). ... [T]his claim also fails for want of clearly established law....

We “judge prisoners’ free exercise claims under a ‘reasonableness’ test less restrictive than that ordinarily applied to alleged infringements of fundamental constitutional rights.”... 

... [I]t was not clearly established that prison officials wou ld be “unreasonable” if they prevented prisoners who had “been deemed to present various safety and security concerns” from having “access to a lighter” in a religious ceremony.  Baltas cites no cases involving similarly risky practices. Summary judgment was properly granted as to this claim.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Whittney Barth, Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Diminishing Protections for Teachers at Religious Schools, (100 Notre Dame Law Review ___ (forthcoming)).
• Marc O. DeGirolami, The Traditional University and the Free Speech University. (Notre Dame L. Rev. (forthcoming 2026)).
• Kevin C. Walsh, Foreword for Petar Popović, Exploring the Nature of Law: Thomistic Juridical Realism and the Elements of Law's Ontology (CUA Press 2025) (June 01, 2025).
• Jeffrey M. Lipshaw, Interstices, Infinities, Religiosity, And Lawyering, (Journal of Law & Religion, forthcoming).
• Iqra Naz, Criminal Law Perspective on the Capacity of Lunatics and Insane Persons, (December 01, 2025).
• Marcus Castillo, The Christian Influence on Religious Exemption Policy, (February 10, 2025).
• Rasham Armab Saikhu, Author (s): Differences Related to Zakat Between the Islamic System and The Pakistani Legal System, (December 04, 2023).
• Mark Greenberg & Lawrence Sager, Defending Religious Freedom as Equality, (Journal of Law and Religion (in press)).
• Mohammed Billah, Do the NestQuestROI Models Align with Islamic Principles?,  (November 07, 2025).
• Gagas Tri Anggoro, The Maqasid Education Model: Restoring Purpose to Global Learning, (November 02, 2025).

Ministerial Exception Bars Former Priest's Title VII Claims

In Obienu v. Archdiocese of New Orleans, (ED LA, Dec. 11, 2025), a Louisiana federal district court held that a former priest's Title VII claims against his archdiocese are barred by the ministerial exception doctrine. Plaintiff, a United States citizen of Nigerian origin, claimed that clergy in the New Orleans archdiocese mistreated him in a number of ways. Plaintiff filed this Title VII action alleging wrongful termination, failure to promote, failure to allow him to complete the training necessary for promotion, unequal terms and conditions of employment, and retaliation. The court said in part:

Defendants argue that Obienu’s employment discrimination claims are barred because “this lawsuit arises out of a disgruntled former priest’s dissatisfaction with how [the ANO] managed his role as a minister within its system of religious governance.” ...

... [Obienu] contends that summary judgment is not warranted because there are factual disputes whether “the adverse employment actions at issue stemmed not from religious doctrine but from national-origin discrimination, disparate treatment, and retaliation after reporting mistreatment.”...

With the Fifth Circuit’s broad pronouncement in McRaney [v. North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention] ... that the ministerial exception bars secular courts from considering Title VII and related state-law employment claims brought by a minister against a religious organization, this Court is bound to conclude that Obienu’s remaining employment discrimination claims against Defendants must be dismissed.  It is undisputed that Obienu was, at all relevant times, either a Roman Catholic priest or training to be one.  All the incidents he alleges constitute “employment discrimination” arose while he was training or working under the auspices of the ANO either as a seminarian or as an ordained priest. Further, the persons who he says acted unlawfully were themselves ordained priests or the archbishop.