Yesterday, the federal Religious Liberty Commission held a hearing on Religious Liberty in the Military. The Announcement of the hearing said in part:
The hearing’s objective will be to understand the historic landscape of religious liberty in military, recognize present threats to religious liberty in military contexts, and identify opportunities to strengthen religious liberty for all servicemembers for the future.
A video recording of the full 2 1/2 hour hearing is available at this link.
In Troogstad v. City of Chicago, (7th Cir., Dec. 9, 2025), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of free exercise claims by a Chicago Fire Department employee who was denied a religious exemption from the city's Covid-19 vaccine mandate. The court said in part:
Troogstad alleges “the gene-altering aspect of mRNA vaccinations violates his beliefs as a Christian.” But he failed to allege facts about how taking the vaccine violated his religious beliefs. He misses that step....
.... While the pleading of a violation of the Free Exercise Clause need not be overly exacting, in numerous rounds of pleading ... Troogstad did not move beyond conclusory statements. A complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations; mere conclusions generally will not suffice.... Troogstad’s failure to allege facts about how his religious beliefs as a Christian conflict with the vaccine requirement—after numerous opportunities to satisfy this pleading standard—dooms his Free Exercise claim.
For the same reason, the court upheld the dismissal of plaintiff's claim under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Vice President JD Vance will host a Hanukkah Reception at the Vice President's Residence on December 15. The Invitation features a rendition of the Vice President's Residence in gold with the caption "The Golden Noel. Celebrating 50 Years of Christmas at the Vice President's Residence".
A suit was filed this week in a North Carolina federal district court by a high school student whose patriotic and religious tribute to the late Charlie Kirk painted on her high school's Spirit Rock led to controversy and revision of school rules. The 66-page complaint (full text) in G.S. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, (WD NC, filed 12/8/2025), reads in part:
3. In a desire to emulate Charlie Kirk’s boldness for his faith, G.S. wanted to remind her classmates, friends, and others in the Ardrey Kell High School community that Charlie Kirk had received and was enjoying eternal life with his Savior, Jesus Christ, and to create a space where students could memorialize him.
4. After receiving permission from school officials to paint the Ardrey Kell High School spirit rock with a patriotic message related to Charlie Kirk, that’s exactly what G.S. and two friends did. They painted the spirit rock with a heart, a United States flag, the message “Freedom 1776,” and a tribute to Charlie Kirk: “Live Like Kirk—John 11:25.” Then they placed flowers in a vase at the base of the spirit rock....
John 11:25 reads: "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die'."
School authorities quickly painted over the tribute and promulgated a Revised Spirit Rock Speech Code which barred students from expressing “political” or “religious messages” on the spirit rock. According to the complaint, authorities also investigated her for a few days for vandalism.
The complaint, among other things seeks:
A declaratory judgment that Defendant’s Unwritten Spirit Rock Speech Code, Vandalism Policy, and Revised Spirit Rock Speech Code, and the unconstitutional actions against G.S. pursuant to it—including censoring her speech, publicly accusing her of misconduct, searching her cell phone, refusing to clear her name, and adopting a new viewpoint-based policy—violated her rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments....
In detailing her claims, plaintiff alleged in part:
458. G.S.’s views and expression on the Ardrey Kell High School spirit rock were motivated by her sincerely held religious beliefs, are avenues through which she expressed her religious faith, and constitute a central component of her sincerely held religious beliefs.
ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.
The Justice Department this week filed a Motion to Intervene and a Memorandum In Support of its motion in S.W. v. Loudoun County School Board, (ED VA, filed 12/8/2025). DOJ alleges that a Loudoun County high school discriminated against two male Christian students in disciplining them for their reaction to the presence of a transgender male in the boy's locker room.
In an Announcement of its action, DOJ said in part:
Policy 8040 requires all students, regardless of their religious beliefs, to adopt the Loudoun County School Board’s understanding of “gender identity” — including its practical application that affects all students’ use of intimate spaces, such as bathrooms and changing facilities. At Stone Bridge High School, a female student took advantage of this policy, entered the boys’ locker room, and recorded audio and video of the boys in that locker room. Several boys spoke out about this incident, including two Christian, male students whose religious beliefs require them to use biologically accurate pronouns and use sex-segregated facilities.
Loudoun County determined that these Christian, male students’ religious practice violated school policy, recasting constitutionally protected activity as “sex-based discrimination” and “sexual harassment.” ...
(See prior related posting.) Northern Virginia reports on DOJ's action.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on December 8 issued Executive Order Number 25-244 titled Protecting Floridians from Radical Islamic Terrorist Organizations (full text). The Order designates CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations), the Muslim Brotherhood, and organizations designated under federal law as foreign terrorist organizations to be terrorist organizations covered by the Executive Order. The Executive Order goes on to provide in part:
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Florida Highway Patrol are directed to undertake: all lawful measures to prevent unlawful activities in Florida by the terrorist organizations designated in Section 1. Unless prohibited by federal or state law, all other Executive arid Cabinet Agencies shall further undertake all lawful action to prevent any terrorist organization designated in Section 1, or any person known to have provided material support or resources to such organization as defined in section 775.33(1)(c), Florida Statutes, from receiving any contract, employment, funds, or other benefit or privilege from such Executive or Cabinet Agency or any entity regulated by such Executive or Cabinet Agency or from any County or Municipality of the State.
CAIR quickly announced that it plans to file a lawsuit challenging the Governor's action.
Florida's action follows similar action taken by Texas last month. (See prior posting.) The Guardian reports on Florida's action.
In Florida Preborn Rescue, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, Florida, (11th Cir., Dec. 4. 2025), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that a preliminary injunction should issue barring enforcement of a ban on pedestrians in the sidewalk crossing the 28 foot wide entrance to a local abortion clinic's parking lot, and for 5 feet of sidewalk on either side of the driveway. The majority said in part:
Florida Preborn has provided “uncontradicted testimony” that the buffer zone has effectively stifled sidewalk counselors’ ability to distribute literature to patients entering and exiting the clinic. ...
Separately, it remains the case that, by its terms, the Ordinance forbids a clinic patient who has parked her car to approach sidewalk counselors to receive a leaflet....
We think it clear that the Ordinance burdens substantially more speech—namely, the sidewalk counselors’ leafletting activities—than is necessary to achieve the government’s asserted interest in promoting vehicular safety....
Dispositively here, the city failed to adequately consider alternative measures....
Judge Abudu dissented, saying in part:
The record shows that counselors wait in brightly colored vests at the edge of the driveway, offering materials to patients driving into the clinic. If the patients desire, they can stop, roll down their window, and engage with the leafleteers. However, many choose not to do so. Thus, when balancing FPR’s right to communicate its message against the rights of patients and others not to engage, it is clear that there is no substantial burden on FPR’s ability to leaflet.
Moreover, the fact that FPR has alternative channels of communication available further demonstrates why the Ordinance is constitutional. As the district court found, the remaining portions of the driveway and adjacent sidewalk area are still available....
Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. McDonald, (Docket No. 25-133, Dec. 8, 2025) (Order List), granted certiorari, vacated the 2nd Circuit's judgment, and remanded the case to the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor. In Miller, the 2nd Circuit held that New York state's removal of a religious belief exemption that would allow parents to opt their children out from the state's school immunization law did not violate the 1st Amendment free exercise rights of Amish parents or Amish schools. (See prior posting.) In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court upheld the granting of a preliminary injunction to parents who objected to a Maryland school district's removal of parents' right to opt their children out of class discussions involving LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks. (See prior posting.) Christian Post reports on the Supreme Court's remand.
Today, President Trump issued a "Presidential Message on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception" (full text). The Message reads in part:
Today, I recognize every American celebrating December 8 as a Holy Day honoring the faith, humility, and love of Mary, mother of Jesus and one of the greatest figures in the Bible....
For nearly 250 years, Mary has played a distinct role in our great American story. In 1792, less than a decade after the end of the Revolutionary War, Bishop John Carroll—the first Catholic bishop in the United States and cousin of signer of the Declaration of Independence Charles Carroll—consecrated our young Nation to the mother of Christ. Less than a quarter-century later, Catholics attributed General Andrew Jackson’s stunning victory over the British in the climactic Battle of New Orleans to Mary. Every year, Catholics celebrate a Mass of Thanksgiving in New Orleans on January 8 in memory of Mary’s assistance in saving the city....
More than a century ago, in the midst of World War I, Pope Benedict XV, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, commissioned and dedicated a majestic statue of Mary, Queen of Peace, bearing the infant Christ with an olive branch so that the Christian faithful would be encouraged to look to her example of peace by praying for a stop to the horrific slaughter. Just a few months later, World War I ended. Today, we look to Mary once again for inspiration and encouragement as we pray for an end to war and for a new and lasting era of peace, prosperity, and harmony in Europe and throughout the world....
In Schoff v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, (IL App., Dec. 4, 2025), an Illinois state appellate court affirmed the decision of the state Human Rights Commission to dismiss religious discrimination claims brought by property owners who were cited by the Village of South Barrington for violating its septic tank code. The court concluded that the property owners had failed to produce substantial evidence to sustain any of their claims. According to the court:
In 1985, the property at issue, a single-family residence, was built with 5 bedrooms and two 1,500-gallon septic tanks in the Village, resulting in a 3,000-gallon septic capacity. At some point prior to 2014, the property owner added two unpermitted bedrooms to the residence, bringing the total number of bedrooms to seven. In 2014, the Schoffs, who are Episcopalian Christians, bought the property. Due to their faith, the Schoffs believed they were called to provide short-term housing to people in need, specifically asylum seekers, missionaries and refugees. The Schoffs’ beliefs led them to house, at various times, predominantly Black individuals from Africa, but also occasionally Chinese, Japanese, Colombian and white individuals.
The Schoffs were granted a religious accommodation from a municipal ban on short term rentals but were cited for violation of the septic tank code that required a minimum tank capacity of 3,500 gallons for a 7-bedroom home. The court said in part:
The Schoffs alleged that the Village’s prosecution of the septic code violations against them amounted to harassment, interfered with their religious beliefs, and interfered with their association with Black and African asylum seekers and missionaries. The Schoffs asserted that the Village’s interpretation of its septic code was unreasonable and the Village engaged in selective enforcement of it....
... [T]he Schoffs posit that, when an ordinance contains a variance procedure and the government refuses to grant a variance based upon an applicant’s need to use a property for religious observance and practice, an inference of religious practice discrimination exists....
All the Schoffs can do with the fact that the Village denied them a variance is speculate that the denial had a discriminatory intent. But speculation cannot create substantial evidence.... Consequently, the Commission properly found that the Schoffs failed to make a prima facie showing on Count F, and therefore, it did not abuse its discretion by sustaining the Department’s dismissal on Count F for lack of substantial evidence....
From SSRN:
From SSRN (Religious Law):
From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced last week that he has filed suit in a Texas state trial court against the East Plano Islamic Center alleging violations of Texas securities law in the Center's attempt to finance and develop a planned community of over 1000 homes. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Community Capital Partners, LP, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 12/5/2025), alleges violation of state registration requirements and misstatements regarding the location of the project and the compensation flowing to the individual promoting the project. The complaint reads in part:
20. The “EPIC Launches EPIC City” video describes the community as “a project that’s going to change ... the Dawah scene for the Muslim community in the US.” In the “Imam Zaid Shakir invites you to Epic City Community” video, Imam Zaid Shakir states that EPIC City will be “exponentially beneficial … to the believers ... a greater sign that [the Muslim] community has arrived,” and that EPIC City will serve as the “epicenter of Islam in North America.” Moreover, although no longer publicly accessible, the video... bore the title “Welcome to Epic City Muslim Community....
21. Furthermore, while a subsequent version of EPIC City’s website stated that the project is “committed to building a vibrant, multigenerational and inclusive master planned community,” the website’s language from 11 days after CCP’s initial announcement was significantly different: a screenshot of the website from May 26, 2024, shows that the mission statement originally stated that EPIC City was “committed to building a vibrant and inclusive community that serves the evolving needs of the Muslim community.” This language was still active on EPIC City’s homepage until at least February 14, 2025, long after the offering was announced and after hundreds of subscription agreements had become effective.
22. These videos, and the overall marketing campaign more broadly, give the clear impression that EPIC City is a community targeted at and reserved for those of the Muslim faith.
Texas Tribune reporting on the lawsuit said in part:
The legal action is the latest development to bring attention to the community, which has been the recipient of Islamaphic vitriol for months.
This summer, the U.S. Department of Justice quietly closed a probe into the housing project — saying that the developers had agreed to follow federal fair housing laws.
[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]
NPR reports that the U.S. Public Health Service has altered the official portrait of Admiral Rachel Levine who served for four years as deputy assistant secretary for health policy in the Biden administration. Her portrait is one in the photo display of individuals who have led the Public Health Corps at the Department of Health and Human Services. Levine was the first transgender person to serve in a position that required Senate confirmation. According to NPR, during the recent federal government shut down, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health removed Levine's legal name (under which she served in office) from her portrait and substituted her prior name. In response to an NPR inquiry, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon wrote:
Our priority is ensuring that the information presented internally and externally by HHS reflects gold standard science. We remain committed to reversing harmful policies enacted by Levine and ensuring that biological reality guides our approach to public health.
As previously reported, President Trump on his first day in office issued an Executive Order providing in part:
It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality....
Agencies shall remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages....
[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]
[CORRECTION: A prior version of this post inaccurately referred to an archived version of the HHS website as its current version.]
In Hebbe v. City of Folsom, (ED CA, Dec. 3, 2025), plaintiff who is an unhoused resident of Folsom, California, challenges on numerous grounds a Folsom Ordinance that prohibits public camping between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. One of his claims-- rejected by the decision of a California federal magistrate judge-- is that the public camping ban violates his 1st Amendment free exercise rights. The court said in part:
To state a claim under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, a plaintiff must allege that the government action substantially burdens the plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs.... A substantial burden exists when the government puts significant pressure on a person to modify their behavior and violate their religious beliefs....
Here, Plaintiff alleges that the Ordinance, which prohibits camping between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., forces him to sleep during the day, which prevents him from attending church service.... These allegations, even liberally construed, fail to state a cognizable Free Exercise Clause claim. Plaintiff does not allege facts showing the Ordinance targets religion or is applied in a discriminatory manner. Neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious exercise do not violate the Free Exercise Clause.... Plaintiff has not pleaded facts showing the Ordinance places a substantial burden on his ability to practice his faith. Conclusory statements that he cannot go to church service are insufficient....
In Kondilis v. City of Chicago, (7th Cir., Dec. 2, 2025), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by City of Chicago employees who had been granted religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate that, nevertheless, the reporting requirements imposed on them violated their free exercise and equal protection rights. All employees were required to enter their vaccination status and unvaccinated employees were required to enter their Covid test results into the employee portal. The court said in part:
Section VII, which addresses the COVID-19 testing reporting requirements for the portal, ... draws no distinction based on religion: it applies to all “[e]mployees … who are covered by this policy” and are “not fully vaccinated by October 15, 2021,” without further distinction. And neither section reflects any religious animus at all. Both sections “are neutral: They do not target religion or religious institutions.” ...
That said, Plaintiffs contend that the sections were not generally applicable because the City applied the Policy inconsistently. They allege that not all employees had to comply with the portal reporting requirements, making them “selectively burdened” for being forced to do so....
But this argument fails. It is not enough for Plaintiffs—all of whom profess sincere religious beliefs—to show that the Policy was inconsistently applied across their own personal circumstances; they must plausibly show that this inconsistency bore upon religion in some way.... Yet the complaint does not do so.... [A chart they introduced into evidence] does not identify any trend singling out a particular religion or set of religions for differential treatment within the plaintiff group....
We need not spill much ink in holding that the City had a rational basis for its Policy’s reporting requirements and disciplinary procedures during a global pandemic. ...
In Cupriak-Trojan v. Mazowiecki, (CJEU, Nov. 25, 2025), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requires EU member states (even if they do not permit same-sex marriages domestically) to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other EU countries. The Court said in part:
75. While it is true ... that Member States enjoy a margin of discretion as regards the procedures for recognising marriages concluded by Union citizens when exercising their freedom of movement and residence within another Member State, the lack of a procedure for recognition equivalent to that granted to heterosexual couples constitutes discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation prohibited by Article 21(1) of the Charter. It follows that where a Member State chooses ... to provide, in its national law, for a single procedure for recognising marriages concluded by Union citizens in the exercise of their freedom to move and reside within another Member State, ...that Member State is required to apply that procedure without distinction to marriages between persons of the same sex and to those between persons of the opposite sex....
77. ... Article 20 and Article 21(1) TFEU, read in the light of Article 7 and Article 21(1) of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, on the ground that the law of that Member State does not allow marriage between persons of the same sex, does not permit the recognition of a marriage between two same-sex nationals of that Member State concluded lawfully in the exercise of their freedom to move and reside within another Member State, in which they have created or strengthened a family life, or the transcription for that purpose of the marriage certificate in the civil register of the first Member State, where that transcription is the only means provided for by that Member State for such recognition.
The Court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.
As previously reported, last month a West Virginia trial court held that the state's Equal Protection of Religion Law requires schools to allow children with religious objections to vaccinations to attend school even though the state's Compulsory Vaccination Law provides only for medical exemptions. This week, in State of West Virginia ex rel. West Virginia Board of Education v. Froble, (WV Sup. Ct., Dec. 2, 2025), the West Virginia Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the trial court's Order pending resolution of a petition for a writ of prohibition that has been filed with the Supreme Court. Immediately following the Supreme Court's Order, the state Board of Education issued a Statement (full text) reinstating its directive to county school boards advising them not to grant religious exemptions to the state's compulsory vaccination laws.
AP reports on these developments. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]