Splintered 5th Circuit Says Suit Against City for Failing to Train Police on 1st Amendment Rights Can Move Ahead

 In Hershey v. City of Bossier City, (5th Cir., Oct. 7, 2025), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a splintered decision reversed a Louisiana federal district court's dismissal of a suit against the city by plaintiff who was passing out booklets for the Christian Vegetarian Association outside a concert arena in which a Christian rock concert was taking place.  The arena is in a public park, is managed by a private company and was rented out for the concert. Both police and private security guards provided security. They informed plaintiff that he could not hand out his material because he was on private property. Plaintiff sued the officers and guards for violating his 1st Amendment rights and sued the city for failing to train the police and the security guards. The case generated three separate opinions which, when put together reversed the trial court's dismissal of the claim against the city, but affirmed on qualified immunity grounds, the dismissal of claims against the police and security guards.

Judge Ho wrote in part:

“The dissemination of ... religious views and doctrines is protected by the First Amendment.”...

This right plainly encompasses the distribution of religious pamphlets—the activity at issue in this case....

So anyone who is “rightfully on a street which the state has left open to the public carries with him there as elsewhere the constitutional right to express his views in an orderly fashion.”...

Hershey’s right to evangelize on a public sidewalk is not undermined by the fact that the city-owned facility abutting the sidewalk happens to be managed by a private corporation.  Nor should it matter that his rights were violated by private security guards working alongside police officers.  Municipalities cannot abrogate the constitutional rights of their citizens simply by delegating their coercive governmental powers to private agents.

He also concluded that the city's failure to train amounted to deliberate indifference.

Judge Dennis said in part:

The City’s failure to train officers that the park was a public forum led officers to believe that the park was private property and that citizens could be ejected without violating their First Amendment rights. Hershey also alleged that the officers who removed him from the park held this belief and told him he had to leave the park because it was private property. Hershey has pleaded facts sufficient to show that the City’s complete lack of training was the cause of his injury.

Judge Richman would have upheld the dismissal of the claim against the city, saying in part:

This is a single-incident case in which Hershey relies on his own confrontation with city officers and private security guards to establish municipal liability.  This case does not present the “rare” and “narrow and extreme circumstances” that our court and the Supreme Court has said permit “drawing the inference” of “deliberate indifference.”

The court also by a different 2-1 vote upheld dismissal of damage claims against the officers and security guards on qualified immunity grounds. Judge Dennis would have reversed the trial court's dismissal on qualified immunity grounds, saying in part:

Because the law clearly established Hershey’s right to leaflet in a traditional public forum without viewpoint discrimination, qualified immunity is inappropriate.

Judge Richman disagreed, saying in part:

... [G]iven that the Supreme Court has indicated that sidewalks on public property are not automatically public forums and that the district court considered several cases concerning the forum status of spaces surrounding arenas that do not speak in unison, the forum status of the space in question was not clearly established.... 

Judge Ho reluctantly agreed that precedent required concluding that the right involved was clearly established, but expressed his disagreement with that precedent, saying in part:

 “[i]t seems absurd to suggest that the most egregious constitutional violations imaginable are somehow immune from liability precisely because they’re so egregious.  It would make a mockery of our rights to grant qualified immunity just because no one in government has yet to be abusive enough to commit that particular violation—and then stubborn enough to litigate it, not only before a district court, but also in the court of appeals (or the Supreme Court).”

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Conversion Therapy Ban Case on Tuesday

Tomorrow (Oct. 7), the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar. In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law that bans mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors does not violate the free speech or free exercise rights of mental health professionals. (See prior posting.)  Only the free speech issue was raised in the petition for review by the Supreme Court. At issue tomorrow is whether the ban on talk therapy for minors aimed at changing their gay or transgender identity is fully protected speech. Or may that therapy be regulated as primarily professional conduct that the legislature deems to constitute substandard medical care.

Here is the SCOTUSblog case page that provides link to all the briefs and motions filed in the case, as well as to commentary on the case. The oral arguments will be live streamed by the Court at this page beginning at 10:00 AM Eastern Time. Links to a recoding and written transcript of the arguments can be accessed here later in the day on Tuesday.

Taxpayer With Religious Objections to U.S. Funding of Israel's Military Operations Lacks Standing to Sue

In Kikkert v. Trump, (WD WA, Oct. 1, 2025), plaintiff, an army veteran and federal taxpayer, sued the President and various members of Congress. According to the court:

Plaintiff alleges that by using federal taxes to fund Israel’s recent military operations, Defendants have breached numerous international treaties, federal statutes, and provisions of the U.S. Constitution....  Plaintiff further alleges that he has standing to bring this suit, claiming that his “$72.72 in 2023 excise taxes are part of the $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel” and said aid is “causing Plaintiff irreparable spiritual harm by forcing him to contravene his faith and his veteran’s oath to defend the Constitution, a sacred text in his religion, and desecrating his familial legal of military service spanning give generations.” 

The court dismissed the suit for lack of standing, saying in part:

... [T]he mere fact of being a taxpayer is not enough to establish Article III standing.  The only exception to this general rule is a narrow exception provided by Flast v. Cohen....  But the Supreme Court has also “repeatedly emphasized that the Flast exception has a narrow application”...

... Flast and its progeny are primarily focused on Establishment Clause challenges.... Here, however, Plaintiff does not bring an Establishment Clause challenge....

As for his Free Exercise argument, Plaintiff fails to allege specific facts to give rise to Article III standing....

Plaintiff’s claim that the government’s funding of Israeli military operations using federal taxes operations has “force[d] him to commit sacrilege” and is causing “irreparable spiritual distress,” ... does not amount to an alleged injury to his ability to exercise his religion.  It is thus insufficient to establish Article III injury-in-fact.

Photographer Entitled to Nominal Damages for Injury from Threat to Require Her to Photograph Same-Sex Weddings

In Chelsey Nelson Photography, LLC v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Gov't., (WD KY, Sept. 30, 2025), in a case that has been in litigation for over five years, a Kentucky federal district court held that a Christian wedding photographer who has moral and religious objections to photographing same-sex marriages is entitled to $1 in nominal damages for the injury she suffered through a credible threat of enforcement and the chilling effect on her speech of Louisville's Fairness Ordinance. The Ordinance prohibits a business from denying services to an individual based on the person's sexual orientation, and from advertising that it will engage in such discrimination. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Farrah Ahmed, The Sting of Toleration, (August 20, 2025).
• Richard Katskee, Taking Liberties: The Supreme Court's New Hierarchy of Rights and Its Victims, (West Virginia Law Review, vol. 127, pp. 173-199 (2024)).
• Richard Katskee & Ira C. Lupu, Mahmoud v. Taylor: Cause or Effect of Disruptions in the Public Schools?, (24 First Amendment Law Review (Univ. of North Carolina), in Symposium, The Court’s Ever-Changing Religion Clause Jurisprudence: The Cases of the 2024-25 Term (forthcoming 2026)).
• C. Scott Pryor, Social Justice and Social Righteousness: Virtues, Systems, and Structures, (October 01, 2025).
• William Michael Treanor & Amy Uelmen, Religious Freedom, Jesuit Mission, and DEI, (Forthcoming in Jesuit Educational Quarterly, Special issue on "Legal Education and the Society of Jesus," Spring 2026).
• Neil Siegel, Legalist Versus Realist Accounts of United States v. Skrmetti, (University of Illinois Law Review, Forthcoming 2026).
• Bailey Sanders, Religious Riders and the Sherman Act, (Forthcoming, Michigan Law Review).
• Williiam Aceves, Whose Children?, (103 Washington University Law Review 477 (2025)).
• William Aceves, The Codification Project: Protecting Conscientious Objection as Secular Protest, (106 Boston University Law Review __ (forthcoming 2026)).

From SSRN (Role of Artificial Intelligence):

• Agustin V. Startari, AI Syntactic Power and Legitimacy: How AI Structures Shape Power. (Working Papers No. 12 | LEFORTUNE | September 2025).
• Agustin V. Startari, Designing Accountability: Ethical Frameworks for Reintroducing Responsibility in Executable Governance, (September 12, 2025).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Omar Gebril, Recasting al-Siyasa al-Sharʿiyya in 1920s Egypt: Formulating a Theory of an Islamic Modern State, (Journal of Islamic Law, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024).
• Surendra Kumar & Benarji Chakka, Confronting Castelessness: The Caste Census and the Future of Substantive Equality in India, (July 01, 2025).
• Vaishnavi Kortikere, Varṇa and Caste: Scriptural Truth, Colonial Distortion, and Global Misrepresentation, (July 15, 2025).
• Mohd Mudassir M.Ae.S.I, Quranic Tafakkur Conditioning Course Training the Mind for Scientific Thinking (September 10, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Monishaa Suresh, Rivers, Rights, and Religion: Securing Legal Personhood for the Ganges River in India, 33 Tulane Journal of International & Comparative Law 41-70 (2025).

Supreme Court Term Opens Monday with Several Cases of Interest on Its Docket

The U.S. Supreme Court's fall term opens tomorrow, Oct. 6. There are a number of cases on the Court's Docket for this term that are of interest to readers of Religion Clause Blog. Here are the cases with links to their case pages on SCOTUSblog:

Chiles v. Salazar (to be argued on Oct. 7). Is Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors constitutional.

Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, (to be argued Nov. 10, 2025). Can a government official be sued in his individual capacity for violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, (argument date not yet set). Can a faith-based pregnancy resource center that has been served with a state investigatory subpoena challenge the subpoena on free speech grounds in federal court, or must the challenge be adjudicated in state court.

Little v. Hecox, (argument date not yet set). West Virgina v. B.J.P, (argument date not yet set). Do laws that bar transgender women from participating on women's sports teams in public schools and colleges violate Title IX or the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi, (argument date not yet set). Can a street preacher can sue to enjoin a city ordinance that limits demonstrations to a designated area within three hours of an event at the city's amphitheater, or would that undermine his prior state conviction for violating the ordinance.

______________

There are also two cases of interest on the Court's Emergency Docket (sometimes called its "Shadow Docket") These cases are usually decided without full briefing and oral argument. 

Trump v. Orr. Asks the Supreme Court should stay a district court injunction that requires the State Department to allow passport applicants to select the sex designation that will appear on their passports. Applicants have the choice of "M", "F", or "X", regardless of their biological sex.

We the Patriots USA v. Ventura Unified School District. Asks the Supreme Court to issue an injunction allowing school children whose parents object to vaccines on religious grounds to attend school while challenges to the absence of religious exemptions from school vaccine mandates are being appealed.

IDEA Requires New York To Pay for Kindergartener's Judaic Studies Class

In Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York v. E.L., (SD NY, Sept. 30, 2025), a New York federal district court upheld a decision by a State Review Officer who decided that under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), New York schools must pay for a Judaic Studies class that is part of the curriculum of a private school which a kindergarten student with a disability attends. The private school was found to be an appropriate placement for the student after public schools failed to offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE). At issue was whether paying for the Judaic studies part of the curriculum violates federal regulations or constitutional provisions. The court said in part:

Here, there is no dispute that the IDEA’s guarantee of a FAPE and reimbursement for tuition at an appropriate school is a neutral program. There is no dispute that funding appropriately provided under that program adheres to federal regulations and the Constitution. The DOE, however, appears to argue that the Judaic Studies classes are not covered by that neutral program—that they are unnecessary religious instruction falling outside the IDEA educational guarantee. This issue is best resolved with an understanding of what a child of E.L.’s age needs to obtain a FAPE and whether the absence of his enrollment in Judaic Studies classes would prevent him from obtaining that FAPE. In other words, this question implicates educational expertise that is best left to the administrative officers. 

... [T]he Court finds that the Judaic Studies classes are a core part of E.L.’s FAPE. The SINAI School director testified that Judaic Studies classes work on reading comprehension skills, and expressive and receptive language skills.... Moreover, the classes comprise a key part of the school day, taking place for thirty minutes to an hour in the morning, between other classes such as language studies, art therapy, and educational therapy.... For a five-year-old, these are critical periods of learning and development. To deny funding for these specific class periods would effectively exclude the child from these periods of learning.

FDA Approves Generic Mifepristone

The pharmaceutical company Evita Solutions announced that last month the FDA approved its generic version of the abortion pill mifepristone. NBC News reporting on the FDA action said in part:

The FDA often issues a press release after new or significant drug approvals, but did not in this case....

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., the chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which oversees the FDA chimed in on X: “I fully support President Trump’s Pro-Life, Pro-Family agenda, but the FDA approving one more tool to kill babies is a betrayal. This is not what Commissioner Makary and Secretary Kennedy indicated they would do in their confirmation hearings.”

Insurance Abortion Coverage Mandate Does Not Violate Baptist Group's Rights

 In Illinois Baptist State Association v. Department of Insurance, (IL App., Oct. 1, 2025), an Illinois state appellate court held that a requirement imposed by the Illinois Department of Insurance that all health insurance policies regulated by it must cover abortion care does not infringe a Baptist organization's rights under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court said in part:

First, the Association is not legally required to provide its employees with health insurance. Second, the State will not assess any kind of monetary tax or penalty on the Association if it does not provide abortion insurance coverage to its employees. Third, if the Association decides to provide its employees with health insurance, it is not required by law to purchase a health insurance plan regulated by the Department. In other words, the Association is free to purchase health insurance, either out of state or through a self-funded or level-funded in-state plan, that does not include coverage for abortions without having to pay any kind of penalty or tax to the State....

This is not a situation where the Association could not find an affordable insurance policy. Based on the facts before us, we need not determine whether the lack of an affordable option could result in a different outcome....

Justice Steigmann filed a concurring opinion.

British King Approves Selection of First Woman to Be Archbishop of Canterbury

In Britain, the Prime Minister's Office announced today that the King has approved the nomination of Sarah Mullally for election by the College of Canons of Canterbury Cathedral as Archbishop of Canterbury. Reporting on her selection BBC says in part:

It is the first time in nearly 500 years of history that the Church nominated a woman to lead it....

The Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, which represents conservative views, has criticised the appointment, saying that although some will welcome it, "the majority of the Anglican Communion still believes that the Bible requires a male-only episcopacy".

She does not legally take on her new role until a confirmation of election in January, and an enthronement service comes later, after they have paid homage to the King.

10th Circuit: Nondiscrimination Requirement Did Not Infringe 1st Amendment Rights of Catholic Preschools

 In St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton v. Roy, (10th Cir., Sept. 30, 2025), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the nondiscrimination requirements of Colorado's Universal Preschool Program do not violate the free exercise or expressive association rights of Catholic schools that are excluded from the program because they insist on considering the sexual orientation and gender identity of a student and their parents in making decisions on who will be admitted. The court said in part:

Colorado is not attempting to prohibit funds from being used for religious purposes. ... [P]reschools funded through UPK may use those funds to educate students on matters of faith. The restrictions imposed by the nondiscrimination requirement universally cover enrollment policies and conduct, but they are not a targeted burden on religious use. The Parish Preschools allege, of course, that this universal restriction nonetheless infringes upon their ability to exercise their religious beliefs. But when a particular religious practice is alleged to be infringed incidentally, rather than religious status or use being specifically targeted, the Supreme Court requires that the law at issue be neutral and generally applicable....

... [B]ecause state law gives no room to the Department to make exceptions, it stays generally applicable, and thus does not implicate the Free Exercise Clause....

Meanwhile, the Department has made every effort to encourage faith-based preschools to participate in UPK short of granting them an unlawful exemption from the nondiscrimination requirement. As a result, forty faith-based preschools are currently part of UPK. The program is a model example of maintaining neutral and generally applicable nondiscrimination laws while nonetheless trying to accommodate the exercise of religious beliefs....

Even if a group is engaged in expressive association, its expressive association rights are not infringed upon by the mandated inclusion of a person unless “the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.”...

This is a case about preschoolers. No one would reasonably mistake the views of preschool students for those of their school. And while we must “give deference to an association’s view of what would impair its expression[,]” that does not mean that we must buy that “mere acceptance of a member from a particular group” is enough.... Teachers and staff are the ones responsible for disseminating a preschool’s message and developing the curriculum, not the preschool children they teach.  ...

FBI Cuts Ties With ADL

The FBI has announced that it is cutting its ties with the Anti-Defamation League. According to Fox News, Patel told them:

James Comey disgraced the FBI by writing ‘love letters’ to the ADL and embedding agents with an extreme group functioning like a terrorist organization and the disgraceful operation they ran spying on Americans. That was not law enforcement, it was activism dressed up as counterterrorism, and it put Americans in danger.

That era is finished. This FBI formally rejects Comey’s policies and any partnership with the ADL.

Fox News goes on to report:

The ADL has recently faced backlash from Elon Musk and Republican lawmakers for listing Turning Point USA (TPUSA), Charlie Kirk's organization, as an extremist group....

In a post on X, Elon Musk said:

The FBI was taking their “hate group” definitions from ADL, which is why FBI was investigating Charlie Kirk & Turning Point, instead of his murderers …

In response to the criticism, the ADL announced that it is taking its Glossary offline, saying:

With over 1,000 entries written over many years, the ADL Glossary of Extremism has served as a source of high-level information on a wide range of topics for years. At the same time, an increasing number of entries in the Glossary were outdated. We also saw a number of entries intentionally misrepresented and misused. Moreover, our experts have continued to develop more comprehensive resources and innovative ways to provide information about antisemitism, extremism and hate.

At ADL, we always are looking for how we can and should do things better. That's why we are moving to retire the Glossary effectively immediately. This will allow ADL to explore new strategies and creative approaches to deliver our data and present our research more effectively. It will keep us focused on ensuring we do what we do best: fighting antisemitism and hate in the most impactful ways possible.

President Sends Yom Kippur Greetings to the Jewish Community

The White House today posted President Trump's Message on Yom Kippur (full text) which begins today at sundown. The message says in part:

As you observe this blessed day, my Administration is working to strengthen our proud national tradition of religious liberty, end faith-based persecution, and further the sacred cause of peace both at home and abroad.

We wish the Jewish faithful a meaningful Sabbath of Sabbaths.  May you be inscribed in the Book of Life, may God bless you, and may He continue to bless the United States of America.

Kansas Supreme Court: Expanded Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate Is Not in Conflict with Title VII

In Powerback Rehabilitation, LLC v. Kansas Department of Labor, (KS Sup. Ct., Sept. 26, 2025), the Kansas Supreme Court in a 4-2 decision, upheld a Kansas  statute (K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663) that requires employers to grant religious exemptions from any Covid vaccine mandate without inquiring into the sincerity of an employee's asserted religious belief. Powerback was subject to federal Medicaid rules that required it to impose a Covid vaccine mandate on its employees. Medicaid incorporated into its rules federal Title VII standards which allow employers to question the sincerity of an employee's religious belief. The Supreme Court rejected the trial court's holding that the Kansas statute was pre-empted by federal law. The Kansas Supreme Court said in part:

Powerback's argument is simple and alluring at first blush. It simply points out that "federal law contemplates an inquiry into the sincerity of an employee's purported religious beliefs. [K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663] specifically disallows this same inquiry. The Vaccine Act thus forces Powerback to make an impossible decision between compliance with Kansas law or compliance with federal law." But this framing of the problem incorporates a deft sleight-of-hand. Because federal "contemplation" is not a mandate. That is, nowhere in the federal regulations ... is an employer subject to the Vaccine Mandate required to inquire into the sincerity of an employee's religious beliefs. At most, the employer is permitted to make this inquiry....

Thus, Powerback could have granted a religious exemption to Keeran that was consistent with both Title VII (as incorporated into the Vaccine Mandate) and with K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663 by simply not inquiring into Keeran's religious sincerity.

The dissent rejects this conclusion on the grounds that Title VII's allowance of what the dissent characterizes as a "meaningful interactive process with the employee" is actually a "federally granted right" which state law cannot "nullify" or "forbid" an employer from exercising.... If this were true, the dissent would be correct. But it is not true. Indeed, the dissent has dramatically misunderstood—and in fact inverted— Title VII. The statutory framework adopted by Congress in Title VII does not define or create any genuine "rights" in employers. It is instead entirely about protecting and preserving the rights of employees not to be discriminated against....

Justice Stanridge, joined by Justice Rosen, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Under longstanding Supremacy Clause doctrine, state law must yield where compliance with both state and federal law is impossible, or where state law frustrates Congress' objectives. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663 fails on both counts....

Title VII embodies a carefully calibrated framework, one that protects religious exercise while preserving the ability of employers to safeguard legitimate operational and safety interests. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663 is incompatible with that framework in two respects. It makes compliance with both state and federal law impossible, and it obstructs the objectives of Congress by replacing a balanced system with one of absolute deference. Either defect alone is sufficient for preemption; together, they leave no room for doubt. Because Kansas has attempted to supplant federal law with a contradictory regime, I would hold K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663 is preempted by the Supremacy Clause.

Kansas City Star reports on the decision.

Teacher Loses Challenge to School's "Controversial Issues" Policy

In Cahall v. New Richmond Exempted Village School District Board of Education, (SD OH, Sept. 29, 2025), an Ohio federal district court dismissed a teacher's constitutional challenges to a 3-day suspension she received for violating the school's "controversial issues" policy. Plaintiff, a third-grade math and science teacher, added four books with LGBTQ+ themes to a book collection in her classroom that students can read during in-class free time. In upholding the school's action, the court said in part:

To the extent that [plaintiff] relies on the Free Exercise Clause... —teachers do not have a First Amendment right (whether under its free speech component or its free exercise component) to make their own “curricular and pedagogical choices” in a public school.... If Cahall wants to keep religious materials for her own use—for example, a Bible in a desk drawer that she reads herself during free time—the analysis gets more difficult. Or similarly if she wants to speak as a citizen on matters relating to LGBTQ+ or other issues—for example, commenting at a Board meeting.... But the District pays her to instruct students, and as part of that, it has the right to specify the materials that she uses to accomplish that objective....

Cahall also invokes the Establishment Clause. Her claim ... appears to be that the District chose to treat other religious expressions, by other school personnel, better than hers.... But assuming that is her claim, ... she has not plausibly alleged that a similarly-situated employee was treated more favorably, and thus has not plausibly alleged that the District is favoring one religion over another.  

If instead she is arguing that she has some kind of constitutional right to share her religiously motivated beliefs, the Establishment Clause actually works against her.

The court also rejected vagueness and equal protection challenges.

Religious Liberty Commission Holds Hearing on Religious Liberty in Education

The Religious Liberty Commission yesterday held a four-hour hearing on Religious Liberty in Education. (Video of full hearing.) The hearing included a tribute to Charlie Kirk, and panels on Teacher and Coach Perspectives; Protecting the Religious Identity and Autonomy of Faith-Based Schools; and Faith-Based Schools and the State. The Lion reports on the testimony of various witnesses before the Commission.

DOJ Brings FACE Act Suit Against Antisemitic Protesters

In a press release and at a news conference (video) the Justice Department announced that for the first time it has filed a civil complaint under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act against organizations and individuals who, in 2024, targeted a New Jersey synagogue in a protest that escalated into violence. The complaint (full text) in United States v. Party for Socialism and Liberation New Jersey, (D NJ, filed 9/29/2025), alleges in part:

28. The event at Congregation Ohr Torah was to include prayer, a religious memorial service for the late Rabbi Avi Goldberg, a Torah sermon, religious songs with biblical verses, prayerful dancing, educational activities about the religious obligation to live in Israel, a real estate fair, and a festive barbecue in the synagogue’s parking lot—all part of the religious observance....

73. Defendants Sharif and Jane Doe used vuvuzelas as weapons to drown out the religious service, making it impossible for worshipers to hear the memorial service and Torah sermon, effectively denying access to the event. Blowing vuvuzelas to disrupt a religious event is not protected speech, as blowing a vuvuzela does not convey a message and was used by Defendants Sharif and Jane Doe as a method of physical harm, intimidation, and disruption reasonably known to lead to permanent noise-induced hearing loss....

75. Motivated by antisemitic animus, Sharif charged at Glick with intent to cause serious bodily harm and, after Camins identified Silberberg as “the Jew,” assaulted Silberberg by grabbing his throat, placing him in a chokehold, tackling him down a hill, and further dragging him across the synagogue property....

The suit seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages and civil penalties. 

Washington Examiner reports on the lawsuit.

As reported by NorthJersey, in February the Essex County, New Jersey, prosecutor filed criminal charges of bias intimidation, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose and unlawful possession of a weapon against the pro-Israel counter protesters at the event who are alleged to be the victims in DOJ's complaint.

Massachusetts Appellate Court Reverses Dismissal of Vaccine Exemption Claim

In June v. UMass Memorial Healthcare System, (MA App., Sept. 29, 2025), a Massachusetts state appellate court reversed a trial court's dismissal of a state law religious discrimination suit brought by an operating room surgical technician who was denied a religious exemption from the health care system's Covid vaccine mandate. In denying an accommodation, the system's religious exemption committee said:

This requester asserts they cannot receive the COVID-19 vaccines based on their Christian faith because they will 'genetically alter' their body.  This is patently false -- none of the COVID-19 vaccines genetically alter the body or change a person's DNA.  Reliance on demonstrably false information cannot be a basis for a religious accommodation." 

In reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment, the appellate court said in part:

A plaintiff, like the plaintiff here, who believes that she was created in God's image and that her body is a temple of God and thus needs God's approval to expose her body to foreign substances, expresses a religious belief.  Moreover, a plaintiff who prays to God and receives a "distinctive message from my God" acts in accordance with religious beliefs when she follows those divine instructions. 

To this, UMass Memorial interposes the objection that "this would create a blanket privilege allowing employees to opt out of any and all employer requirements simply by stating they prayed and received guidance."  Although UMass Memorial is free to argue to a jury that the plaintiff is not telling the truth, "[i]t is not permissible for a judge to determine what is or is not a matter of religious doctrine." ...

Here, the summary judgment record reveals a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether accommodating the plaintiff's religious beliefs would cause an undue hardship to UMass Memorial.

Boston Herald reports on the decision.