5th Circuit: Federal Diversity Jurisdiction Exists In Lutheran Church's Suit Against Concordia University

 In Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod v. Christian, (5th Cir., June 4, 2026), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that in a suit by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS)-- an entity incorporated under Missouri law-- against Concordia University and its Board of Regents, LCMS was the proper plaintiff for purposes of determining whether the parties to the lawsuit are citizens of different states. Concordia had claimed that an unincorporated association, also known as the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (Synod) is the real party in interest and had to be joined as a party to the lawsuit. The Synod is a resident of Texas, the same state as the residence of Concordia University and its regents. If it became a party, this would destroy complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants so that the suit would have to be brought in state court rather than federal court.

LCMS sued Concordia after Concordia's Board of Regents voted change its governing documents to reject LCMS's authority over it. According to the court: "The Synod manages Church spiritual affairs like supervising doctrine and religious practice and governing the church body.  LCMS manages the Synod’s civil affairs including its property, bank accounts, contracts, assets, and employees.  In the same vein, LCMS is the Church’s legal representative and is the proper party to litigation...." 

Judge Jones in the court's main opinion wrote that the church autonomy doctrine requires courts to respect the Church's internal governance structure. She described the district court's erroneous conclusion that the suit should be dismissed in part as follows:

[The district court] reached this result only by overlaying a secular corporate law interpretation on the church’s spiritually crafted governance documents, and then imposing Texas unincorporated association law on the Lutheran Church, whose special status has been recognized by Missouri law for more than a hundred years.  The district court’s ruling quintessentially violated the church autonomy doctrine....

Judge Jones continued, in part:

... [T]he Synod and LCMS are designed as separate but integrated entities based on the Lutherans’ interpretation of Biblical Scripture.  By imposing its own interpretation, the district court changed the meaning of the governing documents. Regardless, “change” is not the line at which the church autonomy doctrine begins to apply.  Second, the district court essentially denied the Church’s self-identity, rooted in the “two kingdoms” doctrine, by finding that LCMS does not represent the Synod or does not share the same interest as the Synod.  Yet “matters of religious ‘faith and doctrine’ are ‘closely linked to . . . matters of church government.’” ...

 Though the Synod has legal interests, LCMS formally and fully represents these interests....

Chief Judge Elrod filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I agree with much of Judge Jones’s reasoning.  However, I believe that this is a straightforward case that can be decided by relying upon the Church’s corporate documents and declarations.  The district court opinion focuses on one subsection of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod’s Policy Manual to arrive at a conclusion that conflicts with both the best reading of the Church’s corporate documents as well as the Church’s own understanding of its structure.  This was error. When considering the documents together and in context, it is clear that the LCMS is the real party to the controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction....

Judge Graves filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The Synod’s status as a necessary party to the suit is evident just from the Church’s briefs—its own representations—where it states that “the Church makes its universities [like Concordia] ‘agencies’ of the Synod, subject to the Synod’s ecclesiastical governance and LCMS’s civil oversight.”... 

One other reason to be concerned with this application of the church autonomy doctrine is that it may lead to disparate treatment among differently structured religious groups. Groups that do not have a corporate representative like LCMS may be unable to disentangle their ecclesial bodies from litigation, and may be less likely to take their disputes to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The church autonomy doctrine should not apply differently according to how a religious group is organized....

Animal Crushing Not Protected By RFRA

In United States v. Edison, (D MN, June 5, 2026), a Minnesota federal magistrate judge recommended that motions to dismiss filed by defendant in a criminal prosecution be denied. Defendant Bryan Edison was charged with sixteen counts of "animal crushing" in violation of the federal statute 18 USC §48(a)(1). According to the court:

The Indictment alleges in relevant part that Mr. Edison created and maintained YouTube channels on which he uploaded hundreds of videos depicting animals being crushed or tortured... The videos show him placing small live animals such as birds, hamsters, mice, guinea pigs, and rabbits into enclosures that contained larger live animals such as a snapping turtle, a monitor lizard, and a dog.... The Indictment alleges that the smaller animals were crushed, impaled, suffocated, and dismembered by the larger animals....

One of plaintiff's motions asserted that his alleged conduct is protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In rejecting that contention, the court said in part:

Mr. Edison does not clearly define his sincerely held religious belief, but the Court gathers from his motion that he believes a captive predator animal should be allowed to slaughter a prey animal for the purpose of providing food for human consumption. The Court arrives at this understanding of what he claims is a sincerely held religious belief by drawing on Mr. Edison's reference in his motion to the practice of "permitting a predator animal to slaughter a prey animal for the purpose of food," Mr. Edison's citation to a passage in the Quran supposedly allowing "the consumption of animals slaughtered by captive predator pets," and Mr. Edison's reference to the human consumption of rabbits and guinea pigs as food.... Mr. Edison does not claim, however, that he or any other person consumed, intended to consume, or would consume the animals slaughtered by the captive predator animals....

Mr. Edison has not shown that the Animal Crushing statute or this prosecution significantly inhibit or constrain his religious expression, meaningfully curtail his ability to express adherence to his faith, or deny him a reasonable opportunity to engage in an activity fundamental to his religion. Therefore, he has not established a substantial burden on his free exercise of religion....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Muhammad Munir, Depriving Women from their Qur'anic Shares in Inheritance: The Application of Statute of Limitation to Claims of Inheritance by the Courts in Pakistan, (May 20, 2026).
• Akshay Rajput, "Whether the Jewish Community in India Requires a Separate Personal Law Board: A Constitutional and Comparative Analysis", (May 22, 2026).
• Audra Savage, Slavery and the Myth of Religious Liberty, (BYU Law Review, Volume 51, Issue 5, pp. 1363-1408 (2026)).
• Jeffrey A. Brauch, Is the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice the Answer to the Religious Freedom Challenges in West Africa?, (African Human Rights Law Journal, Volume 26, No. 1, pp. 55-97 (2026)).
• Paul G. Cassell, The Clergy-Penitent Privilege and Preventing Child Sexual Abuse: A Response to Sacred Secrets Enabling Child Sex Abuse, (49 Law & Psychol. Rev. (forthcoming 2026)).
• Austin Smith, Lucius Caviola, & Heather Alexander, Denying Personhood to AI: An Analysis of U.S. State Legislation on AI Legal Status, (May 25, 2026).
• Joseph Kwaku Asamoah & Daniel Bewel, Medical Negligence and Religious Faith in Ghana: Reconciling Autonomy, Vulnerability, and Constitutional Rights, (June 03, 2026).
• Alshaymaa Alharbi, The Interpretation and Application of Uniform Substantive Law in Shari’ah Courts: A CISG Case Study, (April 06, 2026).
• Zainuddin, Behind The Talaq Pledge: The Husband’s Non-Compliance with Paying Iddah and Mut’ah Alimony in Talaq Divorce Cases at Religious Court in Indonesia, (Manchester Journal of Transnational Islamic Law & Practice, Volume 22, Issue 1. Pp. 298-313 (2026).

Muslim High Schoolers Sue After Being Disciplined for Instagram Video

Suit was filed yesterday in a Virginia federal district court against Fairfax County schools by four Muslim students who were disciplined because of a skit they posted on the Muslim Students Association Instagram site.  The complaint (full text) in Doe v. School Board for Fairfax County Public Schools, (ED VA, filed 6/4/2026), alleges in part:

2. Plaintiffs, students at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology (“TJHSST”), created a lighthearted promotional video for their chapter of the Muslim Student Association. The video contained no threats, no weapons, and no reference to any real-world event. It was a skit, modeled on a viral online trend, intended to invite students to their events.  

3. After bad-faith actors outside of TJHSST made Islamophobic, racist, and anti-Palestinian characterizations about the video, FCPS and TJHSST adopted those characterizations as their own. 

4. Defendants suspended Plaintiffs, labeled their conduct “antisemitic,” barred one Plaintiff from wearing a sweatshirt displaying the map of Palestine, and placed disciplinary marks on the students’ records.  

5. These actions were entirely without justification, damaging the reputations of the students before their peers and teachers and significantly affecting their educational performance and future opportunities. 

6. Because Defendants punished Plaintiffs’ protected speech, and treated Plaintiffs differently because they were Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian, Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Title VI.

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

Indian Court Rules Deceased's Direction on Disposition of Body After Death Controls Over Children's Wish for Religious Rites

In India, the High Court in the state of Kerala has held that the wishes of the deceased to have her body donated to a medical college for educational purposes takes precedence over the desire of some of her children to have her body released for last rites and burial according to their religious customs. In Greeny Tomy v. State of Kerala, (Kerala High Ct., May 21, 2026), the appeals court explained that previous dissention among the five children regarding their father's funeral had led their mother to direct in writing that upon her death her body be donated for anatomical purposes. Acting on this direction, the hospital turned the body over to the mortuary to be donated to the medical school. Three of the children petitioned the court instead for release of the body for last rites and burial. A single judge court ruled in part:

Mere desire on the part of the petitioners, who are also the children of the deceased, cannot overcome the explicit expression of intention of the deceased to handover her body after her death to Medical College.

On appeal, the two-judge High Court panel, citing the Kerala Anatomy Act, agreed, saying in part:

It is contended by the appellants that in so far as the appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, have not consented to handover the body for anatomical uses, they have a right to claim that the deceased should have a burial in accordance with their religious rites. 

The right claimed by the appellants is a reflection of two competing rights – the right to posthumous bodily integrity of the deceased and the right of the family to get a closure of the loss of their near and dear ones....

The right of a living person to decide on the fate of her body remains a part of her posthumous bodily integrity....

LiveLaw reports on the decision.

TRO Under RFRA Extends Legal Immigration Status of Nigerian Deacon

In Archdiocese of Santa Fe v. Mullin, (D NM, June 2, 2026), a New Mexico federal district court issued a temporary restraining order ex parte staying the expiration of the F-1 student visa issued to Martin Umeatuegbu, a citizen of Nigeria who obtained an MA degree in Theology and then was granted temporary employment authorization as a Deacon in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. That authorization expired on June 4, 2026. On December 31, 2025, the Archdiocese petitioned to sponsor Father Martin for an R-1 religious worker visa. However, on January 1, 2026, USCIS issued a new Policy Memorandum that placed on hold all applications for visa adjustments for foreign nationals of countries identified as "high risk" in two Proclamations that had been issued by President Trump. Nigeria was one of those high-risk countries. The court said in part:

... [T]he Archdiocese is likely to succeed on the merits under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.... USCIS’s policy infringes on the Archdiocese’s right to select its minister of choice.  USCIS’s indefinite hold on the adjudication of any visa status change petitions is “depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.” ... USCIS’s action therefore “prevents participation in conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief,” and thus imposes a substantial burden on the Archdiocese's sincere religious exercise.... 

Moreover, the Government is unlikely to demonstrate that the policy is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.  The Government’s interest in restricting the entry of noncitizens from “high risk” countries and imposing stricter screening processes for resident noncitizens is likely a compelling government interest.  However, USCIS has already lifted its adjudicative holds on certain categories of petitions....  So, USCIS’s policy is likely not the least restrictive means of implementing more robust screening processes for visa status change applications....

 ... [T]he Court orders a stay on the expiration of Father Martin’s F-1 visa and OPT employment authorization, which preserves Father Martin’s legal status and permits him to continue working until the Government responds to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction....

Jews for Jesus' Anti-SLAPP Motion in Defamation Case Fails

 In Amitay v. Jews for Jesus, (CA App., May 28, 2026), a California state appellate court held that a defamation claims against Jews for Jesus should not be dismissed under California's anti-SLAPP law because the claim at least has minimal merit. The court describes plaintiff's claims in part:

In December 2023, JFJ posted on its social media pages, including on Facebook and Instagram, a blurred photograph of an Israeli soldier wearing a yarmulke.  Above the photograph was the following text attributed to “Nachman”: “ ‘Thank you for leaving at my home a copy of the New Testament.  I look forward to reading it when I return home from the war’ -- Nachman, a young Haredi soldier.”

Amitay filed a complaint against JFJ....  He alleged that the photographs posted by JFJ were photographs of him, that they had been posted without his consent, and that defendant had defamed him, put him in a false light, and inflicted emotional distress.  Amitay alleged that he was a Jewish Orthodox rabbi who had “dedicated his life to the study of the Jewish Orthodox faith and committed many years studying to become a rabbi”....  He had finally gotten a job teaching at an institution in Israel where he had worked for two years, a position he described as his “dream job.”  His job “suddenly came to an end as he was terminated . . . due to an egregious act by JFJ,”.... 

Amitay alleged that when his employer “saw the pictures posted online,” they “expressly stated that his termination was due to the posts online of him supporting JFJ, and that they could not condone or be associated with someone involved with JFJ or their views.” ...

See prior related posting.  [Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

St. John's Challenges Jurisdiction of NY PERB Over Its Relations with Its Faculty Union

St. John's University filed suit this week in a New York federal district court challenging on 1st Amendment grounds jurisdiction of the New York State Public Employment Relations Board over the University's relations with it faculty's union. The complaint (full text) in St. John's University v. Connick, (ED NY, filed 6/1/2026), alleges in part:

1. For over 150 years, St. John’s University operated as an institution of Catholic and Vincentian higher education—a Mission-driven religious institution founded by the Congregation of the Mission of St. Vincent de Paul to provide the youth of New York with intellectual and moral formation rooted in the Gospel and the teachings of St. Vincent de Paul....

5. New York’s Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”), however, seeks to subject St. John’s to a regime of mandatory collective bargaining that impermissibly entangles the government (and the faculty Union) in its internal governance of religion- and Mission-related matters....

6. Under St. John’s expired collective bargaining agreement with the faculty Union, faculty committees controlled significant aspects of hiring, tenure, promotion, discipline, and curricular decisions—the very decisions that define how St. John’s carries out its Mission.  

7. When St. John’s sought to reassert its First Amendment right to govern itself in accordance with its Catholic and Vincentian identity by withdrawing recognition from the faculty Union, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge with PERB—asking the state agency to force this religious institution back to the bargaining table under New York’s State Employment Relations Act (“SERA”). ...

10. The First Amendment, the church autonomy doctrine, the prohibition against excessive government entanglement with religion, the ministerial exception, and the Free Exercise Clause all forbid precisely what PERB seeks to do here: transfer St. John’s authority to govern its religious affairs and to fulfill its sacred educational Mission from its religious leaders to PERB and the faculty Union.

EWTN News reports on the lawsuit.

2nd Circuit: Denial of Covid Vaccine Religious Exemption Because of Undue Hardship Triggers Only Rational Basis Review

In Vesterman v. New York City Department of Education, (2d Cir., June 3, 2026), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a religious discrimination claim brought by a former New York Department of Education employee who was denied a religious accommodation after objecting to compliance with the Department's Covid vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

In [two prior] cases, we applied strict scrutiny and sustained the plaintiffs’ claims on a motion to dismiss where they made plausible allegations that the DOE denied an accommodation by questioning the legitimacy of their religious beliefs....  We have applied the “low threshold” of rational basis review, however, where the DOE has denied an accommodation “irrespective of [the employee’s] sincerely held religious beliefs” on the basis of “undue hardship.” ...

Here, Vesterman’s claim triggers only rational basis review because she has not alleged that the DOE improperly scrutinized her religious beliefs or otherwise denied her request in a way that was not neutral towards religion nor generally applicable to all employees.  Under rational basis review, Vesterman has failed to plausibly allege that the DOE’s rationale—that her request imposed an “undue hardship” because “unvaccinated employees cannot work in a school building without posing a direct threat to health and safety,” ... was either erroneous or pretextual.

The court also affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's due process stigma-plus claim growing out of her being listed in the Department's "problem code" database. 

Indiana and Tennessee Declare June as Nuclear Family Month

On June 1, the beginning of Pride Month, Indiana Governor Mike Braun issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring June 2026 as Nuclear Family Month. The Proclamation reads in part:

The nuclear family, consisting of one husband, one wife, and any biological, adopted or fostered children, is God's design for the family structure and has been the foundation of society since the creation of the world....

This follows similar action on April 9 by Tennessee Governor Bill Lee who signed House Joint Resolution 182 (full text) containing similar language and also declaring June as Nuclear Family month.

Indiana Capital Chronicle reports on these developments.

European Court Says Serbia's Ban on Pro-Falun Gong Demonstrations Violated Right to Peaceably Assemble

In Serbian-Chinese Friendship Society FDH v. Serbia, (ECHR, June 2, 2026), the European Court of Human Rights held that the Serbian government violated the right to peaceably assemble protected by Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it banned a planned demonstration to protest the Chinese persecution of Falun Gong. The demonstration was planned to coincide with the visit to Serbia of China's president. The court said in part:

71. ... [T]here is no evidence in the case file that the relevant Serbian authorities had carried out any specific security assessments before deciding to prohibit the public gatherings planned by the applicant society.... Instead, they merely referred to the anticipated presence of a significant number of Chinese nationals in support of the visiting President of the People’s Republic of China. As the applicant society is an organisation banned in that country, the authorities concluded that its activities could be expected to incite conflict between opposing groups of demonstrators. This, in turn, carried a risk to public safety and property.... In those circumstances, it is the Court’s view that the alleged risk of confrontation between the two groups of demonstrators remained speculative at best...

72.  ... [T]he Ministry of Internal Affairs stated ... that a spontaneous gathering of Serbian and Chinese nationals was expected to be held during the official visit of the President of the People’s Republic of China with the aim of expressing their support for him.... The Ministry highlighted that Falun Gong had a significant global presence, making it impossible to estimate the number of expected participants in the gathering. Such uncertainty surrounding the event made adequate preparation difficult and the Ministry concluded that allowing it to proceed could carry a risk of confrontation likely to endanger public safety and property....The Court, however, considers that the wording of the prohibition orders, in particular, demonstrates that the relevant authorities’ decision‑making process was based on mere conjecture....

73.  Even if there had been a genuine risk of violent confrontation between the protestors and counter‑protestors, this, in and of itself, should not have resulted in the decisions to prohibit the planned public gatherings, without the authorities having first complied with their positive obligation to try to ensure the peaceful conduct of the planned events and the safety of all persons concerned....

74....  Indeed, if every probability of tension and heated exchange between opposing groups during a demonstration were to warrant its prohibition, society would be faced with being deprived of the opportunity of hearing differing views on any question which offends the sensibilities of others.... It is understood, in this context, that even where some restrictions on planned public gatherings might be warranted, they should still, in so far as possible, allow participants to assemble at a location which is, because it is within sight or sound of the target audience or for some other reason, important to their purpose...

Canadian Prime Minister Announces New Steps to Combat Antisemitism

Yesterday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced new measures to combat antisemitism in Canada. A press release from the Prime Minister's office says in part:

... Our government will always protect the inalienable right of the Jewish people to live openly in freedom, safety, and dignity. Protection is fundamental, but not sufficient. The Jewish community must be able to flourish in every aspect of Canadian society.

To that end, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, today announced the launch and membership of Canada’s new Ministerial Advisory Council on Rights, Equality, and Inclusion to be chaired by the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture. The Council has a clear mission: to combat racism and hate in all their forms, and to guide the Government of Canada as we build a fairer, more just, and more inclusive country.

Today, the Prime Minister directed the Council to begin by addressing antisemitism from four different directions:

• Reassess the nature, scale, and drivers of antisemitism in Canada – across public institutions, workplaces, campuses, and online spaces.
• Develop a whole-of-government approach to antisemitism to ensure federal policies, workplaces, public safety programs, and community initiatives are aligned in protecting Jewish Canadians and confronting hate.
• Improve research and the collection of data on hate incidents and build stronger data-sharing systems so all orders of government, schools, and police services are working from the same facts.
• Measure the impact of our efforts so that investments in education, prevention, training, and community safety are delivering real results and helping build a safer Canada for everyone....

JNS reports on the Prime Minister's action and reactions to it.

D.C. Circuit: Transgender Troops Can Remain in Military, But Ban on New Trans Enlistees Remains for Now

As previously reported, in March 2025 the federal district court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction barring the military from implementing Executive Orders and military memoranda that exclude transgender persons from serving in the military. Now in Talbott v. United States, (DC Cir., June 1, 2026), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the preliminary injunction insofar as it applies to named plaintiffs who are already serving in the military but vacated the preliminary injunction insofar as it applies to the named plaintiffs seeking to enlist. This result came in a fragmented vote of the 3-judge panel which generated three separate opinions spanning a total of 107 pages.

Judge Wilkins concluded that all the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their equal protection challenge and that those already serving in the military are entitled to a preliminary injunction.  However, he held that the case should be remanded to the district court for it to consider whether the balance of equities that justify a preliminary injunction are different for those who are merely seeking to enlist.

Discussing the merits, Judge Wilkins concluded that the current policy on transgender service contains classifications that are not sufficiently related to a legitimate government interest; the policy is grounded on archaic and overbroad generalizations about sex, rather than on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria or medical treatment for the condition; gender dysphoria is treated differently than any other medical condition; and the policy contains classifications that are based on invidious discrimination. He concluded in part:

What has been clearly and repeatedly explained are the foundational premises of the Hegseth Policy:  persons with a “false gender identity” are unfit for the military, and persons with a history of gender dysphoria are also unfit because they lack “honesty, humility, . . . and integrity.”... [T]hose animus-filled reasons were expressly given to justify aspects of the Hegseth Policy....  Unless we are going to fall for the old Groucho Marx line—“who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”—we have direct evidence in this case that animus motivated the classifications in the Hegseth Policy. 

Senior Circuit Judge Rogers filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. He would affirm the district court's preliminary injunction in full, saying in part:

Given the uncontested record evidence and the nature of this court’s review for abuse of discretion, the district court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining the Hegseth Policy on accession.  This is so even if based on the evidence and argument before it, the district court could have concluded that the retention policy imposes “a much greater hardship” on those currently in the military than those who seek to join it, as Judge Wilkins concludes,... and only enjoined the Hegseth Policy on retention due to  national security concerns.  But the existence of a permissible alternative is not the same as showing that the district court abused its discretion by choosing another permissible alternative....

Judge Walker filed a dissenting opinion. He would reverse in full the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction. He said in part:

Sometimes a case will present an open question informed only by confusing and contradictory precedents.  This is not one of those cases.  Rather, ... an unbroken line of unambiguous authorities directs us to uphold a military policy (1) when it does not conflict with a statutory command, (2) when it reflects a “professional military judgment[],” and (3) when it addresses a perceived, military-wide need regarding the “composition, training, equipping, [or] control” of the armed forces.

The policy challenged today meets those criteria.

ABC News reports on the decision.

President Issues Message on Global Coptic Day

Yesterday, the White House posted a Presidential Message on Global Coptic Day (full text). The Message reads in part:

More than 2,000 years ago, the Holy Family fled to Egypt and sought refuge from persecution, blessing the land that later became home to one of the world’s oldest Christian communities.  When Saint Mark the Evangelist began spreading the Gospel in Egypt decades later, he planted a seed that would grow into the extraordinary Coptic Orthodox Church. 

Today, Coptic Christians throughout the United States enrich our national life through their devotion to God, love of family, and steadfast witness to the blessings of faith and freedom.  Yet throughout the world, Coptic Christians have faced the oppression of empires, persecution, and unspeakable violence—from martyrs like Saint Maurice in the ancient world to the 21 Coptic construction workers brutally executed by ISIS terrorists on a Libyan beach just 11 years ago.  The violent persecution of Christians is a barbaric evil, and my Administration remains firmly committed to ending it in all its forms.,,,

As we celebrate 250 glorious years of American Independence, Global Coptic Day stands as a profound testament to a truth written in the very soul of this Republic—that the free exercise of religion is the cornerstone of our constitutional way of life, the first freedom enshrined by our Founders, and the liberty every tyrant has always feared and sought to destroy....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Nathan B. Oman, "All Other Religious Sects Shall Have Free Toleration": Recovering the Early Mormon Conception of Religious Freedom, (Journal of Mormon History (forthcoming)).
• Michael Foran, Single Sex Spaces in the Workplace Following For Women Scotland, (Industrial Law Journal (Forthcoming)).
• Kasturi Sharma, Digital Cattle: Reimagining Livestock Microfinance Through Blockchain-Enabled Islamic Finance (May 26, 2026).
• Miranda Perry Fleischer, Symmetry and Speech: Nonprofits and the First Amendment, (103 Washington University (St. Louis) Law Review (forthcoming)).
• Linda C. McClain, Formal Victories and Roads Not Taken: Excavating Departures and Throughlines in Challenges to the Place of Marriage, (105 Boston University Law Review online 69 (2025)).
• Meghan Boone, Rationally Regulating Abortion, (July 01, 2025).
• Janet Koven Levit, Reproductive Rights on Campus, (Syracuse Law Review | Vol. 76:159 | 2026).
• Biff Baker, Transgenders in the Workplace: Governance Challenges for Organizational Leaders, (May 08, 2026).
• Suzanne B. Goldberg, Legal Scapegoating of Transgender People, Democratic Vulnerability, and the Problem of Judicial Blinders, (May 07, 2026).

From SmartCILP:

• Robert Showers, Justin Colemen & William R. Thetford, Sacred Spaces, Scattered Statutes: Understanding Virginia's Fragmented Church Law: Part One, 38 Regent University Law Review 1-45 (2025).
• Alfonso Gunaratnam & David Schultz, The Roberts Court and Religion: Hail Mary Goes Mainstream, 19 Charleston Law Review 581-632 (2025).
• Linda C. McLain & James E. Fleming, "What Shall Be Orthodox" in Polarized Times: Overview and Response to Commentators, 90 Missouri Law Review 659-712 (2025).

2nd Circuit: USCIS Rejection of Yemini Guardianships as Equivalent to Adoption Did Not Violate RFRA

In Alsonidar v. Mullin, (2d Cir., May 26, 2026), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the US Citizenship and Immigration Services' refusal to recognize three individuals as adopted children of Salwa Asonidar, a native of Yemen who is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Alsonidar filed an I-130 petition seeking an immigration visa for the three. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs also argue that USCIS violated RFRA by denying the petitions in a manner that burdened Salwa’s exercise of her religion ... Plaintiffs’ allegations fall short of stating such a claim.  They claim, for example, that USCIS failed to recognize Yemeni legal guardianships as equivalent to adoptions and thereby imposed a “western” understanding of family relationships inconsistent with Sharia law; they also assert that the denial of M.L.A.A.’s petition burdened Salwa’s ability to fulfill a religious obligation to care for an orphan.  But Plaintiffs do not allege what we have required to support a RFRA claim: that USCIS put “substantial pressure” on them to modify their behavior and violate their religious beliefs.... 

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

Children's Minister May Not Sue Church for Wrongful Discharge

In Elmore v. Mount Vernon Baptist Church, (WV App, May 27, 2026), a West Virginia state appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a suit by the former Children’s Minister at Mount Vernon Baptist Church claiming that she was unlawfully terminated by a vote of the Board of Deacons and subsequently a vote of the congregation. Plaintiff contends that she was terminated because she reported another employee for suspected child abuse and accused the church's male youth minister of sexually harassing her daughter. The majority said in part:

We find it unnecessary to resolve the parties’ dispute over the extent to which the “ministerial exception” recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court bars Ms. Elmore’s claims in this matter. As noted, the circuit court found that Ms. Elmore’s claims stemming from her termination were also barred by respondents’ constitutional right to freedom of religion under the SCAWV’s decision in Gillespie v. Elkins Southern Baptist Church....

While it is true that the SCAWV recognized that the Gillespie petitioner alleging wrongful discharge did not assert that his termination violated a substantial public policy, the Court further explained that it could not have addressed the merits of his claim even if he had....

Chief Judge Greear filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I fully concur with the majority’s decision holding that Ms. Elmore’s claims are barred. I write separately because I would resolve this case under the “ministerial exception” recognized in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. E.E.O.C., 565 U.S. 171 (2012).

Federal Court Won't Order Public School to Allow Homeschooler to Play Interscholastic Sports

 In Palmer v. Virginia High School League, Inc., (WD VA, May 27, 2026), a Virginia federal district court rejected an equal protection challenge to a policy of Virginia's public high school interscholastic sports league that prohibits homeschooled students from participating in interscholastic competitions. Plaintiffs home school their 9th grade son primarily because of their Christian religious beliefs. Their son had been able to participate in track and field events in middle school. The court said in part:

The parties agree that, because there is no fundamental right or suspect classification at issue, rational basis review is the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny to employ....

Requiring RCSB and VHSL to expend funds to support homeschooled athletic participation without receiving corresponding enrollment-based funding would be a financial burden.  As such, there is a reasonably conceivable basis for excluding homeschooled students from VHSL-sponsored competitions. ....

The court also finds persuasive defendants’ arguments regarding the logistical and competitive challenges associated with permitting homeschooled students to participate in VHSL athletics.  Under the current system ... schools with larger enrollments compete against similarly sized schools, while smaller schools compete against one another.  If homeschooled students were permitted to participate, the VHSL would need to decide whether those students should count toward a school’s enrollment numbers even though they are not actually enrolled in the school.  Counting all homeschooled students within a “high school zone” could artificially inflate a school’s enrollment and force it into a higher competitive division, potentially disadvantaging the students who are actually enrolled.  On the other hand, if homeschooled students were allowed to play without being counted toward enrollment totals, schools could gain a competitive advantage by drawing from a larger pool of athletes without moving into a higher classification.

The court refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims under the free exercise clause of the Virginia Constitution and the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:

Article I, Section 16 of the Constitution of Virginia and the VRFRA provide far broader protections for religious liberty than their federal counterparts.  However, the outer limits of those protections are not clearly defined....

...  [T]his case presents difficult and unresolved questions of Virginia law.  While this court often considers state-law matters, some of which are unsettled, considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity lead the court to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Virginia state-law claims here.  Those claims raise novel and undeveloped issues of Virginia constitutional and statutory law that are best left to the courts of the Commonwealth to resolve.