1st Amendment Challenges to Actor's Rape Convictions Are Rejected

In The People v. Masterson, (CA App., Oct. 27, 2026), a California state appellate court, in an 89-page opinion, affirmed the forcible rape convictions of actor Danny Masterson. In 2024, Masterson, the star of That '70's Show, was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison for the forcible rape of two women. Both Masterson and his victims were members of the Church of Scientology. On appeal, Masterson argued in part that the trial court's admission of evidence about Scientology's teachings violated the First Amendment. The court said in part:

The trial court ruled that defendant lacked standing to assert a First Amendment violation on behalf of Scientology; but even if he had standing, admission of Scientology evidence would not violate the First Amendment, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, or Evidence Code section 789.  The trial court found the Scientology evidence relevant to provide context for the victims’ delayed reporting of the crimes and to understand the victims’ meetings and relationships with defendant; defendant’s actions toward the victims; the victims’ actions before, during, and after the incidents; the victims’ initial acceptance of defendant’s behavior and the families’ subsequent reactions....

The trial court permitted Headley to testify as an expert “on the subjects of 1) Scientology teachings that a person in an intimate relationship cannot be raped; 2) that Scientologists cannot use the word rape and 3) that Scientologists are prohibited or discouraged from reporting other Scientologists in good standing to outside law enforcement or face repercussions for doing so....

J.B. and N.T. both testified that Scientology tenets prohibited them from reporting defendant to the police, a police report would constitute a suppressive act, and Scientology policy required them to use Scientology’s internal justice system instead.  J.B. testified that on pain of expulsion from Scientology, family members who are Scientologists must dissociate from any family member labeled as a suppressive person....

Defendant’s criminal trial did not involve adjudication of an internal church dispute over church property, church discipline, religious authority, or dogma....  The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine accordingly did not apply....

The jury in this case was not asked to determine the truth or falsity of Scientology doctrine or beliefs.  The jury instructions clearly limited the purposes for which the jury was to consider Scientology evidence—to explain the victims’ delay in reporting defendant’s actions; to explain the victims’ behavior before, during, and after the charged crimes; to explain the witnesses’ ties to Scientology....  Admission of Scientology evidence for those purposes did not contravene the First Amendment....

Defendant cites several statements by the trial court that he claims demonstrate a lack of neutrality and even hostility toward Scientology.  Those statements, viewed in context, evidence no animus or departure from neutrality regarding Scientology.....

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

California Requires Employers to Provide Anti-Hate Speech Training to Employees

On September 27, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed A.B. 1803 (full text) which amends Cal. Gov. Code §12950.1 to require that beginning January 1, 2028, employers must provide anti-hate speech training to employees every two years. The training must provide supervisors and employees with "practical guidance on recognizing, reporting, and confronting workplace speech that vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred against people based on"  race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decision making, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status. The training requirement applies to any employer having five or more employees. Calif. Gov. Code §12926(d), however, provides that "employer" as used in these civil rights provisions does not include a non-profit religious association of corporation. 

ReligiousLiberty.tv discusses the impact of the new provisions on religious organizations.

Bankruptcy Court Rejects Diocese's Reorganization Plan Because of Abuse Survivors' Objections

In In re Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland, (ND CA Bkrptcy., Oct. 2, 2026), the federal Northern District of California Bankruptcy Court, in a 109-page opinion, rejected the Oakland Diocese's proposed Plan of Reorganization, finding that the Plan does not satisfy the Bankruptcy Code's requirement that it be in the best interest of any non-consenting class of creditors.

Under to proposed Plan, a Survivor's Trust would be set up and would pay known abuse claimants $172.3 million in total, which amounts to just over $499,000 per claimant. A reserve of $7.7 million would be set aside for unknown future abuse claimants. The Abuse Claimants voted overwhelmingly (331-8) against approval of the Plan.

The court rejected the Diocese's claim that certain requirements for confirmation of the Plan violate its rights under the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause or under RFRA, saying in part:

First, the Court is unaware of any Code provision, or any case law interpreting the Code, that applies any of the requirements of the Code ... differently or more leniently, because the debtor is a religious entity....   

Second, the Court does not believe that the Debtor has articulated any basis on which the actual requirements for confirmation of a plan of reorganization would implicate any of the protections provided under the First Amendment or RFRA....  

Third, even if there were some theoretical basis to consider the application of the First Amendment or RFRA to this case, the actual provisions and requirements of those laws would either (a) render them inapplicable to plan confirmation issues or (b) make it impossible to assess the effect of those laws on the Debtor’s requirements for confirmation....

The Debtor argues that the Court would violate the Church Autonomy Doctrine, and by analogy, the Ministerial Exception, if it were to “weigh in on a dispute between the Committee and Debtor regarding how many Churches the Debtor needs to fulfill its mission...."

Here, the court is not resolving a dispute between the Committee and the Debtor about the number of churches to sell, nor is it requiring Debtor to sell anything.  It is also not second guessing the decisions Debtor has, in good faith, made. ....

... Debtor simply does not articulate a basis for the Court to conclude that the confirmation standards are imposing a substantial burden on Debtor ‘s exercise of religious rights.... 

However, the Court concluded that it could not find that the plan satisfied the "best interest of creditors" test, questioning the accuracy of the amount of assets the Diocese claimed would be available to creditors. The court, though, rejected claims that the Diocese had not proposed the Plan in good faith.

NBC Bay Area reports on the court's decision.

Two Cert. Petitions Raising Issues of State Aid for Religious Instruction Filed

Two petitions for certiorari raising First Amendment issues were filed this week with the U.S. Supreme Court. Both involve the permissibility of state aid for religious instruction.

A petition (full text) asking the Court to review a Virginia federal district court's decision before the 4th Circuit hears the case was filed in Johnson v. Fleming, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 8/20/2026). In the case, a Virginia federal district court dismissed Free Exercise Clause, Establishment Clause, and Equal Protection Clause claims challenging exclusions from the Virginia Tuition Assistance Grant Program for theology and religion majors. (See prior posting). ADF issued a press release announcing the filing.  Earlier this month, a certiorari petition was filed in a separate case raising a similar challenge to religious exclusions from Virginia's Tuition Assistance Grant Program. (See prior posting.)

A petition for certiorari (full text) was also filed this week in Woolard v. Thurmond, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 8/20/2026). In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected First Amendment challenges to California's refusal to purchase and permit the use of religious curricular materials in home-based independent study programs of two charter schools. (See prior posting.) First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filling.

9th Circuit: Employee Adequately Alleged Religious Objections to Covid Vaccine

In Weiss v. The Permanente Group, (9th Cir., July 24, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a California federal district court's dismissal of Title VII and California state law claims alleging that plaintiff's employer failed to accommodate plaintiff's religious objections to the Covid vaccine mandate after initially approving her request. The court said in part:

... TPMG notified Weiss that, due to its findings and concerns about a pattern of insincere religious exemption requests among its employees, it would be conducting additional review of all previously approved exemptions...

Weiss plausibly alleged that she provided notice of her religious conflict with the Mandate in her initial request for a religious exemption. She identified herself to TPMG management as “a Christian Jew” and described specific religious doctrines that she asserted prohibited her from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. These doctrines included the Torah’s prohibition against “accepting foreign material into our bodies,” Deuteronomy’s counsel against “needle wounds except for direct curative benefit,” and the professed requirement under Jewish law to “maintain [one’s] body and blood uncontaminated.” She also stated that receiving a COVID=19 vaccine would be contrary to her belief that she should not “introduce foreign substances into [her] body temple that change how [her] Creator designed it.”...   

Weiss acknowledged that she had previously received vaccinations, and she explained that her present concern arose not because the COVID-19 vaccine was different, but because her religious commitment had changed....

Judge Paez filed two unpublished partial dissenting opinions, one concluding that the district court should not have dismissed plaintiff's claim that TPMG's vaccination requirement and its intrusive questions about her religious and medical history constituted an invasion of privacy under the California Constitution. Plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state a prima facie claim for invasion of privacy. The second unpublished dissent contended that the court should certify to the California Supreme Court the question of whether a health care provider’s requirement that employees obtain either a COVID-19 vaccination or an exemption constitutes a serious invasion of privacy under the California Constitution.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Parents Sue California School District Over Opt-Out Rights

Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court challenging a California school district's refusal to allow parents to opt their children out of LGBTQ+ instruction that conflicts with the family's religious beliefs. Plaintiff parents contend that the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor gives them the right to opt their children out of this instruction. The complaint (full text) in Taylor v. Sunnyvale School District, (ND CA, filed 6/22/2026), alleges in part:

12.... As devout members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they, like “[m]any Americans,” including the parents in Mahmoud, “believe that biological sex reflects divine creation, that sex and gender are inseparable, and that children should be encouraged to accept their sex and to live accordingly.”...  

13. The Taylors also believe that Sunnyvale’s curriculum is age-inappropriate and inconsistent with their religious beliefs, practices, and child-raising philosophies, and that forcing their children to participate in Sunnyvale’s LGBTQ+ instruction will undermine their efforts to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs....

18. ... [A]fter months of cordial conversation, Sunnyvale abruptly reversed course and denied the Taylors’ request for notice and opt-outs, stating in a letter that LGBTQ+ instruction “is not optional and is not subject to parent opt-out provisions.” ...  According to Sunnyvale, “the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor … addressed a specific set of facts in another state,” did not create a “general or automatic right for parents to opt their children out of required curriculum,” and “does not override California’s statutory requirements governing instructional content.”... With that, the denial letter concluded that Sunnyvale is “not granting opt-outs from LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum or storybooks that are part of our adopted educational program.”...

Plaintiffs contend that the school's refusal violates their parental right to control the education of their children as well as their free exercise and free speech rights. Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

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.]

DOJ Sues UCLA Under Title VI for Discrimination Against Jewish and Israeli Students

Yesterday the Justice Department announced that it has filed suit against the University of California, Los Angeles, alleging that UCLA violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by ignoring harassment and discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students. The complaint (full text) in United States v. Regents of the University of California, (CD CA, filed 5/26/2026), alleges in part:

On April 25, 2024, following months of antisemitic and anti-Israeli demonstrations, masked and armed agitators, many of whom were openly hostile to Jews and Israelis, occupied the heart of the University of California, Los Angeles (“UCLA”) campus.  They built an illegal encampment, surrounded it with barriers, and formed “human phalanxes” to block Jews and Israelis from entering academic buildings They kicked and slapped Jews, beat Jews with sticks, and assaulted Jews with pepper spray. One Jewish student was knocked unconscious and was taken to the hospital with an open head wound. 

Although UCLA knew that its Jewish and Israeli students risked physical assault when attempting to go to class or the library, UCLA inexplicably took no serious action whatsoever until May 2, 2024, when it finally allowed police to clear the encampment. Chaos ensued. Law-enforcement officers “were met with bursts of pepper spray, protesters wielding fire extinguishers against them, bright strobe lights, and protesters wearing helmets and goggles.”...

The suit asks the court to order UCLA to take various affirmative steps to ensure full and equal access to UCLA’s educational opportunities for Jewish and Israeli students and asks the court to appoint a monitor to oversee UCLA's compliance. The complaint also alleges the UCLA is in breach of provisions in its grant contracts with the federal government that require it to comply with Title VI. It asks the court to declare that because of this breach, the federal government need not make any additional payments to UCLA under its grant contracts, and to order UCLA to repay amounts already received under grant contracts while UCLA was in violation of Title VI.

Kars4Kids Violated False Advertising and Unfair Competition Laws by Not Disclosing Its Religious Ties

In Puterbaugh v. Kars4Kids, LLC, (CA Super. Ct., May 8, 2026), a California state trial court held that Kars4Kids violated California's Unfair Competition Law and its False Advertising Law through "inherently deceptive" omissions in its ads. The organization runs short repetitive television and radio ads featuring young children playing musical instruments and asking for donations of used cars. The ads make no mention of the actual recipients of funds from the organization or of the organization's religious affiliation. The organization's website says: "Because kids are our future. Learn how you can make a difference in the life of a child." The broadcast ads do not make this statement.

The primary function of Kars4Kids is to fund Oorah, an organization that operates Jewish heritage and summer camps in New York and New Jersey. Oorah also funds matchmaking programs for young adults and gap- year trips to Israel for 17- and 18-year-olds. The court said in part:

2. The Court finds that the First Amendment does not shield the Defendant. While charities have free speech rights, the government may regulate misleading commercial speech. Fraudulent omissions in an inducement to donate property are not protected by “free expression.”...

6. The name “Kars4Kids,” the 8-10-year-old actors in the advertisement, and the repetitive jingle all serve to reinforce the belief that donations are used exclusively for the benefit of children. 

7. Under cross-examination, the COO, Esti Landau, admitted that the organization’s primary purpose is to help “Jewish kids and families throughout their lives.”...

The Court finds that the Defendant disseminated public statements concerning... vehicle donations that were misleading by omission. Under the statutory “knew or should have known” standard, the Defendant is charged with the knowledge that California donors would reasonably assume their contributions benefit a general class of children, including those within their own state. The Court finds that the Defendant’s stated intent to make the advertisement “memorable” through extreme repetition, while simultaneously stripping it of all substantive facts, constitutes an actionable strategy of deception....

The Court finds the Kars4Kids “jingle” creates a false sense of a universal, secular, and local charity. The “Kars4Kids” name, when coupled with an advertisement that “does not mention anything” about its specific mission ... is likely to deceive the public. It improperly narrows the perceived beneficiary class to “kids” to elicit emotional and financial responses, while diverting funds to a much broader religious and familial social-service network....

The court ordered Kars4Kids to end all non-compliant broadcasting in California within 30 days. Inside Radio reports on the decision.

California Court Hears Arguments in Defamation Suit Against Jews for Jesus

On May 15, the California state Court of Appeals, First Appellate District heard oral arguments in Amitay v. Jews for Jesus (video of full oral arguments). Liberty Counsel, which represents Jews for Jesus, describes the case:

Following the attacks on October 7, 2023, Jews for Jesus distributed Bibles to Israeli soldiers to provide comfort and support. On its Facebook page, Jews for Jesus used a stock photo of an Israeli soldier from a popular website that provides millions of stock photographs under a worldwide copyright license to download, modify, and use for free. Jews for Jesus blurred the face, never used Amitay’s name, and even used the pseudonymous name “Nachman” in the photo’s caption. Jews for Jesus had no prior knowledge of Amitay.

Amitay now says that person in the blurred photo was him, although he has presented no proof of where he saw the photo. Despite the blurred face and never being named, Amitay maintains that the photo created such a false impression of him that it caused his employer to terminate him from his “dream” teaching job.

Liberty Counsel argues in its reply brief that holding Jews for Jesus liable for a religious community’s misunderstanding of the facts, and for its “overreaction” and “theological hostility” to a Christian ministry would be an improper remedy for a “regrettable” situation. 

 Amitay filed the lawsuit on Christmas Eve 2024 seeking no less than $5 million in punitive damages.... 

At issue in this appeal is whether the case should be dismissed under California's anti-SLAPP law. The trial court refused to dismiss plaintiff's defamation, false light, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. (Trial Court's June 23, 2025 Order [scroll to Exhibit A]).

Certiorari Denied In Christian Day Care's Challenge to California's Licensing Requirements

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Foothills Ministries v. Johnson, (Docket No. 25-802, certiorari denied 5/18/2026) (Order List). In the case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Christian day care center lacks standing to bring a free exercise challenge a California requirement that day care centers ensure that children are free to attend religious activities of their parents' choice. The 9th Circuit held, however, that the day care center does have standing to challenge the state's general licensing requirement and to challenge on free speech grounds required disclosures to parents of the right for their child to attend religious activities of their choice. On the merits, though, the 9th Circuit held that neither of these requirements infringe the day care's 1st Amendment rights. (See prior posting.)

Denial of Burial Permit Did Not Violate 1st Amendment or RLUIPA

In Baxter v. San Berdino County, (CD CA, May 5, 2026), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing plaintiff's challenges to a refusal by the county to grant him a permit to bury the remains of his father on his own property. The court rejected plaintiff's RLUIPA claim. RLUIPA would apply here only if the land use regulation involved the government's making an individualized assessment of the proposed use of the land. According to the court, "Plaintiff's permit was denied pursuant to non-discretionary health and safety statutes."

The court rejected plaintiff's First Amendment free exercise claim because the statute requiring burial of human remains in a cemetery is neutral and generally applicable. It rejected his equal protection argument because there were no facts indicating religious discrimination against him. It rejected his procedural due process claim because Plaintiff did not allege facts that establish a property interest in the human remains.

Candidate's Antisemitic Statements Are Included in California's Official Election Guide

California's Secretary of State this week began sending to voters and posted online its Official Voter Information Guide for the June 2 Primary Election (full text). Every candidate who accepts California's voluntary campaign spending limits is permitted to buy space for a candidate statement in the Guide. Thirty-one candidates for Governor are listed in the Guide. One candidate-- Don J. Grundmann-- posted a virulently antisemitic Candidate Statement. It is the only Candidate Statement in the Guide that is accompanied by a disclaimer that reads: "The views and opinions expressed by the candidates are their own and do not represent the views and opinions of the Secretary of State’s office." Grundmann's Statement reads in part:

Kirk murdered by shaped-charge bomb Israel used. Government knows.... Israel “art students” wired Twin Towers for 9/11.controlled demolition. Planes did NOT destroy towers. Israel did. 3,000 murdered to create new “Pearl Harbor” to justify fghting wars for Israel.... Government knows. Israel (our greatest enemy), NOT Iran, will suitcase nuke U S. via “Samson Option”—false fag attack to blame on Iran/Russia and permanently end our nation.... They call Palestinians AND Christians AND America “Amalek”—their sworn forever enemy. We are “goyim” (less than human animals/cattle) that they will enslave. We are stupid chumps. Israel rules our conquered Republic. Talmud—their Bible—says Christ boiling in in Israel allowed/planned/promoted Hamas attack (they murdered their own people) to justify genocide and steal billion$ in Gaza oil/gas rights. Christian Zionism = soul poison. Talmudic “Judeo-Christian values” don’t exist....

Times of Israel reports on the California publication.

California's Marriage Laws Survive Unusual 1st Amendment Challenge

In Hunter v. State of California, (CD CA, March 31, 2026), a California federal district court accepted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge in Hunter v. California, (CD CA, March 5, 2026). In the case, in an unusual challenge to the state's domestic relations law, Kathryn Rose Hunter sued challenging California's "authority to impose and maintain marital status" and "maintenance of marital records." She contended that this violates the 1st Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. According to the federal Magistrate's opinion:

Plaintiff alleges that by "authorizing" her marriages and issuing certificate as proof of her married status, the State was "participating" in her marriages, which is "equivalent to polygamy."... This violates Plaintiff's right to freely exercise of her religious belief that a marriage should only involve "two persons and God."... She asserts a right to be free of any "State-imposed marital status," but she cannot obtain a divorce "without further State involvement." ... Plaintiff contends that by conditioning marital dissolution on "further State participation, the State creates an excessive entanglement between authority and religious doctrine," violating the Establishment Clause...

The Free Exercise Clause absolutely protects the right to believe in a religion; it does not absolutely protect all conduct associated with a religion....

California's statutes concerning civil marriage are neutral and of general applicability. They neither refer to religion nor aim to suppress religious beliefs. They do not restrict or condition civil marriage rights on affirming particular religious beliefs. They do not provide for individualized exemptions, and they operate independently of any religious ceremonies in which a couple getting married or divorced might choose to engage. Since the challenged statutes are neutral and generally applicable, rational basis review applies.... Protection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities are but a few of commanding problems in the field of domestic relations with which the state must deal."... California's Family Code, which establishes a legal framework for recognizing the creation, existence, and dissolution of civil marriages, is rationally related to this legitimate government interest...

"[T]he Establishment Clause must be interpreted by reference to historical practices and understandings."... Courts must draw the line between what is permissible and impermissible in accordance with "the understanding of the Founding Fathers."...

State involvement in civil marriages by enacting laws that define how one becomes legally married or dissolves a legal marriage was permissible in the days of the Founding Fathers.... The California statutes at issue align with this historical tradition. They neither endorse nor coerce the practice of any particular religion....

DOJ Investigating California and Maine for Housing Transgender Women in Women's Prisons

Last Thursday, the Department of Justice announced that it has notified the governors of California and Maine that DOJ is initiating investigations into their housing of transgender women who have not undergone sex reassignment surgery in women's prisons. DOJ's press release reads in part:

“California’s Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act has provided none of these qualities to the female inmates of state prisons who have been forced to share space with biological men who are violent felons,” said First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli of the Central District of California.  “Our Constitution protects women from having their civil rights violated by harmful state legislation wrapped in the language of ‘equity’ and ‘progress.’”...

In California, the Justice Department will investigate widely reported allegations of deprivation of female prisoners’ rights, including the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, the Eighth Amendment’s protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.  There have been allegations of sexual assaults, rape, voyeurism and a pervasive climate of sexual intimidation due to the presence of males in the women’s prison.

Under California law, men in state prisons, including violent felons charged with sex crimes and who have intact genitals, can request transfer to women’s prisons based on self-identification as transgender.

In Maine, the Justice Department will investigate allegations that Maine has allowed a biological male inmate to remain housed with women despite complaints that the male inmate has assaulted or harassed several female inmates.

Husband's Religious Objections to Divorce Were Inappropriate Basis for Sanctions or Restraining Order

Hoch v. Hoch, (CA App., Feb. 17, 2026) (certified for publication 3/12/2026), is an appeal from family court orders relating to sanctions and domestic violence restraining orders (DVRO) issued in marriage dissolution proceedings involving a Jehovah's Witness couple. Among other holdings, the California state appellate court reversed the DVRO issued against the wife and affirmed the DVRO against the husband. The court also reversed monetary sanctions issued against the husband under Section 271 of the Family Code, but affirmed other monetary sanctions issued against him. The court said in part:

Michael contends that imposition of sanctions against him under section 271 violated his rights under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. He claims that as a practicing and devout member of the Jehovah’s Witness faith, he could not stipulate to allowing Marcie to amend her petition for legal separation to allege dissolution instead without violating his religious beliefs. 

We need not address whether the sanctions against Michael under section 271 violated his constitutional right of free exercise of religion. The trial court abused its discretion under section 271 by imposing monetary sanctions against Michael for not stipulating to permit Marcie to amend her petition for legal separation by converting it into one for marital dissolution. Stipulating by its nature is not obligatory. Michael expressed what he believed to be a “conscientious” reason for declining to stipulate: Due to his religious beliefs, he was not comfortable with “facilitating” a divorce. Whether or not that reason amounts to a legitimate claim under the federal constitution’s free exercise of religion clause is a question we need not decide. Michael’s concern was reasonable and, it appears to us, held in good faith. No evidence was presented that would lead us to conclude to the contrary....

Among the actions which the family court cited as giving rise to a restraining order [against the husband] was Michael’s “inappropriate use of religion to control [Marcie], including, but not limited to, in the instant marital dissolution action.”... The only such instance of inappropriate use of religion expressly identified by the family court was “compelling [Marcie]’s filing of a dissolution action because [Michael] wanted to control whether or not [Marcie] could seek a legal separation and, later, a dissolution of marriage.” We need not decide whether the court infringed Michael’s right of free exercise in order to conclude this was an erroneous ground for a restraining order. Michael had a statutory right not to agree to a legal separation if he did not want one. The other grounds cited by the trial court are, however, sufficient in themselves to support the DVRO against Michael.

County Employee Sues Over Denial of Religious Accommodation So He Could Avoid Celebrating Pride Month

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court by an employee of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works alleging that the county violated Title VII as well as the 1st and 14th Amendments and California law by denying him a religious accommodation so he would not have to celebrate Pride Month. The complaint (full text) in Batman v. Los Angeles County, (CD CA, filed 3/10/2026), alleges in part:

4. Beginning in March 2023, the County directed all of its government departments to ensure that the “Pride Progress Flag” was flown at every government department.... The policy revisions also directed the government offices to adopt ways to demonstrate that all government offices celebrate so-called “Pride Month” and make its celebration overt, express, and universal.  

5. As a result of his sincerely held religious beliefs and a conflict with his employer’s open and notorious celebration of something Batman considers a sin, Batman requested a simple accommodation of working remotely during the one month of the year that his employment requirements conflict with his sincerely held religious beliefs.....

82. Rather than provide Batman a reasonable accommodation that was plainly available and not burdensome to anyone, Batman was instructed that he could simply use the back entrance....  

83. The Department also suggested to Batman that he seek mental health counseling for any distress he may feel as a result of the conflict between his sincerely held religious beliefs and the Department’s denial of his requested accommodation.... In other words, the Department suggested to Batman that his religious beliefs required mental health counseling rather than accommodation.

The complaint sets out at length the Biblical basis for plaintiff's beliefs.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Does Not Apply Where No Ecclesiastical Questions Are at Issue

In Ehrenkranz v. San Francisco Zen Center, (CA App, March 2,2026), a California state appellate court held that the trial court erred in applying the ministerial exception doctrine to the wage-and-hour claims brought against a Zen Center by one of its Work Practice Apprentices. The court said in part:

Ehrenkranz contends that the trial court erred in applying the ministerial exception to bar his wage-and-hour claims because the United States Supreme Court has only applied the exception to bar a minister’s employment discrimination and wrongful termination claims and his wage claims do “not implicate [the Center’s] ability to hire or fire its ministers.”  He claims his case is instead about unpaid minimum wages and does not concern any ecclesiastical matter.  ...

[B]arring a minister’s employment claim without any evidence that the claim would raise an ecclesiastical concern is necessary to comply with the First Amendment only if that claim will inevitably ‘thrust the secular courts into the constitutionally untenable position of passing judgment on questions of religious faith or doctrine.’ ...  Thus, the ministerial exception only bars employment claims that require inquiries into matters that are ‘ “ strictly a matter of ecclesiastical government’ ” ...

... We therefore conclude that the ministerial exception does not apply to Ehrenkranz’s claims in the absence of evidence of an ecclesiastical concern....

In sum and in short, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants.  However, “our ruling here today does not foreclose the Center from presenting evidence at trial that applying wage-and-hour laws to ministers like [Ehrenkranz] raises an ecclesiastical concern and should therefore be barred under the Religion Clauses.” 

Supreme Court in Shadow Docket Case Rejects California's Policy on Informing Parents of Student's Gender Transition

On Monday evening, the U.S. Supreme Court in Mirabelli v. Bonta, (Sup. Ct., March 2, 2026), barred enforcement against objecting parents of a controversial California school policy that requires student consent before disclosing to parents a student's gender transitioning in school. A California federal district court had enjoined enforcement of the policy in a challenge by parents and teachers. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, stayed the district court's injunction, thus reinstating the policy. In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court ruled for the parents.  It vacated the 9th Circuit's stay as to parents who object to the policy, but left the stay in place as to teachers. Justices Thomas and Alito would have vacated the injunction as to teachers as well. Justices Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor dissented.

The per curiam opinion says in part:

We conclude that the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim.  California’s policies likely trigger strict scrutiny under that provision because they substantially interfere with the “right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.” ...  The parents who assert a free exercise claim have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs....

The same is true for the subclass of parents who object to those policies on due process grounds.  Under long-established precedent, parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to “the upbringing and education of children.” ... The right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health....

Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

The dissent questions how the Court can adhere to parental-rights precedent after its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization..... But Dobbs calls into question neither the doctrine of substantive due process nor the other unexpressed rights that the doctrine protects....

 ... [C]ontrary to the dissent’s charge, granting interim relief is not a sign of the Court’s “impatience” to reach the merits.... Instead, the grant reflects the Court’s judgment about the risk of irreparable harm to the parents.... 

Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Jackson, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Today’s decision shows, not for the first time, how our emergency docket can malfunction.  A case raising novel legal questions and arousing strong views comes to this Court via an application about whether to stay a district court’s injunction pending appeal. The ordinary appellate process has barely started; only a district court has ruled on the case’s merits. The Court receives scant and, frankly, inadequate briefing about the legal issues in dispute.  It does not hold oral argument or deliberate in conference, as regular procedures dictate. It considers the request on a short fuse—a matter of weeks. And then the Court grants relief by means of a terse, tonally dismissive ruling designed to conclusively resolve the dispute. The Court does all this even though the application of existing law to the case raises tricky questions, and so cries out for reflection and explanation....

As to due process particularly... I have no doubt that parents have rights, even though unenumerated, concerning their children and the life choices they make..... On the other side of ledger, of course, a State has critical interests in the care and education of children.  But California’s policy, in depriving all parents of information critical to their children’s health and well-being, could have crossed the constitutional line.  And that would entitle the parents, at the end of the day, to relief. 

The Court, however, would be far better equipped to draw the appropriate line and to explain its legal basis—in short, to do law in the right way—if it had followed our ordinary processes....

Justice Sotomayor, without writing or joining an opinion, stated that she would have left the 9th Circuit's injunction in place both as to parents and teachers.

SCOTUSblog reports on the decision.

9th Circuit: Anti-Transgender Comments Justify Mayor's Veto of Membership on Police Advisory Board

In Hodges v. Gloria, (9th Cir., Feb. 26, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech and free exercise challenges to the San Diego mayor's veto of the reappointment of a voluntary member of the city's Police Advisory Board.  The mayor vetoed the reappointment of Dennis Hodges, a correctional officer and pastor, because of Hodges' public comments that he considered “transgenderism” to be a sin just like adultery and fornication. The court said in part:

Hodges asserts that he was not a policymaker and that government officials may not create religious tests for holding public office.  However, a consistent line of cases ... hold that an appointed volunteer may be dismissed for statements that might otherwise be protected by the First Amendment when “commonality of political purpose” is an appropriate requirement for the volunteer’s services....

Hodges has not shown that the district court erred in rejecting his free exercise claim.  To prevail on this claim, Hodges would have to show that even though the veto of his reappointment did not violate his free speech rights, it violated his free exercise rights because of his underlying religious beliefs.  He offers no case law supporting such a proposition.  Moreover, he does not explain how his religious motive for making public statements changes the court’s evaluation of his claim....