FACE Act Suit Filed Against Anti-Israel Agitators

Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court against nine named defendants and 40 unnamed defendants alleging disruption of interfaith and Christian religious services by anti-Israel agitators. The complaint (full text) in Christian and Jewish Alliance, Inc. v. Brunner, (SD CA, filed 11/4/2025), alleges violation of provisions of the FACE Act which impose civil liability for physically interfering with the exercise of the 1st Amendment right to religious freedom at a place of worship.  It also alleges a claim for trespass. The complaint reads in part:

As worshipers have gathered at three separate events this year, a mob has targeted Plaintiffs The Mission Church .. of Carlsbad and The Christian & Jewish Alliance ... of the San Diego area, interfering with their worship services, intimidating their members and guests, and obstructing their access to gather safely. This mob targeted the Church and the Alliance due to the sincere religious beliefs of their members that require support for Israel. Plaintiff Ruth Mastron, a Jewish resident of Oceanside, was assaulted as she attempted to enter one of these events.

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Seeking Damages for False Prediction of the Rapture Is Dismissed Under Anti-SLAPP Law

 In March 2025, a New York resident filed suit in a Connecticut state trial court against a Christian YouTube channel and the preacher who appears on it claiming that the preacher's prediction of imminent coming of the rapture caused plaintiff severe emotional distress and mental anguish. The complaint (full text) in Diver v. Cote, (CT Super. Ct., filed 3/20/2025), alleged claims for infliction of emotional distress, fraud and for violation of the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act. Defendants sought dismissal of the lawsuit under Connecticut's anti-SLAPP law which allows quick dismissal of unmeritorious suits that, among other things, challenge defendant's exercise of his free speech rights when defendant's speech relates to a "public figure". Now, in Diver v. Cote, (CT Super. Ct., Nov. 3, 2025), the court dismissed this suit and a related one under the anti-SLAPP law, saying in part:

... [Defendants] have shown ... that the complaints in both actions are based on the exercise of their right of free speech on matters of public concern, that is, issues related to health, community well-being and a public figure; namely Jesus Christ. §52-196a(a)(1). The defendants' speech was made in a public forum; namely You Tube websites open to the public as required by §52-196a(a)(2).

Inside Investigator covered the lawsuit here and here.

Presidential Message on All Saints Day

On November 1, President Trump issued a Presidential Message on All Saints Day (full text). It reads in part:

On All-Saints’ Day, the First Lady and I join Christians across our Nation in celebrating the saints who have gone before us and now share in the glory of God.  Their examples remind us that the strength of our country rests in the goodness of its people—and that through faith and virtue, our Nation can endure in liberty and truth.

From our earliest days, the United States has drawn inspiration from holy men and women whose witness shaped our people and deepened our faith.  The Blessed Virgin Mary, Patroness of the United States, has long been honored as a symbol of grace for our country.  Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini poured out her life in service to the most poor and needy among us; Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton formed generations through her schools of faith and learning; and Saint John Neumann led his flock with humility, courage, and unrelenting devotion.  Their example, and those of all the saints, demonstrates that faith transforms nations as surely as it transforms hearts.

Our country has long cherished the freedom of religion that allows faith such as theirs to flourish.  My Administration is committed to defending this sacred right, upholding the freedom of every believer to worship, speak, and live according to their beliefs.  We are standing firm against those who seek to persecute or marginalize people of faith, protecting churches, schools, and communities from religious discrimination, and ensuring that Christian values maintain their rightful place at the center of American life.  As we remember the perfect example of Christ and the legacy of His saints, we renew our promise to live as one Nation under God, defending liberty, seeking justice, and striving always toward the good that His truth reveals.

Christian Opposition to Halloween Surfaces Again

Today is Halloween. The Wild Hunt this week reported on growing Christian religious opposition to Halloween celebrations. The report says in part:

Beginning early this month and, frankly, on cue, a surge of conservative Christian messaging has renewed the annual calls to avoid Halloween celebrations — and, in some cases, to confront or disrupt them. While many faith groups simply discourage participation, others have taken a more aggressive approach, framing Halloween and related Pagan observances like Samhain as manifestations of evil that must be “spiritually opposed.”...

Across social media, Christian influencers and ministries have once again amplified warnings that Halloween is “anti-Christian,” not merely secular or non-religious. Some claim that its roots in Samhain and ancestor veneration make it inherently pagan and demonic, even citing biblical passages as prohibitions against its observance....

While these ideas are not new, their intensity this year appears to have coincided with organized actions intended to “reclaim” public spaces from what these groups see as darkness. In Salem, often called “the Witch City,” that rhetoric has turned into direct confrontation....

Title VII Suit Alleges Failure to Accommodate Religious Refusal to Work Alone with a Woman

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by an HVAC technician who alleges that his firing violated Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. The complaint (full text) in Ostapa v. Trane U.S. Inc,, (ND NY, filed 10/14/2025), alleges that Plaintiff's employer, Trane Technologies, for the first time hired a female technician to work out of the same office as plaintiff. The complaint goes on in part:

13. Paul is a devout Christian. He attended Bible College in Ukraine before emigrating to the United States and is a member in good standing of the Southern Baptist Convention, a fundamentalist Christian denomination. 

14. Paul’s Christian faith and sincerely held religious beliefs dictate that he is not to be alone with a woman other than his wife. The origin of this religious doctrine is the biblical story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife found in Genesis 39....

Plaintiff's manager agreed to accommodate plaintiff's beliefs by not assigning a female to work alone with plaintiff. Subsequently, however, a dispatcher reported plaintiff to the HR department and he was ultimately fired. The complaint alleges that the firing constituted a failure to accommodate and retaliation in violation of Title VII, as well as a violation of New York law.

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

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).”

9th Circuit: Employee's Objection to Covid Vaccine Accommodation Was Not Religious

 In Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center, (9th Cir., Sept. 23, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed a district court's dismissal of a suit under Title VII and a parallel Oregon statute brought by Sherry Detwiler, the medical center's Director of Health Information. Detwiler initially objected on religious grounds to her employer's Covid vaccine requirement. She was granted an exemption, conditioned, in part, on her having weekly antigen testing. She objected to that accommodation because she believed the ethylene oxide used in obtaining a nasal swab for the test was carcinogenic. She told her employer in part:

I have asked God for direction regarding the current COVID testing requirement. As I have prayed about what I should do, the Holy Spirit has moved on my heart and conscience that I must not participate in COVID testing that causes harm. If I were to go against the moving of the Holy Spirit, I would be sinning and jeopardizing my relationship with God and violating my conscience . . .

As a Christian protecting my body from defilement according to God’s law, I invoke my religious right to refuse any testing which would alter my DNA and has been proven to cause cancer. I find testing with carcinogens and chemical waste to be in direct conflict with my Christian duty to protect my body as the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Detwiler asked instead either for saliva testing or remote work. The majority said in part:

The Ninth Circuit has not yet endorsed a test for determining the nature, whether religious or secular, of a belief underlying a Title VII claim....

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need not establish her belief is consistent, widely held, or even rational.  However, a complaint must connect the requested exemption with a truly religious principle.  Invocations of broad, religious tenets cannot, on their own, convert a secular preference into a religious conviction....

The District Court acknowledged the sincerity and religiosity of Detwiler’s belief in her body as a temple and even the implied prohibition on ingesting harmful substances.  Therefore, at issue is Detwiler’s belief that the testing swab is harmful, and specifically that EtO is a carcinogen.  This belief is personal and secular, premised on her interpretation of medical research.  In essence, Detwiler labels a personal judgment based on science as a direct product of her general religious tenet.  Yet, her alarm about the test swab is far too attenuated from the broad principle to treat the two as part of a single belief....

Invocation of prayer, without more, is still insufficient to elevate personal medical judgments to the level of religious significance.... Indeed, crediting every secular objection bolstered by a minimal reference to prayer as religious “would amount to a blanket privilege and a limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted obligations.” 

Judge VanDyke filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

By affirming the district court, the majority creates a circuit split.  When faced with the question of whether religious objections to COVID-19 policies mirroring Detwiler’s objection were sufficiently pled, our sister circuits have consistently answered in the affirmative.... 

To work well, the majority’s mode of analysis must be capable of objective, impartial, and consistent application.  If not, such analysis opens wide the door to the discriminatory treatment of religious beliefs.  Those beliefs christened by a judge as “truly religious” will be protected, and those condemned as too mixed with “secular” beliefs will be left unprotected.  The majority’s approach requires the impossible—we are judges, not theologians or philosophers.  Judges are ill equipped to parse mixed claims into the “truly religious” and “purely secular” silos that the majority purports to discern....

Salem Reporter reports on the decision. 

2nd Circuit: Christian School Wrongly Disqualified for Refusing to Play Against Team That Had Trans Athlete

In Mid Vermont Christian School v. Saunders, (2d Cir., Sept. 9, 2025), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Christian school was entitled to a preliminary injunction reinstating its membership in the Vermont Principal's Association. The court summarized its decision:

Mid Vermont Christian School forfeited a girls’ playoff basketball game to avoid playing a team with a transgender athlete.  The school believes that forcing girls to compete against biological males would affirm that those males are females, in violation of its religious beliefs.  In response to the forfeit, the Vermont Principals’ Association (“VPA”) expelled the school from all state-sponsored extracurricular activities.  

Plaintiffs Mid Vermont and several students and parents sued, bringing a Free Exercise claim and seeking a preliminary injunction to reinstate the school’s VPA membership and for other relief.  The district court ... denied the motion.  We conclude that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the VPA’s expulsion of Mid Vermont was not neutral because it displayed hostility toward the school’s religious beliefs; Plaintiffs are therefore likely to prevail on their Free Exercise claim.

MyNBC5 reports on the decision.

11th Circuit: Government Can Insist on Secular Presenters in Intervention Program for Domestic Abusers

In Nussbaumer v. Secretary, Florida Department of Children and Families, (11th Cir., Sept. 4, 2025), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech and free exercise challenges to Florida's requirements for becoming certified as a provider in the state's batterers' intervention program. Anyone convicted of domestic violence is required to complete the intervention program offered by a certified provider.  Nussbaumer is a Florida minister and licensed clinical Christian psychologist. He was denied certification because state rules require that the program's curriculum not include any faith-based ideology associated with a particular curriculum and not identify poor impulse control as a cause of domestic violence or suggest anger management techniques to prevent domestic violence. The court held that plaintiff's free speech rights were not violated because the curriculum and its presentation are government speech. Similarly, it held that his free exercise rights were not infringed, saying in part:

“the government’s own speech cannot support a claim that the government has interfered with a private individual’s free exercise rights.”... “The Free Exercise Clause simply cannot be understood to require the Government to conduct its own internal affairs in ways that comport with the religious beliefs of particular citizens.”

Christian Families Challenge Foster Care Rules on Support of Transgender Children

Two families, asserting Christian religious beliefs, filed suit yesterday in a Massachusetts federal district court challenging on 1st and 14th Amendment grounds a policy of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families that requires foster parents to agree that they will "[s]upport, respect, and affirm the foster child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression." The complaint (full text) in Jones v. Mahaniah, (D MA, filed 9/3/2025), alleges in part:

3. Both families will provide a loving and respectful home for any child, including transgender, gay, or lesbian foster children. But that is insufficient for Massachusetts....

4. ... [T]he State requires the Joneses and the Schrocks to promise to use a child’s chosen pronouns, verbally affirm a child’s gender identity contrary to biological sex, and even encourage a child to medically transition, forcing these families to speak against their core religious beliefs. 

5. Second, DCF infringes on Plaintiffs’ free-exercise rights through a policy that is not neutral or generally applicable,,,,  A foster parent must promise in advance to use opposite-sex pronouns and encourage a hypothetical child’s gender transition, even if they never have and never will host a child who struggles to accept their natural body....

120. Because DCF compels applicants to speak and express the DCF’s preferred views on human sexuality while prohibiting speech expressing other views it regulates speech based on content and viewpoint, it engages in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination....

134. 110 C.M.R. 7.104(1)(d) is not neutral nor generally applicable because it imposes special disabilities based on religious beliefs, categorically excludes people from foster-care licenses based on religious beliefs, prefers certain religious and secular beliefs over the Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, and provides for categorical and individualized exemptions without extending an exemption to religious persons like Plaintiffs.

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

LA Sued Over Its handling of Permit Application for Christian Revival Event

Suit was filed last week in a California federal district court by leaders of May Day USA, a nationwide Christian revival event, contending that the manner in which Los Angeles officials handed their application for a permit to hold a revival on Hollywood Boulevard violated their 1st and 14th Amendment rights. The 54-page complaint (full text) in Donnelly v. City of Los Angeles, California, (CD CA, filed 8/21/2025), alleges in part:

15. LAPD wielded the unconstitutionally unbridled discretion afforded it under the City’s permitting scheme to subject MayDay to lengthy and pretextual administrative hurdles....

16. Among the LAPD’s many demands was a requirement that MayDay conduct a petition of Hollywood Boulevard’s business owners and vendors to ensure at least 51% approved of MayDay’s expressive activity and speech....

19. The City’s permitting scheme thus enshrined an unconstitutional heckler’s veto upon MayDay and its expressive activities....

21. The City refused to provide MayDay with any concrete answer on its permit application until the last minute, prohibiting MayDay from finalizing their planned event, advertising it, or otherwise adequately preparing to engage in the event....

23. Three days prior to its requested event, the City denied the permit actually requested by MayDay ...and “granted” the application to host the event at a location ... it never requested and out of the site of the hecklers who Defendants believed would veto MayDay’s speech. In essence, the City tried to put MayDay unconstitutionally out of sight, and out of mind....

25. Simply put, the City said MayDay could speak, but only if it did it quietly, quickly, and where no one who might object would be forced to hear it. Defendants denied MayDay’s permit application on the basis of the views it planned to espouse and out of concern that Hollywood Boulevard was not an appropriate place for their religious speech, exercise, and expression.

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

8th Circuit: Rejection of Prison Course on Manhood From Christian Biblical Lens Violated Volunteer's 1st Amendment Rights

In Schmitt v. Robertus, (8th Cir., Aug. 14, 2025), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Minnesota prison officials likely violated the 1st Amendment in  refusing to allow plaintiff, a volunteer, to teach a program titled The Quest for Authentic Manhood at the Minnesota Correctional Facility.  The program defines manhood through a Christian biblical lens. Officials rejected the program as violating the prison's diversity, equity and inclusivity values, saying in part:

Throughout all sessions reviewed, men were only identified as heterosexual, seeking ideal relationships and marriage with women. It is evident that throughout this curriculum, manhood can only be achieved through heterosexual relationships.

Additionally, throughout many of the sessions, women are also identified as the problem for creating “soft males[,”] described as indecisive and weak....

The 8th Circuit focused on the test in prison cases announced by the Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley. Under that test prison regulations must have a valid rational connection to a legitimate governmental interest. The 8th Circuit said in part:

The first Turner factor, however, requires more than a legitimate penological interest. “[T]he governmental objective must be a legitimate and neutral one.”... “This means that the proffered mechanism by which the regulation promotes the legitimate government interest must be ‘unrelated to the suppression of expression.’” ...

Here, although the MDOC set forth a legitimate government interest, its termination of Quest was not “in a neutral fashion, without regard to the content of the expression.”...

Judge Kelly dissented, saying in part:

As I see it, it is common sense that a prison, like a school, can curate the programming it provides. ...

It thus seems natural to me to conclude that MDOC’s rehabilitative programming constitutes government speech, casting doubt on Schmitt’s free-speech and free-exercise claims....

9th Circuit: Ministerial Exception Requires Dismissal of Customer Service Representative's Title VII Suit

In McMahon v. World Vision, Inc., (9th Cir., Aug. 5, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ministerial exception doctrine requires dismissal of a Title VII employment discrimination suit brought by a World Vision customer service representative ("CSR") whose job offer was revoked when the organization learned that she was in a same-sex marriage. World Vision is a Christian ministry which shares the gospel through outreach to poor and underserved children and families. The court said in part: 

We hold that the ministerial exception applies to a CSR not merely because they interface with the public, pray with their colleagues, or abide by World Vision’s requirements to embody Christian values.  Rather, CSRs qualify for the exception because (1) they are World Vision’s “voice,” responsible for “effectively communicat[ing] World Vision’s involvement in ministries and projects around the world”; (2) their engagement with donors is a form of ministry itself; and (3) they “give people an opportunity to join [World Vision] in the mission of God.”  Each of these religious responsibilities is “vital” to World Vision’s particular religious mission. 

[Corrected] 

Passport Denial Violated RFRA

In Jordan v. Rubio, (D DC, July 29, 2025), a D.C. federal district court held that the State Department violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by denying a passport to plaintiff because she refused for religious reasons to furnish a birth certificate or a letter confirming that she lacks one. The court said in part:

All her life, Abigail Carmichael Jordan has avoided the perceived stain of a Social Security Number (“SSN”)....  Her devout Christian faith teaches her “that her God-given identity is sacred, and that the allegiance she owes to her government as a citizen of the United States must be subordinate to her allegiance to her Creator.”...  She thus rejects the possibility of being “enumerated” or “marked” by the government, such as by obtaining an SSN, as to do so “would be treating the Government as if it were God.” ... (citing Revelation 13:16–18)....  Indeed, her parents “did everything in their power to ensure that [she] did not receive a birth certificate when she was born ... for fear that applying for a birth certificate would result in the issuance of an SSN....

In short:  The Department withheld a coveted public benefit unless Jordan abandoned the teachings of her faith.  Such carrot-dangling is the classic example of a substantial burden on religious exercise....

It very well may be that Jordan never faced a substantial risk of receiving an unwanted SSN—at birth or during adulthood.  But for Jordan’s RFRA claim, the actual risk is irrelevant.  What matters is whether Jordan sincerely believes that applying for a Letter of No Record conflicted with her faith because it exposed her to the unacceptable possibility that she would be stained with an SSN.  And here, there is no dispute that Jordan honestly believes this.... So the Court must credit her fears—it may not tell Jordan that she is mistaken about the dictates of her own faith.

Christian Evangelist Challenges Town's Permit Requirement for Carrying Sign

Suit was filed this week in a South Carolina federal district court challenging the application of Chapin, South Carolina's "Parades, Demonstrating, Picketing" Ordinance to plaintiff's carrying of a religious sign on public rights of way. The complaint (full text) in Giardino v. Town of Chapin, South Carolina, (D SC, filed 7/15/2025), alleges in part:

2. Chapin interprets and applies the Ordinance regulating “demonstrations” to engulf Giardino’s use of religious signs while standing on public rights-of-way in town limits, requiring him to (i) apply for a permit to hold a sign on a public way, (ii) supply fourteen-day advance notice of his use of a sign, (iii) divulge identity and content of his sign, (iv) conditioned on standardless approval of the Mayor, and, if approved, (v) limit his time holding a sign to thirty minutes, and (vi) to move to a different spot after fifteen minutes...

12. Giardino is an evangelical Christian driven by his faith to share the good news of Jesus Christ (gospel) with others. 

13. He wants to inform others of the salvation they can find by believing in Jesus Christ and accepting Him as their savior.   

14. To convey this evangelistic message, Giardino holds a 20-inch by 24-inch sign attached to a short handle containing a short, pithy statement about the gospel while standing on a public sidewalk or public right-of-way in the town limits of Chapin, South Carolina.

The complaint alleges that enforcement of the Ordinance violates plaintiff's free speech, free exercise and due process rights, as well as South Carolina's Religious Freedom Act. Plaintiff also filed a Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

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

6th Circuit: Ministerial Exception Requires Dismissal of Employment Discrimination Suit by Christian School's Principal

In Pulsifer v. Westshore Christian Academy, (6th Cir., July 9, 2025), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ministerial exception doctrine required dismissal of an employment discrimination suit brought by the Dean of Students/ Assistant Principal of a Christian elementary school in Muskegon Heights, Michigan. The court said in part:

No one disputes that the Academy is the type of religious entity that can avail itself of the exception.... The Academy sees its role in inculcating the Christian faith as essential to its students’ salvation, and its “mission of Christian ministry and teaching” marks the school with “clear [and] obvious religious characteristics.”...

The question, then, is whether Pulsifer was the type of employee covered by the exception.  We hold that he was.  Pulsifer played an important role in furthering the school’s mission to provide for the religious education and formation of students.  Judicial review of the way in which the Academy chooses who should fill that type of role “would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.”,,,

... Pulsifer played a role in teaching the faith.  He was tasked with leading the staff in religious devotions each morning and also led devotions at each meeting of the school’s board.  Pulsifer also played an important role in conducting communal prayer with staff and board members....  And by implementing and leading two religious youth programs, he played a public-facing “role in conveying” the school’s religious “message,”,,,  

... Put simply, an employee can fall within the ministerial exception even when “[m]ost” of their “work [is] secular in nature,” ...  so long as the employee, like Pulsifer, also performs the types of religious duties we outline above.  Accordingly, the district court properly granted the Academy’s motion for summary judgment.

Cert. Granted in Street Preacher's Suit Challenging Protest Zone

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi, (Docket No. 24-993, certiorari granted 7/3/2025). (Order List.) In the case, a Christian street preacher challenges a city ordinance that limits demonstrations to a designated area within three hours of an event at the city's amphitheater. The certiorari petition frames the question in part as follows:

Gabriel Olivier is a Christian who feels called to share the gospel with his fellow citizens.  After being arrested and fined for violating an ordinance targeting “protests” outside a public amphitheater, Olivier brought a § 1983 suit under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to declare the ordinance unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement against him in the future.   

The Fifth Circuit, applying its precedent construing this Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), held that Olivier’s prior conviction barred his § 1983 suit because even the prospective relief it seeks would necessarily undermine his prior conviction....

Links to briefs and pleadings in the case are available here.

Trump Issues Message to Christians Celebrating Pentecost

The White House today posted a Presidential Message on Pentecost, 2025 (Full text). The Message reads in part:

Today, I join in prayer with Christians joyfully celebrating the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost—one of the most sacred events of the Christian faith. We commemorate the fulfillment of Jesus Christ’s earthly mission and the birth of His holy and living Church....

As we celebrate this glorious feast day, we also honor all Christians who, like the Apostles, have willingly endured persecution because of their faith.  My Administration will always defend the right of every American to worship God freely and without fear.  For this reason, I created the White House Faith Office and proudly instituted the White House Religious Liberty Commission to safeguard and promote America’s founding principle of religious freedom.  Under my leadership, we are protecting God in the public square and emboldening every believer to live their faith freely, openly, and without threat of persecution....

EEOC Sues Over Denial of Dress Code Religious Accommodation for Apostolic Christian Employee

The EEOC announced this week that it has filed a Title VII lawsuit against CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC, alleging that it failed to grant a religious accommodation to an Apostolic Christian employee.  The employee wanted to wear a skirt over her work pants. According to the EEOC:

The company denied the accommodation because of its policy against loose-fitting clothing. The employee only wore close-fitting skirts over her work pants and was in compliance with company policy. Ultimately, the company forced the employee to choose between wearing a skirt or losing her job. The employee chose to continue wearing a skirt, which led to her termination.

Jury Must Decide Reason for Evangelists' Exclusion from Pride Event

In Cocchini v. City of Franklin, Tennessee, (MD TN, June 3, 2025), in an opinion covering three consolidated cases, a Tennessee federal district court held that because disputed questions of fact remain, the cases must go to trial rather than the court issuing summary judgment for either side.  At issue are claims by five Christian evangelists that they were wrongly removed, asked to leave or denied entrance to the 2023 Franklin Pride Festival in violation of their 1st Amendment free speech rights. Those who entered the Festival particularly spoke with representatives of churches that supported LGBTQ+ rights. The court concluded that plaintiffs were engaged in protected speech that did not constitute "fighting words" and that they were not attempting to make their views part of the Festival's message. The court also concluded that the city park remained a quintessential public forum even though the city had issued it a permit to use the park for the Pride Festival. The court then concluded:

... [T]here is a genuine dispute of fact on the rationale for the City and Officer Spry restricting Plaintiffs’ speech that precludes a finding of summary judgment in any party’s favor.... [A]lthough there is evidence in the record suggesting that the City and Officer Spry restricted Plaintiffs’ speech on account of the Franklin Pride staffers’ disagreement with their religious messages, Defendants present conflicting evidence that they restricted Plaintiffs’ speech based on Franklin Pride’s request that they do so to maintain their use of their permit, prevent Plaintiffs’ disruptive behavior, and enforce Franklin Pride’s ban on distributing outside materials. Any one of these content-neutral reasons for curbing Plaintiffs’ speech ... would satisfy the applicable standard.... Given this critical material dispute of fact in the record, the Court finds that the question of what motivated Plaintiffs’ exclusion from the Park must be decided by a jury.  Accordingly, both Plaintiffs’ and the City’s motions for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims must be denied on this ground.