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.

Exclusion of Religious High Schools from Vermont's Tuition Payment Program Does Not Violate Free Exercise Clause

In Mid Vermont Christian School v. Saunders, (D VT, May 12, 2026), a Vermont federal district court upheld against constitutional attack a Vermont statute that reduces from 48 to 18 the number of independent schools that are eligible for town tuition payments, i.e. tuition payments for enrollment by students who live in districts that do not have a public high school. The reduction of 30 schools eligible for payments included the elimination of all 14 of the Catholic and Christian schools that were previously eligible. Rejecting plaintiff school's free exercise and equal protection challenges, the court said in part:

If the only issue was whether the language of the statute was neutral, the State would win in a walk....

Mid Vermont has a second string to its bow. Drawing on the "animus" cases such as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm 'n...., it offers evidence of what it describes as prejudice against public support for religious schools by some of the legislators who voted for Act 73. Whether this court should consider subjective evidence of legislative intent to restrict the free exercise of religious belief is a relatively novel issue....

The statements of the nine legislators identified by Mid Vermont are a thin basis for describing Act 73 - or just Section 21 - as motivated by religious animus. None of the statements were made in floor debate or as part of the Act's legislative history. Instead, most were made in response to an opinion survey and indicate no more than opposition to public funding of religious schools. They cannot reasonably be said to show "pervasive religious intolerance and hostility"....

Finally, Mid Vermont relies on statements by administration officials opposing public funding for religious schools.... It is a step too far, however, to attribute the views of executive officials to state legislators.....

If the court is correct in identifying Act 73 as a statute that is neutral as to religion, then its constitutionality is subject to a rational basis test. It is likely to pass such a test since it addresses multiple issues of educational policy through a program of comprehensive reform....

Suit Challenges Idaho's Ban on Transgender Use of Gender-Conforming Bathrooms

Six transgender residents of Idaho filed a class-action lawsuit last week in an Idaho federal district court challenging recently enacted HB 752, an Idaho law that prohibits "knowingly and willfully enter[ing] a restroom or changing room in a government-owned building or a place of public accommodation ... that is designated for use by the opposite biological sex of such person...." The statute includes exceptions to the ban for various emergency, health-related and similar situations. A violation is punishable by up to one year in prison. A second violation within five years is punishable by up to five years in prison. The complaint (full text) in Jackson-Edney v. Labrador, (D ID, filed 4/29/2026), alleges that the law is void for vagueness and violates the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating on the basis of sex and transgender status. It also contends that it violates plaintiffs' right to informational privacy by compelling disclosure of a person's transgender status.

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

Catholic Hospice Sues Over NY Standards for Care of Transgender Patients

Last week, Dominican Sisters who operate a home that provides palliative care for indigent, terminally ill cancer patients filed suit in a New York federal district court challenging New York's requirements for care of transgender patients. The complaint (full text) in Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne v. Hochul, filed 4/6/2026) alleges in part:

New York’s LGBTQ Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights ...  require long-term care facilities to assign patients to rooms based on stated “gender identity” rather than biological sex even over the opposition of the roommate, to permit residents and their visitors of one sex to access bathrooms set aside for those of the opposite sex, to use patients’ “preferred pronouns” even when the patient is not present, to use language and to “create communities” affirming patients’ sexual preferences, to accommodate patients’ desire for extramarital relations, and to post notices affirming compliance with these requirements....

... The Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne and Rosary Hill Home operate in accordance with the Ethical and Religious Directives and the teachings of the Catholic Church. They cannot comply with the Mandate without violating these sincerely held religious beliefs.....

Requiring a person to identify another by a sex other than his or her God-gifted sex would therefore require such a person to act against central, unchangeable and architectural teachings of the Catholic faith. It would contradict the teachings of the Bible concerning God’s creative sovereignty, contradict reason and truth, and betray our sacred obligation not to knowingly harm other persons, particularly the most vulnerable. The implications are so much greater than whether to utter the words “he” or “she.” Indeed, to demand that a Catholic deny another’s sex is to require him or her to affirm another religious worldview....

The complaint alleges 7 counts: Free Exercise; Religious Autonomy Doctrine; Ministerial Exception; Establishment Clause; Equal Protection; Free Speech; and Expressive Association.

NewsNation reports on the lawsuit.

Exclusion of Religious Training from College Grant Program Is Upheld

In Johnson v. Fleming, (ED VA, March 31, 2026), a Virginia federal district court dismissed Free Exercise Clause, Establishment Clause, and Equal Protection Clause claims challenging religious exclusions from the Virginia Tuition Assistance Grant Program. The VTAG program provides grants to Virginia residents who attend private non-profit colleges, except for religious training or theological education. The court said so long as the Supreme Court's decision in Locke v. Davey remains good law, the claims against VTAG must fail.

The case also challenged a program that offers college grants, with similar exclusions, to Virginia National Guard members. The court did not dismiss the challenges to that program because the court had only a limited factual record about the procedures utilized to administer the program. However, the court refused to issue a preliminary injunction because it is unlikely that plaintiffs challenging the program will succeed on the merits.

New Case Challenges Oklahoma's Rejection of Religious Charter School Application

The battle over the constitutionality of Oklahoma authorizing and funding a religious charter school took another step forward on Monday. As previously reported, in May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court split evenly, 4-4, on the constitutionality of such a school. The even split was caused by Justice Barrett recusing herself. Subsequently, a new test case was created as the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation. applied to create for a statewide virtual high school. The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board voted to reject the application and gave as its formal reason only that under Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school and must be nonsectarian. 

The Oklahoma Attorney General, apparently in an attempt to create a record that would allow the Supreme Court to avoid the constitutional issue, filed suit against the Charter School Board in a state trial court seeking a writ of mandamus to require the Board to identify and incorporate into the record other valid, non-constitutional grounds for the rejection that exist. (See prior posting). With that case apparently still pending, on Monday the Ben Gamla school filed suit in an Oklahoma federal district court against the Charter School Board and the Attorney General, seeking to overturn the Charter School Board's rejection of its application 

The complaint (full text) in National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation, Inc. v. Drummond, (WD OK, filed 3/24/2026), alleges in part:

... Under the Free Exercise Clause ...  a system that precludes religious entities from obtaining generally available state benefits solely because of an organization’s religious character or conduct is unconstitutional unless the government can satisfy strict scrutiny. Espinoza v. Mont. Dep’t of Revenue, 591 U.S. 464, 484 (2020)...

... The exclusion of Plaintiffs serves no compelling, substantial, or legitimate government interest....

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. 

... Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 70, § 3-136(A)(2) discriminates against religion on its face because it excludes applicants seeking to run religious charter schools from the charter school program. 

... Defendants must therefore satisfy strict scrutiny. 

Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

High School Teacher Did Not Violate Constitution in Counseling Muslim Student Who Converted to Christianity

In Chaudhry v. Thorsen, (ND IL, March 18, 2026), an Illinois federal district court rejected Establishment Clause, substantive due process, and equal protection claims against Pierre Thorsen, a high school history teacher, brought by Muslim parents of one of Thorsen's students. According to the court:

Entering Jacobs High School, Aliya—the daughter of Chaudhry and Alvi—identified as Muslim but was actively questioning her faith. In two classes with Thorsen, she established a strong rapport with him. She trusted him enough to approach him and ask personal questions related to her faith, having conversations before and after school....  As Aliya gradually chose to convert from Islam to Christianity, Thorsen grew concerned for her well-being given the ongoing family dynamics that she professed to him. He connected her to resources in the community, some of which included his own personal connections: a neighbor, a pastor, and former students. He also, at her request, gave her a Bible from one of these connections.....

Parents suffer no legal injury when their child uses his or her own free will and independent judgment to embrace beliefs that differ from their own.... 

Thorsen’s actions weren’t coercive. He never forced Aliya to talk to him. Rather, she initiated their conversations. When they talked, he didn’t badger Aliya into changing her beliefs. Instead, he talked with her about his own beliefs while also encouraging her to speak to her parents and an imam when she expressed doubts about her religion. It may not have been appropriate for Thorsen to ... connect her with adults in the community, particularly without at least looping in Jacobs’ administration or social workers, if not Aliya’s parents. But this doesn’t violate the Constitution, because Aliya wasn’t coerced into religious activity. Inappropriateness doesn’t necessarily violate the Constitution....

Distinguishing between “historical” teachings consistent with what every high school history student should know and “theological” lessons better reserved for Sunday School is a difficult line to draw, but, wherever it is drawn, Thorsen didn’t cross it. 

As a matter of law, Thorsen’s actions didn’t impermissibly establish religion in violation of the Establishment Clause....

The leap required to get from his actions—assisting Aliya in a pre-existing religious journey—to a nefarious discriminatory intent against Muslims as a class, is far beyond the capabilities of a reasonable jury, and the Court can’t allow the claim to proceed as a matter of law.

Suit Challenges Library's Policy on Use of Meeting Room

Suit was filed this week in an Alabama federal district court by Eagle Forum, a Christian community educational organization, challenging the policy of the Tuscaloosa Public Library that bars use of its large meeting room by "religious or sectarian groups for the purpose of preaching or otherwise demonstrating the beliefs of their members." The complaint (full text) in Eagle Forum of Alabama v. Tuscaloosa Public Library Bord of Trustees, (ND AL, filed 3/10/2026), alleges in part:

101. By putting Eagle Forum to a choice between exercising its religious beliefs through faith-based programming at its events and using the Rotary Room, the Defendants burden and “penalize[ ] the free exercise of religion.” ...

112. There is no compelling government interest to justify these content- and viewpoint-based restrictions, and the Reservation Policy is not narrowly tailored to advance any compelling governmental interest.

113. Even if the Rotary Room could only be considered a limited public forum ...  it is well established that “speech discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be excluded from a limited public forum on the ground that the subject is discussed from a religious viewpoint.”

The complaint also alleges that the library's policy violates the Equal Protection clause and the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment.

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

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.

Suit Alleges Unconstitutional Exclusion of Muslim Schools from Texas School Choice Program

A Muslim parent filed suit this week in a Texas federal district court challenging the state's exclusion of accredited Islamic private schools from participation in the Texas Education Freedom Accounts (TEFA) program. TEFA is a publicly funded school choice program. The complaint (full text) in Cherkaoui v. Paxton, (SD TX, filed 3/1/2026), alleges in part:

Since TEFA's inception, Defendants have systematically targeted Islamic schools for exclusion based on their religious identity, perceived "Islamic ties," and alleged connections to organizations Governor Abbott has designated as "foreign terrorist" or "transnational criminal" entities—even where those schools are fully accredited, satisfy all statutory eligibility criteria, and have no actual connection to terrorism or unlawful activity.

The complaint contends that the state has violated the 1st and 14th Amendments, alleging in part: 

85. Defendants' exclusion of Islamic schools is not neutral or generally applicable. It is explicitly based on religious identity (schools are targeted because they are Islamic), perceived religious association (hosting community events with Islamic civil-rights organizations), and religious animus (official statements equating Islamic identity with terrorism)....

89.   By systematically excluding Islamic schools while approving hundreds of Christian, Jewish, and other non-Islamic religious schools for TEFA participation, Defendants have engaged in denominational discrimination that favors non-Islamic religions over Islam in the distribution of a public benefit. 

90. Defendants' policies and public statements evince a purpose and effect of disfavoring Islam and conveying governmental disapproval of the Muslim faith....

Texas Tribune reports on the lawsuit. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Street Preachers Can Move Ahead with Free Exercise Claims Against Police

In Raio v. City of Chicago, (ND IL, Feb. 24, 2026), two street preachers and a Gospel singer who had been cited and, on another occasion, arrested for violating Chicago's sound ordinance brought a civil rights action against the city. The three use a microphone connected to a battery-operated speaker for their preaching and music. Ruling on the city's motion to dismiss, the court said that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged First Amendment retaliation, free exercise, false arrest, retaliatory arrest, and IRFRA claims, but dismissed plaintiffs' vagueness, equal protection, and free speech claims. The court said inn part:

Plaintiffs allege that Chicago police officers “cite all street preachers, regardless of whether they meet the requirements of the [Amplification Ordinance] and regardless of the evidence,”... and “engag[e] in a targeted practice of enforcing their interpretation of the [Amplification Ordinance] against only religious speakers,”... Defendants argue that the Amplification Ordinance is instead a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation....

Plaintiffs have failed to allege a single instance in which they, or anyone similarly situated, used amplification to communicate a non-religious message without consequence.  Nor do they allege that secular speakers regularly violate the Amplification Ordinance without any police intervention.  Plaintiffs instead include only conclusory allegations ... extrapolated from the two instances in which the Defendant Officers interacted with them.  Thus, Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that Defendants have selectively enforced the Amplification Ordinance....

Plaintiffs do not allege that the Amplification Ordinance burdens their religious exercise....  Plaintiffs instead contend that Defendants violated their First Amendment free exercise rights by burdening their religious beliefs via an unwritten policy and custom of targeting religious activity....

... Plaintiffs provide enough facts that Defendants’ unwritten policy targeting amplified religious speech imposes, at least plausibly, an unjustifiably substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion for the claim to move forward....

... Plaintiffs have not alleged any instances where police officers declined to cite or arrest any similarly situated secular individuals under similar conditions....  As such, Plaintiffs’ non-conclusory allegations fail to suggest that Defendants acted with a discriminatory intent and, consequently, the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim...

Suit Challenges Colorado's Blaine Amendment

Suit was filed last week in a Colorado federal district court challenging the Colorado Constitution's ban on use of state funds to support any religious school as violative of the Free Exercise, Equal Protection and Establishment Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The challenge was brought by a Board of Cooperative Education Services (BOCES), a private entity which contracts with schools to provide them innovative educational services. BOCES can receive and administer state and federal education grants. The complaint (full text) in Education Re-Envisioned BOCES v. Cordova, (D CO, filed 2/13/2026), focuses on the inability of BOCES to contract with religious schools, alleging in part:

24. The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) provides funding to ERBOCES for these contract schools....

33. In August 2025 ... ERBOCES entered a contract with Riverstone Academy to provide tuition-free education to the parents and children of Pueblo County, Colorado.  

34. After ERBOCES contracted with Riverstone, it submitted its annual request for state funding to CDE. ERBOCES included Riverstone Academy’s students in its request.  

35. In response to its funding request, ERBOCES received a letter from CDE stating that Colorado law requires ERBOCES to refuse to contract with any religious school....  

36. Specifically, the letter informed ERBOCES that providing funding to Riverstone Academy would violate the Colorado Constitution and Colorado statutory law because Riverstone is a Christian school....

73. The Supreme Court has “repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.” Carson, 596 U.S. at 778....

76. State provisions prohibiting aid to “sectarian” institutions date back to the 1870s and were enacted out of hostility to certain religious groups. Such provisions were “born of bigotry” against religion, especially the Catholic church.....  

77. Colorado’s Blaine amendment shares this “shameful pedigree.”...

93. To the extent the Colorado Constitution and any implementing statutes require school districts and BOCES to scrutinize contract school applicants’ curricula to determine if they are religious, they violate the Establishment Clause. ...

Christian Post reports on the lawsuit.

Child Evangelism Fellowship Sues School District Over Discriminatory Treatment

Suit was filed this week in an Illinois federal district court by Child Evangelism Fellowship alleging that fees charged to it for after-school use of school facilities and its exclusion from literature distribution forums and Backpack Nights forum violate its rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The complaint (full text) in Child Evangelism Fellowship of Illinois, Inc. v. Moline-Coal Valley Unified School District #40, (CD IL, filed 2/10/2026), alleges in part:

For more than five years, Defendants have categorized CEF as a “Category II” church and church-affiliated group, treating them differently than similarly situated nonreligious organizations. Defendants’ discriminatory policies target religious organizations like CEF’s Good News Club, compel them to pay discriminatory facility use fees, prevent them from distributing literature to students to take home to their parents, and bar them from Backpack Nights. In other words, Defendants have unconstitutionally relegated CEF to constitutional orphan status and discriminatory treatment in all forums available for similarly situated organizations in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution....

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

RLUIPA Claim for Polluting Burial Sites of Enslaved Ancestors May Move Ahead

In Inclusive Louisiana v. St. James Parish, (ED LA, Feb. 9, 2026), a Louisiana federal district court refused to dismiss claims against St. James Parish contending that plaintiffs have been harmed by land use decisions that have concentrated polluting industrial sites in majority black areas between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. The affected area has a particularly high cancer rate. Plaintiffs are an advocacy organization, a Baptist church whose members claim descent from formerly enslaved people, and a faith-based organization advocating for an end to petrochemical industries in the area. The court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with claims under the 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment and the Louisiana Constitution.  It also allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their claim that defendants' actions have violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, saying in part:

... Plaintiffs in the case allege that Defendants “have implemented land use regulations in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.” ... Plaintiffs specifically designate three of Defendants’ acts that “have burdened Plaintiffs’ members’ ability to pray upon the unmarked cemeteries of enslaved ancestors by permitting the construction of industrial facilities upon these cemeteries.”...

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs do not meet the definition of “claimants” under the statute because they have not alleged an ownership or other property interest in the land at issue in the case....

... Plaintiffs allege that “plantation owners were legally required to set aside land for burying the people they enslaved, . . . that graves were often marked by trees to identify them for loved ones and descendant communities, and preserved by laborers and farmers.”.... These allegations are more than sufficient to create a plausible claim that these pieces of land were “dedicated” as cemeteries for their ancestors, cemeteries which have since “been transformed into an industrial site, to be exploited for material gain.” However, even absent these specific and well-researched allegations, the fact that the plantation owners buried the bodies of the people whom they enslaved on these plots of land seems sufficient to constitute an intention to dedicate. Therefore, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs have a property interest in the plots of land at issue—the unmarked cemeteries of enslaved people on the Formosa and SLM plots—to assert a plausible claim under the RLUIPA’s Substantial Burden clause....

The second claim under RLUIPA has been brought against Defendants by only one Plaintiff, Mount Triumph Baptist Church. Specifically, Mount Triumph alleges that Defendants have implemented land use regulations that protect Catholic and majority-white churches from industrial development through required buffer zones, but that also permit such development in the immediate vicinity of majority-black churches with no such protection. Because Defendants have not specifically moved to dismiss this claim, the Court does not feel the need to discuss this claim, other than to say that Mount Triumph has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face....

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments Tomorrow In Transgender Athlete Cases

Tomorrow (Tuesday), the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases involving alleged illegal discrimination against transgender women athletes. At issue in Little v. Hecox is whether Idaho's Fairness in Women's Sports Act violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Act prohibits transgender women and girls from participating on women's sports teams in public elementary schools, high schools and public colleges. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction that barred enforcement of Idaho's ban. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the pleadings and briefs, as well as to commentary on the case.

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the question is whether West Virginia's Save Women's Sports Act violates Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that it does.  The law bans transgender girls and women from participating on girls'/ women's sports teams in public high schools or state colleges where team members are chosen on the basis of competitive skills or in contact sports. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the pleadings and briefs, as well as to commentary on the case.

Audio of the oral arguments in the cases will be streamed live by the Court beginning at 10:00 AM at this link. Transcript and recording of the oral arguments will become available later in the day at this link.

Magistrate Says Claims Against School for Ignoring Antisemitism Should Not Be Dismissed

In In re Claims of Avi Polischuk as Parent of D.P. v. Massapequa Union Free School District, (ED NY, Jan. 5, 2026), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended that the parent of a Jewish middle school student be allowed to move ahead with claims that the school ignored antisemitic actions directed at his son by other students.  The court described the antisemitic incidents:

... D.P. was being harassed by another student, Defendant S.W. on the basis of his religion. Specifically, in the school lunchroom S.W. asked D.P. if he was Jewish and then yelled "Heil Hitler" at him.... This treatment escalated to a physical attack on November 9, 2023, during which S.W. stabbed D.P. multiple times with a pencil causing physical injuries and resulting in S.W.'s suspension for a "short" and "insufficient" period. ...

This assault, however, is not the only example of antisemitism within the District. As far back as 2017 a swastika and the word "Hitler" were spray painted on a public school.... On a separate occasion ...Plaintiff was told by another family that District students "hurled antisemitic statements" at their son, and despite the parents' complaints, the District did nothing.... Still another set of parents reported that when their daughter passed around her yearbook for signatures, it came back with a swastika on it.... A complaint was made by the parents and again nothing was done....

The magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to give rise to an Equal Protection claim under Section 1983 as well as to a claim under Title VI, under the New York State Human Rights Law, and a claim for negligence, but that municipalities are not liable for punitive damages for violations of these provisions.

7th Circuit: Chicago's Reporting Requirement for Employees During Covid Pandemic Were Constitutional

In Kondilis v. City of Chicago, (7th Cir., Dec. 2, 2025), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by City of Chicago employees who had been granted religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate that, nevertheless, the reporting requirements imposed on them violated their free exercise and equal protection rights. All employees were required to enter their vaccination status and unvaccinated employees were required to enter their Covid test results into the employee portal. The court said in part:

Section VII, which addresses the COVID-19 testing reporting requirements for the portal, ... draws no distinction based on religion: it applies to all “[e]mployees … who are covered by this policy” and are “not fully vaccinated by October 15, 2021,” without further distinction. And neither section reflects any religious animus at all. Both sections “are neutral: They do not target religion or religious institutions.” ... 

That said, Plaintiffs contend that the sections were not generally applicable because the City applied the Policy inconsistently. They allege that not all employees had to comply with the portal reporting requirements, making them “selectively burdened” for being forced to do so....

But this argument fails. It is not enough for Plaintiffs—all of whom profess sincere religious beliefs—to show that the Policy was inconsistently applied across their own personal circumstances; they must plausibly show that this inconsistency bore upon religion in some way.... Yet the complaint does not do so.... [A chart they introduced into evidence] does not identify any trend singling out a particular religion or set of religions for differential treatment within the plaintiff group....

We need not spill much ink in holding that the City had a rational basis for its Policy’s reporting requirements and disciplinary procedures during a global pandemic. ...

Prison Chaplain Sues for Wrongful Termination

Suit was filed last week in a Florida federal district court by a Christian pastor who was terminated from his position as Senior Pastor at Madison Correctional Institution after he refused to proctor a newly-hired female pastor. The 75-page complaint (full text) in Horst v. Florida Department of Corrections, (ND FL, filed 11/26/2025), alleges in part:

13. On the basis of his sincerely held religious beliefs grounded in the above-referenced passages of Titus and Timothy, among other Scriptures, Senior Chaplain Horst was compelled to abstain from proctoring training that instructs a female to teach and preach to men. Female chaplains ministering to males is a practice that directly contradicts Scripture and Senior Chaplain Horst’s sincerely held religious beliefs.

14. On the basis of his sincerely held religious beliefs, Senior Chaplain Horst requested religious accommodation that would permit him to comply with his employments roles and requirements but also conform his conduct to his beliefs. 

15. Specifically, Senior Chaplain Horst’s religious accommodation request was that one of the DOC’s dozens of other competent and qualified chaplains proctor Chaplain Doe’s non-mandatory training.

Plaintiff alleges failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, wrongful termination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, violation of Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as violations of the First and 14th Amendments.

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

Religious College Challenges Exclusion from Chicago's Student Teacher Program

Suit was filed this week in an Illinois federal district court by the Moody Bible Institute challenging the Chicago Board of Education with excluding its students from participating in the Chicago student teacher program in violation of the Constitution and of state law. The complaint (full text) in Moody Bible Institute of Chicago v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, (ND IL, filed 11/4/2025), alleges in part:

... Chicago Public Schools insists that Moody sign two agreements that contain provisions prohibiting Moody from employing only those who share its religious beliefs and agree to comply with its standards of Christian conduct (the “Employment Provisions”)....

Chicago Public Schools has allowed other universities and colleges to participate in the Pre-Service Teaching Program even though they have similar hiring practices to Moody....

Plaintiff alleges that this violates their rights under the First Amendment's religion and speech clauses, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

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

Organization Ordaining Ministers Online Loses Challenge to Tennessee Officials

Tennessee law provides that persons who receive ordination online may not solemnize marriages in the state. In American Marriage Ministries v. Collins, (ED TN, Sept. 17, 2025), plaintiff, an organization that ordains ministers online sued Tennessee officials who refused to provide it with the same non-prosecution assurances, and agreements not to challenge their marriages, that officials had previously given to Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse. A Tennessee federal district court rejected various challenges to the refusal. The court said in part:

Here, AMM contends Defendants have violated the Establishment Clause by “set[ting] up favored and disfavored religious institutions under the law” and impermissibly “ma[de] accommodations for some religious denominations and not others.”  ...)  However, AMM does not cite any evidence from the record that would indicate a denominational difference between it and ULCM, nor does it otherwise explain how Defendants’ disparate treatment of AMM and ULCM constitutes denominational discrimination sufficient to show an Establishment Clause violation....   

...  AMM [does not] cite any authority to support the proposition that, in the absence of a showing of denominational discrimination, an official preference among different “religious institutions” violates the Establishment Clause....

... AMM lacks standing to bring the claim it now seeks to press under the Free Exercise Clause because that claim contests the constitutionality of the text of the Online Ordination Ban rather than Defendants’ disparate treatment of ULCM and AMM...

... AMM’s arguments for strict scrutiny fall short.  The record does not support a finding that Defendants’ disparate treatment of AMM and ULCM is based on religion, because—just as there was no denominational difference to support an Establishment Clause violation—AMM has not pointed to any relevant religion-based distinction between the two organizations that could support a finding of “classification . . . based on religion.”...

... AMM cannot meet its burden of “showing pure arbitrariness by negativing every conceivable basis that might support the government's decision.”... This is an extremely difficult burden for a plaintiff to satisfy, even in the already deferential realm of rational basis review....

There is at least one conceivable rational basis for Defendants’ disparate treatment of AMM following the ULCM Stipulations.... Defendants’ entry into the ULCM Stipulations was a rather extraordinary official act, in the sense that they made a series of promises not to enforce a civil statute over which (according to their own views of the relevant law) they lacked any enforcement power.  Given this context, in which Defendants made promises about a subject matter and a statute outside of their authority, it is conceivable that they might choose to avoid further entanglements with the Online Ordination Ban. It is as if, having found themselves off the road, Defendants have since endeavored to stay in their lane; this is certainly a rational attitude for government officials to take towards their duties.