Hospital Justified In Firing Nurse for Praying with Patients, Discussing Holocaust With Patient

In Sanders v. Kootenai Hospital District, (D ID, Feb. 20, 2026), an Idaho federal district court rejected various claims by Claudia Sanders, a nurse at a crisis center who was fired by her employer, a publicly operated hospital. Sanders duties included triaging patients. According to the court:

Sanders alleges two incidents in which she engaged in constitutionally protected speech or activity that were the cause of her termination. First, she maintains that on January 23, 2022, she “discussed the Holocaust in general terms” with a Jewish patient and provided the patient a copy of Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, a book written by a psychiatrist who survived the Holocaust.... Second, she contends that she has previously prayed with patients who asked her to pray.

In rejecting Sanders' free speech claims, the court said in part:

The First Amendment does not protect speech made pursuant to a government employee’s official duties....

Sanders admitted that she prayed with patients under the belief that such conduct fell within her job responsibilities....

Sanders’ January 23 discussion on the Holocaust with a patient also was made pursuant to her official duties as a NICC triage nurse....  Because Sanders’ speech owes its existence to her position, she spoke as an employee—not as a citizen. Therefore, the Court concludes that Sanders did not engage in protected speech....

... It is not unreasonable for Kootenai to consider Sanders’ statements about the Holocaust, which implied that it either did not happen or that it was a good thing ...  disruptive to its ability to serve the community...

Kootenai was also justified in terminating Sanders for engaging in prayer with patients. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the government has a compelling interest in avoiding the appearance of taking a position on questions of religious belief when the restriction applies to government employees engaging in religious speech while providing state-sponsored services.... 

... Sanders promoted religious messages while working with patients on Kootenai business, raising a legitimate Establishment Clause concern.....

The court also rejected Sanders' claims of wrongful termination, defamation, infliction of emotional distress, and tarnishing of her reputation.

5th Circuit En Banc: Challenge to Louisiana Classroom 10 Commandments Mandate Is Not Ripe

In Roake v. Brumley, (5th Cir., Feb. 20, 2026), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc by a vote of 11-7 vacated on jurisdictional grounds a preliminary injunction that had barred schools from complying with a Louisiana law mandating the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. (See prior posting.) The majority held that the case was not ripe, saying in part:

Asking us to declare—here and now, and in the abstract—that every possible H.B. 71 display would violate the Establishment Clause would require precisely what [prior Supreme Court precedent] ... forbids: the substitution of speculation for adjudication. It would oblige us to hypothesize an open-ended range of possible classroom displays and then assess each under a context-sensitive standard that depends on facts not yet developed and, indeed, not yet knowable. That exercise exceeds the judicial function. It is not judging; it is guessing. And because it rests on conjecture rather than a concrete factual record, it does not cure the ripeness defect—it compounds it....

Judge Ho filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Plaintiffs contend that their constitutional objection to the Louisiana Ten Commandments law “may properly begin and end” with Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980). 

That’s telling, because Stone turns entirely on Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)—and everyone agrees that Lemon is no longer good law after Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507, 534 (2022)....

Later Supreme Court opinions have further affirmed that passive religious displays are not coercive....

Plaintiffs present no historical evidence that remotely suggests that our Founders would have regarded a passive display of the Ten Commandments as an impermissible “establishment of religion.” ...

Judge Dennis, joined by Judges Graves, Higginson, Douglas and Ramirez, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Here, the legislative record demonstrates that a religious objective dominated. Sponsors repeatedly invoked teaching children “what God commands,” lamented the decline of Christianity, and openly framed opposition to H.B. 71 as an “attack on Christianity.” Another co-sponsor touted the law as a religious counterbalance to secular education....

...  Stone remains controlling because Louisiana vastly overstates Kennedy’s significance. Kennedy repudiated only the endorsement test—an offshoot of Lemon’s second prong—and left intact the broader framework of Establishment Clause doctrine: the requirement of a secular legislative purpose, the prohibition on policies whose primary effect advances religion, and the concern about excessive entanglement between church and state....

Judge Haynes filed a brief dissenting opinion.

Judge Higginson, joined by Judges Dennis, Graves, Douglas and Ramirez filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

We know from Louisiana lawmakers the chosen scriptural text was not happenstance. The legislators had definitive religious motivation when they selected a Protestant version of the Decalogue to display....

... Jewish plaintiffs and organizations voice that it violates their faith to make Jewish children stare at a Protestant “misappropriat[ion]” of their most sacred text....

Judge Ramirez, joined by Judges Stewart, Dennis, Graves, Higginson and Douglas, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part: 

Because H.B. 71 provides sufficient information about the mandatory classroom religious displays, and requires no other materials to be displayed, “no additional factual development” is required to determine the statute’s facial invalidity....

Louisiana’s argument that the court must know what other materials may accompany each Ten Commandments poster to evaluate H.B. 71’s constitutionality also ignores the nature of Plaintiffs’ facial claims—that H.B. 71’s minimum requirements render it unconstitutional in all applications.

Louisiana Illuminator reports on the decision.

Mayor's Statements About Prayer Event Sponsors May Have Violated Establishment Clause

Johnson v. City of Seattle, (WD WA, Feb. 18, 2026), is a suit by promoters of a worship event held in a Seattle park. According to the court:

Plaintiffs allege that ... a large group of protestors came to the park to agitate, disrupt, and assault Plaintiffs for the views, message, and content of their event....  [S]hortly after the event had begun, event organizers were approached by the police and told to shut down the event because of violent protestors that the police could not control....  Two protestors attacked the event’s stage, ripped down the fabric banners and kicked over equipment, and other protestors exposed body parts, engaged in lewd behavior in front of minor children, threw urine-filled water balloons, sprayed attendees with pepper spray and tear gas, and harassed Plaintiffs with curse words and violent threats....

On the same day, Mayor Harrell issued a press release stating that Plaintiffs’ event was an “Extreme Right-Wing Rally”, and that Plaintiffs were responsible for the violence that had been perpetrated against them.... Plaintiffs allege that they were blamed for deliberately provoking the reaction “by promoting beliefs that are inherently opposed to our city’s values, in the heart of Seattle’s most prominent LGBTQ+ neighborhood.”.... Mayor Harrell issued another press release ... which contained statements from the City’s “Christian and Faith Leaders” condemning Plaintiffs for their event and blaming them for the violence perpetrated against them.... According to the City’s faith leaders, Plaintiffs targeted the LGBTQ+ community....

The court refused to grant plaintiffs a preliminary injunction, saying in part:

Here, the dearth of allegations of intended future conduct, threat of future enforcement, or self-censorship, clearly does not satisfy a pre-enforcement injury in fact.

However, the court allowed plaintiffs to continue their lawsuit seeking other relief, including their Establishment Clause claim which defendants had asked the court to dismiss. The court said in part:

... Plaintiffs ... argue that the statements made by Defendant Harrell after the event was shut down are laden with hostility toward religion, and the condemning statements made by other religious sects and cited in the second press release demonstrates Defendants’ preference for other religions.... These statements were made in formal press releases from the “Office of the Mayor.”... Official expressions of hostility directly connected to Plaintiffs and their event, combined with the supporting hostile statements made by City religious leaders that are officially approved by the City, can have the effect of showing that the City is failing its duty of neutrality, invalidating the facial neutrality of an ordinance....

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.

Court Refuses to Enjoin Coinage Containing "In God We Trust" Motto

In Clayman v. Bessent, (SD FL, Jan. 8, 2026), a Florida federal district court denied plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the federal government from designing or producing any coins or currency containing the "Divine Name" of God. Plaintiff contends that the national motto on coins and currency violates the Establishment Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. His complaint focuses on a proposed new coin that would carry the likeness of Donald Trump and the motto In God We Trust. The court said in part:

The United States of America will celebrate its 250th anniversary this year on July 4, 2026. The Declaration of Independence refers to "Nature's God." The Pledge of Allegiance refers to "one Nation under God." 4 U.S.C. § 4. The use of the word God on coins began in 1864 on the two-cent coin. "In God We Trust" began to appear on U.S. paper currency in 1957, as required by Public Law 84-140. By statute, all coins must contain the "in God we trust" language. See 31 U.S.C. § 5112. In light of this history, statutory authority, and case law, there is simply no basis for this Court to grant the broad injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff.

Indiana Asks Court to Vacate 2002 Injunction Barring 10 Commandments Monument at Statehouse

Last week, Indiana's Attorney General filed a motion in an Indiana federal district court asking the court to vacate an injunction it issued in 2002 enjoining the governor from erecting a proposed Ten Commandments monument on the Indiana statehouse grounds.  The motion (full text) in Indiana Civil Liberties Union v. Braun, (SD IN, filed 12/29/25), reads in part:

In 2002, this Court permanently enjoined the Governor of Indiana from “taking any steps to erect, on the grounds of the Indiana Statehouse,” a proposed monument that depicts the Ten Commandments, Bill of Rights, and preamble to the Indiana Constitution.... The Court entered the injunction only after the Seventh Circuit held that similarly situated plaintiffs had standing to challenge the placement of such monuments and this monument’s placement would violate the Establishment Clause principles laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman.....   

Not long ago, however, the Supreme Court announced that Lemon has been “abrogated” and that Establishment Clause claims instead must be evaluated based on history and tradition.... Viewed through the lens of this Nation’s history and traditions, erecting the monument raises no Establishment Clause concerns.... That substantial change in law renders it improper to maintain the injunction.  

Substantial changes in standing doctrine provide a second, independent reason for vacating the injunction.... Now that Lemon is no longer good law, there is no longer any basis for holding that an offended observer has standing to bring an Establishment Clause claim. That, too, makes relief from the final judgment proper. 

The Attorney General also filed a 20-page Brief In Support of the Motion. In a press release announcing the court filing, the Attorney General said in part:

The monument—a gift from the Indiana Limestone Institute—displays the Ten Commandments on one large side, the Bill of Rights on the opposite side, and the Preamble to the Indiana Constitution on the smaller sides. A similar monument stood peacefully on the Statehouse lawn for over 30 years until it was vandalized in 1991....

The monument remains in Bedford, Indiana, and would be placed near its original intended location if the court grants the motion.

WTHI-TV News reports additional background information.

Bagua Mirror on City Property Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Ngo v. City of Westminster, (CD CA, Nov. 26, 2025), a California federal district court held that display of a Bagua Mirror on city property did not violate the Establishment Clause. Plaintiff alleged that the Mirror was a religious symbol displayed outside the mayor's office on a city hall wall, and that as a devout Catholic, he was offended by the display of the Mirror.

The court said in part:

Neither party has briefed in any detail how the Bagua Mirror display fits in the historical understandings and practices of this nation regarding the Establishment Clause.  However, the Supreme Court has noted there “is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.”...

In Lynch v. Donnelly, the Supreme Court held that a city owned and displayed Christmas nativity scene including the Infant Jesus, Mary and Joseph did not violate the Establishment Clause....  In that opinion, the Supreme Court opined on the long history and tradition of government sponsored and displayed religious symbols.  For example, “[a]rt galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith.”...  

From the Supreme Court’s recounting, it is clear that government-sponsored and displayed religious symbols have long been part of this nation’s history and practices, without violating the Establishment Clause.  Therefore, the Court finds the allegation that a Bagua Mirror was displayed on City property insufficient to state a claim for violation of the Establishment Clause.  In addition, the SAC’s allegation that Plaintiff was offended at the sight of the Bagua Mirror does not amount to any degree of governmental coercion.  Offense does not equate to coercion....  The SAC’s Establishment Clause Claim is dismissed.

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

Class Action Filed Challenging Texas Law Requiring 10 Commandments in All Classrooms

 A class action lawsuit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court challenging the recently enacted Texas statute that requires the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom.  Two decisions, together impacting 25 specific school districts, have held the law unconstitutional. (See prior postings 1, 2 )  However, Texas has over 1000 school districts. The class action seeks to bar enforcement of statute in all Texas schools that are not parties to other cases already in the courts.  The complaint (full text) in Ashby v. Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City Independent School District, (WD TX, filed 12/2/2025), alleges in part:

6.  The state’s main interest in displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools under S.B. 10 is to impose specific religious beliefs on public-school children, ignoring the numerous objections from Texas families and faith leaders from across the religious spectrum....

7. For these reasons, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated parents and minor children, seek a declaratory judgment that S.B. 10 is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as permanent injunctive relief, to prevent Defendants and other independent school districts similarly situated from complying with the Act. 

ACLU Texas along with several other civil rights organizations issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

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.

"In God We Trust" On Currency Does Not Burden Jewish Plaintiff's Religious Exercise

 In Clayman v. Bessant, (SD FL, Nov. 24, 2025), a Florida federal district court rejected plaintiff's RFRA, Free Exercise, Establishment Clause, Takings Clause and other challenges to the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency. Plaintiff alleged that unlike prior cases which have rejected similar claims, he raises "unique Jewish religious objections" and cites "Jewish Hasmonean and Maccabean religious traditions and obligations, which strongly oppose the casual or superfluous use of G-d’s sacred Name in secular contexts." According to the court:

Plaintiff alleges that he was incarcerated for 28 days due to his inability to pay cash-only bail;  that he continues to be vulnerable to pretrial detention due to the unavailability of cashless bail; that he is excluded from certain employment because he cannot handle cash; that he faces surcharges for not using cash; that he has difficulty with road trips in that he has to avoid cash-only tolls; that he cannot hold cash in contemplation of electronic systems failing due to natural disasters; that his future children’s lives will be disrupted because they cannot handle cash; that he has difficulty tipping and donating to the needy; that he cannot walk into public bathrooms with cash on his person; that he cannot park in cash-only lots; that he is unable to accept small-dollar political contributions; that he cannot operate a retail business; that he was unable to use $2,000 in cash he received as wedding gifts; that he suffers from a loss of privacy; and that he is excluded from cash-only services such as laundromats, bars, social events, and street food.  

In dismissing plaintiff's claims (with leave to amend), the court concluded that plaintiff had not established that the government has substantially burdened his exercise of religion.

New Test Case on State-Funded Religious Charter Schools Is Being Assembled

 As previously reported, earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court split 4-4 on the question of whether the 1st Amendment allows Oklahoma to authorize and fund a religiously-sponsored virtual charter school. The split was caused by Justice Amy Coney Barrett's recusing herself due to her connection to an early legal advisor to the school. The 4-4 split resulted in the affirmance of an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that the Catholic-sponsored publicly-funded charter school violated Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Now, according to JTA, a new test case is being put together. JTA reports in part:

The National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation has notified an Oklahoma state board that it intends to apply for a statewide virtual high school integrating Oklahoma academic standards with daily Jewish religious studies....

... [T]he group’s legal team — led by Becket, a prominent nonprofit religious-liberty law firm — is preparing for the state board to reject the application, setting the stage for a federal lawsuit and, potentially, a precedent-setting ruling at the Supreme Court....

The group will not sue in state court, bypassing the state Supreme Court ruling against St. Isidore, but in federal court, where they believe they will prevail.

By framing Oklahoma’s refusal as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause, Ben Gamla hopes to build on recent Supreme Court rulings holding that states may not exclude religious organizations from generally available public benefits solely because they are religious.

Court Enjoins School Districts from Complying with Texas Mandate to Post 10 Commandments in Classrooms

In Cribbs Ringer v. Comal Independent School District, (WD TX, Nov. 18, 2025), a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring 14 Texas school districts from complying with SB 10, a recent Texas statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. The court concluded that the case is factually indistinguishable from the U.S. Supreme Court's 1980 decision in Stone v. Graham. The court held that the Supreme Court's later decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District abandoned the Lemon test in Establishment Clause cases, the Supreme Court "gave no indication it was abrogating or overruling any of its public school cases." The court said in part:

Even if Kennedy undermined Stone to some extent, it would still control this case. Lower courts must apply controlling Supreme Court precedent even when it appears to rest on "reasons rejected in some other line of decisions."

Eleven other Texas school districts were previously enjoined from complying with SB 10. (See prior posting.) 

ACLU issued a press release announcing yesterday's decision.

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.

Placing Patron Saint Statues on City Safety Building Is Enjoined

In Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy, (MA Super. Ct., Oct. 14, 2025), a Massachusetts state trial court issued a preliminary injunction barring installation, while the case proceeds, on a newly built public safety building of two ten-foot bronze statues depicting the Catholic patron saints of police and firefighters. The suit, filed by taxpayers, was brought under Art. 3 of the state constitution which requires equal treatment of all religious sects. The court held that while the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the Lemon test for federal Establishment Clause challenges, the Lemon test still applies to claims under Art. 2 and 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The court said in part:

The Complaint here plausibly alleges that the statues at issue convey a message of endorsing one religion over others.... The statues, particularly when considered together, patently endorse Catholic beliefs....

Defendants contend that the statues have a secular purpose of inspiring police officers and their display ... neither advance nor prohibit religion... [T]he mayor's professed secular purpose offers nothing more than semantics.... It is impossible to strip the statue of its religious meaning to contrive a secular purpose.... 

ACLU Massachusetts issued a press release announcing the court's decision. A WCVB News report carries photos of the statues in question.

Court Dismisses Religious Challenges to Trump's Executive Order on Portraying American History

In Jeanpierre v. Trump, (D UT, Oct. 14, 2025), a Utah federal magistrate judge dismissed a suit challenging on RFRA, free exercise and Establishment Clause grounds President Trump's Executive Order 14253, "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History." Plaintiff is the founder of a religious organization called Black Flag whose tenets include prohibitions on prejudice and discrimination. The court said in part:

According to Mr. Jeanpierre, this executive order “effectively establishes a state sponsored religious doctrine of American historical exceptionalism” and, as a result, is “a direct attack on the foundational tenets of [his] sincerely held religious beliefs.” He alleges the order prevents Mr. Jeanpierre “from exercising his religious autonomy to perceive and interpret history according to his religious conscience.”  He alleges the order’s “prohibition against depicting American history as ‘inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed’” impedes his “religious mandate to identify and confront . . . historical realities” and interferes with his “religious practice of acknowledging and addressing systemic racism” by “imposing a sanitized historical narrative that contradicts [his] religious understanding of reality.”  The “restrictions on historical presentations,” according to Mr. Jeanpierre, force “compliance with a historical narrative that [he] religiously believes causes harm to marginalized communities” and “spiritual suffocation and respiratory distress to [his] religion by restricting the free breath of historical truth.”  Finally, Mr. Jeanpierre alleges the executive order’s imposed historical doctrine compels him “to violate his religious tenants regarding autonomy, truth-telling, and confrontation of systemic inequity,” forcing him “to choose between adherence to his religious principles and compliance with federal law.” 

The court concluded that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action under §1983 which applies only to state officials, or under the Bivens doctrine that does not apply to 1st Amendment claims. The court also rejected plaintiff's RFRA claim, saying in part:

... [T]he executive order ... does not demand any conduct from Mr. Jeanpierre or impose any consequence for his religious beliefs.  It orders federal agencies to remove race-centered ideology from the Smithsonian Institution and to restore public monuments, according to President Trump’s historical narrative that the country’s achievements, principles, and milestones are being undermined and cast in a negative light.  Mr. Jeanpierre does not assert he was made to alter his religious behavior in some way because of this order. 

The court also rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment claims, saying in part that the Executive Order is neutral and generally applicable and does not target religion.

Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Claim Rutgers Engaged in Anti-Hindu Discrimination

In Bagal v. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, (D NJ, Oct. 14, 2025), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a suit claiming the university, in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, Title VI and New Jersey law, discriminated against plaintiff because of his Hindu religious beliefs. At issue is a Task Force Report recommending that the University add "caste" as a protected category in its antidiscrimination policy. The University rejected the recommendation, saying that its current policy is broad enough to protect against caste discrimination. Plaintiff claimed that the chair of the Task Force had a history of discriminatory animus toward the Hindu religion. The court said in part:

Defendants argue that Plaintiff alleges two distinct injuries...: (1) Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff for his religious beliefs because the Report connects an oppressive caste system with Hinduism; and (2) Plaintiff has refrained from engaging in certain religious activities and from discussing his religious beliefs in class....  Defendants argue that Plaintiff was only a remote participant in an online certificate program, so he has not suffered any concrete injury as a result of the Report’s publication, and that Plaintiff’s allegations of harm to other Hindu students at Rutgers is improper.... 

Here, Plaintiff has not pled facts to demonstrate how the Report—which cannot be and will not be enforced—is burdening Plaintiff’s ability to exercise his religious rights.  The Report was a non-binding recommendation that carries with it no disciplinary weight.  And Rutgers expressly declined to include the term “caste” in its Policy, so the complained of governmental action apparently burdening Plaintiff’s religious activities does not exist.  Stated differently, Plaintiff’s self-censorship is based on “hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.”...

Plaintiff cannot manufacture standing by alleging a stigmatic injury, when that alleged stigmatic harm is not objectively reasonable based on the allegations...Simply being offended by the Report and Truschke’s alleged statements connecting Hinduism to the caste system are insufficient, without more, to confer Plaintiff with standing to bring his Establishment Clause claim....

5th Circuit Grants En Banc Review of Louisiana 10 Commandments Law

On Oct. 6, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted en banc review in Roake v. Brumley, (Full text of court's Order.) In the case, a 3-judge panel affirmed a district court's grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a Louisiana statute that requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. (See prior posting.) The court's Order vacates the panel decision and calls for new briefs and oral arguments in the case. Baptist News Global reports on the court's action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The court also rejected vagueness and equal protection challenges.

Canceling Church's Sunday Lease on School Gym Violated 1st Amendment

 In Truth Family Bible Church Middleton v. Idaho Housing and Finance Association, (D ID, Sept. 22, 2025), an Idaho federal district court held that plaintiff's First Amendment rights were violated when its lease to use a public charter school's gymnasium for Sunday services was terminated. The court said in part:

... Truth Family had a month-to-month lease with Sage International Network of Schools (“SAGE”), a public charter school, where they would pay rent for the use of the school’s gymnasium on Sundays for church services.... SAGE submitted an application to IHFA to participate in the Public Charter School Facilities Program [under which] it could receive bonds for facility improvements and construction.  

IHFA reviewed SAGE’s application and indicated the lease with Truth Family could be a problem because the bond proceeds could not be used for religious purposes under Article IX Section 5 of the Idaho Constitution (otherwise known as the “Blaine Amendment”).... Ultimately, SAGE decided to terminate the lease in order to proceed with bond financing.....

IHFA did not single out Truth Family’s lease in a way that was neutral or generally applicable, and SAGE did not terminate Truth Family’s lease in a manner that was neutral or generally applicable. Therefore, Truth Family met its burden of showing there was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause here....

To refuse the issuance of bonds to anyone who contracts with a religious organization to use their facilities is likely not narrowly tailored to any government interest that could possibly be served by the Blaine Amendment....

... [T]he government is still indicating a preference for a certain religion or non-religion when it excludes another. When Truth Family was prevented from using facilities to participate in worship services, that indicated IHFA and SAGE’s preference for non-religion in violation of the Establishment Clause....

SAGE terminated the lease solely due to Truth Family’s status as a religious organization. While the motivation might have been money rather than a direct issue with the message itself, the result is the same: Truth Family could no longer spread its message at the school because it was a religious one. This is a violation of the Free Speech Clause, and summary judgment is proper....

Idaho Ed News reports on the decision.