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.

Another Suit Challenges Texas' Law Requiring 10 Commandments in Classrooms

On August 20 a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring 11 Texas school districts from complying with Texas SB 10 that requires posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Five days later, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a press release directed the school districts that were not defendants in the litigation to comply with SB 10. (See prior posting.) Today, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against 14 more of Texas' 1207 school districts seeking an injunction barring those districts from complying with SB 10. The 67-page complaint (full text) in Ringer v. Comal Independent School District, (WD TX, filed 9/22/2025) alleges in part:

... [P]ermanently posting the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom—rendering them unavoidable—will unconstitutionally harm the Plaintiffs. The displays will pressure students, including the minor-child Plaintiffs, into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state’s favored religious scripture. The displays will also send the harmful and religiously divisive message that students who do not subscribe to the Ten Commandments—or, more precisely, to the specific version of the Ten Commandments that S. B. 10 requires—do not belong in their own school community, pressuring them to refrain from expressing any faith practices or beliefs that are not aligned with the state’s religious preferences. And the displays will substantially interfere with and burden the right of the parents-Plaintiffs, who are Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Baha’i, Humanist, or nonreligious, to direct their children’s education and upbringing when it comes to religious questions and matters.

Americans United 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.

Hawaii Supreme Court Interprets State Constitution's Establishment Clause

In Hilo Bay Marina, LLC v. State of Hawai'i, (HI Sup. Ct., Sept. 12, 2025), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the Hawaii state constitution's Establishment Clause invalidates a provision in a 1922 land grant from the Territory of Hawaii to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The land grant provided in part:

The land covered by this Grant is to be used for Church purposes only. In the event of its being used for other than Church purposes, this Grant shall become void and the land mentioned herein shall immediately revert to and revest in the Territory of Hawaii.

The current owners of the land seek a declaratory judgment holding that the reversionary clause is invalid.  The majority said in part:

Ultimately, we hold that the State’s action to enforce the Deed Restriction, requiring that the Property be used “for Church purposes only” or else the Property would revert to the State, violates Hawai‘i’s Establishment Clause in article I, section 4 of the Hawai‘i Constitution.  We resolve this appeal based on the Hawai‘i Constitution.  In doing so, we need not consider the Federal Establishment Clause....

When the Hawai‘i Constitution was framed and subsequently went into effect, three U.S. Supreme Court cases delineated the law under Federal Establishment Clause jurisprudence: Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing. Township, 330 U.S. 1 (1947); McCollum v. Board of Educ., 333 U.S. 203 (1948); and Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).  We conclude that these decisions provide appropriate and ample guidance to decide this case....

... The State ... asserts that we should adopt the now-prevailing test for Federal Establishment Clause challenges in Kennedy, 597 U.S. 507.  We decline to adopt either the Lemon or the Kennedy tests. ...

We see no reason to adopt the Kennedy test to analyze the Hawai‘i Establishment Clause.  We recognize the well-founded concerns raised by Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in Kennedy, highlighting the challenges of unearthing and applying historical practices and understandings from the period around the U.S. Constitution’s adoption in 1787.  Further, Appellants make the salient point that applying the Kennedy test in the context of state actions in Hawai‘i is even more fraught with questions and peril.  It would be discordant to require that the Hawai‘i Establishment Clause be construed based on the historical practices and understandings of the Founding Fathers given that the Hawai‘i Constitution was adopted by its electorate in 1959, one-hundred and seventy-two years after the U.S. Constitution was adopted. ...

Justice Eddins, joined by Justices McKenna and Devis filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Because in my view article I section 4 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution has a pluralistic purpose and secular spirit grander than the majority suggests, and the Department of the Attorney General urges us to interpret our constitution to match recent Supreme Court case law, I write separately....

The delegates intended for Hawaiʻi’s Establishment Clause to reflect Everson’s separationist ideals.... Separation of church and state guided the adoption of Hawaiʻi’s religious clauses....

If the Supreme Court decides a case based on mission, text trickery, originalism, or imagination, then that case may have little value to a state that prefers a more principled way, or an interpretive approach that does not force “contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution.”...

The Roberts Court’s off-the-wall jurisprudence reimagines the First Amendment.  The Constitution creates a barrier against state support for religion and state involvement in religion.  But the Court misshapes the Constitution to require government support of religion. 

Two years ago, I feared the Court self-inflicted harm, eroded faith in the courts, and exposed itself to real criticisms about its legitimacy....  

Back then in the big games, the Roberts Court called balls and strikes based on the pitcher and hitter.  Bad enough for the integrity of our judicial system – national and subnational.  But now pitches that bounce to the plate or sail over the catcher’s head are strikes.  Just because the ump says so.  Pretend law is not law.   State constitutionalism makes it easy to consider Roberts Court jurisprudence white noise.

School Rules on Non-gendered Pronouns Do Not Violate Free Exercise or Free Speech Rights

In Hyland v. State Board of Education, (NJ App., Sept. 9, 2025), a New Jersey state appellate court rejected a 1st and 14th Amendment challenge to amended Board of Education rules that, among other things, eliminated gendered pronouns in the rules. The court said in part:

Hyland argues the State Board may not establish a "religion of secularism" by adopting amendments that define gender as "indeterminate," which can be decided based on the student's feelings, resulting in the treatment of comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise.  He further argues the amendments force students who adhere to a "Biblical worldview," to act and operate under a law that directly contradicts those beliefs, and the students or parents are not allowed to opt out of the imposition of those beliefs....

A fair reading of the amended chapter demonstrates the State Board does not seek to promote a "religion of secularism," nor does it create a constitutionally prohibited entanglement.  The students and parents retain the right to opt-out of any instruction related to health, family life education, or sex education or educational activity that violates their religious beliefs.... Thus, the amendments do not violate either the Free Exercise or Establishment Clauses, as they apply uniformly to all students and do not seek to regulate religious conduct or belief.,,,

We are satisfied that the record establishes there is no violation of the First Amendment free speech rights.  Here, the amendments to Chapter 7 do not regulate or target the speech of students or parents.  While the amendments define gender identity, they neither compel nor coerce students or parents to endorse this definition.  Nor do they prevent students or parents from publicly expressing a different view....

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.

Court Enjoins Compliance with Texas Law Requiring Posting of 10 Commandments in Classrooms

In Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, (WD TX, Aug. 20, 2025), a Texas federal district court in an unusual 55-page opinion that defies brief summarization issued a preliminary injunction barring 11 Texas school districts from complying with Texas SB 10 that requires posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The court said in part:

... [T]o succeed on the merits under Kennedy, Plaintiffs must show that the practice at issue–permanently displaying the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms–does not “fit within” and is not “consistent with” a broader tradition existing at the time of the founding....

The Court heard from and is very appreciative of the testimony of Dr. Steven Green and Dr. Mark Hall, which was an extensive augmentation of the Court’s 20 years of Methodist Sunday School and theology, political philosophy and constitutional history courses at Texas Lutheran University.  The Court finds Dr. Green’s opinions concerning the intent of the Founders regarding the First Amendment to be more persuasive than Dr. Hall’s testimony....

The court's conclusionary section provides a flavor of the opinion:

Ultimately, in matters of conscience, faith, beliefs and the soul, most people are Garbo-esque. They just want to be left alone, neither proselytized nor ostracized, including what occurs to their children in government run schools.      

Even though the Ten Commandments would not be affirmatively taught, the captive audience of students likely would have questions, which teachers would feel compelled to answer.  That is what they do.  Teenage boys, being the curious hormonally driven creatures they are, might ask: “Mrs. Walker, I know about lying and I love my parents, but how do I do adultery?”  Truly an awkward moment for overworked and underpaid educators, who already have to deal with sex education issues, ... and a classic example of the law of unintended consequences in legislative edicts.

Notwithstanding the sausage making process of legislation, to avoid religious rancor and legal wrangling the Texas Legislature alternatively could require the posting of:

1. Multiple versions of lessons of behavior from many cultures melded into the American motto of “E pluribus unum,” a concept currently in decline.  For example, the Five Moral Precepts of Buddhism: abstain from killing, stealing, engaging in sexual misconduct, lying and intoxicants; or

2. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Be kind.  Be respectful.; or

3.  All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten: “Share everything.  Play Fair.Don’t hit people. . . . Clean up your own mess.  Don’t take things that aren’t yours.  Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody. . . . Live a balanced life. . . . When you go out into the world, . . . hold hands, and stick together.” 

CBS News reports on the decision.

9th Circuit Rejects Christian Day Care's Challenge to Licensing Requirement

In Foothills Christian Ministries v. Johnson, (9th Cir., Aug. 14, 2025), Foothills, a Christian day care center, challenged a California licensing provision requiring that day care centers ensure that children are free to attend religious services or activities of their parents' choice. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the regulation on free exercise grounds because the state has repeatedly taken the position that the regulation does not prohibit operating a day care center with a mandatory religious curriculum, where parents are made aware of this in advance of enrollment. 

However, the court held that Foothills does have standing to challenge the general licensing requirement on the ground that some secular child day care centers are exempt from licensing. But the court rejected that claim on the merits, saying in part:

Foothills contends that the Act’s exemption of “recreation programs conducted for children by” the YMCA “or similar organizations,”...  But this provision only exempts recreation programs from the licensure requirement; it explicitly does not exempt “child day care programs conducted by” the same organizations and so creates no mechanism for granting individualized exemptions for such facilities....

Foothills points to the exception for any “child daycare program that operates only one day per week for no more than four hours on that one day.”... This exemption applies to, among other things, Sunday schools. But a program that oversees children for only four hours a week does not present a threat to children’s health and safety comparable to that of a facility that can operate up to 24 hours a day....

Foothills alleges that the Act’s exemption of certain sectarian organizations—such as the YMCA and Boy Scouts of America—from licensing gives preferential treatment to certain religions in violation of the Establishment Clause.... 

If Foothills sought to operate a recreation program, it would not be subject to the Act. And if the YMCA or the Boy Scouts sought to operate a child day care facility, they would. This exemption draws no lines based on religion....

The court also held that the required disclosure to parents of the right for their child to attend religious activities of their choice does not infringe Foothills' free speech rights, distinguishing the Supreme Court case of Nat’l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advocs. v. Becerra , saying in part:

 Because the Act merely requires Foothills to inform parents of their children’s rights and does not “convey a message fundamentally at odds with its mission,” the required disclosure is not controversial....

Court Enjoins Compliance with Arkansas Law Requiring Posting of 10 Commandments in All Classrooms

Earlier this year, Arkansas enacted Act 573 requiring display of the Ten Commandments in public school and college classrooms. In Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1, (WD AR, Aug. 4, 2025), an Arkansas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring four school districts that are defendants in the case from complying with the new law.  The court said in part:

Forty-five years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a Ten Commandments law nearly identical to the one the Arkansas General Assembly passed earlier this year. That precedent remains binding on this Court and renders Arkansas Act 573 plainly unconstitutional. Why would Arkansas pass an obviously unconstitutional law? Most likely because the State is part of a coordinated strategy among several states to inject Christian religious doctrine into public-school classrooms. These states view the past decade of rulings by the Supreme Court on religious displays in public spaces as a signal that the Court would be open to revisiting its precedent on religious displays in the public school context. ...

Despite the Kennedy [v. Bremerton School District] Court’s rather sweeping announcement that the Lemon test had been “abandoned,” ..., there is no cause to believe that all Supreme Court precedent that relied on the Lemon test has been—or will be—overruled. The Kennedy opinion itself makes that crystal clear....

...  Act 573’s mandate is incompatible with the Founding Fathers’ conception of religious liberty. The Founders were deeply committed to the principle that government must not compel religious observance or endorse religious doctrine, and that commitment is reflected in multiple foundational texts....

The State has not established that burdening Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise rights “serve[s] a compelling interest and [is] narrowly tailored to that end.”... Even if the State were to meet its burden of showing a compelling interest, it would fail the “narrowly tailored” prong. There are many ways in which students could be taught the relevant history of the Ten Commandments without the State approving an official version of scripture and then displaying it to students in every classroom on a permanent, daily basis....

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

UPDATE: On Aug. 28., a Supplemental Complaint was filed adding an additional school district as a defendant. The court issued a temporary restraining order barring that district from complying with the statute, and giving it an opportunity to submit briefing on why the preliminary injunction should not be expanded to include it.

Challenge To California's Investigation of Caste Discrimination Dismissed on Procedural Grounds

In Hindu American Foundation, Inc. v. Kish, (ED CA, July 18, 2025), a California federal district court dismissed on various procedural grounds a suit contending that the California Civil Rights Department is violating the constitutional rights of Hindu Americans by "conflat[ing] a discriminatory caste system with the Hindu religion" in an investigation of Cisco Systems, Inc. Individual plaintiffs in the case include employees of Cisco.

The court first concluded that the Younger abstention doctrine requires it to dismiss the case because it would pose "a serious risk of direct interference with state court proceedings...." The court went on to find a lack of standing to pursue plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim, saying in part:

In the present case, the Individual Plaintiffs do not allege that they were direct targets of the Department's enforcement action but instead allege that they learned of it through, among other things, conversation or reading about the State Action.... Plaintiffs contend in conclusory fashion that the Department's conduct has chilled their participation in "the political community," but do not identify what political community they refer to in this regard.... Instead, plaintiffs vaguely allege that the Department's conduct has led to conversations at discrete, unidentified social events.... In this way, plaintiffs' allegations merely state an abstract stigmatic injury, rather than an injury caused by direct contact with the Department's actions and are therefore insufficient to establish plaintiffs' standing to assert their claim under the Establishment Clause....

The court also found a lack of standing as to plaintiffs' Free Exercise claims, saying in part: 

Plaintiffs cannot persuasively maintain that there "exists some conflict between one of [their] religious convictions and a challenged governmental action[]" precisely because they contend that caste discrimination is not one of their religious convictions....

Because plaintiffs have not alleged that they plan to engage in religious conduct which could arguably be the target of an enforcement action brought by the Department, the court concludes that they have not shown standing to bring a pre-enforcement action pursuant to the Free Exercise Clause....

The SAC now includes allegations from the Individual Plaintiffs regarding how they feel stigmatized, however, it includes no allegations that the Department has pursued any discriminatory action against the Individual Plaintiffs....

The court similarly found a lack of standing as to plaintiffs' due process and equal protection claims. It also concluded that the Hindu American Foundation lacks organizational or associational standing, saying in part:

Plaintiffs’ theory appears to be that the Foundation was forced to respond to the Department’s actions insofar as it spent any resources responding to those actions rather than on other initiatives.  The Supreme Court has explicitly rejected such a theory of standing.

The Mooknayak reports on the decision.

Ban On Pride Flag on City Poles Does Not Violate Establishment Clause

 In Gordon v. City of Hamtramck, (ED MI, July 14, 2025), a Michigan federal district court held that a ban on religious, ethnic, racial, political, or sexual orientation group flags on city flag poles does not violate the plaintiffs' free speech rights or the Establishment Clause, saying in part:

The plaintiffs also bring a claim under another part of the First Amendment, positing that the enactment of Resolution 2023-82 that effectively banned display of the Pride flag violated the Establishment Clause because it was promulgated “to accommodate a segment of the Hamtramck community which was hostile to the rights of the gay community based on their personal religious views.”  The plaintiffs cite several statements in this record by city councilpersons condemning homosexuality and expressing hostility to the sentiments that the Gay Pride flag may symbolize.   

However, the plaintiffs’ “evidence” of subjective motivation to advance a religious viewpoint is irrelevant to the analysis of alleged Establishment Clause violations....

The justifications advanced here — foreclosing public controversy and avoiding contentious litigation over displays of competing viewpoints — have been found to be constitutionally valid by courts that upheld regulations with indistinguishable limitations on flagpole displays.

Another Suit Challenges Texas Law Mandating 10 Commandments in Every Classroom

Suit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 10 which requires a copy of the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public-school classroom. The complaint (full text) in Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, (WD TX, filed 7/2/2025), alleges in part:

S.B. 10 is not neutral with respect to religion. By design, it expressly requires the display of religious scripture—the Ten Commandments—in every public-school classroom. It also requires that schools post a specific, state-approved version of that scripture that is associated with certain Protestant faiths, taking sides on theological questions regarding the correct content and meaning of the Ten Commandments and enshrining in state law an official denominational preference....

As a result of the displays mandated by S.B. 10, students who do not subscribe to the state’s official version of the Ten Commandments or whose faith tenets and values are otherwise contradicted by the displays—including the minor-child Plaintiffs—will be pressured into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of this religious scripture....

Houston Public Media reports on the lawsuit. This is the second lawsuit that has been filed challenging the constitutionality of SB 10. (See prior posting.)

Suit Challenges Texas Requirement for 10 Commandments in Classrooms

Suit was filed last week in a Texas federal district court challenging the constitutionality of a recently enacted Texas law that requires the display of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. The complaint (full text) in Alexander v. Morath, (ND TX, filed 6/24/2025) alleges in part:

Senate Bill 10 ... is not religiously neutral, as it mandates the display of a specific version of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. This requirement inherently takes a theological stance on the correct content and meaning of the scripture....

The version mandated by S.B. 10 mostly aligns with a Protestant rendition but does not match any version found in the Jewish tradition, notably omitting key language and context from the Torah. Furthermore, it does not match the version followed by most Catholics, as it includes a prohibition against "graven images" which could be offensive given the role of iconography in the Catholic faith....

84. As a result of the Ten Commandments displays mandated by S.B. 10, Texas students—including minor-child Plaintiffs—will be unconstitutionally coerced into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state’s favored religious scripture, and they will be pressured to suppress their personal religious beliefs and practices, especially in school, to avoid the potential disfavor, reproach, and/or disapproval of school officials and/or their peers. ...

85. In addition, by mandating that one version of the Ten Commandments be displayed in public educational institutions and prescribing an official religious text for school children to venerate, S.B. 10 adopts an official position on religious matters, violating the Establishment Clause’s prohibition against taking sides in questions over theological doctrine and violating the “clearest command” of the Establishment Clause that “one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982).

86. There is no longstanding historical practice or tradition of prominently and permanently displaying any version of the Ten Commandments in American public-school classrooms. On the contrary, the Supreme Court unambiguously held in Stone that such a practice is proscribed by the Constitution.

Texas Tribune reports on the lawsuit.

Challenge To Narrow Religious Exemption in Maryland Employment Law Is Dismissed In Part

In General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Horton, (D MD, June 18, 2025), a Maryland federal district court denied a preliminary injunction in a suit challenging the Maryland Supreme Court's interpretation of the religious exemption in the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act. The Maryland Supreme Court has held that the exemption is limited to claims brought by employees who perform duties that directly further the core mission of the religious entity. As summarized by the court, plaintiffs allege in part:

(1) the exemption violates Plaintiffs' church autonomy rights under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment; (2) it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it excessively entangles government with religion; (3) it violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment; (4) it violates the Establishment Clause by discriminating against Plaintiffs based on their denomination; (5) it violates Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to expressive association; (6) it violates Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to assembly; and (7) it violates the right to due process of law under the Fifthand Fourteenth Amendments because it is unconstitutionally vague.

In a 43-page opinion, the court found that plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of any of these claims. However it refused to dismiss outright three of plaintiff's claims, saying in part:

... [T]he Court recognizes that Plaintiffs are in good faith seeking an extension of the law in Count 1 [church autonomy], and that on Count 3 [free exercise], Plaintiffs have a different interpretation of the law on the issue of the applicable level of scrutiny that is not strictly foreclosed by precedent. Ordinarily, a court should refrain from dismissing outright a claim asserting a novel legal theory that can better be assessed after factual development....

... [T]he Court finds that under its view of the legal landscape, Plaintiffs have not stated a viable claim of a violation of the right to expressive association. Nevertheless, as with Counts 1 and 3, where Plaintiffs are seeking an extension of the law to have claims based on expressive association apply to the employment context, and further factual development is arguably warranted before full disposition of this claim, the Motion to Dismiss will be denied as to this claim.