Humanist Teacher Sues Over Prayer at School Staff Meetings

Suit was filed this week in a Texas federal district court by a former middle school teacher who is a Humanist contending that the Texas school at which he formerly taught violated the Establishment, Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses of the First Amendment through sectarian prayer at mandatory district-wide staff meetings and in other ways. The complaint (full text) in Castillo v. Rio Hondo Independent School District. (SD TX, filed 10/28/2026), alleges in part:

13. Without giving staff any advance notice that the mandatory meetings would include religious observances, Superintendent Trevino and President Guerra took turns opening each meeting with an explicitly evangelical Christian prayer. One or the Other commenced each meeting by calling everyone present to rise. Once staff members were standing, Superintendent Trevino or President Guerra instructed them to bow their heads and join in prayer. The group prayer began immediately, with no opportunity for any staff member to excuse themselves from the room. A second prayer, also without advance notice or an opportunity to opt out, often followed later in the meeting. These prayers put staff who did not wish to participate in an untenable situation. Leaving the room once the prayers had begun, or even remaining seated, would have been conspicuous and drawn the attention of colleagues and the very employers leading the prayers. Staff members like Mr. Castillo were thus forced to choose between violating their own religious conscience and being singled out and subjected to retribution....

20. As a result of Rio Hondo ISD's failure to adequately train its leadership and its indifference to the rights and concerns of its staff, Mr. Castillo was subjected to further instances of school-sponsored Christian religious expression and denominational discrimination, beyond the nine district-wide meetings he was required to attend.

21. ... Rio Hondo Middle School prominently displayed two unsigned posters on school walls, each citing Jeremiah 29: 11 and bearing [in full or in part] the quotations "as long as God keeps waking you up He still has a Plan For you".... The posters were displayed in the same space the school ordinarily uses for announcements, rules, mottos, and other official messages....

American Humanist Association issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Oklahoma Board Rejects Religious Charter School on Non-Constitutional Grounds

According to an Oct. 15 press release from Oklahoma Attorney General Centner Drummond, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board at its Oct. 12 meeting rejected the application of the Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School. If the Board had approved the school, it would have been the first fully publicly funded religious charter school in the nation.  A federal district court has already in a preliminary injunction action held that Oklahoma may not enforce a provision in its Charter Schools Act that requires a charter school to be “nonsectarian.” (See prior posting.)  At last week's meeting, four board members voted to approve the school and 3 voted against, but a vote of 5 members of the 7-member board is required for approval. One member was absent from the meeting and there is one vacancy on the Board. The application was apparently rejected on grounds of financial viability and community need. The rejection led the Attorney General to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice his complaint in Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board (Notice of Dismissal, (OK Dist. Ct., filed 10/15/2026- full text) which sought to have the Board to reject the school's application on non-constitutional grounds. The Attorney General's Notice of Dismissal says in part:

The federal action challenged the Board's rejection of this application on account of Ben Gamla's religious character. That rejection has been superseded by one resting on non-religious grounds, no application by Ben Gatnla is pending before the Board, and the Board is applying no religious criterion to Ben Gamla. The action is therefore moot.... An injunction against the nonsectarian requirement can no longer redress Ben Gamla's claimed injury, because that requirement is no longer what stands between Ben Gamla and a charter. The Attorney General expects the federal action to be dismissed on that basis.

When it is, the federal court's preliminary ruling will carry no continuing legal force. A preliminary injunction is not an adjudication on the merits....

All of this will presumably prevent the question of the constitutionality of publicly funded religious schools getting quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court which previously split evenly on the issue. (See prior posting.) Oklahoma's Attorney General has previously opposed religious charter schools on the ground that the state will then be required to fund schools promoting tenets opposed to the beliefs of most Oklahomans. (See prior posting.)

 The Oklahoman reports on these developments.

UPDATE: In the Agenda for a Special Oct. 23rd Meeting of the Statewide Charter School Board, it was announced that there will again be discussion and possible action on the Revised Application of the Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School. Oklahoma Public Radio reports on this development.

3rd Circuit: Chilling Effect of Unadopted Proposal Does Not Give Standing for Free Exercise or Establishment Clause Claim

In Bagal v. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, (3rd Cir., Oct. 14, 2026), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing of a suit alleging that Rutgers University discriminated against Hindus. The court said in part:

Bagal’s complaint stemmed from an August 2024 report issued by a Rutgers University Task Force ... which recommended that the university include “caste” as a protected category in Rutgers’ Policy on Discrimination and Harassment...  Rutgers did not adopt the Report’s recommendation and did not add caste to the Policy because Rutgers concluded that caste-based discrimination was already covered by the Policy’s prohibition of discrimination based on religion, ancestry, national origin, and race.... 

...  Bagal’s alleged injury for his First Amendment free exercise claim is that he has been inhibited from practicing his religious beliefs.  But he cannot establish standing “simply by claiming [he] experienced a ‘chilling effect’ that resulted from a governmental policy that does not regulate, constrain, or compel any action on [his] part.”...  Because the Report has not been adopted into Policy, has not been enforced, and has not been discussed by the defendants in any of Bagal’s engagements with them, he also lacks standing for his Establishment Clause claim....

Bagal similarly lacks standing for his Equal Protection, Due Process, and remaining statutory discrimination claims....

Student Organizations Challenge University's Consolidation of Christian Student Groups Under One Campus Minister

Suit was filed last month in a Virginia federal district court by two Christian student groups at Virginia State University challenging the school's new Campus Ministries Policy.  The complaint (full text) in Women of Victory at Virginia State University v. Branch, (ED VA, filed 9/24/2026), alleges in part:

3. ... VSU recently instituted a Campus Ministries Policy ... that strips religious organizations of their registered student organization (“RSO”) status and accompanying benefits, brings student-led ministries under the “governance and influence” of a University-appointed Campus Minister, and yet exempts secular student groups as well as the Muslim and non-Christian student ministries on campus from the Policy’s onerous requirements. 

4. The burden of this Policy falls on the Plaintiff chapters of Women of Victory and Bethel Campus Fellowship. These are VSU chapters of national organizations that provide religious support to students on college campuses through Bible studies, leadership trainings and events, and numerous other opportunities for spiritual growth, both on- and off-campus....

8. ... [O]n August 6, 2026, VSU’s Campus Ministries office circulated its new Campus Ministries Policy, informing student leaders that “student-led ministries” could no longer affiliate with their national organizations or hold RSO status. Instead, faith-based groups (unlike secular groups) would be absorbed into VSU’s Campus Ministries, subject to the sole authority of VSU’s Campus Minister and a newly appointed Board of Advisors, made up of various faculty members, including a Public Safety officer, a Facility Quality Assurance Director, and the VSU President’s Deputy Chief of Staff, among others. 

9. Under the new Policy, Christian organizations lose access to RSO benefits, including funding, event-planning resources, and event-promotion rights. Further, the VSU Campus Minister is granted control of all Christian, student-led ministries, with complete discretion to approve or reject requests for religious meetings, events, guest speakers, and all other religious activities on campus....

148. Forcing Christian student organizations to submit to a single religious figure employed by a public university violates religious students’ constitutional rights.....

The complaint alleges that the new policy violates plaintiffs' rights under the Free Exercise Clause, Establishment Clause, and Equal Protection Clause and violates their rights of expressive association and freedom of assembly.  Christian Post reports on the lawsuit.

Oklahoma Cannot Require State-Funded Charter Schools to Be Secular

In National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation v. Shellem, (WD OK, Sept. 24, 2026), an Oklahoma federal district court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Oklahoma from enforcing a provision in its Charter Schools Act that requires a charter school to be “nonsectarian.” The court said in part:

Here, like in Carson [v. Makin], the state created a generally available benefit: the opportunity to apply for and contract with a sponsor to establish a charter school. But the state categorically excludes religious institutions from participating. As Carson plainly stated, “[t]hat is discrimination against religion.”...  The nonsectarian requirement “expressly discriminates against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit solely because of their religious character” and in doing so, violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Trinity Lutheran, 582 U.S. at 462. Oklahoma’s purported interest in a “greater separation of church and State than is already ensured under” the federal constitution “cannot qualify as compelling” in the face of a free exercise violation....

The Defendant-intervenors have a rejoinder to Carson and its forerunners. They argue that this line of authority does not apply because charter schools are either governmental entities, engaged in state action, and/or public schools, and it would plainly violate the Establishment Clause for a state actor or public school to promote religion. These arguments are not without force. But a district court is obliged to follow Supreme Court precedent and the Court is persuaded that the relevant cases support Plaintiffs’ position....

Oklahoma Voice reports on the decision.

8th Circuit Hears Arguments on Posting of 10 Commandments in Classrooms

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Samantha Stinson v. State of Arkansas, (Docket No. 26-1722, argued 9/22/2026). In the case, an Arkansas federal district court, finding both Establishment clause and Free Exercise clause problems with the law, issued a permanent injunction barring the state from enforcing Arkansas' statute that requires the posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. (See prior posting.) Arkansas Advocate reports on the oral arguments.

RLUIPA Does Not Apply to Addiction Treatment Center Imposed as Alternative to Criminal Sentence

In Bryson v. Page, (SD GA, September 17, 2026), a Georgia federal district court dismissed RLUIPA, Establishment Clause and free exercise claims brought against Augusta-Richmond County and against Crystal Page, Coordinator for the Richmond County Accountability Court. Georgia's Accountability Court program facilitates treatment for drug and alcohol offenders and allows for reduced criminal sentences. Plaintiff Ivan Bryson who is Jewish was forced to participate in Christian based activities at a treatment center (Penfield) for three months until he was transferred to another facility.

Rejecting plaintiff's RLUIPA claim, the court held that RLUIPA by its terms only applies to persons confined in a "jail, prison, or other correctional facility" and Penfield does not fall within that definition. The court said in part:

The Court finds the evidence does not support that Penfield was a jail, prison, or correctional facility under RLUIPA based on the Accountability Court DUI program and nature of the facility.... As referenced in RLUIPA, the plain meaning of the word "correctional facility" refers to a prison....

Although few courts have addressed this issue, courts generally have declined to apply RLUIPA in facilities beyond jails, prisons, or pretrial detention facilities....  Here, Plaintiff underwent treatment at a rehabilitation center following an alcohol offense as part of the Accountability Court program....  The Court refrains from broadening the meaning of an institution under RLUIPA....

The court rejected plaintiff's Establishment Clause claim, finding that county funds were given to Penfield for a secular purpose. It rejected plaintiff's free exercise claim, saying in part:

... [N]ot only did Defendant Page lack authority to move Plaintiff upon his initial request, but she was also unaware that Penfield would impose religious programing. As such, the Court finds that Defendant Page, in her individual capacity, did not substantially burden Plaintiff's practice of religion.

Journalist Sues Dearborn for Favoring Muslims Over Christians and Jews

Suit was filed yesterday in a Michigan federal district court by a journalist who is a resident of Dearborn, Michigan, alleging that the city of Dearborn has violated the 1st and 14th Amendments by favoring Muslims over Christian and Jewish residents of the city. The complaint describes a number of incidents but particularly focuses on the city's placing of Ramadan banners on city property in 2025, and its refusal to hang similar banners for Easter or Passover. The complaint (full text) in Cleveland v. City of Dearborn, Michigan, (ED MI, filed 9/17/2026), alleges in part:

107. ... Defendants have deprived Plaintiff of her right to freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment.....  

108. Plaintiff engaged in multiple activities protected by the First Amendment, including her reporting at The Federalist and her work as a journalist; her public comments on X criticizing Defendant Hammoud for excusing and justifying terrorism and for discriminating against Christians and Jews.... 

109. Defendant Hammoud, acting under color of state law, took adverse action against Plaintiff because of that protected activity, including the following: authorizing the additional installation of lighted Ramadan signs as a direct affront to Plaintiff’s request for Christian and Jewish displays..... 

111. Defendant Hammoud’s actions as set forth in this Complaint were retaliatory and intended to discourage Plaintiff from speaking and thus exercising her rights to free speech, including her right to petition her government for the redress of grievances, protected by the First Amendment....

121. By retaliating against Plaintiff for engaging in activity protected by the First Amendment based the content and viewpoint of her speech, which Defendants disfavor, Defendants have deprived Plaintiff of the equal protection of the law....

127. Defendant City of Dearborn ,... sponsored, funded, and promoted religious displays, banners, symbols, and religious events for the Islamic faith, including Ramadan, on City property and through City resources, while providing no comparable sponsorship, funding, or promotion for Christian or Jewish observances, including Easter and Passover, despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests to do so. 

128. The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that the government may not officially prefer one religion, religious denomination, or faith tradition over another. 

129. By selectively permitting and promoting religious expression for Muslims but denying similar expression for Christians and Jews, ... Defendants have conveyed and effected governmental preference for one faith tradition over another.

American Freedom Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Enjoins Enforcement Against Synagogue's Voluntary Security Team of Ban on Firearms in Houses of Worship

In Silver Spring Jewish Center, Inc. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, (D MD, Sept. 10, 2026), a Maryland federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement against plaintiffs of Montgomery County's ban on possession of firearms in their place of worship. The court however refused to issue a broader injunction against other portions of the Ordinance.  Silver Spring Jewish Center is an Orthodox synagogue that has implemented its own security plan which includes a trained, armed security team made up of volunteer synagogue members. The county Ordinance impacts those volunteers and also prevents the synagogue's rabbi who walks to synagogue on the Sabbath for religious reasons from carrying a firearm because he walks past other places of public assembly. The court concluded that a portion of the Ordinance likely violates both the Second Amendment and the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise clause. The court said in part:

... [T]he sources on which Defendants rely do not demonstrate that the historical analogues for firearm restrictions in places of worship were well-accepted....

Therefore, SSJC and Rabbi Shapiro, at this preliminary stage, have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits as to their as-applied Second Amendment claim of the Code’s firearm restrictions as to places of worship....

SSJC and Rabbi Shapiro allege that “[h]alachically, reliance on volunteer members of the community, rather than outsourcing the religious obligation to others, is preferred under Jewish Law” and cite the following sources in support: Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin 41a; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 250:1....

... The beliefs of SSJC and Rabbi Shapiro are sincere.  Accordingly, at this stage, SSJC and Rabbi Shapiro have demonstrated a burden on their sincere religious practice. Because SSJC and Rabbi Shapiro have shown a burden on their religious exercise, the next step is to evaluate whether the law is neutral and generally applicable....

... [B]ecause the challenged provisions of Chapter 57 apply differently as to places of worship in comparison to not only fraternal lodges, but numerous other privately owned businesses and properties, these portions of the Code are not neutral and generally applicable....

Overall, Plaintiffs demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits as to their as-applied Free Exercise challenge to Section 57-1(1)(B) and Section 57-11(a) regarding the restriction of firearms in their respective place of worship....

The claim regarding all buffer zones, however, fails at this stage.  Because Rabbi Shapiro must walk to the synagogue on certain days, and thus cannot avail himself of the provisions in Section 57-10—which allows vehicle transportation of firearms even within 100 yards of a place of assembly ...he contends that the buffer zones for other places of public assembly suffer from the same constitutional infirmities as the ban on firearm possession within a place of worship.  That does not necessarily follow.  A different provision is at work—one that applies to all designated places of public assembly.  The 100-yard restriction is a neutral and generally applied provision and only a rational basis must be shown. 

SSJC and Rabbi Shapiro allege that the prohibition on carrying firearms at houses of worship violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by “telling religious institutions what items worshippers may ‘possess’ in places of worship and how religious institutions may (and may not) protect worshippers during their worship.” ...  Plaintiffs argue that the choice of how a religious institution protects itself is an internal management matter that is “essential to [its] central mission.”...

... [A] single trial court decision is an insufficient basis on which to conclude that a religious organization’s need to provide security translates into the absolute right to provide that security through an armed volunteer group.  In any event, at this early stage, with the likelihood of success findings on the other First Amendment claim and the Second Amendment claim as to houses of worship, it is not necessary to proceed further on this claim....

Links to some of the pleadings in the case are available here. New Civil Liberties Alliance issued a press release announcing the decision.

Religious Greetings at Gate of Air Force Base Provokes Controversy with Defense Secretary

 A new controversy over religion in the military has erupted between Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the advocacy group Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF). According to an MRFF, by Sept. 2 it had received 27 complaints from military personnel at Kirtland Air Force Base that guards at the base entrance were greeting everyone entering with "God bless you." MRFF in turn complained to the Air Base and the greetings stopped.

Responding on Sept. 4 with posts on X, Secretary of War Hegseth said:

The MRFF is a radical anti-Christian, pro-atheist group that attacks any/all faith inside the @DeptofWar. We will never cave to them. The @usairforce will confront this.

And Air Force Chief of Staff, General Ken Wilsbach posted:

Defenders at our gates not only protect our installations by also welcome everyone entering courteously and professionally. The Department of the Air Force's Policies are unchanged. We are not restricting the use of common greetings while entering our bases.

Military.com reports on the controversy.

Justice Department Issues New Opinion on Federal Grants to Religious Organizations

This week, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued a 39-page Opinion captioned:   Constitutionality of Religious Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds, 50 Op. O.L.C. __ (Aug. 25, 2026). The Opinion updates guidance given in 2019 on the constitutionality of statutes that bar federal funding for programs of faith-based institutions where the funds will be used for religious purposes. The Opinion responds to questions from the Department of Health and Human Services regarding restrictions in several statutes that it administers. The Opinion reads in part:

HHS has asked whether it must update its framework for assessing grants to faith-based organizations in the light of the Supreme Court’s intervening precedent.... Specifically, HHS asked: (1) whether the religious restrictions applicable to HHS are required by the Establishment Clause; and (2) if not, whether they are constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause.... The answer to both questions is no. To the extent our 2019 opinion indicated otherwise,... , it no longer reflects the current state of the law....

The Supreme Court has now “instructed that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings’” from the time the First Amendment was ratified....

To identify the historical practices and understandings relevant to the Establishment Clause, the Supreme Court has pointed us toward the “hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit when they adopted the First Amendment.”....

“[C]oercion . . . was among the foremost hallmarks of religious establishments....  Additional hallmarks include:  Governmental “control over the doctrine and personnel of the established church.” ... Punishment and suppression of dissenting churches and individuals for their religious exercise.... Restricted political participation for dissenting churches and individuals.... Compelled “financial support for the established church.... Giving the established church “monopolistic control over civil functions”....

...  Having given those legal developments close consideration, we now conclude that the government has less discretion to exclude faith-based funding uses from facially neutral grant programs than our 2019 opinion suggested. ...

From this series of cases ... we draw three free-exercise principles, which together establish an updated framework for analyzing religious restrictions: 

• First, strict scrutiny applies whenever a generally available benefit is denied or burdened on account of religion, whether the trigger is the recipient’s religious status ...  or its “anticipated religious use” of the benefit 

• Second, a funding condition that requires a religious recipient to segregate or suppress religious exercise as the price of its participation is such a burden, and the government may not avoid that conclusion by “reconceptualiz[ing]” the restriction as part of “the definition of a particular program.”... 

• Third, line-drawing among practices that involve “worship,” “instruction,” and “proselytization” is itself constitutionally suspect because it requires the government to make theological judgments and risks denominational favoritism, thus collapsing back into status-based discrimination requiring strict scrutiny.....

Prof. Stephanie Barcclay discussed the Opinion in a posting on X.

[Thanks to Greg Chafuen for the lead.]

Parents and Students Sue School District Over Field Trip to Mosque

Earlier this month, a number of parents, students and community members filed suit against the Palo Alto school district contending that a 2005 school field trip to a mosque violated the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as various provisions of California law. The complaint (full text) in Community Members for Neutrality in Public Schools v. Kline, (ND CA, filed 8/7/2026), alleges that the field trip violated the Establishment Clause and free-speech rights, saying in part:

2. During the Fall 2025 school-sponsored visit to a mosque, students allegedly were encouraged to wear Islamic religious attire, were given Qurans, observed prayer, engaged with participants in a Quran-memorization program, and were exposed to messaging that portrayed Islam as uniquely aligned with social justice work.  

3. Further, students were photographed in religious attire inside the mosque and that identifiable images of students were later publicly disseminated by the host institution without specific, informed parental consent for photography and public use in a religious context.  

4. Plaintiffs also allege that students were exposed during the same field trip to speaker Zahra Billoo, who is a controversial outside speaker with publicly documented hostile statements concerning Jews, without adequate district vetting, safeguards, or balancing presentation....

56. Defendants, acting under color of state law, organized, sponsored, facilitated, endorsed, and/or permitted school-sponsored activities that had the purpose and effect of endorsing and preferring one religion, specifically Islam, through a public-school program....

61. By allegedly encouraging or requiring students to don religious attire, participate in a religious setting, and appear in photographs that publicly associated them with a particular faith, Defendants compelled expressive conduct and religious association that students and their parents may not have wished to adopt or convey....

The complaint also alleges that the field trip violated federal protection of parental rights as well as the Equal Protection Clause and state law privacy protections, prohibitions on religious discrimination and involved negligent supervision.

On August 19, the Muslim Community Association issued n statement in response to the lawsuit, saying in part:

MCA has a long-standing tradition of welcoming students, teachers, neighbors, and people of all faiths to learn about Islam and the rich diversity of our community. We believe that mutual understanding, rather than fear, builds a stronger and more connected society.

Religion News Service reports on the lawsuit.

6th Circuit Questions Whether "Secular Purpose" Is Still Part of Establishment Clause Compliance

 In Gordon v. City of Hamtramck, (6th Cir., Aug. 21, 2026), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Free Speech, Establishment Clause and Equal Protection challenges to a city Ordinance that changed the rules on what flags could be flown from a group of 18 city-owned flag poles. The flag poles historically were maintained by the city's Human Relations Committee (HRC). Originally, the city would fly any flag a resident requested. After the HRC honored a resident's request to fly the Pride flag, City Council passed a Resolution limiting flags that could be flown to the American, Michigan, Hamtramck, and Prisoner of War flags, and the flags of nations representing Hamtramck’s international character. When two members of the HRC, in defiance of this Resolution, again flew the Pride flag, they were removed from the HRC and the HRC's authority over city flag poles was removed. The two HRC members sued. The court said in part:

Before Resolution 2023-82, we assume without deciding that the flagpoles conveyed private speech and that they were a designated public forum.  But because we conclude that Resolution 2023-82 closed the flagpoles as a forum for private speech, we hold that the plaintiffs’ free-speech claim fails....

Gordon and Stackpoole ... altogether ignore Kennedy and do not attempt to grapple with its effects on Establishment Clause jurisprudence.  Instead, they cite Lemon and its progeny for the proposition that legislation must have a secular purpose...

... [A]lthough Kennedy recognized the abrogation of “Lemon and its progeny,” ...  it is unclear if it disturbed the Court’s pre-Lemon Establishment Clause case law that requires government action to possess a secular purpose....

Councilmember Choudhury’s statement, during an hours-long hearing, that “we have to respect the religious,” ...  fails to demonstrate that Resolution 2023-82’s primary purpose was to advance religion....

The court also concluded that plaintiffs had forfeited their Equal Protection claim by not developing the claim on appeal.

Judge Thapar filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

The Resolution doesn’t resemble any founding-era hallmarks of established religion.  The City hasn’t exerted any control over religious belief or exercise by limiting the content of its flag display.  Even assuming religion motivated certain City Councilmembers to pass the ordinance, the City hasn’t compelled its residents to proclaim any religious creed or adopt those Council members’ beliefs.  Rather, Hamtramck’s residents remain free to express their contrary views....

... The Supreme Court couldn’t have been any clearer—Lemon is dead.  But the majority cracks the door open for the ghost of Lemon to keep haunting the Sixth Circuit.  That crack risks subjecting future Establishment Clause plaintiffs to an amorphous test “flawed in its fundamentals, unworkable in practice, and inconsistent with our history and our precedents.”... [W]e should recognize what our sister circuits have already understood:  Any inquiry into whether the government acted with a secular purpose has no place in Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Confrontation Between Jewish and Muslim High School Students Leads to Complex Court Decision

Hiester v. School District of Philadelphia, (ED PA, Aug. 21, 2026), is a 41-page opinion covering complex allegations of competing anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish harassment by high school students and high school administrators. The Pennsylvania federal district court describes the basic claims as follows:

The crux of Plaintiffs’ allegations is that the School District and its officials established a Muslim Prayer Room at one of its high schools, the Academy at Palumbo..... Plaintiffs claim that the room was restricted to Muslim students, and that they were unfairly disciplined by the Defendants for entering the Prayer Room because they are not Muslim. The Plaintiffs also allege that the School District caused, and then failed to respond to, their harassment by other Palumbo students. They allege that this harassment became so severe that they were forced to relocate out of the school district at significant personal expense.

Plaintiff M. Danowitz decided to visit his old friends at Palumbo. Danowitz, who is Jewish, had attended Palumbo the previous school year and remained friendly with Palumbo students including Plaintiff John Hiester.... He and Hiester arrived at Palumbo together on the morning of June 11, entering the building through the main entrance....

Once inside, Hiester and Danowitz joined Plaintiff Meru Parmar and several other friends in the school’s computer lab.... The group ... then made their way to the library ... where an open door marked “Quiet Room” and decorated with a makeshift Palestinian flag caught their attention..... Believing that the room was open to all students, first Danowitz—then later Hiester and Parmar—went inside....  

Inside the Quiet Room, the Boys found several female students seated at a table using their laptops, as well as Islamic religious decorations and Arabic signage adorning the walls.... One large sign welcomed people to the “Prayer Room” and wished them a “Happy Ramadan”.... A laminated placard pinned to the wall contained “guidelines” from The Academy at Palumbo Muslim Student Association for use of the “Quiet Room.”...  

The Boys sat on the opposite side of the room.... Danowitz said a short Jewish prayer in Hebrew..... The prayer elicited laughter from the female students and a short exchange during which the girls questioned why the Boys were in the room.... Danowitz responded that he had a First Amendment right to pray and was a proud Zionist; he also sang a short section of Am Yisroel Chai (“The People of Israel Live”) and did a handstand....  As he left the room, he removed a laminated placard from the wall, setting it on the floor.... 

News of the event spread, often in exaggerated fashion, accusing the boys of trashing the Prayer Room. Students using social media, and teachers, fanned the flames. An investigation concluded that the boys committed harassment.

Plaintiff families sued. A number of their claims were dismissed, some for lack of standing. However, several claims survived.  The court said in part:

... [T]he Court finds it plausible that a reasonable jury could find that the School District Officials violated the Establishment Clause by disciplining Student Plaintiffs for entering the Prayer Room....

Plaintiffs adequately plead that the School District Officials deprived them of due process. This Court finds that the right to due process for suspended students is so clearly established that the School District Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity....

... Student Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Defendants Thompson, Stamps, and Gordon suspended them for entering the Muslim Prayer Room as non-Muslims.... They also plausibly allege that they were suspended to pacify Palumbo students’ outrage.... In this respect, the defendants’ actions resemble the fourth hallmark of religious establishment: “the government restrict[ing] political participation by dissenters.”...  

The Plaintiffs also plausibly allege that Defendants ... used public resources to create the Prayer Room and prevent non-Muslim students from accessing it.... In this respect, Defendants’ actions resemble the fifth hallmark of religious establishment: “the government provid[ing] financial support for the established church, often in a way that prefer[s] the established denomination over other churches.”...

Palumbo students accused Student Plaintiffs, among other things, of “exclaiming that they are openly Zionist” and “destroy[ing] a sacred space during one of the most brutal genocides [referring to Palestine].”.... But unlike Judaism, Zionism is not a protected characteristic under Title VI.... However vehement or crass, Palumbo students’ disagreement with Student Plaintiffs’ perceived political beliefs doesn’t constitute antisemitic harassment....

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court Review Sought in Texas 10 Commandments Cases

 A joint petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the Supreme Court in Nathan v. Alamo Heights School District and Cribbs Ringer v. Comal Independent School District, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 8/17/2026). In Nathan, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, upheld the constitutionality of the Texas law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. (See prior posting.) Subsequently, on the basis of their Nathan decision, the 5th Circuit in an unpublished Order summarily reversed and vacated a district court's opinion in Cribbs Ringer. The cert. petition frames the Questions Presented as:

1. Whether the Establishment Clause forbids a state from mandating the permanent, conspicuous display of a government-selected version of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom. 

2. Whether permanently displaying the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom interferes with parents’ Free Exercise Clause right to direct their children’s religious education and burdens children’s religious freedom.

ACLU of Texas issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Oklahoma City Sued Over Denial of Zoning Approval for Mosque; DOJ Investigates City's Practices

Suit was filed yesterday in an Oklahoma federal district court by the Islamic Society of Tulsa challenging as a violation of RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment the denial of zoning approval for a mosque in a suburb of Tulsa. The complaint (full text) in The Islamic Society of Tulsa v. City of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, (ND OK, filed 8/3/2026), alleges in part:

3. ... [A]fter almost 30 years of growth, the spiritual needs of Muslims in Broken Arrow cannot be served by the community’s Tulsa house of worship alone. The mosque in Tulsa is too small, and the Muslims in Broken Arrow are too numerous and too far spread.  

4. Realizing this problem, IST purchased land in Broken Arrow with the hope of expanding. The land they purchased was right next to another church, located in the vicinity of several more, and suitable in every way for the construction and operation of a house of worship.  

5. The City’s own professional staff recommended approval of IST’s project. So did the City’s Planning Commission. However, after a wave of bigoted opposition from members of the community and local politicians, the City Council voted to deny IST’s applications.   

6. The City Council’s decision was a stark departure from the norm. The City regularly approves nearly identical applications for churches..... The City also grants similar requests for non-religious entities, even those with massive commercial footprints....  

7. However, when Muslims in Broken Arrow sought to do the same, the City Council denied them. And the latest media reports containing the email correspondence between constituents and council members reveal why: animosity towards Muslims and an irrational fear of Islam.

CAIR issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Broken Arrow Sentinel reports on the lawsuit.

The lawsuit comes after the Department of Justice in a July 17 letter to the city said it has initiated an investigation pursuant to RLUIPA into the city's land use practices. the city issued a press release last week announcing the investigation.

Suit Challenges Town's Refusal to Permit Nativity Display on Town Square

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court challenging an upstate New York town's refusal to permit placing of a privately-sponsored nativity display in the town square during the Christmas season. The complaint (full text) in Polverino v. Town of Brighton, New York, (WD NY, filed 7/21/2026), alleges that the town every year permits a Menorah display sponsored by Chabad Lubavitch, while Brighton town officials have ignored, evaded and effectively denied plaintiff's Nativity display requests for more than two years. Plaintiff alleges that this violates his free speech and free exercise rights, as well as the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause and the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause. ACLJ issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

9th Circuit: Inmate Loses Challenge to Kosher Food Program

 In Hertel v. Thornell, (9th Cir., July 22, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an Arizona prison inmate's challenges to the kosher diet he was receiving. The court said in part:

The district court correctly held that Hertel’s Establishment Clause claim based on the denial of meat is moot, as kosher meat is now provided.... With respect to the alleged RLUIPA violations—denial of daily fruit, uncut vegetables, kosher cheese and eggs, and the processing of food by non-Jews— ... there are compelling government interests in prison order and security, and Defendants further showed beyond dispute that they used the least restrictive means to uphold these interests.... The remaining First Amendment claims fail for the same reasons because the prison’s policies were “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” ...

The court also rejected Plaintiff's Equal Protection and 8th Amendment claims, saying in part; 

... Hertel failed to provide any evidence of differential treatment between inmates on the Common Fare-Kosher Meat diet and inmates on the Common Fare-Vegan diet....

The diet’s alleged failure to follow USDA guidelines does not establish a constitutional violation.

President's Religious Liberty Commission Delivers Draft Report

On June 26, the President's Religious Liberty Commission delivered its draft report to the President. (Press Release).  The 224-page Report (full text) sets out numerous recommendations for various segments of society and government.  The Report's Executive Summary concludes in part:

... People often use the metaphor “wall of separation of church and state” to justify excluding religious Americans from equal participation in the public square. But the “wall of separation” phrase does not appear in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution. What the First Amendment does say about the relationship between religion and the government is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In practical terms, that means that the government may not officially prefer one religion over another, take over the functions of a church, or coerce religious observance. 

Nothing in the First Amendment allows the government to create a “wall” between an individual’s personal faith and our nation’s public life. The idea that it does allow—or even require—a “wall of separation” only took off in the mid-twentieth century, when the Supreme Court began citing Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, written 10 years after the First Amendment was ratified.

One belabored metaphor—often used out of context—cannot support the view that the aim of the First Amendment was to exile the practice of religion from public life. And no Founding document supports that conclusion either....

The concept of a “wall of separation between church and state” can wrongly imply that church and state are opposed to one another and must remain completely separate. In reality, however, church and state strengthen and support one another. Perhaps a better analogy is that religious liberty acts as a bridge between church and state. In other words, when people of faith exercise their religious liberty by living that faith—from praying to serving the poor to treating people with charity to upholding moral standards—they live more fulfilling lives, build vibrant families, bolster our communities, and ultimately, strengthen our nation. In this way, religious liberty isn’t simply an appendage of our society. It is the beating heart of our republic and the lifeblood of America’s success....

The Report is open for public comment for 15 days.