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 Subsequently, on the basis of their Nathan decision, the 5th Circuit in an unpublished Order summarily reversed and vacated a district court's opinion in Cribbs Ringer.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.

Police Enforcement of Rules Set by Farmers' Market Does Not Support a Section 1983 Action

In Conwell v. City of Benson, Minnesota, (D MN, Aug. 14, 2026), a Minnesota federal district court denied a motion for a temporary restraining order filed by an anti-abortion preacher who was cited for trespass by police after he insisted on evangelizing at a privately-run farmer's market held on city property without registering as a vendor and paying a vendor's fee. The court held that there was insufficient state involvement to support a claim under 42 USC §1983, saying in part:

... Conwell was initially approached by a volunteer working for the Market.  Then, he was approached and cited by city police working in their official capacity.   

The Court finds that Conwell is unable to show a likelihood of success on these facts.  Neither the City nor the police were involved in the creation of the Market’s vendor rules.  The police did not plan to enforce these rules by providing routine security....  The police merely responded to a call from a private citizen who volunteered at the Market.  Had Conwell ... followed the volunteer’s instruction, there would be no police involvement.  Conwell cannot manufacture a § 1983 claim by refusing to follow the Market’s rules, necessitating the involvement of police.  

Without a strong showing on the merits, the extraordinary measure of a preliminary injunction is inappropriate....

Teacher's Free-Speech Rights Not Infringed by Requirement to Use Students' Preferred Names and Pronouns

In Ellis v. The Brooke Charter Schools, (D MA, Aug. 13, 2026), a Massachusetts federal district court rejected claims by a public charter high school teacher that her free-speech rights were infringed when she was dismissed for refusing on religious grounds to comply with the school's requirement that teachers use students' preferred names and pronouns. While the firing was triggered by the teacher's refusal to use a former student's preferred pronouns in a requested letter of recommendation, the teacher's lawsuit alleged that the firing was because of her refusal to comply more broadly with the school's policy. The court said in part:

... [T]he Court finds that ... the requirement that Plaintiff comply with the BCS policy to use students’ preferred names and pronouns, was part of Plaintiff’s official duties as a BCS employee.... [A]ddressing students, particularly in the classroom, is essential to teaching.  A teacher’s official job-related duties, for which she is compensated, require her to communicate with students at her place of employment, including by addressing them in accord with school policy. ...

... [T]o teach effectively, which is inherent in the job duties, requires a teacher to interact with students in a way that does not create a barrier to learning or an unnecessary distraction....

With regards to the letter of recommendation, which again is not the basis of Plaintiff’s free speech claim, although writing letters of recommendation may not be part of a teacher’s principal responsibilities—that is, instructing students on academic curriculum—it is still within the realm of a teacher’s traditional and typical duties.  Recommendation letters are typically written about and derived from knowledge of a student’s classroom performance, communicated via official school channels such as email or letterhead....

The Court, however, need not reach a conclusion as to whether the speech that Plaintiff would have made in connection with the recommendation letter referenced in her complaint would have been a part of her official duties because Plaintiff does not specifically allege or otherwise argue that her refusal to write the letter was the reason for her termination or the basis for her free speech claim....

Further, even if Plaintiff’s speech fell outside of her official duties, her speech did not involve a matter of public concern.... Put simply, “the act of referring to a particular student by a particular name does not contribute to the broader public debate on transgender issues.”...

The school did not ask the court to dismiss plaintiff's free exercise claims.

Fellowship of Christian Athletes Sues to Challenge School's Ban on Outside Adults at Student Religious Club Meetings

Suit was filed this week in a New Jersey federal district court by the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) challenging a New Jersey school district's ban on outside adults attending on-campus meetings of student religious groups. The ban was put in place after a complaint from the Freedom from Religion Foundation.  Fellowship of Christian Athletes organizes student chapters called "huddles" in which students pray, engage in Bible study, support one another in their faith and athletics, and eat pizza. FCA staff and adult volunteers also attend the huddles. The complaint (full text) in Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. Board of Education of the Hopewell Valley Regional School District, (D NJ, filed 8/11/2026), alleges in part:

... [T]he District’s new religious-clubs-only volunteer ban does indeed discriminate against religious clubs and single them out for disfavored treatment. While FFRF had claimed that FCA’s adult supporters were being given “unique access” to students, this is simply false. The District expressly permits adult visitors on its campuses for a variety of different reasons. And other non-religious student groups are allowed to—and regularly do—take advantage of this permission as a matter of course....

... FCA’s student leaders want to meet with fellow students and adult volunteers on campus so they can model to fellow students and coaches what it looks like to follow Christ in their school communities—something they cannot do if they’re forced to meet elsewhere.  

Having adult staff and volunteers present on campus is also critical to FCA’s religious mission because it allows FCA to see how student leaders are doing and give the students invited feedback and guidance....

Plaintiffs allege that the school's action violates their free exercise, free speech and equal protection rights as well as the federal Equal Access Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. 

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

Suit Challenges Illinois End of Life Options Act

Suit was filed yesterday in an Illinois federal district court by four Catholic doctors, a Catholic bishop and a Lutheran skilled nursing facility objecting to the requirement that they comply with Illinois' recently enacted End of Life Options Act. The complaint (full text) in Kirchoff v. Treto, (ND IL, filed 8/11/2026), alleges in part:

... Illinois’s “End-of-Life Options” Act ...—which takes effect on September 12th—both legalizes assisted suicide and mandates that doctors who conscientiously object to it nonetheless promote its alleged “benefits” to “terminally ill” patients and, if requested, refer or transfer those patients to someone who is “able and willing” to help them commit suicide..... 

Illinois’s conscription of objecting practitioners into its new assisted suicide regime blatantly violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Indeed, EOLO plainly compels or restricts speech based on content and viewpoint by requiring such practitioners to (a) discuss assisted suicide’s alleged “benefits” and make specific “referrals” for the same....

EOLO also violates the First Amendment right of expressive association by forcing health care entities to hire and otherwise associate with health care professionals who promote or even directly participate in assisted suicide. 

EOLO additionally violates the First Amendment’s protection for the free exercise of religion and church autonomy. Put simply, requiring only a narrow class of “health care professionals” to discuss the “benefits” of and “refer” for assisted suicide with respect only to “terminally ill” patients, contrary to those professionals’ deeply held religious beliefs, is neither neutral nor generally applicable. And requiring health care entities to hire and retain employees who promote and even participate in assisted suicide violates the internal governance of religious institutions in deciding whom they authorize to carry out their religious mission to save and promote the dignity of every patient’s life....

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Grants Reconsideration in Free Exercise Challenge to School's Policy on Student Social Transitioning

In Mead v. Rockford Public School District, (WD MI, Aug. 7, 2026), a Michigan federal district court granted a motion for reconsideration of its earlier decision which held that parents' free exercise rights are not violated by a school's policy that encourages teachers and staff to use a student's preferred name and pronouns and does not necessarily require disclosure of this to the student's parents.  The court relied on the Supreme Court's shadow docket opinion in Mirabelli v. Bonta in granting reconsideration. The court said in part:

Like the policies at issue in Mirabelli, the policies here likely created a substantial burden on the Meads’ free-exercise rights.  The Meads share religious beliefs similar to the parents in Mirabelli about the permanency of biological sex and the fixed relationship between sex and gender.  At the time of the alleged violation, the Meads’ child was also around the same age (seventh and eighth grades) as one of the children in Mirabelli (eighth grade).  And like the parents in Mirabelli, the Meads did not have an opportunity to opt their child out of Defendants’ policies.   

Defendants’ policies therefore trigger strict scrutiny.... 

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Montana Supreme Court: Parenting Plan May Restrict Mother from Exposing Children to Cultic Religious Beliefs

In In re the Marriage of Acacia Jensen and Timothy Jensen, (MT Sup. Ct., Aug. 4, 2026), the Montana Supreme Court in a 5-2 decision upheld a trial court's order modifying a parenting plan for a divorced couple's three children. The mother objected to various provisions in the modified plan, including a provision that the children not to be influenced by Liana Shanti or the Lemurian Mystery School. According to the court, Liana Shanti is an online based spiritual teacher and mentor who promotes the recovery of suppressed memories, and who leads the Lemurian Mystery School that believe they can recover memories of their previous lives on the lost continent of Lemuria. The modified Plan also prohibits the use of Lemurian Mystery School nicknames for the children. The court said in part:

We turn now to the claim that the nickname restriction violated Alihana’s First Amendment and fundamental parenting rights....

The evidence in the record makes it clear that Liana Shanti and her group are known to encourage followers to discover and act upon false “repressed memories” of abuse.  Once these false abusive memories are uncovered, followers are encouraged to sever ties with family and friends and become more closely involved in the group.  Here, a preponderance of evidence shows that Alihana has engaged in embracing false memories of abuse.  She has repeatedly accused Tim and her parents of abusive behavior for which no evidence exists....

... While it is a constitutional right of a parent to provide spiritual education and teaching to their child, it is not the right of a parent to inflict abusive memories upon their child, be those memories fictional or actual.  This Court ... cannot hold, then, that it is the constitutional right of a parent to expose their children to fictionalized sexual abuse....

Chief Justice Swanson, joined by Justice Shea dissented, saying in part:

... This limitation, which precludes exposure to the teachings of the Lemurian Mystery School,effectively prevents Alihana from practicing the tenets of her faith in front of her children and therefore prevents her from freely exercising her faith for days at a time....

It is worth noting the parenting plan singles out a particular faith as offensive and forbidden, thus discriminating against that religion.  Although the Lemurian Mystery school is not a mainstream religion and appears to be controversial, Alihana’s right to practice her religion is no less protected.  Had the District Court imposed equivalent restrictions on a parental adherent to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, or Christianity, we would likely not be having this conversation.  An obscure minority faith—even or perhaps especially with abnormal beliefs—deserves the same legal protections as those mainstream systems of belief....

This parenting plan ... unduly burdens Alihana’s right to educate her children concerning her religion. ...

... [T]he Opinion spends pages reciting Alihana’s harmful conduct toward the children, Tim, and other family members, and documenting the harmful conduct of Lemurian Mystery School or Liana Shanti followers.  That proves my point.  If Alihana is engaged in such harmful conduct, then the District Court should restrict the conduct.  If it is impossible to prohibit the harmful conduct while still awarding Alihanapartial unsupervised custody, then the District Court must fashion a parenting plan in the best interests of the children, which may mean awarding full custody to Tim....

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.

Clergyman Loses Attempt to Access Prison to Conduct Religious Services

In Brooks v. Smith, (ED TN, July 30, 2026), a Tennessee federal district court refused to set aside its previous dismissal of a suit brought by a clergyman who contends that he was being prevented from participating in religious services for prisoners. He wants to participate in Holy Communion and in anointment for healing and deliverance with inmates. The court said in part:

Here, Plaintiff is not alleging that Defendants have prohibited him from practicing Holy Communion or anointment altogether. Rather, he challenges restrictions on conducting Holy Communion and anointment within a correctional facility.... That distinction matters.... [T]he Free Exercise Clause does not guarantee unfettered access to practice one’s religion in any manner or location one chooses. Indeed, courts have recognized that outside clergy and chaplains do not possess a constitutional right to enter correctional institutions to administer religious services or sacraments. ...

Plaintiffs pointed to Coalition for Spiritual v. Noem, a 2026 federal district court case that held ICE agents violated RFRA when they denied a religious group entry into an ICE facility to minister to detainees. Distinguishing that case, the court said in part:

... RFRA ... has no application to Plaintiff’s claims because it does not apply to state or local governments.... Furthermore, while an individual may have a valid cause of action against the federal government under RFRA, it does not necessarily follow that the same conduct by a state government is cognizable under the Free Exercise Clause. This is because RFRA provides broader protections for religious exercise and imposes a far more demanding standard on government action than the Free Exercise Clause itself....

The court also rejected plaintiff's Establishment Clause argument. 

Code Enforcement Against Jewish Nursery School Does Not Violate Free Exercise Clause or RLUIPA

In Dreskin v. Borough of Bogota, (D NJ, July 31, 2026), a New Jersey federal district court rejected challenges under the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA to enforcement of building, fire and health code provisions against a small Jewish nursery school. The court said in part:

On their face and as applied, the Building, Fire, and Health Code provisions at issue are content neutral, and Plaintiff does not identify any specific provision that targets religious conduct.  Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to support her claim of disparate treatment with evidence of similarly situated secular comparators who were treated more favorably....

... [A] plaintiff must show more than a mere inconvenience to establish a “substantial burden” under the RLUIPA; the burden must render religious exercise “effectively impracticable” but does not require a showing of discriminatory governmental conduct....

The Borough’s enforcement actions have not rendered Plaintiff’s religious exercise “effectively impracticable”—Plaintiff remains free to practice her faith in other ways, and the enforcement regime does not permanently prohibit PLAYfully from operating or expanding in the future. Rather, the Borough is seeking to enforce the Building, Fire, and Health Codes based on Plaintiff’s prior noncompliance.  Once Plaintiff achieves compliance and resolves any penalties from past violations, her ability to provide religious instruction through the program is not foreclosed on the same grounds.  Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a substantial burden under the RLUIPA.    

Plaintiff’s claim under the Equal Terms provision likewise fails, as she has failed to identify a secular comparator that is similarly situated in the context of the regulation....

Synagogue Challenges Firearms Ordinance

An Orthodox Jewish synagogue and its rabbi filed suit last week in a Maryland federal district court challenging a recently adopted Montgomery County, Maryland Ordinance that, among other things, prohibits possessing a firearm within 100 yards of a place of worship unless one is a law enforcement officer or licensed security guard. One effect of this is to prevent the synagogue from using its own trained security team for protection. The complaint alleges the Jewish law favors reliance on volunteer members of the community, rather than outsourcing protection of the community.

The complaint (full text) in Silver Spring Jewish Center, Inc. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, (D MD, filed 7/30/2026), alleges in part:

5. Luckily, the Constitution protects religious rights and the right to self-defense. Residents of Montgomery County have a constitutionally protected right to exercise their faith, including faiths, like Plaintiffs’, whose religious codes require providing for their own and communal self-defense, including by bearing arms when necessary. In violation of clear, binding Supreme Court precedent, Montgomery County’s law, which singles out houses of worship to their detriment, is not neutral and generally applicable and cannot survive the strict scrutiny to which the First Amendment subjects such intrusions on the free exercise of religion and religious autonomy.  

6. The Second Amendment violation is also clear. EB23-26 forbids conduct that falls squarely within the “plain text” of the Second Amendment, rendering it presumptively unconstitutional....

The Ordinance also prohibits carrying a firearm within 100 yards of schools, libraries, hospitals, parks and various other places of public assembly. The complaint goes on to allege in part:

On the Sabbath and Jewish holidays, Rabbi Shapiro’s sincerely held religious beliefs require that he walk to the synagogue for communal prayer.... The only path between his home and his synagogue requires him to walk within 100 yards of two public schools, two private schools, two parks, and three other houses of worship—each one a “place of public assembly” subject to the Ban. 

JNS reports on the lawsuit.

Arizona Supreme Court Interprets Clergy Exemption from Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse

 In Jane Doe I v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, (AZ Sup. Ct., July 29, 2026), the Arizona Supreme Court settled important interpretive questions regarding Arizona's requirement to report child abuse to authorities and the ability of a court to inquire into a clergy member's failure to do so. At issue was the scope of the clergy exemption from Arizona's reporting law when a congregation member admits the abuse to the clergy member. The issue arose in a suit by abuse victims against the Church and clergy members. The Court summarized its holding:

We must decide if a factfinder—a court or jury—may inquire into whether a clergy member violated religious doctrine by failing to report abuse of a minor.  Subsection (A) of A.R.S. § 13-3620 (the “Reporting Statute”) requires “[a]ny person who reasonably believes that a minor” is the victim of abuse to “immediately report or cause reports to be made.”  The Reporting Statute, however, allows a clergy member who receives “a confession or confidential communication” to refrain from reporting the “confession” or “confidential communication” if the clergy member “determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts” of the clergy member’s religion....  We hold that the First Amendment generally prohibits factfinders from inquiring into a clergy member’s application of his particular religious doctrine—absent fraud or collusion for secular purposes—in determining whether reporting should be withheld if “reasonable and necessary.” 

We next determine the meaning of the terms “confession” and “confidential communication” in the Reporting Statute.  We hold that “confession” means “a confidential acknowledgment or admission of a crime, sin, or fault to a member of the clergy, priest, or Christian Science practitioner for the purpose of absolution.”  A “confidential communication” refers to “speech or correspondence that is treated as private or made in confidence, generally under circumstances that indicate the communication is intended only for the person or persons addressed.”  The First Amendment, however, requires courts to exercise substantial deference to a religious institution’s own doctrinal conception of “confession” or “confidential communication.” 

Finally, we resolve whether a factfinder may determine who qualifies as a “member of the clergy.”  We hold that the First Amendment protects the right of a religious institution to define who is a “member of the clergy” and, absent fraud or collusion for secular purposes, prohibits factfinders from inquiring into the religious institution’s designation of clergy.

12 News reports on the decision.

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: Trial Court Must Evaluate Penological Interest In Refusing to Replace Inmate's Arabic-Language Quran

In Kane v. Haynes, (9th Cir., July 23, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a district court's dismissal of a free exercise claim brought by a Muslim inmate against prison officials. The court said in part:

While transferring then-inmate Ali Kane between units at the Airway Heights Correctional Center, Department of Corrections (DOC) officers disposed of an unmarked Arabic-language copy of the Quran.  After Kane initiated DOC’s grievance process, DOC offered Kane a replacement copy in English. Kane refused, stating that his religious practice requires him to memorize and utter his prayers in Arabic. 

Kane sued the correctional officers in their official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the officers’ destruction of Kane’s copy of the Quran and refusal to provide a substitute Arabic-language copy violated his First Amendment right to free exercise....

... Kane ... offered that his inability to memorize the Arabic passages has severe religious consequences (e.g., sin cannot be forgiven as required by Islam), and Kane, having since forgotten the verses, cannot meet his daily religious obligations.   

The district court, however, did not ... evaluate whether the government has shown a legitimate penological interest justifying its actions under [Turner v. Safley]...  We thus remand so that the district court may consider the Turner factors....

Father's Suit Seeking Opt-Out for Son of Some Class Lessons Moves Ahead

In Alan L. v. Lexington Public Schools, (D MA, July 21, 2026), the father of a kindergartener sued seeking to opt his child out of classroom lessons and activities that deal with sexual orientation and gender identity and violate plaintiff's Christian religious beliefs. Last year, the court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the school to provide an opt out. (See prior posting). Nevertheless, defendants now moved for a dismissal of all plaintiff's claims. Recognizing that the suit is controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court in its opinion issued this week refused to dismiss plaintiff's free exercise claims and most of plaintiff's other contentions, including their claim of qualified immunity. The court however dismissed plaintiff's substantive due process claim because Mahmoud had based its holding on the Free Exercise clause, while a prior 1st Circuit case had held that the due process clause does not create a parental right to opt one's children out of particular lessons.

9th Circuit: Plan to Convince Vaccination Objectors to Reconsider Did Not Show Hostility To Religion

 In Seagraves v. Wahington State Department of Children, Youth and Families, (9th Cir., July 21, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims by 18 former employees of the Department of Children, Youth and Families who were separated from the agency after their requests for religious exemptions from the state's 2021 Covid vaccine mandate were rejected. The court said in part:

The [complaint] does not plausibly allege personal involvement by any of the Officials [named as defendants] in constitutional violations of the Employees’ free exercise, equal protection, or procedural due process rights.  All the Employees’ requests for accommodations in their current roles were denied, based on determinations that they could not perform the essential functions of their positions unvaccinated without endangering the health and safety of others in the workplace, including children and families.  Accordingly, their supposed constitutional injuries flow from this determination.  Yet the [complaint] does not allege that any of the Officials [named as defendants] personally participated in evaluating the Employees’ accommodation requests or that they played a role in denying them pre-termination hearings....

The remaining factual allegations that the Employees provided in their pleadings undermine the plausibility of their “religious animus” theory.  First consider Hunter’s August 23, 2021, email discussing DCYF’s communications plan for vaccination.  The goal of this plan was to convince as many DCYF employees as possible to get vaccinated.  Part of the plan involved addressing various potential objections to vaccination: medical safety, convenience, religious objections, and political tribalism.  This plan did not single out religiously motivated objections for special treatment.  Religious objections were included among several secular objections, and the aim of the plan was to convince DCYF employees that their concerns about vaccination were unfounded, regardless of the religious or secular character of those concerns.  That religious objections were one of several objections to address does not, without more, indicate hostility toward religion....

Catholic Sisters Sue To Invalidate New York's Assisted Suicide Counseling Requirement

Last week, four Orders of Catholic Sisters along with the Catholic Diocese and Bishop of Rockville Centre, New York, filed suit in a New York federal district court challenging, at least as applied to them, the constitutionality of New York's Medical Aid in Dying Act as it interacts with the state's Palliative Care Information Act. Labelling these a "Suicide Counseling Mandate", the 102-page complaint (full text) in Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm, Inc. v. James, (ND NY, filed 7/17/2026) alleges in part:

13. The many New York nurse practitioners, doctors, mental health professionals, hospitals, and care homes with religious or moral objections to participating in assisted suicide will have nowhere to go, because New York’s purported “opt-out” is among the narrowest in the nation, and doesn’t apply at all to independent assisted living facilities, including those run by the Benedictine Sisters. The Catholic patients who wish to die without being offered the chance to kill themselves at their lowest moment will be left out in the cold.....

15. First, the First Amendment’s protected sphere of church autonomy requires the government to respect and stay out of matters of governance within religious institutions, such as how the Catholic Church chooses to implement its beliefs on the sanctity of human life and the decision of religious communities to form themselves around those same principles. 

16. Second, its protection of the free exercise of religion prohibits the government from burdening the sincere religious beliefs of Plaintiffs and the patients they serve unless the state is furthering an interest of the highest order and using the least restrictive means to do so—an exceedingly high bar Defendants cannot meet.  

17. Third, its protections against religious gerrymanders prohibit the government from enacting legal burdens that fall uniquely on religious adherents—such as those who object to providing assisted suicide. 

18. Fourth, its protections against compelled speech prevent the government from forcing Catholic doctors and nurses to speak the government’s preferred, supportive message of assisted suicide. 

19. And fifth, its protections for freedom of association allow the Catholic Church, its various communities, and the patients they serve, to organize themselves into like-minded communities with the same values and beliefs—the mission of which is to live faithfully according to those beliefs, for however long or short a time....

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

Artist's Suit Over Removal of Trump with Jesus Painting Is Dismissed

In Rose v. Arts Bonita, Inc., (MD FL, July 12, 2026), a Florida federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, a complaint against the city and the organizer of an art festival held in a public park in Bonita Springs, Florida. A painting of Jesus blessing President Trump, displayed at the festival by plaintiff Julia Rose, was removed by the festival organizer and Rose was told to leave. The court said in part:

To start, Rose has not alleged that the City took any direct action to infringe on her First Amendment rights. The City itself was not at the art festival. Rose does not claim that municipal employees asked her to leave, nor does she suggest they had any problem with her art. Instead, her grievance lies against a private organization and its director....

... [E]ven if the art festival's conduct could somehow be pinned on the City, Rose's claim runs into another wall. A municipality cannot be held liable simply because it ... permits an event whose organizers allegedly violate the Constitution. There is no respondeat superior liability for civil rights violations....

The court rejected plaintiff's claim under the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:

To be sure, getting removed from an art show because of religious content might look and feel like discrimination. But there is a fundamental difference between an act of discrimination and a government-imposed burden on the exercise of religion. ...

The Court concluded:

... [T]he Court cannot say a more carefully drafted pleading would be entirely devoid of merit. When a pro se plaintiff's complaint falls short, she generally gets another bite at the apple if a better-drafted version might state a claim.... So while the City's motion to dismiss is granted, the door is not slammed shut. Rose may file an amended complaint within fourteen days of this order.

Detainee Sues Wrong Parties Over Available Religious Texts on Jail's Android Tablets

In Coleman v. LVMPD, (D NV, July 8, 2026), a Nevada federal district court at the screening stage dismissed with leave to amend a religious discrimination complaint filed by Oronde Coleman, a pre-trial detainee at the Clark County Detention Center (CCDC). According to the court:

Coleman generally sues Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) and ViaPath, the owner and provider of android tablets at CCDC....

Coleman alleges the following. He is a religious member of the House of Yahweh.... Coleman needs the Book of Yahweh and the Book of Yahweh Study Guide to worship his religion. However, the ViaPath tablets do not contain either of those ebooks even though they have other religious books for other religions such as Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Latter-Day Saints, Orthodox Hindu, Buddhist, Jehovah's Witness, Moorish American, Nation of Islam, and Sundar Gutka. LVMPD had approved these religious texts to be on the android tablet but discriminated against the House of Yahweh.

When Coleman reached out to ViaPath to add the Book of Yahweh onto ebooks, ViaPath responded that it was not a recognized religion, and they would not add it to the contents of the tablets. Coleman told ViaPath that he needed the two books to give praise to his heavenly father and his son in their rightful names. ViaPath told Coleman to write a grievance to LVMPD's religious services unit. Years ago, Coleman wrote grievances to the religious services unit, who told him they do not stock those books....

Although Coleman could potentially state colorable First Amendment free exercise of religion and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims, he does not do so in his complaint because he has not established that ViaPath and LVMPD are the parties he should be suing. I thus dismiss the complaint but grant Coleman leave to amend....

Coleman's complaint does not allege how ViaPath is a state actor other than its apparent contract with LVMPD. This alone is insufficient to establish that ViaPath is a state actor who deprived Coleman of his federal rights....

Coleman does not allege that his inability to obtain House of Yahweh religious books is due to a LVMPD custom or policy....

Suit Seeks Accommodation for Christian Library Employee Who Objects To Using Co-Workers' Preferred Names and Pronouns

Suit was filed yesterday in a Louisiana federal district court by a Library Technician who was fired for refusing to comply with the library's Inclusivity Policy that requires employees to refer to fellow employees by their chosen name and pronoun.  Plaintiff Luke Ash is also a Christian pastor. The complaint (full text) in Ash v. City of Baton Rouge Louisiana, (MD LA, filed 7/9/2026) alleges in part:

Ash has sincerely held religious beliefs that God created mankind in his own image, and that each individual is created either male or female.... Ash also has sincerely held religious beliefs that biological sex is immutable....  Because of his sincerely held religious beliefs, Ash has sincere religious convictions and beliefs that referring to a person by pronouns inconsistent with their biological sex both dishonors God’s design for that person and constitutes a lie and a grave sin....  Ash believes that he is compelled to tell the truth, even to those who may disagree....

Ash had never, at any point, referred to any co-worker directly using pronouns inconsistent with their preference, and he had certainly never done so after being told by such individual that the pronoun he used was incorrect....

Ash contends that his firing violated his federal and state free speech, free exercise and equal protection rights and that under Title VII the Library was required to provide him a reasonable accommodation from the Inclusivity Policy. The complaint alleges in part:

Permitting Ash to maintain respectful communications to those with whom he interacts at the Library while maintaining compliance with his sincerely held religious beliefs would have been a reasonable accommodation that would impose no hardship whatsoever on the Defendants or the Library. 

The complaint also asks for an injunction barring enforcement of the Inclusivity Policy and asks for reinstatement of plaintiff. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.