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 That rejection has been superseded by one resting on non-religious grounds, no application by Ben Gatnla is pending before the Board, and the Board is applying no religious criterion to Ben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.

5th Circuit: Section 1981 Does Not Bar Purely Religious Discrimination Against Jews

In Domanic v. Christian Brothers Automative Corporation, (5th Cir., Sept. 30, 2026), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Texas religion-based franchisor of auto-repair stores did not violate 42 USC §1981 by requiring that its franchisees be professing Christians. Christian Brothers described its mission as one to "glorify God by providing ethical and excellent services to its customers." The court said in part:

All of [Christian Brothers] more than 250 franchisees—a group which includes some ethnic Jews—are professing Christians. When the company refused to franchise to Evan Domanic, who is an ethnic and religious Jew, Domanic sued for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §1981. The district court granted Christian Brothers summary judgment, ruling that its franchise policy constituted not racial but religious discrimination, which is not cognizable under § 1981. 

On appeal, Domanic’s main argument is that discrimination against Jews is ipso facto racial discrimination, even when (as here) the differential treatment is motivated purely by religion and not ancestry. We decline to adopt this novel argument, which is in tension with the Supreme Court’s longstanding precedent that § 1981 does not reach religious discrimination.... [T]he Seventh Circuit ... has twice rejected similar contentions about the indivisibility of Jewish ethnicity and faith under § 1981. 

... [N]o evidence suggests that Christian Brothers’s franchise policy is a façade for ethnic discrimination against Jews....

Judge Oldham filed an opinion concurring in the result, saying in part:

...   In an appropriate case, our en banc court should reconsider our use of McDonnell Douglas at summary judgment generally and in § 1981 cases specifically.

Heartlander News reports on the decision.

Backers of Hasidic School May Move Ahead with Challenges to Zoning Denials

Congregation Rabbinical Institute of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, NY, (SD NY, Sept.28, 2026), is the latest decision in a long-running attempt by members of the Hasidic Jewish community to build a rabbinical institute in Pamona, New York, that will provide facilities to train rabbinical judges and will include housing for its students and their families.  In an 80-page opinion, a New York federal district court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their as-applied federal and state equal protection, free exercise, freedom of speech and association, Fair Housing Act and RLUIPA claims. At issue are plaintiff's compliance with two local laws--one allowing only accredited educational institutions to be constructed in the village, and the second placing a number of restrictions on design of dormitories.

The court said in part:

... Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Defendants enforced the Challenged Laws with discriminatory intent.

  ... [T]he New York State Education Department no longer provides institutional accreditation....  

Plaintiffs further allege that Tartikov explained to the ZBA that it cannot obtain accreditation through private means because AARTS requires a rabbinical institute to be operational before it can obtain accreditation, leaving Tartikov unable to obtain accreditation without first operating and unable to operate in the Village without first obtaining accreditation....  Rather than address this alleged “Catch-22,” the ZBA chairperson suggested that Tartikov rent a facility outside the Village, operate there until it obtained accreditation, and then return to the Village....  

The ZBA subsequently denied Tartikov’s variance application because Tartikov had not sufficiently established that it could not become accredited.... It did so despite the Rockland County Department of Planning’s conclusion that lack of accreditation, standing alone, presented no significant land-use impacts....

Thus, despite Tartikov’s repeated efforts to obtain permission for student-family housing, Defendants effectively conditioned consideration of that request on Tartikov first overcoming the Accreditation Law—the same requirement that Plaintiffs allege Tartikov cannot satisfy without first operating its rabbinical institute....  These procedural irregularities and alleged delays further support an inference that Defendants acted with discriminatory intent....

At this early stage, Plaintiffs’ allegations of repeated procedural irregularities, the circumstances surrounding Defendants’ application of the Challenged Laws, and alleged anti-Hasidic animus among Village officials and community members plausibly support an inference that Defendants applied the Challenged Laws in a discriminatory manner. ...

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Defendants’ application of the Challenged Laws imposes a substantial burden on their religious exercise. 

... Plaintiffs allege that the Institute requires a Torah community, which in turn requires prospective students to reside with their families....  Yet the Dormitory Law prohibits the very housing necessary to accommodate Tartikov’s Torah community by excluding single-family, two-family, and multifamily dwelling units from the definition of a dormitory and prohibiting separate cooking, dining, or housekeeping facilities.... These allegations plausibly establish more than a “minimal impact on religious exercise”.... 

These allegations plausibly allege that the Institute would foster protected expression and that Defendants burdened that expression through their application of the Accreditation Law....

Plaintiffs have also plausibly alleged that the Accreditation Law burdens their ability to associate for the purpose of engaging in that protected activity...

Although Plaintiffs will ultimately bear the burden of demonstrating that the Dormitory Law has a significantly adverse or disproportionate impact on Hasidic Jews, they need not make that evidentiary showing at this stage in the litigation....

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.

EEOC Sues Frozen Snack Manufacturer Over Firing of Jewish Employee

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit against the Texas-based Bell Creameries, Inc. charging it with religious discrimination against a Jewish employee who was a body shop technician.  The EEOC's press release announcing the lawsuit said in part:

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Blue Bell fired the employee in March 2025, less than a month after he refused to shave his beard due to his religious beliefs. The EEOC said that Blue Bell’s stated reason for firing the longtime employee, a timekeeping violation, was a pretext for religious discrimination and retaliation, and claimed that other workers routinely engaged in the same conduct without repercussion. The lawsuit also said a supervisor baselessly questioned the sincerity of the worker’s religious beliefs on multiple occasions.

WBRC News reporting on the lawsuit said in part:

According to the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, the employee worked as a body shop technician refurbishing fiberglass vehicle parts. The company says that role requires a fully sealing respirator, which it claims is incompatible with certain facial hair.

Blue Bell held a respirator training and mask fit test for the department on Feb. 10, 2025. The employee was on leave and did not attend. The lawsuit alleges that none of the coworkers who did attend were required to shave their beards afterward, including some who had similar beards and did similar work requiring a respirator.

President Trump Sends Yom Kippur Greetings

Yom Kippur begins at sundown this evening. Today the White House posted a" Presidential Message on Yom Kippur" (full text) which reads:

On the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, I send my best wishes to the entire Jewish community for a blessed Yom Kippur.

As it is referred to in the Torah as the “Sabbath of Sabbaths,” Yom Kippur empowers those of the Jewish faith to renew their unwavering relationship with the Creator through fasting, prayer, and charity.  As the High Holy Days come to a close, and the fate of the year ahead is inscribed and sealed, my Administration is resolved to defend every American’s sacred right to freedom of religion.

May the Almighty bless you all with renewed strength and abundant faith on this holy day, and may He continue to bless the United States of America.

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 Allows Suit by Jewish School Denied Zoning Approval to Move Ahead

Bet Midrash Ohr Hachayim Hakadosh, Inc., v. City of Hollywood, Florida, (FL Bkr., Aug. 28, 2026), is a civil rights action being pursued in federal bankruptcy court because plaintiff is in Chapter 11 federal bankruptcy proceedings and the case is related to those proceedings. The court said in part:

Plaintiff Bet Midrash Ohr Hachayim Hakadosh, Inc., is a Jewish religious nonprofit that operates a synagogue. It purchased commercial property ... in Hollywood, Florida with the intention of opening a K–12 Jewish day school. To do so, it needed a special exception under the City of Hollywood’s Zoning and Land Development Regulations. The City denied Bet Midrash’s special exception application. Bet Midrash contends the denial was unconstitutional – that the City applied a zoning scheme that has already been found unconstitutional in another case by a District Court Judge in this District, and that the denial violated its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Defendant City of Hollywood moved to dismiss the complaint ..., arguing that the special exception criteria are facially neutral and generally applicable, that they are subject only to rational basis review....

... [T]he City argues that the as-applied challenge ... is deficient because Bet Midrash does not allege that the City applied the special exception criteria in a manner that was hostile to its expressive activity, or that the City selectively enforced the special exception provision against it.... Second, Bet Midrash argues that it is engaged in First Amendment protected activity – operating a synagogue and seeking to expand into religious education – and that the Free Exercise Clause protects that activity...

The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. Religious education – particularly the operation of a Jewish day school by a religious nonprofit that also operates a synagogue – is a form of religiously motivated conduct protected by the Free Exercise Clause.  At the pleading stage, the Court accepts these allegations as true. Whether Bet Midrash can ultimately prove that its proposed school constitutes protected religious exercise is a question for another day. For now, the allegations are sufficient....

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....

3rd Circuit: RLUIPA's Institutionalized Persons Precedent Can Inform RLUIPA Land Use Cases as Well

 In Anash, Inc. v. Borough of Kingston, (3rd Cir., July 30, 2026), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision ordered a Pennsylvania federal district court to issue a preliminary injunction allowing a rabbi and his congregation access to two buildings that allegedly violated zoning provisions once building code violations were cured.  Rabbi Shimon Hellinger had acquired two properties, one used for office space and a yeshiva, and the other used for group living for ten Orthodox Jewish students who were members of the rabbi's congregation. The rabbi did not respond to notices of violations issued by zoning and code enforcement officials. On the day before Rosh Hashanah, enforcement officials obtained administrative search warrants and condemned the properties through no-occupancy orders. The rabbi and his yeshiva filed suit alleging that the official actions violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction. The 3rd Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against building code enforcement because building codes are not land use regulations covered by RLUIPA. However, the court reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the zoning regulations, saying in part:

... [I]t is likely that the implementation of the 2023 Zoning Ordinance substantially burdens Rabbi Hellinger and his congregation’s religious exercise. ...

... [I]n Holt v. Hobbs, ... the Supreme Court adjudicated a RLUIPA substantial-burden claim by an institutionalized person.  It held that a prison policy that required an inmate to “engage in conduct that seriously violates [his] religious beliefs” was a substantial burden....  

... [A]lthough they are not identical, RLUIPA’s institutionalized persons provisions and its land-use provisions both use a substantial-burden standard subject to strict scrutiny....  The structural similarity allows the situations ... under which RLUIPA protects religious beliefs of institutionalized persons to be translated into the land-use context... Doing so yields two substantial-burden scenarios – both related to the protection of religious belief.  The first occurs when a person is forced to choose between following the precepts of his religion and avoiding the effect of a land use regulation.... The second occurs when a land use regulation places substantial pressure on a person to substantially modify his behavior in violation of his beliefs....

... [A] land use regulation imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise if it restricts access to real property that is otherwise available for the proposed exercise of religion. Second, a land use regulation – even one of general applicability – imposes a substantial burden if it limits the use of real property that is otherwise available for the proposed exercise of religion so as to prevent the proposed exercise of religion on the property.  Third, even when the imposition or implementation of a land use regulation does not directly impede religious exercise, the land use regulation may still impose a substantial burden if it has a significant adverse effect on real property that is used or otherwise available for the proposed exercise of religion....

... [I]t is unlikely that the Kingston Defendants will be able to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest in perpetuating the condemnation orders after the Building Code violations have been remediated....

Judge Restrepo dissented, saying in part:

The majority’s opinion contravenes a cohesive body of law among our sister circuits interpreting the substantial burden provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”).... Commentators have described the courts as “coalesce[ing] around a totality-of-the-circumstances test, examining whether the government’s actions substantially inhibit religious exercise, rather than merely inconveniencing it.”... But the majority does not engage with this caselaw and merely offers in a footnote the vague statement that “[o]ur sister circuits have taken a variety of approaches” followed by a string cite..... 

Instead, the majority relies on RLUIPA’s separate provisions governing prison inmates despite recognizing that the substantial burden analysis in the prison context is “not applicable” to RLUIPA land use cases.... RLUIPA land use decisions uniformly caution against relying on principles from prison cases because “land-use regulations do not typically compel plaintiffs to ‘violate their beliefs’ in the way that, for example, prison rules might require an inmate to engage in conduct that goes against his or her religious tenets....

Unlike the majority, I would follow the approach and guidance of our sister circuits. The circuits consider two factors that are particularly apposite here: (1) whether the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of religious land use or whether the plaintiff’s burden was self-imposed; and (2) whether the plaintiff had ready alternatives....

Separate from the merits, this appeal fails on justiciability grounds....

Fire At Iowa Meat Packing Plant May Reduce Supply of Kosher Meat Nationally

According to KCRG News, a fire that broke out on Tuesday has destroyed 75% of the AgriStar Meat and Poultry processing plant in Postville, Iowa. The fire has been ruled as accidental. According to Brownfield Ag News, the plant is one of the largest kosher meat processing plants in the United States. It processes more than 50 million pounds of cattle products and 50 million pounds of poultry products every year. In a Statement (full text), Rabbi Moshe Elefant, CEO of OU Kosher, a major kosher certification agency that certifies Agri Star's products, said in part:

As we monitor the situation in Postville, the safety of the employees and fire fighters is our first concern. 

The damaged facility means a significant portion of kosher beef and chicken slaughtered and sold in the US will not enter the kosher supply chain.  Kosher consumers will feel the impact of the tightening supply with reduction of availability. 

We are working closely with AgriStar and all other suppliers to find solutions for ramping up production at other plants. We are also letting kosher consumers know about the importance of validating the kosher symbol and package integrity on products they purchase.... Unfortunately, when supply is limited, it creates opportunity for unscrupulous individuals who seek to make money by preying on the well-meaning Kosher observant public.

Israeli Knesset Passes Controversial Basic Law on Torah Study

Israel's Knesset yesterday passed a controversial "Basic Law" providing:

Torah study is a fundamental value in the heritage of the Jewish people and in the State of Israel.

According to Times of Israel:

The legislation makes Torah study the only value explicitly enshrined in one of Israel’s quasi-constitutional Basic Laws, which act in place of a written constitution. Haredi parties have pushed to pass the law as part of their broader effort to preserve blanket military service exemptions for ultra-Orthodox men, while opponents argue it effectively elevates Torah study above all other national values and will weaken efforts to penalize yeshiva students who disobey draft orders.

Efforts to draft Haredi men, and ultra-Orthodox resistance to that effort, has sparked a fierce debate in Israeli society and the halls of the Knesset, especially as the IDF has warned repeatedly that it faces an urgent manpower shortage....

While the final version of the legislation no longer explicitly equates Torah study with military service, following pressure from Likud, opponents argue that, even in its pared-down form, the law grants constitutional recognition to Torah study alone, elevating it above other national values, while tens of thousands of reservists continue to serve during the ongoing war....

Supreme Court Grants Review on Ripeness for RLUIPA Zoning Claims

The Supreme Court yesterday granted review in Grand v. University Heights, (Docket No. 25-965, certiorari granted 6/30/2026) (Order List). In the case, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (full text of 6th Circuit opinion) held that plaintiff's claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act as well as the 1st and 14th Amendments are not ripe for review.  Plaintiff, an Orthodox Jew, held weekly prayer sessions in his home for himself and his neighbors. After the city raised zoning objections, plaintiff had applied for a special use permit necessary in order to operate a "house of worship" in the area that was zoned U-1. Just before a second hearing on his application, plaintiff withdrew the application. After that hearing, the city took no further action on the application. Some 18 months later, plaintiff filed suit against the city. Affirming the district court's dismissal of the case, the 6th Circuit said in part:

... [N]either the Planning Commission nor the City Council nor the Board of Zoning Appeals has ever determined whether UHCO § 1274.01 applies to the kinds of gatherings he has in mind.  And because Grand withdrew his application, the zoning board has never issued a final decision—or for that matter any decision—about his eligibility for a special use permit.  The government body “charged with implementing the regulations,” in short, has not “reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue.” ...  Grand’s claims thus never ripened into a dispute suitable for federal review.

Plaintiff's Petition for Certiorari lists as the Question Presented to the Supreme Court: 

Whether the First Amendment's established chilling-effect doctrine-- under which a credible government threat that deters the exercise of fundamental rights constitutes a complete and independently actionable constitutional injury-- is displaced by Williamson Cnty.'s land-use finality requirement when a plaintiff alleges that government threats both before and after a Planning Commission meeting chilled religious exercise, worship, and assembly.

The Court will hear arguments in the case in the Fall. ADF issued a press release announcing the Court's grant of review. [Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Jews for Jesus' Anti-SLAPP Motion in Defamation Case Fails

 In Amitay v. Jews for Jesus, (CA App., May 28, 2026), a California state appellate court held that a defamation claims against Jews for Jesus should not be dismissed under California's anti-SLAPP law because the claim at least has minimal merit. The court describes plaintiff's claims in part:

In December 2023, JFJ posted on its social media pages, including on Facebook and Instagram, a blurred photograph of an Israeli soldier wearing a yarmulke.  Above the photograph was the following text attributed to “Nachman”: “ ‘Thank you for leaving at my home a copy of the New Testament.  I look forward to reading it when I return home from the war’ -- Nachman, a young Haredi soldier.”

Amitay filed a complaint against JFJ....  He alleged that the photographs posted by JFJ were photographs of him, that they had been posted without his consent, and that defendant had defamed him, put him in a false light, and inflicted emotional distress.  Amitay alleged that he was a Jewish Orthodox rabbi who had “dedicated his life to the study of the Jewish Orthodox faith and committed many years studying to become a rabbi”....  He had finally gotten a job teaching at an institution in Israel where he had worked for two years, a position he described as his “dream job.”  His job “suddenly came to an end as he was terminated . . . due to an egregious act by JFJ,”.... 

Amitay alleged that when his employer “saw the pictures posted online,” they “expressly stated that his termination was due to the posts online of him supporting JFJ, and that they could not condone or be associated with someone involved with JFJ or their views.” ...

See prior related posting.  [Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Kars4Kids Violated False Advertising and Unfair Competition Laws by Not Disclosing Its Religious Ties

In Puterbaugh v. Kars4Kids, LLC, (CA Super. Ct., May 8, 2026), a California state trial court held that Kars4Kids violated California's Unfair Competition Law and its False Advertising Law through "inherently deceptive" omissions in its ads. The organization runs short repetitive television and radio ads featuring young children playing musical instruments and asking for donations of used cars. The ads make no mention of the actual recipients of funds from the organization or of the organization's religious affiliation. The organization's website says: "Because kids are our future. Learn how you can make a difference in the life of a child." The broadcast ads do not make this statement.

The primary function of Kars4Kids is to fund Oorah, an organization that operates Jewish heritage and summer camps in New York and New Jersey. Oorah also funds matchmaking programs for young adults and gap- year trips to Israel for 17- and 18-year-olds. The court said in part:

2. The Court finds that the First Amendment does not shield the Defendant. While charities have free speech rights, the government may regulate misleading commercial speech. Fraudulent omissions in an inducement to donate property are not protected by “free expression.”...

6. The name “Kars4Kids,” the 8-10-year-old actors in the advertisement, and the repetitive jingle all serve to reinforce the belief that donations are used exclusively for the benefit of children. 

7. Under cross-examination, the COO, Esti Landau, admitted that the organization’s primary purpose is to help “Jewish kids and families throughout their lives.”...

The Court finds that the Defendant disseminated public statements concerning... vehicle donations that were misleading by omission. Under the statutory “knew or should have known” standard, the Defendant is charged with the knowledge that California donors would reasonably assume their contributions benefit a general class of children, including those within their own state. The Court finds that the Defendant’s stated intent to make the advertisement “memorable” through extreme repetition, while simultaneously stripping it of all substantive facts, constitutes an actionable strategy of deception....

The Court finds the Kars4Kids “jingle” creates a false sense of a universal, secular, and local charity. The “Kars4Kids” name, when coupled with an advertisement that “does not mention anything” about its specific mission ... is likely to deceive the public. It improperly narrows the perceived beneficiary class to “kids” to elicit emotional and financial responses, while diverting funds to a much broader religious and familial social-service network....

The court ordered Kars4Kids to end all non-compliant broadcasting in California within 30 days. Inside Radio reports on the decision.

President Declares May As Jewish American Heritage Month

On Monday, President Trump issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring May as Jewish American Heritage Month. The Proclamation reads in part:

Throughout this historic year, we rejoice in the triumph of the American spirit and rededicate ourselves to the cause of liberty and justice for all.  In special honor of 250 glorious years of American independence and on the weekend of Rededicate 250 — a national jubilee of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving — Jewish Americans are encouraged to observe a national Sabbath.  From sundown on May 15 to nightfall on May 16, friends, families, and communities of all backgrounds may come together in gratitude for our great Nation.  This day will recognize the sacred Jewish tradition of setting aside time for rest, reflection, and gratitude to the Almighty.

This month, we celebrate the contributions that Jewish Americans have made to our way of life, we honor their role in shaping the story of our Nation, and we remember that religious devotion, learning, and service to others are enduring pillars of a thriving culture....

Ohio AG Sues to Prevent Closing of Reform Rabbinical School in Cincinnati

Ohio Attorney General David Yost has filed suit in an Ohio state trial court seeking to prevent Hebrew Union College (HUC) from closing its 150-year-old Cincinnati rabbinical school. The closure is planned for the end of the 2025-26 academic year. In 1950, when HUC (originally formed as a charitable trust) consolidated with the New York based Jewish Institute of Religion, the Consolidation Agreement provided that the consolidated non-profit corporation would maintain rabbinical schools in both Cincinnati and New York. The complaint (full text) in Yost v. Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, (OH Com. Pl, filed 4/10/2026), alleges unjust enrichment and breaches of fiduciary duty. It seeks reformation of the charitable trust to fulfill the promise of maintaining a rabbinical school in Cincinnati. The complaint alleges in part:

[A] significant number and monetary amount of the donations made to the College prior to April 2022 were made due, in whole or in part, to the College's commitment to a permanent rabbinical school in Cincinnati...

The College has a duty, among others, to hold and administer assets in accordance with the intentions of donors.... 

Relief requested in the complaint includes requiring assets held or given in Ohio be used to support a permanent school in the Cincinnati area for research, education and preparation of rabbis and leaders of Reform Judaism.

Attorney General Yost issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. The press release points out that previous litigation resulted in a settlement to protect the College's rare book collection.

DOJ Settles RLUIPA Zoning Dispute with Pennsylvania Town

In June 2025, the Justice Department instituted an investigation of alleged RLUIPA violations by the Borough of Kingston, Pennsylvania. At issue has been the application of a 2023 Kingston zoning ordinance to attempts by the Orthodox Jewish Chabad organization to locate sites for places of worship and other religious facilities for its growing population. (See prior related posting.) On Wednesday, the Justice Department announced that it had reached a settlement agreement with Kingston.  To implement the agreement, the government filed a lawsuit against Kingston and along with it filed a proposed consent order (full text). The complaint (full text) in United States v. Borough of Kingston, (MD PA, filed 2/4/2026), alleges in part:

107. Kingston acted in violation of RLUIPA by “impos[ing] or  implement[ing] a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.” 42  U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(l)....

110. Kingston’s enactment and application of the 2023 Zoning Ordinance, and Kingston’s conduct described in this Complaint, constitute the imposition or implementation of a land use regulation that unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction in violation of RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3)(B). 

 The consent order requires Kingston to make various amendments to its zoning ordinance.

3rd Circuit Hears Arguments in Yeshiva's Zoning Dispute

Last Thursday, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio and transcript of full oral arguments) in Anash, Inc. v. Borough of Kingston, (3d Cir., argued 1/22/2026). In the case, a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to an Orthodox Jewish Yeshiva whose property was condemned.  The Borough of Kingston contended that the property was being used for a school and dormitory in violation of zoning ordinances. The district court concluded that plaintiff was not suffering irreparable harm, and that it was not likely that plaintiff would succeed on the merits of its challenge to the relevant zoning ordinance. (See prior posting.)  On appeal, the Yeshiva claimed violations of RLUIPA and of the due process clause.

Certiorari Denied in Chabad's Suit Against the Russian Federation

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Agudas Chasidei Chabad v. Russian Federation, (Sup. Ct., Docket No. 24-909, certiorari denied 1/20/2026) (Order List). The case is part of the long-running attempt by Chasidei Chabad of the United States to force Russia to return two collections of valuable Jewish religious books and manuscripts which it expropriated decades ago. In 2010, Chabad obtained a default judgment against the Russian Federation. (See prior posting.) In 2013, the D.C. federal district court held the Russian Federation in contempt for failing to comply with the order to return the books and imposed $50,000 per day sanctions on the Russian Federation. (See prior posting.) Those sanctions have now accrued to over $175 million. Most recently, Chabad has attempted to collect these amounts by attaching the property of three companies it claims are owned and controlled by the Russian Federation. In a 2024 opinion (full text), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Russian Federation had sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act so that the default judgment entered in 2010 was invalid. Without a valid judgement, according to the D.C. Circuit "there is no predicate for Chabad to attach the property of companies the Federation allegedly owns and controls." It is this decision that the Supreme Court today refused to review.

This may not end the case, however, because the D.C. Circuit said that it was not reversing the district court's finding of jurisdiction over the Russian State Library and the Russian State Military Archive which currently hold the book collections. The D.C. Circuit also said that Chabad may be able to sue the Russian Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications.