Kentucky Trial Court Holds Definition of "Human Being" In Abortion Statute Is Void for Vagueness

In Sobel v. Coleman, (KY Cir. Ct., May 1, 2026), a Kentucky state trial court issued a declaratory judgment holding that the definition of "human being" in the Kentucky abortion statute is void for vagueness.  The suit was brought by a Jewish woman who wants to become pregnant through the transfer one of nine embryos created during previous IVF treatment. She contends that the statutory definition of "human being" as any member of the species homo sapiens from fertilization to childbirth creates uncertainty as to whether she could be prosecuted over the subsequent disposal of unused embryos.

While Kentucky’s Fetal Homicide Statute expressly exempts persons participating in IVF treatments from prosecution, the state's general homicide law contains no such exception. The trial court said that reliance on a 2004 Kentucky Supreme Court case that found that the definition of "human being" in one Kentucky law could not be applied to the general homicide statute is unwarranted because that opinion was rooted in a discussion of "viability" as used in Roe v. Wade.

The trial court went on to say:

Kentucky is one of many states in our nation grappling with questions of reconciling post-Dobbs abortion restrictions with accessibility to IVF processes.  However, whereas other states have addressed this legitimate concern through legislative action, our Commonwealth has attempted to address this concern merely through the procurement of non-binding Attorney General Opinions....

As reflected in the ... Attorney General’s non-binding advisory opinion, a prosecutor today may read the statute as clearly providing no such avenue for the prosecution of Ms. Kalb for her involvement in IVF processes.  However, Ms. Kalb and others seeking to expand their families through IVF procedures have no binding assurance against the possibility that a prosecutor tomorrow interprets the statute differently and uses it as the basis for a prosecution.   

The trial court however rejected a second claim by plaintiff that Kentucky's abortion laws violate the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court said in part:

Plaintiff argues that the first commandment of her Jewish faith instructs her to “be fruitful and multiply”.   Plaintiff wishes to honor this commandment through the use of IVF. Plaintiff argues that the HLPA, which currently provides no specific exemption for IVF and which defines human life as beginning at the moment of conception, places an unconstitutional burden upon her ability to honor her religious commandments through IVF processes....

 ... Plaintiff is a woman of Jewish faith and to be fruitful and multiply is the first commandment in the Torah, the foundational text of Judaism.  Be fruitful and multiply is also a foundational principle for Christians as articulated in Genesis 1:28 and often referred to as the “creation mandate”.  Similar commandments or mandates are present in the holy texts of other religions including Islam and Hindu....

However, the Court does not believe that the HLPA unconstitutionally burdens Ms. Kalb from exercising her religious beliefs any more than it burdens followers of Christianity, Islam or Hindu from exercising their religious beliefs.  Thus, any burden created by the HLPA is a religiously neutral, general burden upon virtually any Kentuckian of faith seeking to participate in IVF.  The United States Supreme Court has effectively held that a government act that places a neutral and generally applicable burden upon individuals of differing religious beliefs is constitutionally permissible....

Louisville Public Media reports on the decision.

T-Shirt Slogans Were Not the Exercise of Religion

In Spihes v. Smith, (D KS, April 29, 2026), a Kansas federal district court dismissed most of the claims brought by a Christian citizen journalist and activist challenging his removal from several demonstrations at the Kansas Capitol Statehouse grounds because of the slogans on shirts he was wearing. He also challenged a new policy on use of the Capitol grounds that has been promulgated by the Kansas Department of Administration.

The court dismissed plaintiff's claim that his removal from two events violated his rights under the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act. The court said in part:

The complaint alleges Plaintiff was wearing a t-shirt that said “Rolling with Jesus and my AK” to each of the events.... Further, at the March 28, 2025, event Plaintiff carried a sign that said, “Bet these pussies won’t blaspheme Islam next.”  ...  At the June 14, 2025, event, Plaintiff carried a sign that read “Illegals Drain American Resources” and “Deport Feminist Bitches First then Illegals.”...

Signs about immigration policy, much like signs about environmentalism, are not religious expressions.  Additionally, Plaintiff’s sign at the March 28, 2025, event, despite referencing Islam, is not religious exercise either, as it is merely a sign designed to score a political point about how society approaches a religion.  Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this is an exercise of his religion.  

Finally, Plaintiff’s shirt that states he is “Rolling with Jesus and [his] AK” is similarly just a statement about a religion, not the exercise of a religion....

The court also dismissed plaintiff's claim that the new policy on use of the Capitol grounds violates plaintiff's free exercise rights. The court said in part:

Plaintiff claims that the new Capitol Use Policy “requires Dr. Spiehs to impose no limitations or restrictions to participants in his permitted event based upon ‘sexual orientation, gender identity, or genetic information.’” ...  Plaintiff argues that this policy would force him to “use or employ people who are not his coreligionists: those who do not share, and who behave in ways antithetical to, his Christian beliefs and messaging.”... While Plaintiff does not object to having the “identified categories of individuals” present, he complains that the wording of the policy, specifically the use of the word “participate”, prevents him from limiting his usage of “vendors, staff, or volunteers” based upon their sexual orientation... Plaintiff explains that allowing “transgender, LGBTQ, or feminist” individuals to participate in his event would violate his religious convictions.....  

The law before the court is one that is neutral and generally applicable.  The post-July 1st Capitol Use Policy does not “facially target religion” nor is it “established for the purpose of targeting religion” and therefore does not trigger strict scrutiny....  The court does not view the word “participation”, as used in the policy, as imposing a requirement to hire individuals to whom Plaintiff has a religious objection.

The court allowed plaintiff to move ahead only on a 4th Amendment claim and a narrow free speech claim. 

Apache Stronghold Sues Again to Prevent Transfer of Religious Site to Copper Mining Company

Last week, another suit was filed by the Native American organization, Apache Stronghold, challenging the transfer of 2500 acres of National Forest land that includes an Apache ceremonial religious ground to Resolution Copper Mining LLC. The complaint (full text), filed in an Arizona federal district court, in Apache Stronghold v. United States, (D AZ, filed 4/22/2026), alleges in part:

3. The government admits the mine will destroy Oak Flat and that the Apaches will never again be able to access the site or perform sacred rituals there. The government also admits that it has ample alternative sources of copper, and that the copper beneath Oak Flat could be mined without disturbing Oak Flat’s surface. Yet the government declined to utilize these alternatives, or even consider them, because the mining company said they would reduce its profits. Thus, the government has authorized the complete physical destruction of an irreplaceable sacred site solely to increase the profits of a foreign-owned mining company. 

4. This wanton, intentional, and needless destruction of Oak Flat violates multiple federal statutes, the U.S. Constitution, the 1852 Treaty of Santa Fe between the U.S. and Apaches, and the nation’s fiduciary duties to Western Apaches. Accordingly, this lawsuit seeks a declaration that the government’s actions are unlawful and an injunction preventing the destruction of Oak Flat and protecting the Apaches’ right to continue accessing and worshipping at Oak Flat. 

In 2024, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc affirmed by a vote of 6-5 the denial of a preliminary injunction against the land transfer sought by Apache Stronghold. (See prior posting). The Supreme Court, over the dissent of two justices, denied review. (See prior posting).  Also, last month the 9th Circuit in a suit brought by different plaintiffs again rejected challenges to the land transfer (see prior posting) and the Supreme Court denied petitioners' application for an injunction pending appeal.

In a press release, Becket Fund, which represents Apache Stronghold, explained the new lawsuit in part as follows:

After the Supreme Court’s denial, Apache Stronghold’s case returned to the lower courts, while three other emergency appeals were still pending to protect Oak Flat. But before those appeals could be resolved, the government earlier this year illegally transferred the sacred site overnight, moving Resolution Copper one step closer to permanently destroying Oak Flat. Apache Stronghold is now back in district court seeking to reverse that illegal transfer before Oak Flat is destroyed forever.

Extra Airport Screening from Placement on Selectee List Does Not Violate Religious Freedom

In Maniar v. Noem, (D DC, April 1, 2026), a D.C. federal district court dismissed a suit brought by plaintiffs, husband and wife, who are U.S. citizens of Pakistani national origin, and are practicing Muslims. Plaintiffs were originally placed on the federal government's no-fly list. They were subsequently removed from it but remain in the Terrorist Screening Data Set and the Selectee List subset. They allege that the difficulties they have encountered in their air travel violate their due process and religious exercise rights. The court said in part:

... Ms. Shaikh has failed to allege any burden to her air travel beyond having to obtain her boarding pass from a ticketing agent and the boarding pass being designated for secondary screening.... Compared to delays faced by everyday air travelers, ... Ms. Shaikh’s allegations are mere inconveniences....

As to Mr. Maniar’s travel experience, Defendants argue that the bulk of his allegations stem from actions of foreign agents, and “the actions taken by [other countries] are not redressable by this Court.”...

Moreover, Plaintiffs alleged status on the Selectee List does not affect their ability to travel within the United States by any other mode of transportation....

Plaintiffs allege that because of the treatment that Mr. Maniar was subject to in Pakistan, he and his wife are concerned that they will be subject to similar treatment if they were to attempt to travel internationally to fulfill their religious obligations.... 

... Plaintiffs cite no authority to support their argument that a fear of traveling violates their right to religious expression. Thus, for the same reasons that Plaintiffs failed to allege a deprivation of their right to travel, they have failed to allege any deprivation of their right to practice their religion freely....

Here, Plaintiffs’ claim is premised on the assertion that they will be unable to travel to complete Hajj. However, ... Plaintiffs have failed to allege that their status on the Selectee List has resulted in significant, frequent travel delays, let alone an inability to travel at all....

... Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts supporting the claim that their freedom of movement is burdened, much less substantially burdened.... Since they have failed to do so, they have failed to plausibly allege a violation of the RFRA....

Military Rule Barring Political Speech While in Uniform Did Not Violate Reservists Free Exercise Rights Under RFRA

In Yarbrough v. Saltzman, (D DC, April 3, 2026), a D.C. federal district court dismissed a claim by a major in the Air Force Reserve that his religious freedom rights under RFRA were violated when he was issued a letter of admonishment for statements he made while speaking at a celebration for a friend's retirement from the military. The court said in part:

At the event, held aboard the Battleship Missouri Memorial, Yarbrough delivered a speech while in his Air Force uniform that called on the audience to resist a “radical political faction” within the military who were fostering a culture of “incompetence and cowardice” among the ranks by requiring that service members undergo mandatory anti-extremism training....

Yarbrough argues that Saltzman substantially burdened his religious exercise by preventing him from carrying out his religious duty to “speak truth.” ... This Court disagrees....

The appropriate inquiry must be trained on the “nexus between religious practice and religious tenet”: whether the regulation meaningfully forecloses individuals’ opportunities to vindicate their religious conviction....  Thus, the question in this case is whether the letter of admonishment placed Yarbrough in such a position.   It did not.  A government action does not substantially burden religious beliefs when it merely forecloses one of a “multitude of means” at the plaintiff’s disposal to satisfy that obligation....

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

9th Circuit Again Upholds Transfer of Apache Religious Site to Copper Company

In Arizona Mining Reform Coalition v. U.S. Forest Service, (9th Cir., March 13, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals once again upheld the transfer of 2500 acres of National Forest land that includes Apache ceremonial religious ground to Resolution Copper Mining LLC. The land, for which Resolution Copper will transfer 5000 acres of land located elsewhere, contains nearly 2 billion metric tons of copper. The San Carlos Apache Tribe claimed that the transfer violates their free exercise rights protected by the 1st Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The 9th Circuit, sitting en banc, had previously rejected similar claims brought by Apache Stronghold, a non-profit organization representing the interests of certain members of the Tribe. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs in the current litigation unsuccessfully attempted to discredit the continuing viability of that prior decision.  The court said in part:

... [T]he Lopez Plaintiffs ... argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor ... abrogated Apache Stronghold by clarifying the meaning of a “religious burden.”  In their view, Mahmoud stands for the proposition that the court must determine if “looking to ‘the specific religious beliefs and practices asserted,’ the challenged government actions pose an ‘objective danger,’ or ‘very real threat’ to the claimant’s religious exercise, thus ‘substantially interfer[ing]’ with it.”... By contrast, the Lopez Plaintiffs argue, the Apache Stronghold majority rejected an inquiry into the relative objective or subjective nature of an asserted interference with religious practice in favor of an inquiry focused on coercion.   

But this view of Mahmoud does not survive scrutiny.  As an initial matter, the Supreme Court itself declined to rehear its denial of certiorari in Apache Stronghold... Regardless, the Lopez Plaintiffs misrepresent the thrust of Mahmoud by selectively quoting from it.  Their focus on the “objective danger” language ignores that Mahmoud centers on (1) the education context and (2) policies that directly coerce or indirectly compel behavior at odds with individual religious beliefs or practices, not involving the disposition of government property....

 ... We nonetheless recognize that this land transfer will fundamentally alter the nature of the land, including destruction of those sites sacred to the Tribe, the Lopez Plaintiffs, and similarly situated Native individuals.  Despite those grave harms to Native religious practice, Congress has chosen to transfer this land, and Plaintiffs have not raised any viable challenges to that decision....

UPDATE: On March 19, Justice Kagan denied petitioners' application for an injunction pending appeal. The petition, pleadings and ruling are available from the Supreme Court's website here.

UPDATE: The 9th Circuit filed an amended opinion on April 8, still denying a preliminary injunction to block the land exchange.

Indiana Trial Court Permanently Enjoins Enforcement of Abortion Ban Against Women with Conflicting Religious Beliefs

In Anonymous Plaintiff 1 v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, (Super. Ct., March 5, 2026), an Indiana state trial court, invoking Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, issued a permanent injunction barring enforcement of Indiana's abortion ban against individuals whose religious exercise would be substantially burdened by the ban. A state appellate court had already decided that plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction. (See prior posting.) In granting the permanent injunction, the trial court said in part:

The Abortion Law would allow a plaintiff to seek an abortion if her pregnancy were the result of rape, but not if it were mandated by her religious beliefs. The State has not justified this differential treatment by establishing that its interest in the same prenatal life changes based upon the reason for terminating a pregnancy. The fact that the Abortion Law expressly allows for abortion in other circumstances, in at least one circumstance at any gestational age, demonstrates the lack of a compelling interest in “protecting life” under all circumstances and from fertilization. Id.

Moreover, “the [Indiana] General Assembly has declined to explicitly define human beings to include zygotes, embryos, or all fetuses.” Id. (code citations omitted). The Abortion Law specifically exempts from its coverage in vitro fertilization procedures—a process that results in post-fertilization embryos, even though “there is the potential for life that might be destroyed in the process of this procedure.” ... “That broad exemption suggests any compelling interest by the State is absent at fertilization.” Id.

The State has not satisfied its burden under RFRA to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest in enforcing the Abortion Law against sincere religious practice, either in general or as to the plaintiffs.

... The State may prefer the statute’s existing “secular” exceptions to religious ones, but it cannot escape the fact that the law is underinclusive.... Given that the statute is underinclusive, the State bears the burden of “adequately explain[ing] its differential treatment.” Id. It has not.

The court would suggest that the State has already found ways to accommodate competing interests by putting parameters on the exceptions. There is no reason that the same accommodations could not be made with the conflict with RFRA. An outright ban is simply not the least-restrictive mean.

ReligiousLiberty.tv comments on the decision.

UPDATE: Indiana Capital Chronicle reports that the Attorney General has appealed the ruling.

Clergy Seek Access To ICE Detainees

Suit was filed this week in a Minnesota federal district court by Evangelical Lutheran and United Church of Christ organizations and by a Catholic priest seeking access to a federal building in Minneapolis that houses individuals held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel. The complaint (full text) in Minneapolis Area Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (D MN, filed 2/23/2026) alleges in part:

The Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building ... now stands in stark contrast to its namesake’s legacy. The federal government is using the building to hold Minnesotans detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) while barring faith leaders from offering prayer, pastoral guidance, sacramental ministry, and spiritual comfort to detainees in moments of profound fear, isolation, and despair. By prohibiting faith leaders from providing essential pastoral care to individuals in ICE detention, the federal government unconstitutionally obstructs their sacred obligation to exercise their faith through ministry to community members in the greatest need of spiritual comfort....

Defendants’ policies and practices unreasonably burden Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion in violation of the First Amendment and the broad protections under RFRA.

[Thanks to Heather E. Kimmel for the lead.]

Supreme Court Denies Review of RFRA Claims by Military Who Refused Covid Vaccine

The Supreme Court yesterday denied certiorari in Doster v. Meink, (Docket No.25-446, cert. denied 2/23/2026) and Poffenbarger v. Meink, (Docket No. 25-448, cert. denied 2/23/2026). (Order List.) Both cases involve Air Force members who on religious grounds refused to comply with the military's Covid vaccine mandate. In Doster, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed RFRA claims by 18 members of the Air Force as moot. (Full text of opinion.) In Poffenberger, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a claim under RFRA for compensatory relief on sovereign immunity grounds. (Full text of opinion). Military Times reports on the Supreme Court's action.

New ICE Policy Allowing Enforcement Operations at Churches Violates RFRA

 In New England Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. Department of Homeland Security, (D MA, Feb. 13, 2026), a Massachusetts federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring immigration officials from enforcing a new policy on enforcement operations at churches. The new policy allows ICE agents to conduct arrests, searches, or interrogations in or near churches and other houses of worship at the agents' own discretion. It replaces a 2021 Policy that allowed enforcement actions near churches only in exigent circumstances or with prior approval from Agency headquarters. The court concluded that the new policy violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The court first concluded that some, but not all, of the 11 Christian church organizations that brought suit have standing because only they demonstrated injuries of decreased attendance at worship services or at social ministries or financial consequences. In deciding to issue a preliminary injunction, the court said in part:

The prospect that a street-level law-enforcement agent—acting without a judicial warrant and with little or no supervisory control—could conduct a raid during a church service, or lie in wait to interrogate or seize congregants as they seek to enter a church, is profoundly troubling.  Indeed, according to the new policy, agents could conduct a raid, with weapons drawn, at any type of church proceeding—including a regular Sunday service, a wedding, a baptism, a christening, or a funeral—subject only to the exercise of their “discretion” and “common sense.”   

It hardly requires mentioning that freedom of religion is both a core American value and a basic liberty protected by the First Amendment and laws of the United States.  That freedom encompasses not merely the freedom to believe, but the freedom to worship, including the freedom to attend church and to participate in sacraments, rituals, and ceremonies.  If government interference with those freedoms is ever justifiable, it is only in relatively extreme circumstances, such as an immediate threat to public safety.  The routine enforcement of the immigration laws does not involve such a threat, and cannot justify the harm to religious freedom posed by the new policy.   

It is of course true that the presence of millions of illegal immigrants within the borders of the United States justifies a substantial government response.  But the need to address that problem cannot override the fundamental liberties on which our nation was founded....

In one important respect, the preliminary injunction is broader than the 2021 Policy.... The preliminary injunction issued by the Court will permit such operations only in exigent circumstances, regardless of supervisory approval.  The Court can conceive of no circumstance, outside of a true emergency, in which a law-enforcement operation to enforce the immigration laws inside a church would be justifiable under the First Amendment and RFRA. 

The preliminary injunction is also narrower than the 2021 Policy, in that it applies only to the plaintiffs in this case who have standing, and not nationwide....  The preliminary injunction will also, as noted, exempt immigration-enforcement actions taken pursuant to an administrative warrant or judicial warrant.

Democracy Forward issued a press release announcing the decision and linking to the original complaint filed in the case.

Court Orders Access for Clergy to ICE Facility on Ash Wednesday

In Coalition for Spiritual and Public Leadership v. Noem, (ND IL, Feb. 12, 2026), an Illinois federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring federal immigration authorities to allow plaintiffs, Catholic clergy, access on Ash Wednesday (Feb. 18) to the ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois. The court agreed that denial of access likely substantially burdens plaintiffs' religious exercise in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs argue that prayer and ministry to the migrants and detainees at Broadview is an important religious practice.  Defendants concede that “ministering to vulnerable Catholic immigrants is part of [plaintiffs’] religious exercise,” but argue that doing so at Broadview “is itself not essential to the practice.”  RFRA requires a court to analyze if a government practice substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion, not whether the religious practice burdened is “essential.”

The Hill reports on the decision.

RFRA Defense to Indictment of Church Leader for Distributing Ayahuasca Fails

In United States v. Codi, (ND AL, Feb. 2, 2026), an Alabama federal district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss a criminal indictment charging her with possession of a controlled substance with an intent to distribute and with conspiracy. Defendant operated a website on behalf of her church, the "Temple of Umi", which sponsored ayahuasca retreats. Defendant claimed that the indictment violated her rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Equal Protection clause. The court said in part:

... [T]he parties stipulated that the court could - for the purposes of the hearing - assume without deciding that Defendant is able to establish a prima facie case under RFRA. As such, the only issues left to be decided at this stage based on the hearing testimony were (1) whether the government had a compelling governmental interest in enforcing the Controlled Substances Act against Defendant and (2) whether the criminal prosecution of Defendant was the least restrictive means of achieving that interest....

... Defendant had been offered a plea agreement which would allow for pre-trial diversion and tolling of the Speedy Trial Act so long as she took the steps to obtain permission to legally handle DMT - either by filing a lawsuit or applying for a DEA exemption.... Defendant had been given that offer as recently as a week before the hearing and rejected the offer each time it was presented.  The Government argues this shows that prosecution is the least restrictive means necessary because Defendant was provided with a reasonable, less restrictive alternative, but rejected it....

... The Government has shown there is a compelling interest in preventing the diversion of DMT to secular users because, based on the evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing, there is a realistic probability and historical evidence of such diversion....

The Government presented evidence ... that the Temple of Umi is a business open to the public, with a nominal sign-up process. There was also evidence that emphasizes the non-religious benefits of ayahuasca and ayahuasca ceremonies put on by the Temple. In addition, the Government presented evidence that participants in the ayahuasca consumption ceremonies are not screened for their religious beliefs and thus it is easy for secular participants to obtain DMT at these ceremonies....

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

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

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

7th Circuit: Satanic Temple Lacks Standing to Challenge Indiana's Ban on Telehealth Abortion [CORRECTED]

 In Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Rokita, (7th Cir., Jan. 6, 2026), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that The Satanic Temple lacks standing to bring suit claiming that Indiana's ban on telehealth prescribing of abortion medications violates Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Satanic Temple's beliefs are described by the court:

Members of the Satanic Temple adhere to Seven Tenets.... Tenet III establishes the belief that one’s body is inviolable and subject to one’s own will alone.  Another, Tenet V, establishes that individual beliefs should conform to an individual’s “best scientific understanding of the world” and that each person “should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s own belief.” The Satanic Temple says these Tenets support what it calls the “Satanic Abortion Ritual,” a meditative ritual intended to “cast off notions of guilt, shame, and mental discomfort that a patient may be experiencing due to choosing to have a medically safe and legal abortion.”...

The court concluded that The Satanic Temple had not show any injury in fact to it or any of its members, saying in part: 

Instead of identifying an individual member who has suffered an injury, the Satanic Temple relies on statistical probability to show it has some unnamed members who might be injured....

... [W]e are left with a simple estimate of women who may be involuntarily pregnant, and there is no evidence that any one of them would want to obtain an abortion. Simply put, missing here is evidence that any member of the Satanic Temple has “personally … suffered some actual or threatened injury.”...

As a backstop argument, the Satanic Temple claims “Indiana[’s] Abortion Ban” has caused all of its members to “suffer the stigma of being evil people because they do not believe a human being comes into existence at conception nor do they believe abortion is homicide.” ...  But, other than merely saying so, the Satanic Temple provides no evidence that its members have actually suffered stigmatic injury. ...

The Satanic Temple argues the threat of prosecution ... “if” it prescribes abortifacients via telehealth appointments in Indiana is enough to show an injury to support its pre-enforcement challenge. There is no evidence, however, that the Satanic Temple will knowingly or intentionally prescribe abortifacients in violation of § 16-34-2-1 to face the prospect of prosecution. Indeed, it has not provided affidavits, declarations, or other evidence describing any specific, concrete plans of doing so.

Catholic Vote reports on the decision.

[Post was corrected to indicate that the decision was from the 7th Circuit, not the 6th Circuit.]

RFRA Challenge to Connecticut Removal of Religious Exemption from School Vaccines Survives

In We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. State of Connecticut Department of Education, (CT Super, Dec. 16, 2025), a Connecticut state trial court dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds a number of state constitutional and statutory challenges to Connecticut's removal of religious exemptions from its school vaccination requirements. The court dismissed plaintiffs' free exercise, equal protection, right to education, substantive due process, and right to equal educational opportunity claims. However, the court held that the waiver of sovereign immunity in Connecticut's Religious Freedom Law allows a challenge under that statute to move forward.

7th Circuit: Plaintiff Must Allege More Than Conclusory Statements of Religious Belief to Get Religious Exemption

In Troogstad v. City of Chicago, (7th Cir., Dec. 9, 2025), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of free exercise claims by a Chicago Fire Department employee who was denied a religious exemption from the city's Covid-19 vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Troogstad alleges “the gene-altering aspect of mRNA vaccinations violates his beliefs as a Christian.” But he failed to allege facts about how taking the vaccine violated his religious beliefs. He misses that step....

.... While the pleading of a violation of the Free Exercise Clause need not be overly exacting, in numerous rounds of pleading ... Troogstad did not move beyond conclusory statements. A complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations; mere conclusions generally will not suffice.... Troogstad’s failure to allege facts about how his religious beliefs as a Christian conflict with the vaccine requirement—after numerous opportunities to satisfy this pleading standard—dooms his Free Exercise claim.

For the same reason, the court upheld the dismissal of plaintiff's claim under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

West Virginia Supreme Court, Pending Appeal, Reinstates No-Religious-Exemption to School Vaccine Mandate

As previously reported, last month a West Virginia trial court held that the state's Equal Protection of Religion Law requires schools to allow children with religious objections to vaccinations to attend school even though the state's Compulsory Vaccination Law provides only for medical exemptions. This week, in State of West Virginia ex rel. West Virginia Board of Education v. Froble, (WV Sup. Ct., Dec. 2, 2025), the West Virginia Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the trial court's Order pending resolution of a petition for a writ of prohibition that has been filed with the Supreme Court. Immediately following the Supreme Court's Order, the state Board of Education issued a Statement (full text) reinstating its directive to county school boards advising them not to grant religious exemptions to the state's compulsory vaccination laws.

AP reports on these developments. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

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

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

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

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

West Virginia Court Says Schools Must Allow Religious Exemptions From Vaccination Requirements

In Guzman v. West Virginia Board of Education, (WV Cir. Ct., Nov. 26, 2025), a West Virginia state trial court, in a 75-page opinion, held that the state's Equal Protection of Religion Law enacted in 2023 requires schools to allow children with religious objections to vaccinations to attend school even though the state's Compulsory Vaccination Law (CVL) provides only for medical exemptions. In 2025, the Governor issued an Executive Order instructing the Health Department to create a religious exemption process. However, schools, pursuant to a policy adopted by the State Board of Education, refuse to recognize religious exemption certificates issued by the Health Department. The court said in part:

Collectively, the Court finds the aggregation of individual behaviors the government permits..., to include without limitation, medical exemptions; students who are permitted to attend school on a daily basis while willfully out of compliance with the CVL; teachers, coaches, and staff who are not subject to the CVL; the learning pod, homeschool, and microschool option for unvaccinated children; and members of the general public who have not received vaccines required under the law but who regularly intermingle on school campuses and mass gatherings throughout the State—pose a greater threat to West Virginia’s claimed goals than would permitting Plaintiffs ’children to attend school with a religious exemption. 

These other activities “produc[e] substantial harm” to the protection of the health and safety of the public, which Defendants assert is their compelling interest....

Considering these factors, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that “the protection of the health and safety of the public” will be undermined in any material way by granting religious exemptions, particularly given the bevy of comparable activity that the state permits. Thus, the Court determines that requiring these children to be vaccinated is not “essential”—within the meaning of W. Va. Code § 35-1A-1(a)(1)—“to further a compelling governmental interest,” with that interest here being the protection of the health and safety of the public....

Having considered the full record before it, the Court also concludes that Defendants have failed to satisfy the least restrictive means test....

Defendants cannot satisfy this standard given that forty-five states with a religious exemption process deploy a variety of alternative tactics, such as quarantine in the event of an outbreak, temporary exclusion from school, and other measures to effectively control vaccine preventable diseases while simultaneously respecting religious freedoms....

West Virginia Watch reports on the decision.

Catholic Clergy Sue for Access to ICE Detention Facility

 A religious advocacy organization, its director, 3 priests, and a sister filed suit this week against immigration officials alleging that their free exercise rights were infringed by ICE agents who barred them from entering an Illinois ICE detention center to pray and give holy Communion to detainees. The complaint (full text) in Coalition for Spiritual and Public Leadership v. Noem, (ND IL, filed 11/19/2025), alleges in part:

60. The intimidation of the religious persons, Catholic, Protestant, and of other faith traditions, has denied them their religious right to practice their faith. Until the intimidation began, Catholic clergy had been “allowed” to pray and administer Holy Communion to detainees. The refusal of ICE officials to allow clergy and laypersons to bring the Most Blessed Sacrament to fellow Catholics housed in the facility is an arbitrary decision by ICE. Heretofore, ICE has allowed religious services, including the distribution of Holy Communion. A non-specific reference to safety and security is not sufficient to deny the rights of Catholic clergy and laypersons, or persons of any other denomination or religion, to practice their faith, especially as others have been allowed to do so at the ICE facility in Broadview since it became an immigration-related facility in 2006....

66. Defendants’ policies and practices have unreasonably burdened the Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion in violation of the First Amendment and the broad protections under the RFRA, without any showing that those policies and practices advance a compelling government interest, or that if such a compelling interest even exists, it would be the least restrictive means available for doing so....

81. Defendants’ policies and practices have burdened the Detainee’s free exercise of religion under the First Amendment and in violation of the RLUIPA....

The Coalition issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.