Supreme Court Grants 1-Week Administrative Stay of 5th Circuit's Abortion Drug Decision

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito this morning granted an administrative stay until 5:00 PM on May 11th in Danco Laboratories, L.L.C. v. State of Louisiana (full text of Order) and in Genbiopro, Inc. v. State of Louisiana (full text of Order). Justice Alito is responsible for receiving Emergency Petitions from the 3rd and 5th Circuits. The administrative stay of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal's May 1 decision (see prior posting) means that mail order delivery of the abortion drug mifepristone can continue at least temporarily. A response to the pharmaceutical companies' petition for a longer stay of the 5th Circuit's decision must be filed by Louisiana by 5:00 PM on May 7. CNN reports on today's action by Justice Alito.

Mifepristone Makers Ask Supreme Court to Stay 5th Circuit's Ruling Ending Mail-Order Delivery of Abortion Drug

As previously reported, last Friday the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal of the FDA's 2023 ruling that removed the requirement that the abortion drug mifepristone be prescribed only after an in-person visit with a doctor. The FDA ruling permitted out-of-state doctors to prescribe mifepristone which then could be delivered by mail. Within one day of the 5th Circuit's ruling, two pharmaceutical manufacturers that had intervened as defendants in the case in the lower courts filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to stay the 5th Circuit's ruling while appeals continue. Alternatively, they seek immediate Supreme Court review. They also ask for an immediate administrative stay of the 5th Circuit's judgement while the Supreme Court is considering their petition. 

The 56-page petition (full text) in Danco Laboratories, L.L.C. v. State of Louisiana, Ct. filed 5/2/2026) contends in part that Louisiana lacks standing to challenge the FDA ruling and that the 5th Circuit's judgment "injects immediate confusion and upheaval into highly time-sensitive medical decisions."

SCOTUSblog reports on the case and traces much of the background to the present filing.

Supreme Court: Pregnancy Resource Center Has Standing to Challenge Subpoena for Donor Records

The Supreme Court today in First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, (Sup. Ct., April 29, 2026), held that First Choice, a religious anti-abortion pregnancy counseling center, has Article III standing to challenge a subpoena from the New Jersey Attorney General. The subpoena sought the names, addresses, phone numbers and places of employment of individuals who made donations to the center so that the state could contact a sample of donors to determine if they had been misled into thinking that the center provided abortions. New Jersey contended that the subpoena did not chill First Choice's associational rights. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, the Supreme Court disagreed, saying in part:

Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General’s.  Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights.  Disputing none of these precedents but seeking ways around them, the Attorney General has offered a variety of arguments.  Some are old, some are new, but none succeeds....

Christian Post reported on the decision.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today in Falun Gong Practitioners' Alien Tort Statute Suit

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I. In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Falun Gong victims of human rights abuses carried out by China can move ahead with claims against Cisco Systems and its executives for their assistance that enabled China to carry out monitoring of Internet activity by Falun Gong members. (See prior posting.)  The Supreme Court's grant of review was limited to the questions of whether the Alien Tort Statute and/or the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.

All pleadings and briefs in the case are available from the Docket sheet on the Supreme Court's website. Audio of the oral arguments will be streamed live here by the Court beginning at 10:00 A.M. A recording and a written transcript of the arguments will be posted by the Court here later today. SCOTUSblog has a preview of today's arguments.

UPDATE: Links to audio and a written transcript of the oral arguments can be found here. The New York Times, reporting on the oral arguments, said in part: "A majority of the Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared skeptical of a lawsuit by Falun Gong members who claim that an American tech company helped the Chinese government to target them for torture."

Cert. Petition Filed in Covid Religious Exemption Case

A petition for certiorari (full text) has been filed in Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue, (Sup. Ct., filed 4/16/2026). In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by eight firefighters that the Snohomish fire department violated Title VII and Washington state law by refusing to accommodate their requests for religious exemptions from the state's Covid vaccine mandate for all healthcare providers. (See prior posting.) The petition seeking Supreme Court review frames the Question Presented as follows:

Whether an employer can defeat a Title VII religious accommodation claim by establishing merely that it had a reasonable basis for believing that a requested accommodation would inflict an undue hardship on the employer or whether the employer must establish that the requested accommodation would have actually imposed an undue hardship.

The Center Square reports on the filing.

Certiorari Denied in Challenge to School Policy on Gender Transitioning Students

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, (Docket No. 25-77, certiorari denied 4/20/2026). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals held that petitioners' parental rights protected by the 14th Amendment were not infringed by a school Protocol requiring staff to use a student's requested name and gender pronouns in school without notifying parents of the request unless the student consents. Parents' objections to the policy were not religious, but were moral and scientific. Reuters reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Supreme Court Grants Review on When Religious Schools Can Be Excluded from General State Programs

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning granted certiorari in St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton v. Roy, (Docket No. 25-581, cert. granted 4/20/2026). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the nondiscrimination requirements of Colorado's Universal Preschool Program do not violate the free exercise or expressive association rights of Catholic schools that are excluded from the program because they insist on considering the sexual orientation and gender identity of a student and their parents in making decisions on who will be admitted. (See prior posting.) In granting review, the Court limited it grant to Questions 1 and 2 in the petition for certiorari:

1. Whether proving a lack of general applicability under Employment Division v. Smith requires showing unfettered discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct.

2. Whether Carson v. Makin displaces the rule of Employment Division v. Smith only when the government explicitly excludes religious people and institutions.

It excluded from the grant petitioner's third question:

3. Whether Employment Division v. Smith should be overruled.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Most Applications of Conversion Therapy Ban

In Chiles v. Salazar, (Sup.Ct., March 31, 2026), the U.S. Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision struck down most applications of Colorado's law that prohibits licensed counselors from engaging in conversion therapy for minors, defined as therapy that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Justice Gorsuch, joined by all but Justice Jackson, wrote the majority opinion which says in part:

The State insists, and the Tenth Circuit agreed, that its law does not “regulate expression” at all, only “conduct,” “treatment,” or a “therapeutic modality.”...  As a result, Colorado reasons, its law triggers no more than rational-basis or intermediate scrutiny review.... But the State’s premise is simply mistaken.  In many applications, the State’s law banning “conversion therapy” may address conduct—such as aversive physical interventions.  But here, Ms. Chiles seeks to engage only in speech, and as applied to her the law regulates what she may say.  Her speech does not become conduct just because the State may call it that. Nor does her speech become conduct just because it can also be described as a “treatment,” a “therapeutic modality,” or anything else. The First Amendment is no word game. And the rights it protects cannot be renamed away or their protections nullified by “mere labels.”...

As applied here, Colorado’s law does not just regulate the content of Ms. Chiles’s speech.  It goes a step further, prescribing what views she may and may not express.  For a gay client, Ms. Chiles may express “[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for the facilitation of . . . identity exploration.” §12–245–202(3.5)(b)(I).  For a client “undergoing gender transition,” Ms. Chiles may likewise offer words of “[a]ssistance.” §12–245–202(3.5)(b)(II).  But if a gay or transgender client seeks her counsel in the hope of changing his sexual orientation or gender identity, Ms. Chiles cannot provide it....

At bottom, Colorado and the dissent fundamentally misconceive this Court’s speech-incident-to-conduct precedents. In these cases, the question is not whether a law mostly addresses conduct and only sometimes sweeps in speech. Instead, the focus lies on two entirely different questions: whether the law in question restricts speech only because it is integrally related to unlawful conduct— or ... only for reasons unrelated to its content....

Colorado’s law does not regulate speech incident to conduct under either test....

... Colorado emphasizes, [prior precedent] left open the possibility that a future party might present “persuasive evidence . . . of a long (if heretofore unrecognized) tradition” of content regulation regarding additional categories of professional (or other) speech that might likewise warrant only “diminished” First Amendment protection....

...  Colorado and the dissent ask us to recognize a cavernous “First Amendment Free Zone,”... one in which States may censor almost any speech they consider “substandard care.” It is, once more, an approach our precedents already foreclose. 

Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Sotomayor, filed a concurring opinion stating that the result might be different if a law regulating speech in doctors' and counselors' offices were content-based but viewpoint-neutral.

Justice Jackson filed a 35-page dissenting opinion saying in part:

Stated simply, the majority has failed to appreciate the crucial context in which Chiles’s constitutional claims have arisen. Chiles is not speaking in the ether; she is providing therapy to minors as a licensed healthcare professional. The Tenth Circuit was correct to observe that “[t]here is a long-established history of states regulating the healthcare professions.” ...  And, until today, the First Amendment has not blocked their way.  For good reason: Under our precedents, bedrock First Amendment principles have far less salience when the speakers are medical professionals and their treatment-related speech is being restricted incidentally to the State’s regulation of the provision of medical care....

Over the past few decades, however, the premise of conversion therapy (in whatever form) has been widely discredited within the medical and scientific community. Conversion therapy is, at bottom, “based on a view of gender diversity that runs counter to scientific consensus.”...

A state license used to mean something to the patients who entrust their care to licensed professionals—i.e., that the person is certified to be one who provides treatments that are consistent with the standard of care. 

That stops today....

The Guardian reports on the decision. ADF, which represented petitioner, issued a press release commenting on the decision.

Supreme Court Says Street Preacher May Challenge Limit on Demonstrations Despite His Prior Conviction

In Oliver v. City of Brandon, Mississippi, (Sup. Ct., March 20, 2026), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a street preacher may move ahead with his challenge to a city ordinance that limits protests and demonstrations around the city's amphitheater to a designated area when events are scheduled at the amphitheater. The city argued that because the preacher had been convicted of violating the same ordinance several years earlier, the Supreme Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars the suit. Heck prohibits the use of 42 USC §1983 to challenge a prior conviction or sentence in order to obtain release from custody or to obtain an award of damages. Today the Supreme Court held that this does not bar the street preacher's suit because he is only seeking an injunction to prevent future enforcement of the ordinance. The fact that a victory in his suit would mean that his prior conviction was unconstitutional does not mean that it is barred. Justice Kagan's opinion for a unanimous court said in part:

Olivier’s suit does not ... “collateral[ly] attack” the old conviction.....  It thus cannot give rise, as Heck feared, to “parallel litigation” respecting his prior conduct.... The suit, after all, is not about what Olivier did in the past...  Unlike in Heck, the suit merely attempts to prevent a future prosecution....

... [T]he City says, a judgment in Olivier’s favor would “necessarily imply the invalidity of [his] prior conviction[].”... To declare the city ordinance unconstitutional, as Olivier seeks, would be to imply that no one—including Olivier—should have been convicted under that law. 

The argument is a fair one, but hardly dispositive.  We have to agree that if Olivier succeeds in this suit, it would mean his prior conviction was unconstitutional.  So, strictly speaking, the Heck language fits. But that could just show that the phrasing was not quite as tailored as it should have been....

We think, with the benefit of hindsight, that ... the sentence relied on swept a bit too broad.  That language was used in Heck to identify claims that were really assaults on a prior conviction, even though involving some indirection.

Cert. Petition Filed in RLUIPA Zoning Case

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday seeking U.S. Supreme Court review in Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic. In the case, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that RLUIPA was not violated by denying a conditional use permit to a church that wished to build a grotto in Park Hills, Kentucky to honor the Virgin Mary’s appearance at a grotto in Lourdes, France. The Kentucky Supreme Court concluded that denial of a permit and variances did not impose a substantial burden on the church's religious exercise. (See prior posting.) First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Certiorari Denied in Unification Church Dispute

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International v. Moon, (Docket No. 25-634, certiorari denied 3/9/2026) (Order List). In the case, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's final dismissal of a lawsuit surrounding a long-running schism and succession dispute in the Unification Church. (See prior posting.) The Petition for Certiorari identified the Question Presented as:

Where necessary to resolve a church-property dispute, does the First Amendment prohibit courts from examining church-related facts to determine who leads the church?

Supreme Court in Shadow Docket Case Rejects California's Policy on Informing Parents of Student's Gender Transition

On Monday evening, the U.S. Supreme Court in Mirabelli v. Bonta, (Sup. Ct., March 2, 2026), barred enforcement against objecting parents of a controversial California school policy that requires student consent before disclosing to parents a student's gender transitioning in school. A California federal district court had enjoined enforcement of the policy in a challenge by parents and teachers. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, stayed the district court's injunction, thus reinstating the policy. In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court ruled for the parents.  It vacated the 9th Circuit's stay as to parents who object to the policy, but left the stay in place as to teachers. Justices Thomas and Alito would have vacated the injunction as to teachers as well. Justices Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor dissented.

The per curiam opinion says in part:

We conclude that the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim.  California’s policies likely trigger strict scrutiny under that provision because they substantially interfere with the “right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.” ...  The parents who assert a free exercise claim have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs....

The same is true for the subclass of parents who object to those policies on due process grounds.  Under long-established precedent, parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to “the upbringing and education of children.” ... The right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health....

Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

The dissent questions how the Court can adhere to parental-rights precedent after its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization..... But Dobbs calls into question neither the doctrine of substantive due process nor the other unexpressed rights that the doctrine protects....

 ... [C]ontrary to the dissent’s charge, granting interim relief is not a sign of the Court’s “impatience” to reach the merits.... Instead, the grant reflects the Court’s judgment about the risk of irreparable harm to the parents.... 

Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Jackson, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Today’s decision shows, not for the first time, how our emergency docket can malfunction.  A case raising novel legal questions and arousing strong views comes to this Court via an application about whether to stay a district court’s injunction pending appeal. The ordinary appellate process has barely started; only a district court has ruled on the case’s merits. The Court receives scant and, frankly, inadequate briefing about the legal issues in dispute.  It does not hold oral argument or deliberate in conference, as regular procedures dictate. It considers the request on a short fuse—a matter of weeks. And then the Court grants relief by means of a terse, tonally dismissive ruling designed to conclusively resolve the dispute. The Court does all this even though the application of existing law to the case raises tricky questions, and so cries out for reflection and explanation....

As to due process particularly... I have no doubt that parents have rights, even though unenumerated, concerning their children and the life choices they make..... On the other side of ledger, of course, a State has critical interests in the care and education of children.  But California’s policy, in depriving all parents of information critical to their children’s health and well-being, could have crossed the constitutional line.  And that would entitle the parents, at the end of the day, to relief. 

The Court, however, would be far better equipped to draw the appropriate line and to explain its legal basis—in short, to do law in the right way—if it had followed our ordinary processes....

Justice Sotomayor, without writing or joining an opinion, stated that she would have left the 9th Circuit's injunction in place both as to parents and teachers.

SCOTUSblog reports on the decision.

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.

Cert. Denied In Church Autonomy Case

 The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in McRaney v. North American Mission Board, (Docket No. 25-807, certiorari denied 2/23/2026). In the case, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision, held that the church autonomy doctrine bars civil courts from adjudicating tortious interference, defamation and infliction of emotional distress claims by a Baptist minister who was fired from his position as Executive Director of the Baptist Convention of Maryland/ Delaware. (See prior posting.) First Liberty Institute issued a press release commenting on the Court's action.

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.

Parents Seek Emergency Order from SCOTUS Reinstating Trial Court's Voiding of School Policy on Disclosure of Students' Gender Transition

As previously reported, last December in Mirabelli v. Bonta, a California federal district court held unconstitutional the policy of California school boards that bars public school teachers and staff from informing parents about changes in a child’s gender expression unless the child consents. On January 5, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal of the district court's injunction. Now plaintiffs in the case have filed an Emergency Application with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to vacate the 9th Circuit's stay. (Mirabelli v. Bonta, (Sup.Ct., filed 1/8/2026). (Full text of 9th Circuit's stay order and Application to Supreme Court).

Education Week reports on these developments.

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments Tomorrow In Transgender Athlete Cases

Tomorrow (Tuesday), the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases involving alleged illegal discrimination against transgender women athletes. At issue in Little v. Hecox is whether Idaho's Fairness in Women's Sports Act violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Act prohibits transgender women and girls from participating on women's sports teams in public elementary schools, high schools and public colleges. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction that barred enforcement of Idaho's ban. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the pleadings and briefs, as well as to commentary on the case.

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the question is whether West Virginia's Save Women's Sports Act violates Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that it does.  The law bans transgender girls and women from participating on girls'/ women's sports teams in public high schools or state colleges where team members are chosen on the basis of competitive skills or in contact sports. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the pleadings and briefs, as well as to commentary on the case.

Audio of the oral arguments in the cases will be streamed live by the Court beginning at 10:00 AM at this link. Transcript and recording of the oral arguments will become available later in the day at this link.

Supreme Court Grants Review of Falun Gong Members' Suit Against U.S. Company for Aiding Chinese Surveillance

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, (Sup. Ct., Docket No. 24-856. cert. granted 1/9/2026) (Order List.). In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, held that Falun Gong victims of human rights abuses carried out by China can move ahead with claims against Cisco Systems and its executives for their assistance that enabled China to carry out monitoring of Internet activity of Falun Gong members. (See prior posting.) The Supreme Court's grant of review was limited to the questions of whether the Alien Tort Statute and/or the Torture Victim Protection Act allow a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.

The SCOTUblog case page contains links to all the pleadings filed in the case. Reuters reports on the Court's action.

Supreme Court Review Sought In Church Autonomy Case

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court this week in McRaney v. North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Inc., (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 1/6/2026). In the case, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision, held that the church autonomy doctrine bars civil courts from adjudicating tortious interference, defamation and infliction of emotional distress claims by a Baptist minister who was fired from his position as Executive Director of the Baptist Convention of Maryland/ Delaware. The certiorari petition frames the Question Presented as follows:

In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit held that the “church autonomy doctrine” provides a defendant “immunity” from claims by a plaintiff who never worked for the defendant, never served as a minister for the defendant, and never submitted to the authority of the defendant with respect to any ecclesiastical or secular matter.   

The Question Presented is:  Does the church autonomy doctrine apply to, and foreclose, civil law claims which are not disputes about the internal affairs or self-governance of a religious institution?

[Thanks to Scott Gant for the lead.]

Cert. Filed In Case Challenging Religious Non-Discrimination Rule for State Grant Program

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the Supreme Court in Youth 71FiveMinistries v. Williams, (Sup. Ct., certiorari filed 1/5/2026). In the case (full text of appeals court opinion), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a rule of the Oregon Department of Education barring religious discrimination by grantees in selecting employees insofar as it applies to grant-funded programs, but not as it applies to petitioner's selection of speakers to spread its Christian message through programs that are not funded by state grants. The certiorari petition defines the questions presented by the appeal as:

1. Whether a religious organization can raise the First Amendment right to religious autonomy as an affirmative claim challenging legislative or executive action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, like other constitutional right, or whether the doctrine may only be asserted as an affirmative defense after a suit has been filed, as the Ninth Circuit held here. 

2. Whether a state violates the First Amendment by conditioning access to a public grant program on a religious organization waiving its right to employ coreligionists, including for ministerial positions.

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