Court Dismisses Claim That Microchipping Plaintiff's Dog Violated Plaintiff's Free Exercise Rights

In Stokes v. City Dogs Animal Control, (ND OH, May 12, 2026), an Ohio federal district court dismissed a pro se plaintiff's claim that his free exercise rights were infringed when his service dog was microchipped by animal control officers without his consent. When plaintiff's car broke down, he temporarily abandoned it by the side of the road with his dog inside it. Plaintiff was homeless at the time. Police came upon the car and called animal control officers to have them take custody of the dog. A Cleveland ordinance requires animal control officers who recover an abandoned dog to embed a microchip in the dog for future identification. They did so. Plaintiff sued seeking $10 million in damages, contending, among other things, that it violates his religious beliefs to have his dog microchipped. The court said in part:

 “It is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants' interpretations of those creeds.”... Courts may not “presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim.”... Therefore, the Court takes seriously Plaintiff’s religious objection.   

Still, even construing the record in favor of Mr. Stokes, he fails to state a claim for a violation of his Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment or retaliation against them.  At the pleading stage, the record shows that Mr. Stokes objected to Defendant’s actions not for religious reasons, but for a series of other reasons that the Constitution does not protect.  Therefore, the complaint fails to raise his right to relief on these grounds above the speculative level and fails to state a plausible claim for relief on these bases.

Camping Ordinance Does Not Violate Free Exercise Rights of Homeless Resident

In Hebbe v. City of Folsom, (ED CA, Dec. 3, 2025), plaintiff who is an unhoused resident of Folsom, California, challenges on numerous grounds a Folsom Ordinance that prohibits public camping between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.  One of his claims-- rejected by the decision of a California federal magistrate judge-- is that the public camping ban violates his 1st Amendment free exercise rights. The court said in part:

To state a claim under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, a plaintiff must allege that the government action substantially burdens the plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs.... A substantial burden exists when the government puts significant pressure on a person to modify their behavior and violate their religious beliefs....

Here, Plaintiff alleges that the Ordinance, which prohibits camping between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., forces him to sleep during the day, which prevents him from attending church service....  These allegations, even liberally construed, fail to state a cognizable Free Exercise Clause claim.  Plaintiff does not allege facts showing the Ordinance targets religion or is applied in a discriminatory manner.  Neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious exercise do not violate the Free Exercise Clause.... Plaintiff has not pleaded facts showing the Ordinance places a substantial burden on his ability to practice his faith.  Conclusory statements that he cannot go to church service are insufficient....

Church's Challenge to Fire Code Applicability Triggers Strict Scrutiny

 In Pool v. Dad's Place of Bryan, Ohio, (OH App., Nov. 21, 2025), an Ohio state appellate court remanded to the trial court a church's appeal of an injunction subjecting it to Ohio's fire code requirements for residential buildings. The city contends that the church's overnight ministry constitutes use of the building for "residential" as well as "assembly" purposes because the building is used in part for "sleeping purposes."  Categorizing the building as "residential" would require the church to install a sprinkler system whose cost is beyond the church's financial ability. 

The court said in part:

... [N]ot only has appellant presented undisputed evidence that it cannot afford to open a second location to provide sleeping accommodations, appellant maintains that its religious beliefs require it to welcome the stranger to live among the church, not to operate an offsite homeless shelter.  Moreover, appellant cannot simply relocate to somewhere else in the surrounding area with the appropriate use occupancy.  Because appellant’s ministry involves gatherings for religious worship, during which individuals are permitted to fall asleep, appellee maintains that appellant’s use occupancy is mixed....  Outside of a fire official exercising discretion in favor of appellant, appellant is left with only one option to comply with the fire code: cease permitting individuals to sleep in its premises, which would violate appellant’s religious beliefs....

The lack of objective criteria in the fire code to categorize appellant’s use as residential combined with appellee’s shifting interpretations throughout the matter’s pendency demonstrates that the fire code provisions at issue are not generally applicable....  

... [A]ppellant maintains that it has no intention of creating a homeless shelter, but instead its intention is to provide an overnight ministry in which individuals can pray, engage in fellowship, and listen to scripture, and it would violate its sincerely held religious beliefs to wake individuals who fall asleep during its ministry....  [A]ppellee had to consider the reasons for appellant’s conduct—including its religious reasons—when exercising his discretion to determine that appellant impermissibly changed its use occupancy, and therefore the fire code provisions at issue are not generally applicable.... Accordingly, appellee’s attempted enforcement of the fire code is subject to strict scrutiny under federal constitutional law, and the trial court erred in applying a rational basis review....

Here, appellant opposed the preliminary injunction under both the federal Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause and the Ohio Constitution’s Conscience Clause.... The trial court did not apply a strict scrutiny test as required by Ohio constitutional law, and therefore the trial court neglected to address appellant’s rights under the Ohio Conscience Clause. 

[CORRECTED: An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that the injunction being appealed was one granted to the church.]

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments Over Religious Exemptions from Washington Antidiscrimination Law

On June 3, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Brown. In the case, a Washington federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to a religious organization that operates a homeless shelter and thrift stores. The injunction bars the state's attorney general from enforcing the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) against plaintiff for limiting all its hiring to coreligionists who adhere to the organization's religious tenets and behavior requirements. In 2021 the Washington Supreme Court interpreted the exemption in the WLAD for non-profit religious organizations to apply only to hiring for ministerial positions. (See prior posting.) Washington State Standard reports on the oral arguments.

Court Upholds California's Repeal of Personal Belief Exemption from School Vaccination Mandate

 In Royce v. Pan, (SD CA, March 17, 2025), a California federal district court rejected a free exercise challenge to California's removal of the "personal belief" exemption from the state's compulsory school vaccination requirements. The court rejected arguments that the repeal of the exemption evidenced hostility to religion and that the law is not generally applicable because it exempts comparable secular activity.  The court said in part:

First, SB 277 did not specifically repeal a religious exemption.  Rather, it repealed a general personal belief exemption that was secular and neutral on its face.  Repeal of a secular exemption does not demonstrate hostility towards any religion or religious practice.  Second, even if SB 277 could be characterized as repealing a religious exemption, repealing a prior religious exemption is not hostile towards religion per se....

Plaintiffs argue that SB 277 is substantially underinclusive and treats secular activity more favorably than religious exercise by eliminating exemptions for religious reasons but permitting secular exemptions that undermine the State’s interest in a similar way.....  In particular, Plaintiffs highlight medical exemptions, exemptions for home schooled children and children enrolled in independent student programs, exemptions for students who qualify for IEPs, exemptions for students over 18 years of age, and conditional enrollment for migrant, homeless, foster, and military children.....

The court concluded that none of these exemptions are comparable to a religious exemption and that rational basis review applies because the law is neutral and generally applicable.

Requirement for Church to Obtain Permit Before Hosting Homeless Encampment Is Upheld

In Miller v. City of Burien, (WD WA, Feb. 3, 2025), a Washington federal district court dismissed a suit brought by a Methodist church challenging the city's requirement that the church apply for and obtain a temporary use permit before it could host a homeless encampment on its property. The court rejected plaintiffs' claims that requiring a permit violated its rights under RLUIPA as well as its free speech and free exercise rights under the 1st Amendment. The court said in part:

The parties concede that caring for unhoused individuals is an “exercise of religion” for purposes of RLUIPA. However, the parties dispute whether requiring the Church to apply for a temporary use permit before it is allowed to host a homeless encampment constitutes “imposing a ‘substantial burden’ on religious exercise” under the statute. It is important to note that this is not a denial of application case; rather, the question here is whether the City can require the Church to submit a permit application.... 

Here, the Church did not apply for a permit, the City did not deny the permit application, and the City did not deny the Church’s the right to host a homeless encampment—indeed, the City supported the Church’s endeavor. However, the City did require that the Church fill out a simple two-page application so that the City could ensure that the health and safety of the neighborhood residents, as well as the encampment occupants, was accounted for. Such minimum inconvenience does not constitute a substantial burden on the Church for purposes of RLUIPA. ...

 ... [T]he Church has failed to plausibly allege that the challenged regulation impacts speech. As such, its prior restraint facial challenge fails as a matter of law and must be dismissed....

... [Z]oning laws that permit some individualized assessment for variances remain “generally applicable” so long as the laws are motivated by secular purposes and impact equally all landowners seeking the variances. That, of course, is the case here. No landowner—secular or religious—is permitted to host a homeless encampment within a multi-family zone without a permit.... Nor has the Church alleged that Burien’s regulatory scheme is religiously motivated.... Therefore, because the Church has failed to plausibly allege that the challenged regulatory scheme was not neutral and not generally applicable, it has failed to state a free exercise claim under the First Amendment.

Justice Department Sues Georgia City for Violating RLUIPA

On Monday, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit in a Georgia federal district court against the city of Brunswick, Georgia, alleging that the city violated RLUIPA by attempting to shut down The Well, a hospitality and religious resource center for homeless individuals. The complaint (full text) in United States v. City of Brunswick, Georgia, (SD GA, filed 12/16/2024), alleges in part:

2. Through its campaign to shut down The Well, including a mandatory closure order and a nuisance lawsuit, Brunswick imposed a substantial burden on the religious exercise of FaithWorks, and of The Well’s staff and leadership, without a compelling interest and without using the least restrictive means of achieving that interest, in violation of RLUIPA....

52. Operating The Well is an expression of faith that is substantially burdened by the City’s efforts to permanently close The Well. FaithWorks, which runs The Well, is an extension of the Methodist Church, and providing basic services to the poor and unhoused individuals are cornerstones of FaithWorks’ religious practice. FaithWorks and The Well are led by Reverend Culpepper and his staff of Christian ministers. And at The Well, staff members offer the opportunity for prayer and religious study to those who are interested....

57. Even if a compelling interest was implicated, the City cannot show that shutting down The Well or forcing FaithWorks to adopt new religious leadership is the least restrictive means of achieving the City’s purported interest. The City cannot show that shutting down The Well is necessary to protect safety, particularly when The Well has already adopted procedures that have addressed the City’s purported safety concerns, and has successfully operated under those procedures for over a year.

The Department of Justice issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Texas AG Sues Church-Run Homeless Center Alleging It Has Become a Public Nuisance

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton this week filed a lawsuit in state court against a church-run homeless center that receives over $1 million in funding from the city of Austin. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Sunrise Community Church, Inc. d/b/a Sunrise Homeless Navigation Center, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 11/26/2024), alleges that the homeless shelter's operations constitute a statutory common nuisance and a common law public nuisance. The complaint says in part:

In South Austin, a once peaceful neighborhood has been transformed by homeless drug addicts, convicted criminals, and registered sex offenders. These people do drugs in sight of children, publicly fornicate next to an elementary school, menace residents with machetes, urinate and defecate on public grounds, and generally terrorize the surrounding community....

The state asks for injunctions closing the homeless center for one year.  It also asks that the center be prohibited from operating within 1,000 feet of any school playground or youth center and from operating in any location "in a manner that frequently attracts patrons whose conduct violates the rights of neighborhood residents, school children, businesses, and the general public to peacefully use and enjoy the surrounding area."

Attorney General Paxton issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Austin American- Statesman reports on the lawsuit.

Homeless Shelter Can Limit Hiring to Coreligionists

In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Wash. v. Ferguson, (ED WA, Nov. 1, 2024), a Washington federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to a religious organization that operates a homeless shelter and thrift stores. The injunction bars the state's attorney general from enforcing the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) against plaintiff for limiting all its hiring to coreligionists who adhere to the organization's religious tenets and behavior requirements. In 2021 the Washington Supreme Court interpreted the exemption in the WLAD for non-profit religious organizations to apply only to hiring for ministerial positions. The federal district court here held that the WLAD is subject to strict scrutiny since it is not a neutral, generally applicable law. It treats religious organizations differently than secular employers who are exempt if they have fewer than eight employees. According to the court, a less restrictive way of advancing the state's interest is to exempt all employees of nonprofit religious organizations as Washington had done before the state Supreme Court decision narrowing the interpretation of the WLAD exemption. An ADF press release has additional background.

Anti-Injunction Act Precludes RLUIPA Claim, But Church's Constitutional Claims Move Ahead

 In Resurrection House Ministries, Inc. v. City of Brunswick, (SD GA, Aug. 23, 2024), a Georgia federal district court held that the federal Anti-Injunction Act required dismissal of a RLUIPA lawsuit brought by a Ministry against which the city had filed a nuisance action.  The ministry had attempted to open a shelter for the homeless, to which the city objected. However, the court permitted the Ministry to move ahead with its 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment claims against the city, concluding that the Younger abstention doctrine did not apply. It concluded that plaintiff had adequately alleged that the nuisance action had been brought against it in bad faith, saying in part:

RHM alleges providing a shelter to needy individuals is a tenet of its Christian religion and, therefore, institution of the temporary emergency shelter is a practice of such religion. And practice of RHM’s religion is constitutionally protected by the Free Exercise Clause.... Therefore, RHM has satisfied its burden under the first prong of the Court’s analysis because it has sufficiently alleged that “the conduct allegedly retaliated against or sought to be deterred was constitutionally protected.”...  

The Court also finds that RHM’s allegations are sufficient to set forth that Defendants’ institution of the Nuisance Proceedings “was motivated at least in part by a purpose to retaliate for or to deter that conduct.”

Church Sues Town Over Zoning Objections to Temporary Shelter Ministry

Suit was filed last week in a Colorado federal district court by a non-denominational Christian church challenging a town's claim that the church's Temporary Shelter Ministry violates the town's zoning ordinance. The complaint (full text) in Church of the Rock, Inc. v. Town of Castle Rock, Colorado, (D CO, filed 5/13/2024) alleges that the church's rights under the First Amendment as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act are violated by the town's objections to the church's use of an RV and a trailer in the church's parking lot as temporary or emergency shelter for homeless families. The church also claimed unlawful retaliation by the town. Plaintiff additionally filed a Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (full text). First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

California's Removal of Personal Belief Exemption from School Immunization Requirement Is Upheld

 In Royce v. Bonta, (SD CA, March 25, 2024), a California federal district court upheld the constitutionality of a law enacted by California in response to a 2015 measles outbreak. The law removed the personal belief exemption, but retained the medical exemption, from the requirement that school children enrolled in public and private schools be immunized against nine specific diseases.  The law also gives immigrant and homeless children a grace period in which to prove compliance with the immunization requirement. The court rejected parents free exercise challenge to the law, concluding that the law is neutral and generally applicable, saying in part:

In considering California’s interest in the health and safety of students and the public at large, the risk posed by SB 277’s enumerated exemptions does not qualify as comparable to the risk posed by a personal belief exemption....  Accordingly, SB 277 is generally applicable....

There is a legitimate State interest in protecting the health and safety of students and the public at large, and SB 277’s repeal of California’s prior personal belief exemption is rationally related to furthering that interest.  Because Plaintiffs fail to allege facts from which an inference can be drawn to hold otherwise, SB 277 survives rational basis review.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise claim fails as a matter of law.

Church Sues City Over Operation of Ministry for Homeless

Suit was filed yesterday in an Ohio federal district court seeking to enjoin the city of Bryan, Ohio from enforcing its zoning ordinances in an attempt to prevent a Christian church that ministers to the homeless from remaining open 24-hours a day. The complaint (full text) in Dad's Place of Bryan, Ohio v. City of Bryan, (ND OH, filed 1/22/2024), contends that the city has begun "a coordinated effort to exclude ministries from operating downtown." The city has charged the church's pastor with 18 criminal counts for allowing homeless to reside on the property for an extended amount of time in violation of zoning rules. The Church in its complaint contends that the city has violated the 1st and 14th Amendments, RLUIPA, the Fair Housing Act and the Ohio Constitution. First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

UPDATE: Friendly Atheist has additional background on the city's concerns regarding the church's activities.

Religious Organization Lacks Standing to Challenge Interpretation of State Anti-Discrimination law

In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Wash. v. Ferguson, (ED WA, Sept. 1, 2023), a Washington federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a suit challenging the constitutionality of the Washington Supreme Court's interpretation of the state's anti-discrimination law. The state Supreme Court in a prior case interpreted the statute's exemption for non-profit religious organizations to be limited to situations covered by the ministerial exemption doctrine.  In this case, plaintiff that operates a homeless shelter and thrift store and also provides social services sought a declaration that religious organizations have a constitutional right to hire, even in non-ministerial positions, only those who agree with its religious beliefs and who will comply with its religious tenets and behavior requirements. In dismissing the lawsuit, the court found that there was no credible threat of enforcement against plaintiff, and that this suit was a disguised attempt to appeal a Washington Supreme Court decision in violation of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.

Faith-Based Resource Center for Homeless Sues Over Right to Serve Snacks to Its Clients

Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court by a Resource Cener for impoverished and disabled individuals alleging that the city of Santa Ana has violated its rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment by insisting that it stop serving snacks to its clients in order to receive a Certificate of Occupancy, even though it had been operating without one for 15 years.  The complaint (full text) in Micha's Way v. City of Santa Ana, (CD CA, filed 1/30/2023), asks for an injunction and declaratory relief.  Voice of OC, reporting on the lawsuit, summarizes the allegations in the 44-page complaint:

For years, homeless people would come by the red roof house on 4th Street in Santa Ana for help with the basics: Personal documents, mail collection, maybe motel vouchers on a good day.

And on their way back out the door, they’d likely take a pastry from the faith-based center called Micah’s Way — a small parting token in the service of Christian ministry, but an unpermitted property use in the eyes of Santa Ana city officials....

On Monday, Micah’s Way attorney Edmond Connor filed a lawsuit against the city, citing federal protections for religious exercises like feeding and sheltering the homeless.

It accuses city officials of scapegoating Micah’s Way for neighborhood impacts from a nearby needle exchange program.

Denial of Jury Instruction on Defendant's Religious Exercise Is Upheld

In United States v. Dickey, (7th Cir., Oct. 28, 2022), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a trial court's refusal to give a jury instruction sought by a criminal defendant who was the leader of her own church, Deliverance Tabernacle Ministry, who was convicted of wire fraud and forced labor.  According to the court:

[T]hrough her proselytizing, Dickey groomed vulnerable victims and forced them to disavow their families, live in the church, and work multiple full‐time jobs. The victims would then give Dickey all their wages, which she would keep for herself.... If someone disobeyed, Dickey threatened them with violence and required them to be homeless until she considered them redeemed. All told, her scheme netted $1.5 million, most of which came from DTM members. She spent over $1 million on personal expenses, such as travel, rental and vacation properties, and luxury hotels....

Dickey wanted the jury instructed as follows:  

You should not consider the ways in which the Defendant exercised or practiced her religion in determining whether she is guilty of these charges. All individuals have a right to the free exercise of religion.  

Her proposed jury instruction failed at the outset because it is not an accurate statement of the law. Dickey’s proposed instruction would have excused her criminal conduct based on her religious assertions. That broad interpretation finds no support in the caselaw. To the contrary, neutral laws of general applicability are consistent with the First Amendment.

Court Rejects Religious and Other Challenges To Takeover Of Abandoned Homes

Honkala v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,  (ED PA, Jan. 31, 2022) involves an unsuccessful challenge to the Philadelphia Housing Authority's (PHA) attempted eviction of homeless families who took over abandoned vacant housing owned by PHA.  A community activist and the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign staged a series of such takeovers.  Among the challenges raised by plaintiffs were religious freedom claims under RFRA and RLUIPA. The court explains:

[Plaintiffs assert] they are “currently possessed of ethical, moral, humanitarian and/or religious belief(s) and action(s), including but not limited to those rooted in a Judeo-Christian tradition of caring for the least and most needy amongst us, which federal law therefore respects and identifies as a ‘religious belief’ pursuant to the definition thereof as set forth in 42 U.S.C. §2000cc-5.”... Plaintiffs allege that their work “building and/or repairing and/or converting real property, such as the public housing property at issue…is therefore considered a ‘religious exercise,’ and Defendants are unable to satisfy their “burden of proving that eviction is the least restrictive means of fostering any compelling interest it may otherwise invoke.....

The Pennsylvania federal district court rejected plaintiffs' RFRA claim because RFRA applies only to actions of the federal government and not to that of states and municipalities.  While PHA holds the property in trust for HUD, HUD did not cause their injuries.  The court also rejected plaintiffs" RLUIPA claim because the claim does not involve a zoning issue and because plaintiffs have no property interest in the house.  The court additionally rejected several other legal theories put forward by plaintiffs, but said in part:

As a means of focusing attention on governmental failure to make effective use of assets available to reduce homelessness, this action succeeds. And if principles of natural law provided the controlling standard, Plaintiffs would have a compelling moral argument: “In cases of need, all things are common property, so there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 2.2, Question 66, Article 7. But civil law is not designed to answer such ultimate moral questions.

Church Challenges City's Limits On Its Offering Meals To Homeless

Suit was filed last week in an Oregon federal district court by a church challenging a city's ordinance that limits it from offering free meals to the needy more than two days per week.  The complaint (full text) in  St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church v. City of Brookings, (D OR, filed 1/28/2022), says that the new limits were imposed after city residents complained of the homeless gathering around the church. It contends that the restrictions violate RLUIPA as well as the 1st and 14th Amendments, saying in part:

Plaintiffs believe that God and scripture have directed them to continue serving their community by offering St. Timothy’s meal program more than two days per week to ensure that people in need can have access to at least one hot, nutritious meal every day of the week.

... The City’s land use and zoning regulations ... deny and restrict, and will deny and restrict, Plaintiffs’ religious use of St. Timothy’s’ property, is not supported by a compelling government interest, and is not the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling governmental interest.

Reason reports on the lawsuit.

Faith-Based Homeless Shelter Denied Injunction Against Alaska City's Anti-Discrimination Laws

In Downtown Soup Kitchen v. Municipality of Anchorage, (D AK, Dec. 20, 2021), an Alaska federal district court refused to grant injunctive relief to a faith-based homeless shelter for women that objected to Anchorage's newly revised public accommodation and housing anti-discrimination laws. The shelter refuses to house transgender women. The court concluded that the faith-based shelter failed to show a credible threat of enforcement of either the public accommodation or the housing sections of the new law. The city takes the position that the provisions do not apply to the shelter and disclaims any intent to prosecute. However the court held that the shelter does have standing to sue for damages for the nearly 3-month period before the city disclaimed any intent to prosecute under the housing provisions. Anchorage Daily News reports on the decision. 

9th Circuit Lifts Injunction Against School District's Vaccine Mandate

On Nov. 28, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined, pending appeal, the San Diego school district's COVID vaccine mandate because it denied religious exemptions while allowing a deferral option for pregnant students. (See prior posting.) Subsequently the school district removed the deferral option for pregnant students. So in John Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (9th Cir., Dec. 4, 2021), the court, in a 2-1 decision, held:

Given the removal of the “per se” deferral option for pregnant students, the injunction issued in the November 28, 2021 order has terminated under its own terms.

The majority rejected the claim that medical exemptions, temporary exemptions for students who are homeless, in migrant status or foster care, or in military families, and special provisions for students with Individualized Education Programs, but the absence of religious exemptions, undermine the general applicability of the vaccine mandate.

Judge Ikuta dissented, arguing that these secular exemptions mean that the mandate is not generally applicable and thus must be evaluated under the strict scrutiny standard, saying in part:

These religious and secular activities pose identical risks to the government’s asserted interest in ensuring the “safest environment possible for all students and employees,” because both result in the presence of unvaccinated students in the classroom, who could spread COVID-19 to other students and employees.

Plaintiff's attorney has said that emergency relief will be sought from the U.S. Supreme Court.

UPDATE: Here is plaintiffs' Petition for emergency relief from the Supreme Court, asking for an injunction or stay pending appeal.