USCIRF Urges Sanctions Against India During Visit of Hindutva Leader

 As reported by The Hindu, India's Mohan Bhagwat, head of the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) organization, arrived in the United States on Tuesday as part of RSS's 100th anniversary global outreach efforts. He is scheduled to speak to an audience of around 5000 people at Madison Square Garden in New York City on Saturday. On Wednesday, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a Statement (full text) urging the United States to take action to hold India accountable for its religious freedom violations. The Statement reads in part:

... As USCIRF has reported in recent years, members of RSS subgroups have perpetrated violent attacks against religious minorities, including Christians, Dalits, Muslims, and Sikhs.

Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has enforced policies that closely align with the RSS’ Hindutva ideology, inherently discriminating against religious minority communities. The government has also engaged in acts of transnational repression to target religious minorities beyond its borders, including assassination and assassination attempts on members of Sikh communities in North America. 

“Religious freedom conditions in India continue to deteriorate as violence and incitement are frequently used to target religious minority communities,” said [USCIRF] Chair Asif Mahmood. “We urge the U.S. government to consider targeted sanctions against RSS members and Indian officials complicit in religious freedom violations, including revoking the visa issued to Mohan Bhagwat and making him ineligible for future entry into the United States.”

Under the BJP-led government, Indian authorities have failed to prevent, investigate, or punish egregious mob violence against Muslims and Christians. Such vigilante violence is often predicated on enforcing the Indian government’s strict anti-conversion laws predominately targeting Christians and other religious minorities....

4th Circuit Rejects DHS's Elimination of Protection Against Immigration Raids at Churches

In Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (4th Cir., Aug. 18, 2026), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Maryland federal district court's preliminary injunction that rejected DHS's 2025 rescission of a long-standing policy that severely limited immigration enforcement actions at or near houses of worship. The suit was brought by Quaker, Sikh and Baptist housed of worship. The court said in part:

Among other things, DHS’s new policy removed guidelines requiring that immigration officers weigh various considerations before conducting enforcement actions at these sensitive locations.  Instead, the new policy requires only that the officials use their discretion and “common sense” in deciding where to conduct immigration enforcement actions....

We hold that the plaintiffs have standing to pursue their claims.  Based on the evidence before the district court, it reasonably can be predicted that many immigrants will decide not to attend the plaintiffs’ houses of worship because of the new policy.  So, the plaintiffs’ asserted injury of a decline in attendance at worship services and other activities is fairly traceable to the new policy and likely will be redressed by an injunction limiting the policy’s application.  We also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their RFRA claim, because the plaintiffs adequately demonstrated that DHS’s new policy substantially burdens their religious exercise. Finally, we hold that the government waived its claim that the new policy satisfies the requirements of strict scrutiny by failing to present any legal argument or evidence before the district court.  We therefore affirm the district court’s order imposing the preliminary injunction.

Judge Agee filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

... [I]t’s also important to keep in mind the narrow scope of the preliminary injunction in this case and the Court’s affirmance of it. First, the preliminary injunction enjoins “potential or actual immigration enforcement actions in or near” the identified list of places of worship connected to the plaintiffs.... Neither the preliminary injunction nor this Court’s decision affirming it restrict DHS’s actions at any other places that the 2021 Policy itself identified as sensitive locations or even at other places of worship....

Second, a host of DHS immigration enforcement actions are expressly permitted by the preliminary injunction....

Third, ... our analysis of the merits of plaintiffs’ likelihood to succeed on their RFRA claim is partially driven by DHS’s inexplicable failure in the district court to advance any relevant evidence or legal argument pertaining to the existence of a compelling government interest and use of the least restrictive means to secure it....

CBS News reports on the decision.

2025 Data on Hate Crimes in U.S. Released

Last week, the FBI released its 2025 Reported Crime Statistics. In a summary of the data, the FBI said that "hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 2,703 single-bias offenses reported by law enforcement." 62.3% of the religiously motivated hate crime offenses were anti-Jewish. 9.6% were anti-Muslim. 7% were anti-Sikh. 3% were anti-Catholic. The remaining 18% were spread among 10 other denominations or groups. Some hate-crime incidents involved multiple offenses.so that there were 2,408 religiously-motivated hate crime incidents. (Table 1). A further breakdown (Table 4) shows that 1,179 of the offenses involved property damage or vandalism to property. 749 offenses involved intimidation. 2025 saw a 7% overall decrease in hate crimes from the year before.

Challenge To Makeup of Religious Liberty Commission Is Dismissed

 In The Interfaith Alliance v. Trump, (SD NY, July 27, 2026), a New York federal district court dismissed a suit brought by several religious organizations challenging the composition of President Trump's Religious Liberty Commission. Plaintiffs contended that the makeup of the Commission violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act which, among other things, requires membership on federal advisory committees to be “fairly balanced” in light of the functions the committee performs. Plaintiffs (which include organizations representing the Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities) contended that the Commission contains no members who represent non-Judeo-Christian religious traditions and that the Commission is unbalanced in its representation of views on separation of church and state. The court said in part:

FACA requires that a “[c]ommittee’s members represent a fair balance of viewpoints given the functions to be performed,” but it does not define what constitutes a “fair balance.” ...  As such, the statute leaves unanswered three sets of questions regarding whether a committee is appropriately balanced.  First, “even before the points of view on an advisory committee can be balanced at all,” one must ask: “which points of view should be balanced[?]”...  The next question is: “what constitutes an appropriate or ‘fair’ balance of those views[?]”... Is a single member representing each view enough, or does a committee need more?  And finally, “which kind of organization or individual legitimately represents” a viewpoint by being a member of a committee?... For example, what kind of individual would hypothetically speak for an “interfaith perspective”? 

Lacking clear answers to these questions, courts have been “highly deferential” in reviewing a committee’s composition....

FACA is properly read as requiring such strong deference for two reasons.  First, determining whether a committee is fairly balanced is largely “a political task not properly undertaken by life-tenured, unelected federal judges,”...

Second, it is notable that “as part of [a] compromise [in FACA’s enactment], Congress deleted from the Act any specific standards” governing committee membership....

Under this deferential standard, the RLC’s membership is fairly balanced.  Its members include workers in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, have widely varying life experiences—from a former host of a popular television show to a State Lieutenant Governor, are religious leaders as well as rank-and-file congregants, and—to the extent that it matters—encompass adherents of at least five different religions....

It was certainly within President Trump’s discretion to decide that it was comparatively more important to prioritize balancing whether the RLC’s members were “representatives of various sectors of society, including the private sector, employers, educational institutions, religious communities, and States.”...

The Court also rejects the premise that there is a single “Judeo-Christian” viewpoint....

AP reports on the decision.

Nevada Supreme Court Interprets Scope of Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Singh v. Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, (NV Sup. Ct., April 2, 2026), a 3-judge panel of the Nevada Supreme Court held that the neutral principles exception to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies beyond disputes over ownership of church property. At issue was whether the Management Committee of the Northern Nevada Sikh Society, without approval of the general membership, had authority form a subcommittee to transfer the Sikh Temple building into a trust. The court said in part:

[A]bsent [U.S.] Supreme Court authority holding otherwise, we now clarify that the neutral-principles exception to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine may apply beyond real property disputes among church members. Rather, the relevant inquiry for courts to resolve is whether the court is able to apply neutral principles of law to resolve the issues at hand without consideration of ecclesiastical or doctrinal matters.... In other words, when neutral principles of law can resolve the underlying dispute, then the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not apply....

... [T]he issues raised in the complaint do not require the district court to resolve ecclesiastical questions or consider Sikh doctrine, practice or texts.... [T]hese claims ...arise from NNSS's Management's purported failure to follow NNSS's bylaws in forming two committees, attempting to place the Temple in trust, in not maintaining adequate membership records, and in restricting members from inspecting NNSS's books and records.

Lawsuit Challenges Makeup and Operation of Trump's Religious Liberty Commission

Yesterday, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and Interfaith organizations filed suit challenging the legality of the Religious Liberty Commission that President Trump created last May. The complaint (full text) in The Interfaith Alliance v. Trump, (SD NY, filed 2/9/2026), contends that the Commission violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, alleging in part:

3. This case challenges the composition and secrecy of the Religious Liberty Commission. While this body is ostensibly designed to defend “religious liberty for all Americans” and celebrate “religious pluralism” it actually represents only a single “Judeo-Christian” viewpoint. It held its first three meetings at the Museum of the Bible and has closed its meetings with a Christian prayer “in Jesus’ name.” Only one of its members is not Christian and the Christian members do not represent the full diversity of the Christian faith. The Commission’s meetings have repeatedly referenced the belief that the United States was founded as a “Judeo-Christian nation” and the membership reflects that viewpoint. All members of the Commission advocate for increased religiosity, and specifically their brand of “Judeo-Christian” religiosity, in public life....

8. The Commission has also disregarded basic transparency requirements, including by failing to disclose transcripts, agendas, and other materials that would allow Plaintiffs and the public to follow and understand the Commission’s work.....

The suit asks the court, among other relief, to:

Order Defendants to employ good faith efforts to appoint a properly qualified representative from the excluded viewpoints; ...

Enjoin Defendants to attach to any reports or recommendations produced by the Commission a disclaimer stating that the report was produced in violation of FACA’s requirement that the Commission’s membership be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented....

Interfaith Alliance issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

UPDATE: Here is Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Court Upholds Right of Divorced Father to Raise His Young Children in Sikh Tradition

In N.S. v. H.C., (CA App., Oct. 17, 2025), a California state appellate court reversed and remanded a trial court's ruling on divorced parents' respective rights to control the religious upbringing of their 7-year-old son and 9-year-old daughter. The court said in part:

Father argued in his trial brief:  “[Mother] has shown a complete disregard for [his] raising the children in the tradition of his Sikh faith.  Bracelets the children wear as reminders of their faith, as well as the head covering for their son, are discarded by [her] during their time with her, and she insists upon cutting their hair exceedingly short, knowing that a tenet of the Sikh faith is to leave hair uncut....

Despite thoughtfully grappling with the issues presented here, the [trial] court erred by failing to determine, under the caselaw cited above, whether mother had made a clear affirmative showing that if the children adhered to father’s Sikh faith as regards the haircuts, patka and bracelets, it would be harmful to them....

Mother testified the children requested the haircuts, which made them fit in with their family and friends on her side.... Likewise, mother’s testimony regarding the use of the bracelets and the patka in summary was:  As the children asked to take them off, she allowed them to do so....

The [trial] court’s other fundamental error was subordinating father’s constitutional rights to religious exercise and to raise the children in his faith to the children’s personal desires and their “comfort” considerations....  The court nowhere explains ... they had sufficient maturity to hold informed views about the religious observances at issue here.  Under section 3042, subdivision (a), the court is only required to consider the preference of the child if the child “is of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent preference as to custody[.]” ...

The critical literature warns against perverting a quest for the child’s best interests into one for the psychic comfort of the parents—a warning against overvaluing the parents’ constitutional liberties....  A warning is equally in order against depriving a parent of all connection with the child, or connection on the religious plane, out of an exaggerated fear of injury to the child....

On remand, the court is directed to determine whether the religious practices of barring haircuts, requiring the wearing of bracelets, and requiring the son to wear a head covering will be harmful to the children, and to enter a new order on these issues in accordance with this opinion....

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

FBI Releases 2024 Hate Crime Data

On August 5, the FBI released 2024 U.S. Hate Crime Statistics (full text of report). The Report discloses the 24.6% of the hate crime incidents last year resulted from religious bias. According to the Report, of the 3,235 victims of anti-religious hate crimes, 69.1% were victims of crimes motivated by offenders’ anti-Jewish bias; 9.3% were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias; 4.7% were victims of anti-Sikh bias; 2.6% were victims of anti-Other Christian bias; 1.9% were victims of anti-Catholic bias.

Court Preliminarily Enjoins Enforcement Against Plaintiffs of New Guidelines for Immigration Raids at Churches

In Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (D MD, Feb. 24, 2025), a Maryland federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring immigration authorities from enforcing against the Society of Friends, Baptist, and Sikh plaintiffs the January 2025 policy change on immigration enforcement at sensitive locations such as places of worship. Instead, they must comply with the previous 2021 Guidelines. The court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their 1st Amendment Freedom of Association claim as well as their claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It concluded that enforcement of the new policy would likely significantly burden both plaintiffs' right to expressive association and their religious exercise. The court said in part:

... Plaintiffs have provided facts showing that, in light of their religious beliefs and practices relating to immigrants, they can reasonably expect to face immigration enforcement actions at their places of worship pursuant to the 2025 Policy, that such actions will likely result in declines in attendance at their worship and ministry services, and that such declines are, in fact, already occurring.... They have further demonstrated that, as a result ..., certain core religious beliefs and practices will be significantly burdened, including the beliefs that each of the Plaintiffs' religions require regular, communal worship; that at least CBF requires, as part of its religious exercise, that its congregations engage in services to support immigrants and refugees; and that, for the Quaker Plaintiffs in particular, the presence of any firearms in worship services, such as those of armed law enforcement officers, violates their faith.

CBS News reports on the decision.

FBI Releases 2023 Hate Crime Statistics

Last Monday, the FBI released Hate Crime Statistics for the United States for 2023. A Department of Justice release summarizes the data, and a table released by the FBI shows greater detail. There were 11,862 hate crime incidents in total reported for the year, of which 22.5% (2699 incidents) were crimes motivated by religion. Of the religion-motivated crimes, 1,832 were anti-Jewish.  The next largest numbers motivated by one of the 11 specific religions reported were 236 anti-Muslim, 156 anti-Sikh and 77 anti-Catholic. The total number of hate crimes reported reflects a 2% rise from the 11,634 incidents reported for 2022. The number of religiously-motivated hate crimes reflects a 32% rise from the 2,042 incidents reported for 2022. Anti-Jewish hate crimes rose 63% from the 1,122 incidents reported in 2022. (See prior posting.)

Sikh Court Opens in Britain

Religion Media Center reports that in England, the world's first Sikh court opened last Saturday. However, unlike Muslim and Jewish religious courts, Sikhism does not have its own legal code.

 According to the report:

The court [in London] was set up by Sikh lawyers who felt that secular judges lacked the religious and cultural expertise to deal with disputes between Sikhs. It will operate as an alternative forum for dispute resolution for UK-based Sikhs involved in family and civil disputes....

[Baldip Singh] aid its purpose would be “to assist Sikh families in their time of need when dealing with conflict and disputes in line with Sikh principles”....

[The court will] work within the remit of the Arbitration Act (1996), under which anyone — legally qualified or not — can sit as arbitrator so long as both parties agree to submit to the same set of rules....

At the first instance, Sikh court “magistrates” will mediate in disputes to try to negotiate a settlement, as well as directing court users to courses that can help them work on issues that have contributed to the dispute. These courses, developed with Sikh charities, cover low-level domestic violence, anger management, gambling and substance misuse and are available in Punjabi as well as English....

DOJ Sues California Prisons for Failing to Accommodate Officers' Religious Beard Requirements

The Department of Justice this week filed suit in a California federal district court seeking to enjoin the California correctional system from requiring its peace officers to be clean shaven in contravention of their sincerely held religious beliefs.  The problem arose for Muslim and Sikh correctional employees when they were required to meet the conditions for wearing tight-fitting respirators.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, (ED CA, filed 3/25/2024), contends that the Department of Corrections has not attempted to accommodate the peace officers' concerns by offering them positions in the Department that do not require wearing of respirators or by offering alternative respirators that could be worn with beards.  The complaint alleges in part:

The Charging Parties allege that CDCR has discriminated against them on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a)(2), by: a. Failing to provide a religious accommodation;  b. failing to adequately engage in the interactive process with the Charging Parties, including by failing to make good faith efforts to consider whether alternative accommodations will eliminate the conflict between the Charging Parties’ religious beliefs and CDCR’s clean  shaven policy; and c. failing to demonstrate that implementing the alternative accommodations proposed by the Charging Parties would pose an undue hardship.

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

President Sends Ramadan Greetings Outlining Policy Initiatives

 President Biden yesterday issued a Statement on the Occasion of Ramadan (full text), saying in part:

Tonight—as the new crescent moon marks the beginning of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan—Jill and I extend our best wishes and prayers to Muslims across our country and around the world....

...As Muslims gather around the world over the coming days and weeks to break their fast, the suffering of the Palestinian people will be front of mind for many. It is front of mind for me.

The United States will continue to lead international efforts to get more humanitarian assistance into Gaza by land, air, and sea....

While we get more life-saving aid to Gaza, the United States will continue working non-stop to establish an immediate and sustained ceasefire for at least six weeks as part of a deal that releases hostages. And we will continue building toward a long-term future of stability, security, and peace. That includes a two-state solution to ensure Palestinians and Israelis share equal measures of freedom, dignity, security, and prosperity. That is the only path toward an enduring peace.

Here at home, we have seen an appalling resurgence of hate and violence toward Muslim Americans. Islamophobia has absolutely no place in the United States, a country founded on freedom of worship and built on the contributions of immigrants, including Muslim immigrants. My Administration is developing the first-ever National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia and Related Forms of Bias and Discrimination, to take on hate against Muslim, Sikh, South Asian, and Arab American communities, wherever it occurs.

Title VI Claims Against Universities Proliferate Since Israel-Gaza Conflict

As previously reported, in November 2023 the Department of Education issued a "Dear Colleague" letter in response to rising levels of antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents at schools and colleges since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and the Israeli response. The letter clarifies that even though Title VI does not specifically cover religious discrimination, many types of antisemitic and Islamophobic attacks fall under other types of discrimination covered by Title VI. The Forward yesterday reported that it has tracked 48 Title VI investigations by DOE's Office of Civil Rights filed since November charging higher education institutions with antisemitism, Islamophobia or similar discrimination, as well as ten lawsuits filed by private parties making similar contentions filed since then. It has published a detailed listing of all the investigations and cases it has tracked. The Forward explains:

When Ken Marcus took over the department’s civil rights office during the George W. Bush administration, he started looking for test cases for a new category of “shared ancestry” that would allow officials to investigate cases that touched on religion. He found one when a Sikh child in New Jersey was beaten by classmates who saw his turban and taunted him as “Osama,” a reference to the infamous Muslim terrorist.

Marcus believed that the discrimination wasn’t strictly religious in nature because the bullies weren’t intending to go after the boy’s Sikh identity. And it wasn’t obviously racial, either, since it was the turban that had drawn the bullies’ attention.

He authorized the department to investigate these types of cases under its authority to prohibit discrimination based on race or national origin, creating a new category called “shared ancestry.” Every subsequent administration has agreed that these cases fall under the department’s purview.

More controversial is the question of what, exactly, constitutes discrimination against Jews based on their shared ancestry. Marcus and many Jewish advocacy groups have taken the position that anti-Zionism — opposition to a Jewish state in Israel — is often antisemitic because many Jews identify with Israel as part of their shared ancestry.

DOE Reminds Schools of Duty to Protect Against Antisemitic and Islamophobic Discrimination

The U.S. Department of Education's Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights issued a "Dear Colleague" letter on Tuesday in response to rising levels of antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents at schools and colleges since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel. (Press release). The letter (full text) says in part:

I write to remind colleges, universities, and schools that receive federal financial assistance of their legal responsibility under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations (Title VI) to provide all students a school environment free from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. It is your legal obligation under Title VI to address prohibited discrimination against students and others on your campus—including those who are or are perceived to be Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, Arab, or Palestinian—in the ways described in this letter....

Schools that receive federal financial assistance have a responsibility to address discrimination against Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Christian, and Buddhist students, or those of another religious group, when the discrimination involves racial, ethnic, or ancestral slurs or stereotypes; when the discrimination is based on a student’s skin color, physical features, or style of dress that reflects both ethnic and religious traditions; and when the discrimination is based on where a student came from or is perceived to have come from, including discrimination based on a student’s foreign accent; a student’s foreign name, including names commonly associated with particular shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics; or a student speaking a foreign language.

Canadian Court Says Oath to Monarchy Does Not Infringe Sikh Lawyer's Rights

In Wirring v. Law Society of Alberta, (AB KB, Oct. 16, 2023), the Court of King's Bench of the Canadian province of Alberta (sitting as a trial court) rejected a challenge to the oath of allegiance to the British monarch that law school graduates are required to take in order to be admitted to the Law Society and practice law in Alberta. According to the court:

Mr. Wirring is an amritdhari Sikh. He has pledged an absolute oath of allegiance to Akal Purakh, the divine being in the Sikh tradition. Mr. Wirring asserts that the oath of allegiance to the Queen is incompatible with the oath he has sworn to Akal Purakh.

The court held, however, that the oath requirement did not infringe plaintiff's freedom of religion, or his equality rights, that are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court said in part:

[117]  ... [T]he Oath of Allegiance ... should be interpreted ... not as an oath to the Queen as a person, but as a symbolic oath to our constitutional democracy by those seeking to be barristers and solicitors....

[165]      I ... accept Mr. Wirring’s own words that he can only see the Oath of Allegiance as an oath to the Queen. However, and importantly, I do not find that portion of his evidence to be part of his sincerely held religious belief. The conclusion that the Oath of Allegiance is an oath to the Queen is Mr. Wirring’s own legal interpretation....

[166]      ... [T]he interpretation of the Oath of Allegiance is an objective exercise performed by the Court....

[172]      Because I have found the Oath of Allegiance to be symbolic, Mr. Wirring is not required under the LPA to pledge allegiance to a spiritual or secular entity other than Akal Purakh. Therefore, there is no objective interference with Mr. Wirring’s freedom of religion by the state.

[173]      ... [I]t is Mr. Wirring’s misunderstanding of the Oath of Allegiance’s meaning, and not the requirement to take the Oath of Allegiance, which is preventing him from admission to the legal profession in Alberta.

YesPunjab reports on the decision.

FBI Releases 2022 Hate Crime Statistics

The FBI yesterday released 2022 Crime Statistics, including data on hate crimes (Methodology)  (Data on Incidents). According to the FBI:

In 2022, law enforcement agency participation significantly increased ... with a population coverage of 91.7% submitting incident reports.... There were over 11,000 single-bias hate crime incidents.... [T]he top three bias categories ... were race/ethnicity/ancestry, religion, and sexual-orientation.

The FBI reported 2,042 incidents of religiously-motivated hate crimes. 1,122 of these were anti-Jewish. The next most numerous were 181 anti-Sikh incidents; 158 anti-Muslim and 107 anti-Catholic. President Biden issued a Statement (full text) on the Hate Crime Statistics, saying in part:

The data is a reminder that hate never goes away, it only hides. Any hate crime is a stain on the soul of America.

To those Americans worried about violence at home, as a result of the evil acts of terror perpetrated by Hamas in Israel, we see you. We hear you. And I have asked members of my team ... to prioritize the prevention and disruption of any emerging threats that could harm Jewish, Muslim, Arab American, or any other communities during this time. My Administration will continue to fight Antisemitism and Islamophobia.

New South Asian Congressional Caucus Launched Amid Criticism from Some Civil Rights Groups

Last week, Michigan Congressman Shri Thanedar announced formation of the 28-member "Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain US Congressional Caucus." According to India West Journal: "The group will address cultural misunderstandings, promote interfaith dialogue and harmony, and support initiatives to promote the well-being, education, and empowerment of the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Jains in the US." However, four Hindu, Sikh and Muslim civil rights groups issued a press release sharply criticizing formation of the caucus, saying it does not represent all parts of the South Asian community across faith, caste and ethnic lines.  The press release says in part:

"... In June of this year, Congressman Thanedar announced his intention to form a Hindu Caucus without input from the full spectrum of Hindu American civil society, including Dalit and linguistic community organizations. This caucus seems to be a new iteration of that previous announcement.”

“If this caucus is that announcement repackaged with a more inclusive label but the same makeup, it will likely combat meaningful oversight of the U.S.-India relationship, ongoing work to protect the civil rights and safety of Sikhs and other marginalized groups, and efforts to ban caste discrimination at a federal level. Moreover, given the lack of Muslim representation, it may oppose ongoing efforts to combat Islamophobia. In short, any caucus without inclusive representation from the Indian diaspora will serve as nothing more than a vehicle for Hindu nationalist policies that will inevitably harm the entire South Asian American community, including Sikh, Muslim, Dalit, Buddhist, Jain, and even Hindu Americans.

King Charles Coronation Ceremony for First Time Includes Participation by Non-Anglican Faith Leaders

The Church of England has published (full text) the 42-page Authorized Liturgy for the Coronation Rite of His Majesty King Charles III along with Commentary on each portion of the liturgy. Unique to Charles' coronation is the participation of representatives of faith communities outside the Church of England. Representatives of other Christian communities will offer blessings during the Coronation service (see pg. 25). They are The Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Thyateira & Great Britain; The Moderator of The Free Churches; The Secretary General of Churches Together in England; and The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. The Church of England's Commentary to this portion of the liturgy reads:

The progress of ecumenical relations since 1953 means that, for the first time, this Blessing is to be shared by Christian leaders across the country.

In addition, non-Christian faith leaders will have a role in the Coronation. The ceremony begins with a Procession of Faith Leaders & Representatives of Faith Communities (see pg. 2).  The Commentary to the liturgy reads:

Faith Leaders and representatives from the Jewish, Sunni and Shia Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Bahai and Zoroastrian communities will be part of the procession into Westminster Abbey. 

This represents the multi-faith nature of our society and the importance of inclusion of other faiths whilst respecting the integrities of the different traditions.

The ceremony ends with the new King receiving a greeting by representatives of the Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, and Buddhist faith communities:

As the King stands before the Leaders and Representatives of the Faith Communities, they deliver the following greeting in unison. 

Faith Leaders & Representatives: 

Your Majesty, as neighbours in faith, we acknowledge the value of public service. We unite with people of all faiths and beliefs in thanksgiving, and in service with you for the common good.

The King acknowledges the greeting, and turns to greet the Governors-General.

The Commentary to this section of the Liturgy reads:

In an unprecedented gesture consolidating the significance of the religious diversity of the Realms, the Sovereign will take his final moments of the service to receive a greeting from the leaders and representatives from the major non-Christian faith traditions. 

In a spoken greeting these faith leaders and representatives speak with their own voices, as communities, but deliver the greeting in unison, as a community of faiths, united in the service of others, and in thanksgiving for His Majesty’s example this day, and every day of his reign. 

We remain grateful to all faith communities for exploring ways in which such an act of unity could be produced, and especially to the Jewish community for finding ways to make this possible without compromising the observance of Shabbat.

CNN reported that  England's Chief Rabbi was invited to stay at St. James Palace over the Sabbath so that he could walk to the ceremony at Westminster Abbey.  Catholic News Agency in an article titled Catholic prelate to participate in British coronation for first time since Reformation reported that the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales in advance of the Coronation has issued a special prayer card with prayers for the King. Law & Religion UK has additional reporting on the coronation.

DC Circuit: Marines Must Accommodate Sikh Recruits in Boot Camp

In Singh v. Berger, (DC Cir., Dec. 23, 2022), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction to two Sikh Marine Corps recruits who seek an accommodation to wear unshorn hair, beards and certain articles of faith during boot camp training. The court, relying on RFRA, said in part:

So the Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success comes down to whether the Marine Corps has demonstrated a compelling interest accomplished by the least restrictive means in refusing to accommodate their faith for the thirteen weeks of boot camp. The Marine Corps has failed to meet its burden on both fronts....

[T]he Marine Corps argues that excepting the Plaintiffs from the repeated ritual of shaving their faces and heads alongside fellow recruits, and permitting them to wear a head covering, will impede its compelling interest in forging unit cohesion and a uniform mindset during boot camp....

... Colonel Jeppe’s claimed compelling need for inflexible grooming uniformity does not stand up against the “system of exceptions” to boot camp grooming rules that the Corps has already created and that seriously “undermine[]” the Corps’ contention that it “can brook no departures” for Plaintiffs....

To sum up, Plaintiffs have demonstrated not just a likely, but an overwhelming, prospect of success on the merits of their RFRA claim. At a general level, the Government has certainly articulated a compelling national security interest in training Marine Corps recruits to strip away their individuality and adopt a team-oriented mindset committed to the military mission and defense of the Nation. But RFRA requires more than pointing to interests at such a broad level.... The Marine Corps has to show that its substantial burdening of these Plaintiffs’ religion furthers that compelling interest by the least restrictive means. That is where the Marine Corps has come up very short.... 

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.