USCIRF Annual Report Recommends Designating Countries Restricting Religious Freedom

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom yesterday released its 2025 Annual Report (full text). The 96-page Report makes recommendations to the State Department for countries to be named as Countries of Particular Concern (CPC's), countries to place on its Special Watch List (SWL), and non-state actors to be names as entities of particular concern (EPSCs). The Report also makes policy recommendations to the Executive and Congress. The Report says in part:

Now more than ever, U.S. support for the right to freedom of religion or belief must remain a priority as both a strategic national interest and a reflection of our national identity. Since the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, and in practice well before, the United States has stood unreservedly on the side of individuals freely asserting their religion or belief, which includes the right to hold a belief and the right to express it through practice, teaching, or worship according to one’s own convictions....

The administration of President Donald J. Trump faces a complex international environment in which to build on its previous success of centering religious freedom as a cornerstone of foreign policy and global leadership. Confirming this commitment to advancing freedom of religion or belief will require calibration and joint action with like-minded governments, and this report outlines concrete policy recommendations for this administration to maximize the success of its efforts as such. These recommendations begin with the prompt appointment of an Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, who leads initiatives through the U.S. Department of State to highlight and address religious freedom concerns around the world....

For 2025, based on religious freedom conditions in 2024, USCIRF recommends that the State Department:

 ■ Redesignate as CPCs the following 12 countries: Burma, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan;

■ Designate as additional CPCs the following four countries: Afghanistan, India, Nigeria, and Vietnam;

■ Maintain on the SWL the following two countries: Algeria, Azerbaijan; 

■ Include on the SWL the following 10 countries: Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Turkey, and Uzbekistan; and

 ■ Redesignate as EPCs the following seven nonstate actors: al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the Houthis, Islamic State – Sahel Province (ISSP), Islamic State in West Africa Province (ISWAP) (also referred to as ISIS-West Africa), and Jamaat Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin (JNIM)....

South Dakota Enacts Law Barring Transgender Individuals from Using State Restrooms Consistent with Their Gender

On March 20, South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden signed HB 1259 (full text).  The new law provides that public schools and buildings owned or occupied by state or local governments may not allow transgender males or transgender females to enter multi-person rest rooms, changing rooms or sleeping quarters that are inconsistent with their biological sex. Accommodations through unisex, family or single occupancy rooms may be made for transgender students whose parents request it. A person who encounters someone in a restroom or changing room in violation of these provisions can sue the school or state to obtain an injunction or declaratory judgment. AP reports on the new law.

Diocese and Pregnancy Center Challenge Illinois Ban on Employment Discrimination Because of Reproductive Health Care Choices

Suit was filed last week in an Illinois federal district court by a Christian Pregnancy Care Center and a Catholic diocese challenging the requirement that they comply with recent amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act that prohibit discrimination against employees based on their reproductive health care decisions. The complaint (full text) in Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford v. Bennett, (ND IL, filed 3/20/2025), alleges in part:

198. Because they wish to carry out their respective missions and spread their pro-life messages successfully, Plaintiffs hire and retain employees who avoid reproductive decisions that undermine their identity, mission, and message. For Plaintiffs, the credibility of their messengers is as important as the message. 

199. The Act’s Employment, Offensive Speech, and Notice Clauses severely burden Plaintiffs’ freedom of expressive association by forcing them to form associations and assemblies with employees whose reproductive decisions undermine their mission and message....

209. The Act substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ right to the free exercise of religion by prohibiting faith-based speech and conduct related to reproduction, interfering with their faith-based employment decisions, and forcing Plaintiffs to revise their statements of faith, positional statements, codes of conduct, employee handbooks, and other policy documents....

235. [The] right to religious (or “church”) autonomy safeguards a religious organization’s decision about which officers, board members, employees, and volunteers are best suited to advance its religious mission and purpose. 

236. This freedom extends to Plaintiffs’ ability to hire and employ only those who believe—and live out—the beliefs of their organizations about reproductive health decisions such as abortion, sterilization, and contraception....

259. The Act also restricts Plaintiffs’ right to free speech because it compels them to speak a message contrary to their beliefs not only to their current employees but also to prospective employees and the public in general....

281. Defendants’ application of the Act’s provisions about reproductive decisions to Plaintiffs’ religious speech and conduct violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Catholic Vote reports on the lawsuit. 

Kansas House Condemns Planned Satanic Black Mass at Statehouse

On March 20, the Kansas state House of Representatives adopted House Resolution 6016 (full text) denouncing a Black Mass planned by the Satanic Grotto for the statehouse grounds. The permit that was granted insisted that the event be held outdoors, though the leader of the Satanic Group threatens to try to move it inside in violation of the permit. The House Resolution that passed by a vote of 101-15 reads in part:

WHEREAS, The Kansas House of Representatives acknowledges and respects that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees all citizens the right to assemble and the freedom of speech, even as it expresses its profound disagreement with actions that mock or desecrate sacred beliefs; and

WHEREAS, The planned satanic worship ritual is an explicit act of anti-Catholic bigotry and an affront to all Christians. It blasphemes our shared values of faith, decency and respect that strengthen our communities: Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Kansas: 

That we denounce the planned satanic worship ritual scheduled to take place on the grounds of the people's house, the Kansas state capitol grounds, on March 28, 2025, as a despicable, blasphemous and offensive sacrilege to not only Catholics but all people of goodwill, and it runs contrary to the spiritual heritage of this state and nation; and 

Be it further resolved: That we call upon all Kansans to promote unity, mutual respect and the values that uphold our identity as one nation under God;....

According to the Topeka Capital-Journal:

Kansas City, Kansas, [Archbishop] Joseph Naumann accused the Satanic Grotto of stealing a consecrated host,... in a civil lawsuit. But Naumann dropped the lawsuit after Michael Stewart, president of the Satanic Grotto, testified that the wafers were lawfully purchased.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Chad Flanders, Is Yoder v. Wisconsin Limited to Its Facts?, (Saint Louis U. Legal Studies Research Paper Series 2025-05).
• Josh McDaniel, Religious Minorities and Secular Rights, ((March 15, 2025). Liberty & Law Center Research Paper).
• Ahmer Bilal Soofi, The Quran's Covenantal Structure and Letters of the Prophet – Non-Use of Force in International Relations, (November 28, 2024).
• Carlos A. Ball, Supreme Court LGBTQ Orthodoxy, (forthcoming vol. 90 Missouri Law Review (2025)).
• Julia Cage & Malka Guillot, Is Charitable Giving Political? Evidence from Wealth and Income Tax Returns, ((March 01, 2025), CESifo Working Paper No. 11731).
• Michelle M. Wu, Exposing the Unconscious Bias in Abortion Laws Through Comparison with Routine Removal, (January 10, 2025).
• Nancy J. Knauer, LGBTQ Rights in an Age of Democratic Uncertainty: How to Counter the Politics of Eradication, (February 26, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Josh A. Roth, No Escape: How the Library of Congress Weaponized Internal Relocation Against Persecuted Sikhs and How to Fight Back, 31 Asian American Law Journal 83-103 (2024).
• Nathan J. Ristuccia, Christianity and Originalism: The Machen Brothers and the Question of Legal Fundamentalism, 36 Regent University Law Review 251-292 (2024).

School's Gender Support Policy Did Not Violate Parent's Free Exercise or Due Process Rights

In Vitsaxaki v. Skaneateles Central School District, (ND NY, March 20, 2025), a New York federal district court rejected free exercise and due process challenges to a school district's policy of referring to students by their preferred names and pronouns without informing parents that the district is doing so.  The court said in part:

Mrs. Vitsaxaki asserts that her free exercise of religion was substantially burdened when she was unable to direct the upbringing and education of her child to “counteract” the school district’s implicit messaging that “people can change their sex.” ...

Mrs. Vitsaxaki asserts that the district’s actions taken pursuant to the Policy— permitting Doe to use a preferred names and pronouns and to receive school counseling regarding gender identity questions—were in direct contradiction of her religious views concerning gender and biological sex....

... [A] Policy that permits students to use preferred names and pronouns cannot be said to promote or endorse a religious message nor establish a particular religious practice.  Nor does Mrs. Vitsaxaki allege that it does.  Mrs. Vitsaxaki merely alleges that the choices available to students who choose to take advantage of the Policy runs afoul of her own religious beliefs....

... [T]he Court is satisfied that the Policy, which enables students to use their preferred name and/or pronouns is rationally related to the school district’s legitimate interest in promoting a safe learning environment for its students. ...

Rejecting plaintiff's claim that the school infringed her parental rights, the court said in part: 

... [W]ithin the Second Circuit, the scope of parental rights has been limited in the education context.  Most recently, ..., the Second Circuit held that “there is not a parental right, absent a violation of the Religion Clauses, to ‘direct how a public school teaches their child.’”  ...

... Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s verified complaint—and copies of the Policy...—describe a Policy that operates more like a civility code that extends the kind of decency students should expect at school: such as being called the name they ask to be called.  This strikes at the heart of the subject and manner of instruction a school district is entitled to implement for its students....

... Mrs. Vitsaxaki does not plausibly allege that the district diagnosed or treated Doe or that the district violated her right to make healthcare decisions on Doe’s behalf.   

Simply put, she remained free to exercise her parent rights at home.

Covid Era Mask Mandate Did Not Violate Free Exercise

In Robol v. City of Columbus, (OH App., March 20, 2025), an Ohio state appellate court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims that the city infringed his free exercise rights when during the Covid pandemic it required individuals to wear a mask in public spaces.  The court said in part:

Ordinance 1643-2020, the City’s mask ordinance, required all persons to wear a mask in public spaces.  The ordinance did not regulate, or even mention, any religious activity, religious creed, or religious affiliation.  Thus, the face mask policies Mr. Robol challenges are both neutral and generally applicable....

Despite the general applicability and neutrality of the mask ordinance, Mr. Robol nonetheless asserts the City violated his rights under the Free Exercise Clause because the ordinance violated his Christian beliefs, forced him to worship a false god, and had the effect of mocking the tenets of his faith.  Though we do not question the sincerity of Mr. Robol’s interpretation of his religion, we are mindful that a government action is not unconstitutional merely because it incidentally burdens religious practices.

Mr. Robol also brought a religious exercise claim under 42 U.S.C. 2000bb, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act....

Not every imposition on religious exercise is a substantial burden....

Without doubting the sincerity of Mr. Robol’s belief that wearing a face mask violates his religious beliefs, we note that Mr. Robol does not allege, much less demonstrate through Civ.R. 56 evidence, that the face mask policies imposed any more than a mere inconvenience to his religious beliefs.....

Mr. Robol argues the City’s face mask requirement violated his freedom of speech and expression because the choice not to wear a face mask is a form of expressing his opposition to the City’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The City’s mask ordinance is content-neutral, and nothing in the terms of the ordinance suggests the purpose is to regulate speech.  And we agree with appellees the face mask policy promotes an important governmental interest in controlling the spread of COVID-19 that is unrelated to the suppression of speech.....

Kentucky Legislature Authorizes Conversion Therapy for Minors

Last week, the Kentucky legislature gave final approval to House Bill 495 (full text) which invalidates Executive Order 2024-632 issued last year by Governor Andy Beshear.  The Executive Order contained a number of provisions to prevent the practice of conversion therapy on minors. HB 495 also prohibits the use of Medicaid funds for cross-sex hormones or gender reassignment surgery.  AP, reporting on the bill's passage, said in part:

The measure voted on Friday, and denounced by Beshear, cleared both chambers by veto-proof margins. Lawmakers will take up vetoes while wrapping up this year’s session in late March.

[Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

EEOC Enjoined from Enforcing Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Against Christian Nonprofit Organization

In Stanley M. Herzog Foundation v. EEOC, (W.D. Mo. Oct 04, 2024), a Missouri federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the EEOC from enforcing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and rules implementing it against plaintiff, a nonprofit Christian educational organization, where enforcement would require plaintiff to accommodate abortions that are contrary to its sincere religious beliefs. The court said in part:

... [T]he EEOC has not established that it used the least restrictive means to advance its interests at this stage. The Final Rule’s approach requires employers to provide accommodations for employees who obtain abortions and permits a religious employer to assert a religious defense only after an employee brings a complaint against it for refusing to provide accommodations. There is no way for a religious employer to ensure it will not face investigation or prosecution ahead of time. The Foundation suggests a number of alternatives the EEOC could have taken, which are less restrictive of its free exercise rights....  The EEOC argues these alternatives are not feasible because the PWFA does not give it authority to predetermine religious exemptions or defenses. Ultimately, the burden is on the EEOC to “prove with evidence” that its policies are the least restrictive means “to achieve its compelling interest, including alternative forms of regulation.”

... [T]he Foundation is likely to succeed on the merits of its RFRA claim.....

The Heartlander reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Execution Stay to Buddhist Who Says His RLUIPA Rights Will Be Violated

 In a 5-4 decision in Hoffman v. Westcott, (Sup. Ct., March 18, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant a stay of execution to a Buddhist inmate who contended that Louisiana's method of execution would violate his free exercise rights under RLUIPA. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissented from the denial without filing opinions. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The State of Louisiana plans to execute Jessie Hoffman tonight. Mr. Hoffman is a Buddhist. And he argues that the State’s chosen method of execution—nitrogen hypoxia—violates his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.... Nitrogen hypoxia will, he says, substantially burden his religious exercise by interfering with his meditative breathing as he dies....  No one has questioned the sincerity of Mr. Hoffman’s religious beliefs. Yet the district court rejected his RLUIPA claim anyway based on its own “find[ing]” about the kind of breathing Mr. Hoffman’s faith requires.... That finding contravened the fundamental principle that courts have “no license to declare . . . whether an adherent has ‘correctly perceived’ the commands of his religion.” 

AP reports on the Court's action.

President Issues Nowruz Greetings

Today is Nowruz, the Persian New Year.  Yesterday President Trump issued a Message (full text) sending wishes to those celebrating the holiday.  The Message said in part:

Nowruz is a joyous occasion for the Persian people, marking the beginning of spring, and the Persian New Year.  This long-standing tradition presents a time to reflect on the blessings of the previous year and prepare for the coming spring with a renewed spirit of optimism.

The Persian people with their vibrant culture and exceptional talents in fields such as math, science, law, technology, and the arts, make many integral contributions to society.  On behalf of the United States, I extend my kindest regards for a joyous holiday.

Court Enjoins Implementation of Ban on Transgender Individuals Serving in the Military

In Talbott v. United States, (D DC, March 18, 2025), the United States federal district court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction barring the military from implementing Executive Orders and military memoranda that exclude transgender persons from serving in the military. The injunction requires the military to maintain the pre-Trump status quo on military service by transgender individuals. Explaining its decision, the court's 79-page opinion said in part:

The Court agrees that “courts [are] ill-equipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion upon military authority might have” and that “the military authorities [not courts] have been charged by the Executive and Legislative Branches with carrying out our Nation’s military policy.”... Often, courts accept “the reasoned, professional analysis of Congress and the Executive on matters strictly within the realm of military expertise.”...   

Defendants carry deference too far, however.  By “defer” they basically mean the Court must side with the military’s position, end-stop.  And they contend the Court must defer even if the judgment, as here, does not make sense....

The Court ... applies Bostock’s reasoning to analyze the Military Ban.  In doing so, it does not “import[] the Title VII test for liability,” ... into the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.  Rather, it borrows Justice Gorsuch’s reasoning to conclude that transgender discrimination is a form of sex discrimination for purposes of the equal protection inquiry....

... [B]ecause the Military Ban targets transgender persons for disparate treatment, it creates an explicit sex-based classification that requires application of intermediate scrutiny. ...

The court also concluded that the Military Ban is subject to intermediate scrutiny because transgender persons should be considered a quasi-suspect class. The court went on:

Defendants have articulated important government objectives in military readiness, unit cohesion, and saving costs.  But the Fifth Amendment requires more than pointing to such “broadly formulated interests.”...  Defendants must show that the discriminatory Military Ban is in some way substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.  And they must do so without relying on “overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.” ... They do not come close.  Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Military Ban fails intermediate scrutiny review.....

The Military Ban is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.  Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact.  Thus, even if the Court analyzed the Military Ban under rational basis review, it would fail....

The Court could stop here in its analysis and comfortably conclude that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Military Ban is motivated by animus and is not tailored to meet its stated goals.  But, as they say, there is more, for the Military Ban does not stand alone.  President Trump has signed an executive order recognizing the existence of only two sexes; blocked schools from using federal funds to promote the idea that gender can be fluid; directed the State Department to stop issuing documents that allow a third “X” gender marker; changed references to “LGBTQI+” on government websites to “LGB,” erasing not just transgender persons, but intersex people as well; revoked the ability of transgender federal employees to receive gender-affirming care; and directed that all incarcerated transgender persons be denied medical treatments and be housed by birth sex, where they are nine times more susceptible to violence....

NPR reports on the decision.

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.

Most Challenges to Law Protecting Access to Abortion Clinics Are Rejected; One Section Violates 1st and 14th Amendments

In Hulinsky v. County of Westchester, (SD NY, March 14,2025), two women who have engaged in sidewalk counseling at abortion clinics challenged a Westchester County, New York, law that was designed to assure safe access to reproductive health care facilities. The court described the challenged legislation:

Sections 425.31(a) prohibits forms of “physically obstructing or blocking” that amount to interfering with and/or intimidating persons obtaining access at a reproductive health care facility. Sections 425.31(e) and (f) prohibit interfering with and/or intimidating persons obtaining access at a reproductive health care facility “[b]y force or threat of force, or by physically obstructing or blocking[.]” Section 425.31(c) prohibits “knowingly follow[ing] and harass[ing] another person within twenty-five (25) feet of” a “reproductive health care facility.” Section 425.31(h) prohibits “knowingly interfer[ing] with the operation of a reproductive health care facility.”

A New York federal district court found that Sec. 425.31(h) "burden[s] substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests." It also concluded that the section "is vague because it fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct is prohibited." However, the court dismissed plaintiffs' free exercise challenge to the section as well as their free speech and free exercise challenges to other parts of the law. 

Justice Department in Policy Change Files Amicus Brief Supporting Religious Charter School

 As previously reported, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Oklahoma Virtual Charter School Board v. Drummond and the related case of St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School v. Drummond. In the cases, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the state Charter School Board's authorization of a Catholic-sponsored publicly-funded charter school violates Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Last week (March 12), the U.S. Acting Solicitor General filed an amicus brief (full text) urging reversal of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The brief says in part:

... [T]he Free Exercise Clause applies and prohibits Oklahoma from excluding St. Isidore based on its religious observance. 

The United States previously advanced a different view of a charter school’s relationship with a State in Charter Day School, Inc. v. Peltier, 143 S. Ct. 2657 (2023), after this Court called for the views of the Solicitor General regarding whether a charter school’s adoption and enforcement of a student dress code was state action that could potentially violate the Constitution.  The United States contended (Br. 9-14) that the charter school was engaged in state action because it performed an educational function that was traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.  

After the recent change in Administration, the United States has concluded that charter schools do not perform functions exclusively reserved to the State.  More broadly, the state-action inquiry on which the United States focused in Peltier has obvious application to cases asking whether a school violates the Constitution in taking a specific action.  Where, as here, the question is whether a school lacks constitutional protections due to its governmental character, the key consideration is whether the school is itself a governmental entity, created and controlled by the State.  A charter school like St. Isidore does not meet those criteria.

RLUIPA and Free Exercise Claims Rejected in Suit by Native American Who Held Religious Objections to Blood Alcohol Test

In Shash v. City of Pueblo, (D CO, March 14, 2025), plaintiff who was a leader in the southern Colorado Native American Community Church of Aztlan brought a variety of claims against the city, state police and other state agencies growing out of his arrest and DUI charges brought against him after an auto accident. Among the claims were alleged violations of plaintiff's free exercise rights under RLUIPA and the federal and state constitutions. According to the court:

Plaintiffs allege that Trooper Chavez denied Mr. Shash the opportunity to take a breath test and effectively placed Mr. Shash in a position where he had to submit to a blood test or be charged with DUI....  Plaintiffs argue that this constitutes a substantial burden on Mr. Shash’s First Amendment right to free exercise of his religious beliefs, which prohibit blood draws outside a ceremonial context. 

The court dismissed plaintiff's RLUIPA claim, saying in part:

RLUIPA provides that “[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution.”...

Because Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Shash was never taken to jail, ... the Parties dispute whether Mr. Shash was ever “confined to an institution” for RLUIPA  purposes....  [W]hile Mr. Shash raises arguments relevant to a finding that he was in “pretrial detention,”..., he omits any discussion of whether his time in the Trooper Defendants’ custody was spent in a “facility.”  The Court thus agrees with Defendants that Mr. Shash was never “residing in or confined to” a qualifying institution.

The court dismissed plaintiff's 1st Amendment free exercise claim on qualified immunity grounds, saying in part:

While Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Shash made an “inquiry” regarding his right to decline a blood test that was “based on his right to religious exercise,” there is no allegation that Mr. Shash disclosed his religious beliefs to any Defendant, nor that Trooper Chavez was ever aware of Mr. Shash’s religious beliefs.... In other words, Plaintiffs fail to allege that Trooper Chavez purposefully imposed a substantial burden on Mr. Shash’s free-exercise rights....  Because Plaintiffs have not identified a clearly established First Amendment right implicated by Trooper Chavez’s conduct, Trooper Chavez is entitled to qualified immunity.

The court refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state free exercise claim because it poses a novel question of the degree of scienter required for a violation of the state's free exercise protections in a suit against state officials. Colorado has not adopted a qualified immunity defense.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Sascha O. Becker, Amma Panin, Steven Pfaff & Jared Rubin, Religion and Economic Development: Past, Present, and Future, (CESifo Working Paper No. 11724 (2025)).
• Steven Douglas Smith, The Once and Future Freedom of the Church: Three Stories, (San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 25-008 (2025).
• Nausica Palazzo, The Religion of Illiberals and the Anti-Gender Backlash, (Law & Ethics of Human Rights, 18 (2):107-137 (2024)).
• Elizabeth Sepper, James David Nelson & Charlotte Garden, Expressive Association at Work, (124 Michigan Law Review__ (forthcoming 2026)).
• Dylan Morrissey, How Bruen and Dobbs Resolved Opposing Historical Traditions Through Hidden Equal Protection Analysis, (Forthcoming, Columbia Law Review Forum, Vol. 125, May 2025).
• Teresa Stanton Collett, Partial Personhood for the Unborn, (January 28, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Journal of Law & Religion, Vol. 39, Issue 2 (May 2024).
• Vrinda Narain, What's Love Got to Do with It? Anti-Love Jihad Laws and the Othering of Muslims in India, 30 UCLA Journal of Gender & Law 167-202 (2023).
• Maggie Crain, Fear and Loathing in Animus: Moral Panic, the Contextualizing Tool for Challenging Gender-Affirming Care Bans, 39 Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender, & Society 21-54 (2024).

Syria Gets New Interim Constitution That Protects Freedom of Belief

AP reports that on March 13, Syria's interim president, Ahmad al-Sharaa, signed an Interim Constitutional Declaration (full text), which will be in effect until a new permanent constitution for the country is drafted and adopted and national elections are held under it. The Interim Constitutional Declaration provides in part:

Article 3 – Islam, freedom of belief, personal status

1. The religion of the President of the Republic is Islam, and Islamic jurisprudence is the principal source of legislation.

2 - Freedom of belief is protected. The State respects all divine religions and guarantees the freedom to perform all their rituals, provided that this does not disturb public order.

3. The personal status of religious sects is protected and respected in accordance with the law....

 Article 10 – Equality  

Citizens are equal before the law in rights and duties, without discrimination based on race, religion, gender or lineage....

 Article 13 – Expression, privacy, movement  

1. The State guarantees freedom of opinion, expression, information, publication and the press....

Oklahoma Indicts Megachurch Pastor on Charges of Lewd Acts With a Minor

The Oklahoma Attorney General has announced that on Wednesday a Multi-County Grand indicted the founder of a Texas Megachurch on five counts of lewd or indecent acts with a young girl. (Full text of indictment). The AG's press release (full text) announcing the indictment said in part:

Robert Preston Morris, 63, resigned last summer as senior pastor of Gateway Church. The Southlake, Texas-based megachurch is among the largest in the United States.

In December 1982, Morris was a traveling evangelist visiting in Hominy with the family of the alleged victim, who was 12 at the time. The indictment alleges Morris’ sexual misconduct began that Christmas and continued over the next four years....

The statute of limitations is not applicable in this case because Morris was not a resident or inhabitant of Oklahoma at any time.

NBC News reports on the indictment.

Petition Seeks to Stop Latest Effort to Get Bibles in Oklahoma School Classrooms

 As previously reported, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has issued an order staying any work by the Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services on any new request by the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) for the purchase of Bibles for distribution to public school classrooms. However, the Department of Education has announced a new "Bibles Back in School" Campaign in which it has partnered with singer Lee Greenwood in asking members of the public to purchase copies of the "God Bless the USA" Bible and donate them to OSDE for it to distribute to classrooms. The website through which purchase may be made says in part:

The God Bless The USA Bible makes a strong visual connection of the KJV translation (red letter edition) along with our nation’s Founding Father Documents – The US Constitution, The Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, and The Pledge of Allegiance – providing a profound visible teaching asset for all. This special Bible will help our next generation of leadership to carry on the future of America as we’ve known it.

Yesterday, the petitioners in Walke v. Walters, (OK Sup. Ct., filed 3/12/2025), filed a Supplemental Petition (full text) with the Oklahoma Supreme Court asking it to issue an injunction prohibiting OSDE from proceeding with the Campaign, arguing that OSDE lacks authority to distribute Bibles to school districts and that the Bibles Back to School Campaign violates provisions of the Oklahoma state Constitution (Art. 1 Sec. 2 and Art. 2 Sec 5)which prohibit public money from being used to support any system of religion. The Petition says in part:

To be sure, private parties are free to offer donations of items-- including Bibles-- to school districts, but state officials cross the constitutional line when they organize, promote, and participate in a campaign to distribute donated copies of a particular religious text to schools.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the Supplemental Petition.