Churches Lack Standing to Challenge Rescission of DHS's Sensitive Locations Policy

In Mennonite Church USA v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (D DC, April 11, 2025), the D.C. federal district court, in a suit by 27 Christian and Jewish denominational bodies and organizations, refused to issue a preliminary injunction to require DHS to reinstate its "sensitive locations" policy which severely limited the situations under which immigration enforcement actions could take place at churches, synagogues, mosques and other institutions of worship. The court concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to rescission of the policy. The court rejected arguments by plaintiffs of injury based on the imminent risk that immigration enforcement actions will be taken at member congregations; of injury from declines in attendance at worship services and social service ministries; of needing to restrict in-person services to protect immigrants; and of cost of increased security measures.

Trump Selects Antisemitism and International Religious Freedom Ambassadors

President Trump announced yesterday on Truth Social that he is nominating Yehuda Kaploun as the United States Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, Ambassador-at-Large. According to The Forward:

Trump’s announcement elicited a wave of sharply antisemitic comments on the social network....

Kaploun is affiliated with Chabad, the Orthodox movement, and was a fundraiser and surrogate for Trump during last year’s campaign.....

Kaploun is replacing Deborah Lipstadt.

Trump also announced on X (formerly Twitter) that he is nominating former Congressman Mark Walker as Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. In his own post on X, Walker expressed his thanks to Trump, saying in part:

As a former minister, along with serving in Congressional leadership, I'm open-eyed to the bad actors and regions committing these atrocities against people of faith.

Both Kaploun's and Walker's nominations are required to be confirmed by the Senate. The White House has not indicated on its website that the nominations have yet been formally submitted to the Senate.

3rd Circuit Rejects Title VII Claim by ER Doctor Who Was Denied Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate

In Bushra v. Main Line Health, Inc., (3d Cir., April 10, 2025), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a Title VII suit brought by an emergency room physician who was denied a religious exemption from his hospital's Covid vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Dr. Bushra’s arguments on appeal largely challenge the District Court’s determination that MLH established the undue hardship defense to his religious discrimination claims. ...

MLH provided unrebutted expert testimony that unvaccinated healthcare workers, like Dr. Bushra, presented an increased risk of transmitting COVID-19 to others, particularly when they interacted with vulnerable groups.... [P]atients and employees at MLH died from COVID-19, and the on-site spread of this serious infectious disease compromised MLH’s mission and ability to care for sick patients, and it jeopardized the health and efficacy of its employees and staff.  MLH’s expert additionally testified, contrary to Dr. Bushra’s assertion, that alternative infection control strategies, such as frequent testing and masking, were not sufficient to prevent transmission....

As MLH has presented substantial evidence of undue hardship, and Dr. Bushra has not provided any “actual evidence in the record on which a jury could decide an issue of fact [his] way,” we will affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment.

Kansas Legislature Overrides Governor's Veto of Bill Protecting Adoptive Parents' and Agencies' Views on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Yesterday, the Kansas legislature overrode Governor Laura Kelly's veto of House Bill 2311, the Adoption Conscience Act (full text). The new law provides in part:

(a) The secretary for children and families shall not adopt, implement or enforce a policy for selection as an out-of-home or adoptive placement or ... licensure...that:

 (1) Requires a person to affirm, accept or support any governmental policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that may conflict with the person's sincerely held religious or moral beliefs; or

 (2) prohibits selection, appointment or licensure, if otherwise eligible, of a person because of such person's sincerely held religious or moral beliefs regarding sexual orientation or gender identity or intent to guide or instruct a child consistent with such beliefs.

 (b) This section shall not be construed to:

 (1) Prohibit the secretary from considering the religious or moral beliefs of a child or the child's biological family or community, including, but not limited to, beliefs regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, in relation to the religious or moral beliefs of a person selected or being considered for placement....

The Federalist and an ADF issued a press release discuss the Bill.

Fired EEOC Commissioner Sues President

Yesterday, former EEOC Commissioner Jocelyn Samuels filed suit alleging that her removal from the Commission by President Trump was illegal. The removal of Samuels and a second Commissioner (both Democrats) left the EEOC without a quorum so that it cannot undertake any action that requires a Commission vote. Samuels, along with two other Democratic commissioners, had issued statements critical of President Trump's Executive Orders on DEI programs, transgender individuals and employment discrimination by federal contractors. The complaint (full text) in Samuels v. Trump, (D DC, filed 4/9/2025), alleges in part:

Congress did not grant the president authority to remove EEOC Commissioners at will.  Rather, the EEOC’s structure, mission, and functions, along with the terms set for Commissioners, demonstrate Congress’s intent to provide the Commission continuity, stability, and insulation from political pressure exerted by the president.  Because the Commissioners perform predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions, these restrictions on the president’s removal authority are constitutional....

Defendant Trump lacked cause to remove Commissioner Samuels.  The issues he identified in his January 27, 2025, email constitute policy disagreements between him and Commissioner Samuels.  By mandating bi-partisan membership on the Commission, Congress deliberately structured the agency to accommodate likely policy differences between the president and some Commissioners....

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws barring employment discrimination, including religious discrimination in employment. The Hill reports on the lawsuit.

Voting Fraud Alleged in World Zionist Congress Elections

The World Zionist Congress elections continue until May 4. The Congress, with representatives from Jewish communities around the world, allocates funds to various programs and organizations in Israel and elsewhere.  JFeed reports that the Area Election Committee overseeing the election in the United States has launched a fraud investigation into voting irregularities that benefit two of the 21 slates of candidates seeking representation. JFeed explains:

Voting in the World Zionist Congress requires a name, address, email, and a modest fee, safeguards meant to ensure authenticity. Yet the AEC uncovered patterns that defy innocence: half the flagged registrations looped back to 50 email variants, often appended with numbers, while 430 traced to a single K-8 yeshiva in Brooklyn. Six addresses, spanning New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, overlapped suspiciously, and the prepaid cards, all from TransPecos Bank and Pathward, suggested a coordinated financial effort.

“This isn’t mischief by overzealous supporters,” the AEC chairs asserted. “It’s a carefully orchestrated, costly scheme to manufacture votes and defraud the process.”

Broad Compelled Discussion of Abortion with Patients Violates Doctors' Free Speech Rights

In Schroeder v. Treto, (ND IL, April 4, 2025), an Illinois federal district court held that one amendment to the state's Health Care right of Conscience Act violates free speech protections but upheld another provision.  The provision struck down requires pregnancy care centers and doctors who have religious objections to abortions to inform pregnant patients of the risks and benefits of childbirth and abortion in order to claim a shield from liability. The court held that the provision compels speech in violation of the First Amendment. The court said in part:

Section 6.1(1) demands a wide ranging, hypothetical conversation unrelated to any procedure or other medical conduct.  Indeed, Section 6.1(1) requires a wide-ranging conversation that might be completely divorced from the reality of the situation; for example, the thrilled patient who is not reasonably likely to encounter medical difficulties because of the pregnancy.  What’s more, that compelled speech isn’t necessary to further future conduct....

... Under strict scrutiny, the State carries the burden of establishing the provision is narrowly tailored; it falls far short in this case.  So, Section 6.1(3) unconstitutionally compels speech, and therefore the State can’t demand such speech in exchange for a liability shield.

The court, however, upheld another provision that requires as a condition of claiming a shield from liability, that physicians and clinics, if requested by the patient, transfer or refer them or furnish a list of other providers to them who offer abortion services, saying in part:

This provision narrowly applies when a patient expressly asks a medical provider for information regarding potential abortion providers.  Stated differently, Section 6.1(3) contains an explicit and mandatory trigger that is directly linked to the action.  And even then, the provider need only comply if he intends to use the HCRCA as an affirmative defense.

From this narrow and purposeful drafting, the Court deduces that Section 6.1(3) doesn’t target speech...

The court found that this provision also does not violate providers' free exercise rights, saying in part: 

Two providers—one a conscientious objector and the other secular—both fail to provide a woman with requested information about abortion providers.  The conscientious objector refuses because of his sincerely held beliefs.  The secular provider doesn’t provide the requested information because he’s too busy.  Both patients sue.  Before the HCRCA, both suits could’ve gone forward, requiring the plaintiff in both cases to show that the health care providers fell below the standard of care. After the HCRCA’s enactment, the conscientious objector—but not the secular provider—is wholly protected, regardless of whether the provider’s actions fell below the standard of care.     

Along comes Public Act 99-690—partially restoring the pre-HCRCA universe. Now, as before, all health care providers are amenable to suit for failure to refer, transfer, or provide written information about potential abortion providers.  Relative to each other, the secular provider isn’t in any better position than before the HCRCA and the conscientious objector isn’t any worse for the wear.  

As this hypothetical shows, the latest Amendments to the HCRCA don’t impose additional burdens on conscientious objectors because of their beliefs....

Christian Post reports on the decision.

Denial of Conditional Use Permit to Church Violated RLUIPA and 1st Amendment

In Anchor Stone Christian Church v. City of Santa Ana, (CD CA, April 7, 2025), a California federal district court issued a preliminary injunction allowing a church to operate and make renovations to an office building it had acquired. The city had denied a conditional use permit to the church. The court concluded that the denial violated RLUIPA's equal terms and substantial burden provisions, as well as the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. The court said in part:

... [T]he City must do more than identify some similarly situated nonreligious assemblies that are treated as badly as religious assemblies—the City must show that it treats “every” similarly situated nonreligious assembly equally to religious assemblies....

In short, it appears unlikely that the City will meet its burden to establish that the Zoning Ordinance treats religious assembly on equal terms with similarly situated nonreligious assembly uses.... 

The Court concludes that, based upon the totality of the circumstances, Anchor Stone has met its burden to show that the City’s denial of its CUP application substantially burdened Anchor Stone’s religious exercise....

The City’s reasons for denying a CUP to Anchor Stone also appear particularly arbitrary in view of the City’s reasons for granting a CUP to Compass Bible Church....

The Planning Commission and the City Council refused to consider or apply RLUIPA in connection with Anchor Stone’s CUP application.  Multiple commissioners and councilmembers expressed “offense” at the mention of RLUIPA, while the City’s staff affirmed that it was the City’s “position” that RLUIPA was “outside the scope” of the CUP application process.  One councilmember regarded the mention of RLUIPA as a “smack in [his] face” and an attempt to “circumvent [Santa Ana’s] local laws.” Such comments from a government official fall far short of fulfilling the “First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,”....

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the decision.

Arizona Man Convicted of Bomb Threat Hate Crime Against Church

The Department of Justice announced yesterday:

After an 11-day trial, a federal jury returned a guilty verdict yesterday against Zimnako Salah, 45, of Phoenix, Arizona, convicting him of strapping a backpack around the toilet of a Christian church in Roseville, California, with the intent to convey a hoax bomb threat and to obstruct the free exercise of religion of the congregants who worshipped there.  The jury’s verdict included a special finding Salah targeted the church because of the religion of the people who worshipped there, making the offense a hate crime....

... [F]rom September to November of 2023, Salah traveled to four Christian churches in Arizona, California, and Colorado, wearing black backpacks. At two of those churches, Salah planted those backpacks, placing congregants in fear that they contained bombs. At the other two churches, Salah was confronted by security before he got the chance to plant those backpacks.

While Salah had been making bomb threats by planting backpacks in Christian churches, he had been building a bomb capable of fitting in a backpack....

Salah will be sentenced on July 18. He faces a maximum penalty of 6 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

Catholic Bishops Conference Ends Agreements with U.S. On Refugees and Children's Services

In a press release yesterday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops announced that it will not renew its cooperative agreements with the federal government on support of refugees and services for children. According to the press release:

Over the years, partnerships with the federal government helped expand lifesaving programs, benefiting our sisters and brothers from many parts of the world.... Our efforts were acts of pastoral care and charity, generously supported by the people of God when funds received from the government did not cover the full cost.

Today, the USCCB makes the heartbreaking announcement that we will not be renewing existing cooperative agreements with the federal government related to children’s services and refugee support. This difficult decision follows the suspension by the government of our cooperative agreements to resettle refugees. The decision to reduce these programs drastically forces us to reconsider the best way to serve the needs of our brothers and sisters seeking safe harbor from violence and persecution. 

As a national effort, we simply cannot sustain the work on our own at current levels or in current form. As USCCB cooperative agreements for refugee resettlement and children’s programs end, we will work to identify alternative means of support for the people the federal government has already admitted to these programs. We ask your prayers for the many staff and refugees impacted....

For half a century, we have been willing partners in implementing the government’s refugee resettlement program. The Gospel’s call to do what we can for the least among us remains our guide. We ask you to join us in praying for God’s grace in finding new ways to bring hope where it is most needed.

AG May Not Threaten Prosecution of Those Who Assist Women Seeking Out-of-State Abortions

In Yellowhammer Fund v. Attorney General of Alabama, (MD AL, March 31, 2025), an Alabama federal district court in a 131-page opinion issued a declaratory judgment holding unconstitutional the Alabama Attorney General's threat to prosecute those who assist women seeking to travel out-of-state to obtain a legal abortion.  The court found that the threat violated both the right to interstate travel and free expression rights.  The court said in part:

The right to travel includes both the right to move physically between two States and to do what is legal in the destination State.  The Supreme Court has held that States cannot punish their residents for traveling to another State and engaging in conduct that is lawful there....

This principle extends to people who enter a State to procure medical services, including abortions....

If a State cannot outright prohibit the plaintiffs’ clients from traveling to receive lawful out-of-state abortions, it cannot accomplish the same end indirectly by prosecuting those who assist them. ...

The Attorney General’s threatened enforcement of Alabama’s criminal laws imposes a content- and viewpoint-based restriction on speech.  It restricts information and discussion about a specific subject--abortion-- to forbid encouraging a specific viewpoint-- access to a legal out-of-state abortion....

... Yellowhammer Fund’s act of pledging and providing funds on behalf of pregnant Alabamians who seek a legal abortion outside Alabama is expressive conduct, and, therefore, subject to First Amendment protection....

It is one thing for Alabama to outlaw by statute what happens in its own backyard.  It is another thing for the State to enforce its values and laws, as chosen by the Attorney General, outside its boundaries by punishing its citizens and others who help individuals travel to another State to engage in conduct that is lawful there.... For example, the Alabama Attorney General would have within his reach the authority to prosecute Alabamians planning a Las Vegas bachelor party, complete with casinos and gambling, since casino-style gambling is outlawed in Alabama....  As the adage goes, be careful what you pray for. 

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

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Steven Douglas Smith, God and Caesar: Religious Freedom and the Two Jurisdictions, (San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 25-014 (2025).
• Samiul Hasan, Deliberative Legislation for the Muslim Majority Countries: The Principles, (January 31, 2025).
• Katherine McKerall, Free Speech, Fighting Faiths, and Nones: Blasphemy and Offensive Speech in the United States, (Liberty & Law Center Research Paper (2025)).
• Russell Powell, Religious Originalism, (69 Wayne L. Rev. 311 (2024)).
• Melissa Moschella, Strict Scrutiny as the Appropriate Standard of Review for Parental Rights Cases: A Historical Argument, (March 31, 2024).
• Justin Robert Blount & Michael Conklin, Bostock and the Textualist Illusion: A Holistic Solution to the Court's Patchwork Approach, (forthcoming, Houston Business and Tax Law Review (2025)).
• Kyle Velte, Identity and Procedural Subordination in LGBTQ Religious Exemption Cases, (March 13, 2025).
• Badreddine Berrahlia, Islamic Finance Dispute Resolutions in the English Courts: Past Experience and an Outlook for the Future, (October 10, 2023).
• S. Ernie Walton, Parental Preclusion Policies: Do Parents Have Standing to Challenge Them Before Enforcement?, (January 24, 2025).
• E. Travis Ramey, Wrongful Birth After Dobbs and the Limits of Tort Law in Areas of Dissensus, (103 Neb. L. Rev. 101 (2025)).
• Conor Casey, The Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice Option: A Classical Natural Law Method for Interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights, (November 01, 2024).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Faress Arafat, My Nurse Brother's Diaries—Echoes of Despair: A Chronicle from the Ashes of War, 71 UCLA Law Review 1218-1247 (2024).
• David B. Cruz, Reestablishment of Religion and LGBTQ Rights, 72 UCLA Law Review In Discourse 394 (2024).

Georgia Legislature Passes Religious Freedom Bill

On April 3, the Georgia legislature gave final passage to SB36, the Georgia Religious Freedom Restoration Act (full text). The Act requires the government to justify any substantial burden on the exercise of religion by a compelling interest implemented by the least restrictive means. The Act adds:

Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a violation of this chapter. As used in this Code section, the term "granting," used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.

If signed by Governor Brian Kemp, Georgia will be the 30th state to enact a religious freedom law.  Baptist Press reports on the bill.

UPDATE: On April 4, Govenor Kemp signed the bill.

Parents Lack Standing to Challenge School District's Transgender Policy

In Short v. New Jersey Department of Education, (D NJ, March 28, 2025), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed a suit by two parents and a third parent who intervened in the lawsuit who object to the transgender policy of their children's high schools. The policy, adopted by the board of education, calls for high schools to follow students' requests regarding their names and pronouns, without necessarily notifying parents. The court concluded that the policy applied to the schools, not to students or parents, so that plaintiffs lacked standing to obtain a declaratory judgment or injunction against the policy. The Intervenor parent particularly focused on free exercise issues, as set out by the court:

Count One of the intervenor complaint asserts equal-protection violations under the Fourteenth Amendments of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions.... Maldonado alleges that the Cherry Hill policy unnecessarily seeks to prevent discrimination against transgender students at the expense of students’ religious beliefs.... Cherry Hill Defendants cannot provide an exceedingly persuasive justification for unequal treatment of students and parents whose religious beliefs are contrary to the policy’s definition of gender.... 

Counts Two, Three, and Four claim violation of free speech and freedom of religion under the First Amendments of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions.... The policy favors speech based on views and ideas, according to Maldonado, and burdens parents’ and students’ free-speech rights by requiring affirmance of its definition of gender.... The intervenor complaint adds that the policy violates students’ and parents’ freedom to hold sincerely held Christian beliefs premised on a biblical worldview by forcing them to affirm that there are more than two genders or that gender may be based on one’s identity.... The policy seeks to compel affirmation of views repugnant to Christian beliefs and its stated goals may be achieved without forcing parents and students to alter or otherwise abandon their religious beliefs.... The policy does not provide for an excusal or opt-out, stressing one moral interpretation over others, favoring a secular view over a religious one, and discarding other views on gender identity as prohibited, worthy of ridicule, bigoted, or the like.... Count Four alleges failure to accommodate religious beliefs and practices....

The Cherry Hill policy implicates complex, sensitive issues that students will no doubt take from the classroom to the dinner table. Ensuing thoughts and conversations may touch upon family, faith, sexuality, and a host of other important topics. I accept Maldonado’s stated concerns as genuine expressions of her faith and related beliefs. However, without the allegedly offending provisions applying to her or her children, her mere perception of harm is insufficient to confer standing....

Antisemitism Claims Against UC Berkeley Move Ahead in Part

In Louis D. Brandeis Center, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California, (ND CA, March 31, 2025), plaintiffs allege that UC Berkeley has discriminated against Jewish faculty and students. The California federal district court allowed plaintiffs' free exercise, equal protection and Title VI claims to move forward. However, it dismissed plaintiffs' Sec. 1981 claim for discriminatory refusal to enter contracts. The court said in part:

The FAC [First Amended Complaint] alleges a series of events unfolding over the course of several months on campus, which are said to have been precipitated by a campus culture hostile to Jewish students and professors....  The FAC says that these events were perpetrated by students who professed to oppose Zionism, but actually intended to discriminate against Jewish students and professors because they are Jewish....  The FAC also alleges that Berkeley failed or refused to enforce its anti-discrimination policies as to its Jewish students and faculty in response to these events.... The FAC also plausibly alleges that Berkeley was deliberately indifferent to the on-campus harassment and hostile environment.... Consequently, Brandeis’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Equal Protection and Free Exercise Clauses of the U.S. Constitution will go forward, as will the Title VI claim.  

It bears mention that the FAC repeatedly alleges that “Zionism is a central tenet of the Jewish faith.”...  This raises concerns about whether Brandeis intends to call upon the Court to determine the articles of faith of Judaism.  If so, a serious constitutional problem would arise....

The 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim is dismissed.  The gist of this claim is that members of the plaintiff organizations who are legal academics cannot contract with certain Berkeley student organizations that adopted a bylaw barring invitations to individuals espousing Zionist beliefs....  Brandeis does not dispute it must show standing.... The complaint does not allege that any academic member has sought to contract with the organizations since adoption of the bylaw, been turned away on account of the bylaw, or has otherwise been put at a contractual disadvantage by the bylaw.

Oklahoma Sues FFRF For Sending Demand Letters Objecting to Religious Activities in Schools

In a rather unusual lawsuit, the state of Oklahoma has filed suit in federal district court against the Freedom from Religion Foundation seeking an injunction to prevent it from continuing to send demand letters objecting to religious activities in Oklahoma's public schools. The complaint (full text) in State of Oklahoma ex rel Oklahoma State Department of Education v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, (ED OK, filed 3/31/2025), alleges in part:

... [W]hen Achille Public Schools (“APS”) administrators exercised their statutorily required duties to allow students to participate in voluntary prayer, the Foundation for Freedom from Religion (“FFRF”) threatened the district with demands that APS administration must forbid its students from exercising their statutory and constitutional rights or face legal consequences. Furthermore, despite the incontrovertible fact that no student was forced to participate in prayer or any other religious activities, the FFRF insisted that “[t]he district must cease permitting teachers to give students bible lessons and it must ensure its schools refrain from coercing student to observe and participate in school-sponsored prayer.”...

Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes delegates “the responsibility of determining the policies and directing the administration and supervision of the public school system of the state” to the OSDE and the State Superintendent of Public Instructions.... FFRF has interfered with and will continue to interfere with OSDE and Superintendent Walters’s statutory authority to govern Oklahoma’s public schools. Declaratory and injunctive relief is both necessary and proper to ensure that OSDE and Superintendent can faithfully execute their duties, as well as protect the constitutional rights of Oklahoma’s public school students....

Despite having no standing whatsoever to do so, FFRF continuously threatens Oklahoma Public Schools with demand letters under the guise speaking on behalf of anonymous “concerned parents” who have contacted them. Notably, FFRF’s concern for how Oklahoma chooses to govern its own state is not limited to how its elected officials manage its schools. FFRF has “warned” the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to “discontinue prayers” that opened its regular monthly meetings; has demanded that state police and fire departments not be permitted to fundraise for the Salvation Army; and has generally interfered any time any duly elected state official suggests any proposition that is even remotely “religious.”

FFRF issued a press release responding to the lawsuit.

Trial Court's Refusal to Delay Civil Trial Because of Yom Kippur Is Upheld

In Dimeo v. Gross, (PA Super. Ct., April 2, 2025), a Pennsylvania state appellate court upheld a trial court's refusal to delay the start of a trial by one day. Defendant sought the delay so he could observe Yom Kippur without missing a day of his trial.  The court said in part:

Preliminarily, we note that the parties’ briefs direct our attention to the various tests employed by the United States Supreme Court upon claims of violations of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.  Nevertheless, we believe that the issue presented here, i.e., the propriety of the denial of a request for the continuance of a civil trial, can be resolved without reaching the constitutional question. ...

... [O]ur decision should not be interpreted as foreclosing continuance requests based upon religious observances.  Rather, we simply mean to amplify the notion that courts may demand a showing of diligence on the part of the movant before granting such requests.  Here, Appellants knew about their trial date over a year in advance.  A quick calendar search would have revealed the trial’s conflict with Yom Kippur, and Appellants could have moved for a continuance weeks or months in advance.  Appellants, however, waited until the eleventh hour, after the scheduling of expert witnesses, to request a continuance.  Under these circumstances, Appellants failed to act with diligence, and we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in denying the request....  

Defamation Suit by Russian Orthodox Church Priest Dismissed Under Church Autonomy Doctrine

 In Belya v. Kapral, (SD NY, March 31, 2025), a New York federal district court dismissed a defamation suit brought by a former priest in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. According to the court:

Plaintiff Alexander Belya was once a priest in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR for short). During his time with ROCOR, Belya led one of the order’s churches in Miami. In 2019, word came down from Moscow that Belya had been elevated to Bishop of Miami, an announcement that came as a surprise to ROCOR’s senior clergy. They hadn’t elected Belya, a necessary step in the elevation of any American bishop. Sensing foul play, they investigated and sent a letter to the Synod—the executive committee of ROCOR’s highest leadership council— about the situation. The letter informed the Synod that Belya’s election never happened and that two prior letters to Moscow, which purported to confirm Belya’s election, were “irregular” and lacked the usual markers of sacred church communications.  

News of the ROCOR letter got out and went viral in the religious press. The reports accused Belya of old-fashioned forgery. With his reputation ruined, Belya is now suing everyone who drafted and signed the ROCOR letter, as well as ROCOR itself. Belya says the letter defamed him by implying that he forged the two earlier letters about his election to bishop, an allegation that the religious press picked up and ran with....

First, putting aside the constitutional issues that dominate the parties’ briefing, Belya’s claims fail on routine state-law grounds. Second, even if Belya’s claims could otherwise proceed, a trial in this case would drag the Court and jury into matters of faith, spiritual doctrine, and internal church governance—precisely what the church-autonomy doctrine is designed to prevent.

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

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments Today on Challenge to Planned Parenthood Funding Cutoff

The U.S. Supreme Court today will hear oral arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Congress conferred an individually enforceable right for Medicaid beneficiaries to freely choose their healthcare provider. It thus affirmed the district court's enjoining of South Carolina's attempted cutoff of Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood. Links to pleadings and briefs in the case are available on the Supreme Court's docket for the case. Background on the case is discussed by SCOTUSblog. Today's oral arguments will be broadcast live at 10:00 AM at this link. A transcript and audio of the arguments will be posted here by the Supreme court later today.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Sex Discrimination Claim by Pastor Applicant

In Turman v. Abyssinian Baptist Church, (SD NY, March 31, 2025), a New York federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine requires dismissal of a state-law sex discrimination and breach of contract suit in which plaintiff contends that she was not advanced to the final round of the application process to become a senior pastor because she is a woman. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that the church had waived the ministerial exception defense when it included a non-discrimination statement in the notice and job description for the senior pastor position. The court said in part:

To be sure, one might question the propriety of an organization holding itself out as an equal opportunity employer and reaping the public relations benefits of that self-description, only to turn around and say that it is immune from liability under antidiscrimination statutes when someone alleges that the organization has unlawfully discriminated.  But in this case specifically, mindful of the presumption against waiver and having carefully evaluated the antidiscrimination statement on the job posting, the Court concludes that the statement on the job posting does not clearly demonstrate that Abyssinian waived its First Amendment rights....

... [E]mployment discrimination claims against churches require special solicitude.  By their very nature, these claims routinely pose a substantial entanglement concern.  Accordingly, courts routinely apply the ministerial exception to bar them at the motion to dismiss stage....

... There is no way for this Court to resolve Dr. Marshall Turman’s employment discrimination claim without becoming entangled with Abyssinian’s ecclesiastical innerworkings....

Dr. Marshall Turman “cannot evade the ministerial exception by asserting a contract claim based upon the same underlying facts as her statutory discrimination claims,”....  The ministerial exception, therefore, bars Dr. Marshall Turman’s contract claim, and it is dismissed....

Dr. Marshall Turman also seeks to hold Grant, as the chairperson of the Pulpit Search Committee, individually liable for employment discrimination....  But because the ministerial exception prevents this employment discrimination suit from proceeding against Abyssinian, it also requires this Court to dismiss the claims against Grant.  That is, because the First Amendment prohibits religious organizations from being sued under antidiscrimination laws regarding ministerial roles, it similarly prohibits those organizations’ agents from being sued under the same laws.....

Media Say Justices Seemed to Favor Catholic Charities Position in Yesterday's SCOTUS Arguments

News media reporting on yesterday's Supreme Court arguments in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission indicate that the Justices seemed to favor Catholic Charities position that it is unconstitutional to deny it the religious organization exemption in Wisconsin's unemployment compensation law. NPR reported in part:

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared openly doubtful on Monday about Wisconsin's refusal to exempt Catholic Charities from making payments into the state's mandatory unemployment system....

Monday morning's argument started out with some hard questions for Catholic Charities. Justice Elena Kagan asked, "Are you saying … that a group that comes in and says, 'We are a religious group doing religious activities for religious purposes,' qualifies no matter what? That there's no looking behind that at all?"...

If the justices seemed skeptical of the charity's opt-out position, both liberal and conservative justices seemed downright hostile to the state's assertion that Catholic Charities, which serves and employs people of all faiths, and doesn't allow proselytizing, is just like any other non-profit employer and is thus required to pay into the state's unemployment tax system.

Wisconsin assistant solicitor general Colin Roth faced constant interruptions from the bench, but managed to say that the standard imposed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court is that charities may be exempt from paying taxes if their activities involve worship, or religious proselytizing, or religious education. Catholic Charities fulfills none of those functions, he said....

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments Today on Tax Exemption for Catholic Charities

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning will hear oral arguments in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission.  In the case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court by a vote of 4-3 held that Catholic Charities Bureau and four of its sub-entities are not entitled to an exemption from the state's unemployment compensation law. (See prior posting.) Catholic Charities' petition for certiorari asks the Supreme Court to decide if Wisconsin violated the 1st Amendment's religion clauses when it held that Catholic Charities activities are primarily charitable and secular so that the statutory religious organization exemption is not available to it. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to the pleadings and briefs filed in the case. The oral arguments will be broadcast live by the Court at 10:00 AM at this page. An audio recording and a written transcript of the oral arguments will be posted later today by the Court on this page.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio recording of arguments in the case.

11th Circuit: Jail's Requirement for Religious Verification to Get Kosher Diet Is Not Substantial Burden

In Logsdon v. Woods, (11th Cir., March 28, 2025), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow a pre-trial detainee to proceed with an appeal of a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in a challenge to a jail's religious verification policy. The court said in part:

Here, Logsdon has no nonfrivolous arguments that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. The policy with which Logsdon takes issue does not substantially burden his free exercise of religion.... While the verification policy may be considered inconvenient, as it requires that Logsdon undertake the additional step of having his religious affiliation confirmed before he is given a kosher diet, such a requirement is not enough to constitute a substantial burden on Logsdon's religious practices....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Benjamin Fleshman, How Do You Solve a Problem Like Martinez?, (Forthcoming in Texas Review of Law and Politics, Volume 29, Issue 2, Spring 2025).
• Sherif Girgis, Unfinished Liberties, Inevitable Balancing, (Colum. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025)).
• Melissa Moschella, Do Parental Rights Extend Beyond the Schoolhouse Door? Correcting Misinterpretations of Pierce in Light of History and Tradition, (March 01, 2025).
• Melissa Moschella, Carson v. Makin, Free Exercise, and the Selective Funding of State-Run Schools, (February 28, 2025).
• Steven J. Heyman, Teaching Dobbs: On The Role Of Ideology In Constitutional Interpretation, (March 07, 2025).
• Elizabeth Bartholet, The Mixed Blessing/Curse of the Meyer-Pierce Legacy, (Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, Volume 26, No. 1. Pp. 99–106, 2025).
• Ira P. Robbins, Criminal Abortion and Citizen's Arrest, (Utah Law Review, Volume 2025, No. 2, Pp. 281-335).
• Nicole Huberfeld & Michael R. Ulrich, United States V Skrmetti—Testing the Transition to Politicized Regulation of Medicine, (JAMA. 2025;333(10):839–840).
• S. Ernie Walton & Eric A. DeGroff, Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners in Mahmoud v. Taylor, (March 10, 2025).
• Gaurav Mukherjee, Private Disestablishment, (51 Brigham Young University Law Review __ (2026)).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Abdurrachman Satrio, Between Two Worlds: Indonesia and the Spectre of the Dharmic-Infused Constitutional Structure, (Forthcoming in Ngoc Son Bui, Mara Malagodi, and Christopher Michael Roberts (Eds.), Asian Comparative Constitutional Law Vol. 3, Constitutional Structure (Hart Publishing, 2025)).
• Sahibpreet Singh, Sharandeep Kaur & Lalita Devi, Caste Based Marginalization, (January 04, 2024).

From SSRN (Religious Law):

• Tal Prottas, ShulCoin Token, (March 17, 2025).
• Francis Beckwith, God and the Natural Law, (God and Morality, eds. J. Hare and D. Baggett (Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2026)).
• Hershey H. Friedman, Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai: The Preeminent Voice of Tannaitic Judaism, (March 20, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Mohamed 'Arafa, "Islamization" of Egyptian Law: 'Abd alRazzaq alSanhuri's Rule of Law's Doctrine, 17 Charleston Law Review 419-454 (2023).
• Adele Auxier Keim, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Indian Law: From Individual Advocacy to Collective Action, 23 Journal of Appellate Practice & Process 149-192 (2023).
• Victoria Sutton, Appellate Courts: Stop Accepting an "Absurd" First Amendment Analysis for Native Nations' Sacred Site Destruction, 23 Journal of Appellate Practice & Process 193-212 (2023).
• Keith Thompson, Chief Justice Dixon on Judicial Integrity: Lessons for Judges When Interpreting Constitutions, 25 Oregon Review of International Law 115-146 (2024).
• Eugene Volokh, Tribute: Justice O'Connor's Religion Clauses Legacy, 76 Stanford Law Review 1915-1928 (2024).

Kentucky Legislature Orders Return of 10 Commandments Monument to State Capitol Grounds

Kentucky House Joint Resolution 15 (full text) became law without the Governor's signature on March 27.  The Resolution orders a "return for permanent display on the New State Capitol grounds the granite Ten Commandments monument given to the Commonwealth of Kentucky in 1971 by the Fraternal Order of Eagles." In 2002, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, rejecting a 2000 legislative resolution, held that placing of the monument back on statehouse grounds after it had been moved in a construction project would violate the Establishment Clause. The state's new Resolution states in part:

the legal precedent under which the 2000 joint legislative resolution’s mandate to return the monument to the New State Capitol grounds near the floral clock was enjoined, has been abandoned by the United States Supreme Court, and is no longer good law....

Christian Post reports on the Resolution.

New York County Clerk Refuses to File Texas Default Judgment Against Doctor Who Sent Abortion Pills to Texas Woman

New York state's Shield Law (EXECUTIVE 837-x) provides in part:

No state or local government employee ... shall cooperate with ... any out-of-state individual or out-of-state agency or department regarding any legally protected health activity in this state, or otherwise expend or use time, moneys, facilities, property, equipment, personnel or other resources in furtherance of any investigation or proceeding that seeks to impose civil or criminal liability or professional sanctions upon a person or entity for any legally protected health activity occurring in this state... 

Invoking this provision, an Ulster, New York County Clerk yesterday refused a request by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to enforce in New York a Texas default civil judgment against a New York physician charged with providing abortion medication to a woman in Texas. Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck's statement (full text) reads in part:

Today, I informed Texas State Attorney General Ken Paxton that the Ulster County Clerk’s Office will not be filing a summary judgment against a New Paltz physician who is facing charges in Texas for providing mifepristone via telehealth to a Texas resident. The judgment in question seeks a civil penalty exceeding $100,000 due to the doctor’s failure to appear in court. 

As the Acting Ulster County Clerk, I hold my responsibilities and the oath I have taken in the highest regard. In accordance with the New York State Shield Law, I have refused this filing and will refuse any similar filings that may come to our office...

The case will provide an interesting test of the extent of exceptions to the federal Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause which generally requires one state to enforce judgments of another state's courts.

Texas Tribune Reports on these developments.

Yeshiva University Settles Litigation With LGBTQ+ Students

A Joint Statement (full text) from the parties to the long-running litigation between Yeshiva University and LGBTQ+ students attempting to form a student organization on campus reports in part:

The parties have reached an agreement and the litigation is ending. Current students will be implementing a club, to be known as Hareni, that will seek to support LGBTQ students and their allies and will operate in accordance with the approved guidelines of Yeshiva University’s senior rabbis. The club will be run like other clubs on campus, all in the spirit of a collaborative and mutually supportive campus culture.”

In December 2022, a New York state appellate court had ordered the University to recognize a different group, YU Pride Alliance, that students had previously formed. (See prior posting).  Inside Higher Education reports on these developments.

5th Circuit: Prison's Punishment for Inmate's Religious Observance Can Violate RLUIPA

In Johnson v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff Office, (5th Cir., March 25, 2025), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to a Louisiana federal district court a prisoner's lawsuit alleging violations of RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment. The district court had dismissed the suit at the initial screening stage. The court explained:

Pro se plaintiff and pretrial detainee Damien Johnson follows the Rastafarian religion and took a religious vow that prevents him from cutting his hair.  Adhering to that vow, Johnson refuses to cut his hair to comply with Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office’s (“JPSO”) policy.  As a consequence, he is not allowed to go into the yard, use the phone, or buy items from the commissary.  Instead, he alleges he is confined to an unsanitary unit infected with toxic mold....

Here, the district court concluded that Johnson failed to allege a substantial burden on his religious exercise because he “is in fact still exercising his vow to continue growing his hair.” But this conclusion has the problematic result of decreasing protection for the staunchest religious observers who have to face severe punishment to continue exercising their religion.  Indeed, the district court is wrong—an individual can face a “substantial burden” on religious exercise based upon limitations and punishments in the prison while continuing to exercise their religion....

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.