Religion Clause

Wednesday, June 25, 2025

DOJ Intervenes In Challenge To Washington Law Removing Clergy Privilege

The Department of Justice on Monday filed a Complaint in Intervention (full text) in Etienne v. Ferguson, (WD WA, filed 6/23/ 2025) to become a party in a suit by Catholic bishops in Washington state challenging a recently adopted amendment to the state's mandatory child abuse reporting law that requires clergy to report child abuse or neglect even if they learn of it in a confessional. The DOJ's petition alleges in part:

7. SB 5375 directly interferes with the fundamental right of Catholic priests to freelyexercise th eir religion by forcing them to violate the sanctity and confidentiality of confessionalcommunications. No other mandatory reporter is required to forego his or her fundamental rights under the Constitution in this manner. Furthermore, a second provision of this bill expressly strips “clergy,” and no one else, from relying on any legal privileges, including the confessional privilege, as a defense to reporting child abuse and neglect. All non-religious “supervisors” may continue to rely on applicable state law privileges.

8. In addition, at about the same time SB 5375 w as enacted to deprive Catholic priests oftheir privileges under state law, Governor Ferguson signed another bill into law ... which restored legal privileges to attorneys who are mandatory reporters because they happen to work for colleges and universities, including at law school clinics.

The Justice Department issued a press release announcing their motion to intervene in the lawsuit.

Texas Enacts Requirement That Schools Offer Released-Time Programs

On June 20, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott signed SB 1049 (full text) which requires all public and charter schools to permit students to attend released-time religious classes for up to five hours per week. The student must assume responsibility for any school assignments issued during his attendance at religious classes. ADF issued a press release endorsing the new law.

Tuesday, June 24, 2025

Challenge To Narrow Religious Exemption in Maryland Employment Law Is Dismissed In Part

In General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Horton, (D MD, June 18, 2025), a Maryland federal district court denied a preliminary injunction in a suit challenging the Maryland Supreme Court's interpretation of the religious exemption in the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act. The Maryland Supreme Court has held that the exemption is limited to claims brought by employees who perform duties that directly further the core mission of the religious entity. As summarized by the court, plaintiffs allege in part:

(1) the exemption violates Plaintiffs' church autonomy rights under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment; (2) it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it excessively entangles government with religion; (3) it violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment; (4) it violates the Establishment Clause by discriminating against Plaintiffs based on their denomination; (5) it violates Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to expressive association; (6) it violates Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to assembly; and (7) it violates the right to due process of law under the Fifthand Fourteenth Amendments because it is unconstitutionally vague.

In a 43-page opinion, the court found that plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of any of these claims. However it refused to dismiss outright three of plaintiff's claims, saying in part:

... [T]he Court recognizes that Plaintiffs are in good faith seeking an extension of the law in Count 1 [church autonomy], and that on Count 3 [free exercise], Plaintiffs have a different interpretation of the law on the issue of the applicable level of scrutiny that is not strictly foreclosed by precedent. Ordinarily, a court should refrain from dismissing outright a claim asserting a novel legal theory that can better be assessed after factual development....

... [T]he Court finds that under its view of the legal landscape, Plaintiffs have not stated a viable claim of a violation of the right to expressive association. Nevertheless, as with Counts 1 and 3, where Plaintiffs are seeking an extension of the law to have claims based on expressive association apply to the employment context, and further factual development is arguably warranted before full disposition of this claim, the Motion to Dismiss will be denied as to this claim.

Monday, June 23, 2025

Certiorari Granted in RLUIPA Damages Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, (Docket No. 23-1197, certiorari granted 6/23/2025) (Order List). At issue in the case is whether an action for damages lies under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in a suit against a prison official in his personal capaciy. (Petition for Certiorari). Plaintiff, a Rastafarian, had his dreadlocks forcibly shaved by prison guards. The Supreme Court has previously held that a damage action under RFRA can be brought against federal prison personnel, but the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that it would violate the Spending Clause to recognize a similar remedy under RLUIPA, which is a statute based on Congress' Spending Clause authority. (See prior related posting.) The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the pleadings and amicus briefs in the case.

Texas Enacts Law Requiring Ten Commandments In Every Classroom

The Texas legislature has passed, and on June 20 Governor Gregg Abbott signed, SB10 (full text) which requires that:

a public elementary or secondary school shall display in a conspicuous place in each classroom of the school adurable poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments...

The law requires that a poster or framed copy at least 16x20 in size include only the text of the Ten Commandments set out in the law. It must be posted "in a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the classroom...."

Texas Tribune reports on the new law. A similar Louisiana law was just found to be unconstitutional by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals which also has jurisdiction over Texas. (See prior posting.)

Sunday, June 22, 2025

5th Circuit Upholds Preliminary Injunction Against Louisiana's 10 Commandments In Classrooms Law

In Roake v. Brumley, (5th Cir., June 20, 2025), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a Louisiana statute that requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. In a lengty opinion the appellate court found that plaintiffs had standing to challenge the statute and that plaintiffs had shown a substantial likelihood of succcess on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim. The court said in part:

The precedents of the Supreme Court and this court establish that, in an Establishment Clause case, a plaintiff can generally satisfy the injury-infact element of standing when he experiences—or certainly will experience—unwanted exposure to government-sponsored religious displays or exercises in the course of his regular activities....

Although the Supreme Court set aside the Lemon test in Kennedy [v. Bremerton School District],... Kennedy did not overrule Stone [v. Graham]. Kennedy does not mention Stone or purport to overrule the decisions (other than Lemon) on which Stone relies, i.e., Schempp or Engel. Stone remains good law andtherefore controls....

An H.B. 71 display that meets the statute’s minimum requirements is materially identical to the displays challenged in Stone....

It is also unclear how H.B. 71 ensures that students in Louisiana public schools “understand and appreciate the foundational documents of [its] stateand national government” when it makes displaying those “foundational” documents optional, and does not require that they also be printed in a large, easily readable font.... When the Ten Commandments must be posted prominently and legibly, while the other “contextual” materials need not be visible at all, the disparity lays bare the pretext....

... [T]he question before us is whether the permanent posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms fits within, or is consistent with, a broader tradition of using the Ten Commandments in public education....

Plaintiffs presented the expert testimony of Dr. Steven Green, a religious and constitutional legal historian. Dr. Green testified that the public school system did not exist at the founding; rather, public education originated sometime around the late 1820s. Dr. Green also found no evidence that the Ten Commandments were permanently displayed in early American public schools. He testified that no state enacted a law allowing the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools until North Dakota did so in 1927, and that a court later stuck down the statute....

Judge Dennis filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I join the majority opinion in full. I write separately to offer two additional bases for affirming the district court’s judgment. First, the Plaintiffs have standing under settled Supreme Court precedents recognizing “offended observer” standing in Establishment Clause cases.... Second, Louisiana vastly overstates both the holding and reach of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.... That decision did not undermine—much less overrule—Stone v. Graham.... Nor did it eliminate the component parts of Lemon v. Kurtzman....

Axios reports on the decision.

Friday, June 20, 2025

In Britain, Commons Passes Bill Removing Prosecution of Women for Their Own Abortion; Extending Time Sue for Child Sex Abuse

On June 18, Britain's House of Commons by a vote of 312-95 passed and sent to the House of Lords the Crime and Policing Bill. Among the provisionsin the 444-page bill are Section 82 which removes the limitation period in damage actions claiming child sexual abuse and Section 191 which provides:

For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.

Discussing Section 191, WGBH reports:

In a landslide vote late Tuesday, lawmakers in the lower house of British parliament, the House of Commons, endorsed new legislation that bars women in England and Wales from ever being investigated, arrested, prosecuted or imprisoned for terminating their own pregnancies — no matter what term or trimester they’re in. The vote was 379 to 137.

Abortion is allowed up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, and beyond that in certain cases, if the woman’s life is in danger. But abortions have to be approved by two doctors, except for those that are terminated at home within 10 weeks....

The bill now goes to the House of Lords for its approval.

Thursday, June 19, 2025

Wednesday, June 18, 2025

Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee's Ban on Gender Affirming Care for Minors

In United States v. Skrmetti,(Sup.Ct., June 18, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court today by a vote of 6-3 upheld Tennessee's law that bars both hormonal and surgical gender transition procedures for minors. The case generated 5 separate opinions spanning 118 pages. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion held that the Tennessee law does not trigger heightened scrutiny. He said in part:

This Court has not previously held that transgender individuals are a suspect or quasi-suspect class. And this case, in any event, does not raise that question because SB1 does not classify on the basis of transgender status. As we have explained, SB1 includes only two classifications: healthcare providers may not administer puberty blockers or hormones to minors (a classification based on age) to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence (a classification based on medical use). The plaintiffs do not argue that the first classification turns on transgender status, and our case law forecloses any such argument as to the second....

... [T]here is a rational basis for SB1’s classifications. Tennessee concluded that there is an ongoing debate among medical experts regarding the risks and benefits associated with administering puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence. SB1’s ban on such treatments responds directly to that uncertainty....

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

This case carries a simple lesson: In politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty, courts should not assume that self-described experts are correct.

Deference to legislatures, not experts, is particularly critical here. Many prominent medical professionals have declared a consensus around the efficacy of treating children’s gender dysphoria with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. They have dismissed grave problems undercutting the assumption that young children can consent to irreversible treatments that may deprive them of their ability to eventually produce children of their own. They have built their medical determinations on concededly weak evidence. And, they have surreptitiously compromised their medical recommendations to achieve political ends.

Justice Barrett, joined by Justice Thomas, filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Because the Court concludes that Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 does not classify on the basis of transgender status, it does not resolve whether transgender status constitutes a suspect class.... I write separately to explain why, in myview, it does not....

Beyond the treatment of gender dysphoria, transgender status implicates several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy—ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys’ and girls’ sports teams. If laws that classify based on transgender status necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, then the courts will inevitably be in the business of “closely scrutiniz[ing] legislative choices” in all these domains....

Justice Alito filed an opi nion concurring in part, saying in part:

I do notjoin Part II–A–2 of the opinion of the Court, which concludes that SB1 does not classify on the basis of “transgender status.” There is a strong argument that SB1does classify on that ground, but I find it unnecessary to decide that question. I would assume for the sake of argument that the law classifies based on transgender status, but I would nevertheless sustain the law because such a classification does not warrant heightened scrutiny. I also do not join Part II–A–3 of the Court’s opinion because I do not believe that the reasoning employed in Bostock v. Clayton County ... is applicable when determining whether a law classifies based on sex for Equal Protection Clause purposes.

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

Tennessee’s law expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status, so the Constitution and settled precedent require the Court to subject it to intermediate scrutiny. The majority contorts logic and precedent to say otherwise, inexplicably declaring it must uphold Tennessee’s categorical ban on lifesaving medical treatment so long as “‘any reasonably conceivable state of facts’” might justify it... Thus, the majority subjects a law that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere rational-basis review. By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims....

Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

I take no view on how SB1 would fare under heightened scrutiny.... So I would both start and stop at the question of what test SB1 must satisfy. As JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR shows, it is heightened scrutiny...

SCOTUSblog reports on the decision.

Religious Liberty Commission Holds First Hearing

On June 16, the new Justice Department Religious Liberty Commission held it first hearing at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, DC. Video of the full hearing is available in three parts on YouTube: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. OSV News reports on some of the testimony. A critical slant on the hearing was published by Americans United.

California May Proceed With False Advertising Charges Against Abortion Pill Reversal Promoters

In Culture of Life Family Services, Inc. v. Bonta, (SD CA, June 13, 2025), a California federal district court refused to enter a preliminary injunction to prevent California's attorney general from moving ahead with an enforcement action against a Catholic community health clinic that promoted "abortion pill reversal". California claimed that the clinic violated Unfair Commpetition and False Advertising laws. The clinic contended its promotion of abortion pill reversal is speech protected by the First Amendment. The court said in part:

The Court has already found that the challenged laws are not content-based and do not warrant application of a strict scrutiny standard.... But as content-neutral regulations, they are generally subject to heightened scrutiny: the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions “are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open....

The court concluded that the clinic was engaged in commercial speech and that, "it would be at the very least potentially misleading to state that supplemental progesterone can “reverse” an abortion." It went on to conclude that a number of other staements that the clinic made regarding abortion pill reversal are, or are potentially, false and misleading. The court went on to say in part:

Although this regulation involves reproductive rights, AG Bonta is not aiming to limit the actual practice of APR. And reproductive choices are not apart from consumer choices: women, in exercising their reproductive rights, are also consumers who must be given the correct information to make knowledgeable decisions for themselves....

In sum, Plaintiff cannot carry its burden of showing likelihood of success. Commercial speech that is inherently false or misleading does not receive First Amendment protection. For potentially misleading speech, the AG has more than carried his burden under Central Hudson.

Monday, June 16, 2025

Cert. Granted In Litigation Over Investigatory Demands

The U.S Supreme Court today granted review in First Choice Women's Resource v. Platkin, (Docket No. 24-781, certiorari granted 6/16/2025). (Order List). The petition for certiorari describes the complex fact situation involved:

New Jersey’s Attorney General served an investigatory subpoena on First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc., a faith-based pregnancy center, demanding that it turn over most of its donors’ names. First Choice challenged the Subpoena under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in federal court, and the Attorney General filed a subsequent suit to enforce it in state court. The state court granted the Attorney General’s motion to enforce the Subpoena but expressly did not decide First Choice’s federal constitutional challenges. The Attorney General then moved in state court to sanction First Choice. Meanwhile, the district court held that First Choice’s constitutional claims were not ripe in federal court.

The Third Circuit affirmed in a divided percuriam decision.. [T]he majority concluded First Choice’s claims were not yet ripe because First Choice could litigate its constitutional claims in state court.... It did not address the likely loss of a federal forum once the state court rules on the federal constitutional issues.

The question presented is: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?

Supreme Court GVR's Battle Over Health Insurance Abortion Coverage

In Roman Catholic Diocese v. Harris, (Sup. Ct., June 16, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment of New York's highest court and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. At issue in the case that was gvr'd today was whether the "religious employer" exemption to the state's requirement that health insurance policies cover medically necessary abortion services is too narrow. The exemption is only available to entities whose purpose is to inculcate religious values and that primarily employ and serve persons who share their religious tenets. (See prior posting.)

Texas Supreme Court Interprets Religious Services Clause of State Consitution

As previously reported, in a suit by members of the Lipan Apache tribe challenging improvements to a park that destroyed their ability to use a sacred site for certain religious ceremonies, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Texas Supreme Court a question on the meaning of a 2021 amendment to the Texas Consitution that prohibits the government from interfering with religious services. In Perez v. City of San Antonio,(TX Sup. Ct., June 13, 2025), the Texas Supreme Court in an 8-1 opinion said in part:

When the Texas Religious Services Clause applies, its force is absolute and categorical, meaning it forbids governmental prohibitions and limitations on religious services regardless of the government’s interest in that limitation or how tailored the limitation is to that interest, but the scope of the clause’s applicability is not unlimited, and it does not extend to governmental actions for the preservation and management of public lands. We express no opinion on whether the Free Exercise Clause or the Texas RFRA protect the religious liberties Perez asserts, and we leave it to the federal courts to apply our answer in the underlying case.

Justice Sullivan filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

With deepest respect for my esteemed friends on the Fifth Circuit and on our Court, I would decline this expansive invitation to issue an advisory opinion on a “new provision” of our Bill of Rights that “[n]o Texas court has construed.”

Friday, June 13, 2025

Court Denies TRO In Challenge To Trump's Executive Orders on Antisemitism

In McClanahan v. Trump, (WD MO, June 9, 2025), a Missouri federal district court refused to grant a temporary restraining order in a challenge to President Trump's Executive Orders directing federal agencies to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (“IHRA”) definition of antisemitism in enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and which direct federal agencies to withhold funding from universities that do not bar criticism of Israel. According to the court:

Plaintiff brings his action challenging the constitutionality of Executive Orders 13899 and 14188 based on alleged violations of his First Amendment Right of free speech, Violation of his Fifth Amendment Right under the Due Process Clause; and violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment....

Plaintiff identifies five constitutional arguments he believes have a likelihood of succeeding on the merits. Those arguments are First Amendment – Viewpoint Discrimination; First Amendment – Chilling Effect; First Amendment – Right to Petition; Establishment Clause; and Fifth Amendment – Due Process and Vagueness. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has alleged not facts indicating a reasonable belief that he will lose his federal benefits and no link betweean y prospective loss of his federal benefits and the challenged executive orders.

The court concluded that plaintiff's likelihood of success on any of these claims was low.

Thursday, June 12, 2025

Supreme Court Review Sought In High School Football Game Prayer Dispute

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S.Supreme Court last week in Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc., (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 6/6/2025).In th e case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech and free exercise claims by a Christian school that was refused the use of a stadium's public address system for a pre-game prayer at the FHSAA state championship football game in which it was playing. (See prior posting).

Wednesday, June 11, 2025

DOJ Sues California Coffee House for Discriminating Against Jewish Customers

On Monday, the Justice Department filed suit in a California federal district court against an Oakland, California coffee house alleging violations of Title II, the Public Accommodation provisions, of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The suit alleges that the coffee house refuses to serve Jewish patrons. The complaint (full text) in United States v. Harara, (ND CA, filed 6/9/2025), alleges in part:

Among the drinks the coffee house sells are "Iced In Tea Fada," an apparent reference to intifada and "Sweet Sinwar." The coffee house announced these new drinks on Instagram on the one-year anniversary of the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel....

The Justice Department's press release announcing the filing of the suit summarizes the discrimination charges in the complaint, saying in part:

The lawsuit ... alleges that defendants discriminated against Jewish customers through policies and practices that denied them the full and equal enjoyment of the Jerusalem Coffee House’s services, accommodations, and privileges. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that on two separate occasions, Harara ordered Jewish customers — identified because they were wearing baseball caps with Stars of David on them — to leave the coffee house. During one incident, an employee told a Jewish customer who was trying to make a purchase, “You’re the guy with the hat. You’re the Jew. You’re the Zionist. We don’t want you in our coffee shop. Get out.” During another incident, Harara accused another Jewish customer who was with his five-year-old son of wearing a “Jewish star,” being a “Zionist,” and supporting “genocide.” Harara repeatedly demanded that the customer and his son leave and falsely accused them of “trespassing” to the Oakland police....

Tuesday, June 10, 2025

Iowa Enacts Law Allowing Released-Time Religious Instruction in Schools

On June 6, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed a bill that gives students in public and accredited nonpublic schools the right to attend up to five hours per week of off-site released time religious instruction offered by private organizations. HF 870 (full text) provides that the students must agree to make up any school work that they do not complete while attending the religious classes. The new law also provides:

A child’s parent, guardian, or legal or actual custodian ... who alleges that a school district has violated this section may bring a civil action for injunctive relief and actual damages against the school district....

ADF issued a press release commenting on the new law.

NYC Mayor Adams Signs Executive Order on Antisemitism

On June 8, New York City Mayor Eric Adams signed Executive Order No. 52, Defining Antisemitism (full text), which instructs New York City Agencies to "consider as appropriate, the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism ... as well as the 11 contemporary examples." The Forward, reporting on Mayor Adams' action, said in part:

Mayor Eric Adams is getting the jump on his rivals in the November mayoral race by adopting a controversial definition of antisemitism, a key issue in the crowded campaign....

Adams has made combating antisemitism central to his campaign. Elected as a Democrat in 2021, he has since left the party and is running for reelection on an independent line dubbed “End Antisemitism.”...

Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, former Controller Scott Stringer and investor Whitney Tilson pledged to adopt the IHRA definition if elected. Others, including Brad Lander, who is Jewish, have argued that the definition would suppress criticism of Israeli policy.

Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist and a vocal critic of Israel who identifies as anti-Zionist, has spoken out against the use of measures which he says silence Palestinian voices and their allies. Mamdani is running second behind front-runner Cuomo.

Monday, June 09, 2025

Sunday, June 08, 2025

Trump Issues Message to Christians Celebrating Pentecost

The White House today posted a Presidential Message on Pentecost, 2025 (Full text). The Message reads in part:

Today, I join in prayer with Christians joyfully celebrating the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost—one of the most sacred events of the Christian faith. We commemorate the fulfillment of Jesus Christ’s earthly mission and the birth of His holy and living Church....

As we celebrate this glorious feast day, we also honor all Christians who, like the Apostles, have willingly endured persecution because of their faith. My Administration will always defend the right of every American to worship God freely and without fear. For this reason, I created the White House Faith Office and proudly instituted the White House Religious Liberty Commission to safeguard and promote America’s founding principle of religious freedom. Under my leadership, we are protecting God in the public square and emboldening every believer to live their faith freely, openly, and without threat of persecution....

USCCB Releases 2024 Report on Sexual Abuse by Clergy

On June 6, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops announced the release of their 2024 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (full text of Report). The Preface to the 85-page Report says in part:

Despite our progress, the evil of abuse continues to exist. It is a relentless adversary that demands our ongoing vigilance and initiative-taking measures.... There is a significant cultural shift taking place within the Church. This shift is characterized by an increased emphasis on transparency, accountability, and victim-survivor support....

During the current audit period, dioceses and eparchies provided outreach and support services to 146 victim-survivors and their families who reported during this audit period. Continued support was provided to 1,434 victim-survivors and their families who reported abuse in prior audit periods. The report notes the ongoing work of the Church in continuing the call to ensure the safety of children, the young, and vulnerable adults. In 2024, the Church conducted 2,237,906 background checks on clergy, employees, and volunteers. In addition, in 2024, over 2.2 million adults and over 2.8 million children and youth were trained in how to identify the warning signs of abuse and how to report those signs.

According to the Report's lengthy statistical sections:

Between July 1, 2023 and June 30, 2024, 902 allegations were reported by 855 victims/survivors of child sexual abuse by clergy throughout 195 Catholic dioceses and eparchies that reported information....

...[T]he responding dioceses and eparchies reported that between July 1, 2023 and June 30, 2024, they deemed 122 allegations of sexual abuse of a minor by a diocesan or eparchial priest or deacon to be credible. These allegations were made by 121 individuals against 97 priests or deacons. Of the 122 allegations deemed credible during this reporting period ..., eight allegations involved children under the age of 18 since 2005. All of the other allegations were made by adults who are alleging abuse when they were minors....

Dioceses and eparchies that responded to the survey and reported costs related to allegations, paid out $242,799,401 between July 1, 2023 and June 30, 2024. Like in previous years’ surveys, this includes payments for allegations reported in previous years....

... [T]he total costs for year 2024 ($242,799,401) is 7 percent lower than that reported for year 2023.... That decrease is mostly due to the change in the amount paid in settlements for the year 2024, which decreased by 15 percent.

Friday, June 06, 2025

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Applies to Title VII Claim of Business Prof at Christian University

In Schmidt v. University of Northwestern- St. Paul, (D MN, June 5, 2025), a Minnesota federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine bars the court from deciding plaintiff's Title VII claim but sought further briefing on whether it also bars plaintiff's negligent supervision claim. At issue was the hostile environment experienced by plaintiff who had been hired as an Assistant Professor of Business and Program Manager at a Christian university. Plaintiff claims she was subjected to racial discrimination, intimidation and retaliation, and when she reported it, the University took no action. The court said in part:

... Schmidt’s primary argument is that the University is not a religious institution because it did not exercise ecclesiastical decision-making authority over Schmidt. Schmidt argues that an entity should not qualify as a religious institution for the ministerial exception unless it employs a form of ecclesiastical governance within its structure—in other words, unless an affiliated church is vested with authority to make decisions within the entity.

The Court finds that the University is a religious institution for the ministerial exception....

Everything considered, and though a close call, the Court finds that Schmidt was a minister for the ministerial exception. Though Schmidt did not have “minister” in her title, and her position did not require significant formal religious training, the record indicates that the University entrusted her directly “with the responsibility of educating [her] students in the faith” and “expected [her] to guide [her] students, by word and deed, toward the goal of living their lives in accordance with the faith.”...

The above caselaw emphasizes the importance of keeping courts out of religious institution’s internal governance decisions, even if the claims arise under state law. But it is unclear at this juncture whether the negligent supervision claim here would implicate ecclesiastical matters, and thus whether the ministerial exception applies to Schmidt’s negligent supervision claim....

EEOC Sues Over Denial of Dress Code Religious Accommodation for Apostolic Christian Employee

The EEOC announced this week that it has filed a Title VII lawsuit against CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC, alleging that it failed to grant a religious accommodation to an Apostolic Christian employee. The employee wanted to wear a skirt over her work pants. According to the EEOC:

The company denied the accommodation because of its policy against loose-fitting clothing. The employee only wore close-fitting skirts over her work pants and was in compliance with company policy. Ultimately, the company forced the employee to choose between wearing a skirt or losing her job. The employee chose to continue wearing a skirt, which led to her termination.

Thursday, June 05, 2025

Supreme Court: Wisconsin's Religious Nonprofit Exemption from Unemployment Comp. Tax Must Include Catholic Charities

In Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, (Sup. Ct., June 5, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, unanimously held that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment's religion clauses when it held that Catholic Charities Bureau does not qualify for the exemption from unemployment compensation tax that is granted by state statute to nonprofits "operated primarily for religious purposes". The Wisconsin Supreme Court had held that Catholic Charities' activities were no different than those offered by a secular organization; they did not involve worship services, religious outreach, ceremony, or religious education. In reversing the Wisconsin supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court said in part:

A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination....

This case involves that paradigmatic form of denominational discrimination....

Put simply, petitioners could qualify for the exemption while providing their current charitable services if they engaged in proselytization or limited their services to fellow Catholics. Petitioners’ Catholic faith, however, bars them from satisfying those criteria. Catholic teaching, petitioners say, forbids “‘misus[ing] works of charity for purposes of proselytism.’” ... It also requires provision of charitable services “without making distinctions ‘by race, sex, or religion.’” ... Many religions apparently impose similar rules.... Others seemingly have adopted a contrary approach....

Wisconsin’s exemption, as interpreted by its Supreme Court, thus grants a denominational preference by explicitly differentiating between religions based on theological practices.

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

As a matter of church law, Catholic Charities and its sub-entities are an arm of the Diocese of Superior, and thus, for religious purposes, are not distinct organizations. But, when determining whether Catholic Charities was a religious organization entitled to a tax exemption, the Wisconsin Supreme Court nevertheless relied on Catholic Charities’ separate corporate charter to treat it as an entity entirely distinct and separate from the Diocese. That holding contravened the church autonomy doctrine....

Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) allows a State to exempt from its unemployment-coverage mandate any “organization which is operated primarily for religious purposes and which is operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches.”... The State treats church affiliated charities that proselytize and serve co-religionists exclusively differently from those that do not.... Because I agree that this distinction violates the neutrality principle of the Constitution’s Religion Clauses, I join the Court’s opinion in full.

... [B]oth the text and legislative history of FUTA’s religious-purposes exemption confirm that Congress used the phrase “operated primarily for religious purposes” to refer to the organization’s function, not its inspiration....

Congress sought to extend to most nonprofit workers the stability that unemployment insurance offers, while exempting a narrow category of church-affiliated entities most likely to cause significant entanglement problems for the unemployment system—precisely because their work involves preparing individuals for religious life. It is perfectly consistent with the opinion the Court hands down today for States to align their §3309(b)(1)(B)-based religious-purposes exemptions with Congress’s true focus.

SCOTUSblog reports on the decision.

Texas Supreme Court: AG May Begin Proceedings to Close Down Catholic Refugee Agency for Harboring Illegal Migrants

In Paxton v. Annunciation House, Inc., (TX Sup. Ct., May 30, 2025), the Texas Supreme Court held that a state trial court was in error in refusing to allow the state Attorney General to file a quo warranto action as a first step in his attempt to revoke the corporate charter of a Catholic agency serving migrants and refugees in El Paso. The Attorney General claims that the agency is sheltering migrants who have entered the country illegally. The Supreme Court observed:

Bound up in the dispute are a host of serious questions: What kind of conduct constitutes unlawfully harboring illegal aliens? Has Annunciation House engaged in such conduct? Under what conditions may the attorney general demand access to Annunciation House’s records? Can harboring illegal aliens provide a valid basis for the attorney general to file a quo warranto action? Does Texas law that protects religious liberty forbid the attorney general from proceeding against Annunciation House under these circumstances? And more still.

Ordinarily, before this Court addresses such significant issues, the parties would have developed a full record.... This case, however, comes to the Court as a direct appeal because, very early in the litigation, the trial court held that several Texas statutes are unconstitutional. We accordingly must address this dispute far earlier than we typically would.

Among other defenses, Annunciation House invoked the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Rejecting that defense, the Supreme Court said in part:

... [T]he relevant government action for purposes of applying RFRA here is not the charter revocation that may or may not arrive, but only the filing of the quo warranto information. Engaging in litigation is generally not itself the sort of burden that RFRA forecloses— RFRA purposefully provides a tool to be deployed within litigation. In this case, it has been invoked as an affirmative defense focusing not on the mere existence of the litigation but on a potential end result of that litigation. Undoubtedly, RFRA can be powerful however it is deployed, and its potency often may be felt quite early. But it is not a tool to convert a proceeding focused on whether litigation may even commence into one that reaches and resolves ultimate issues. Were we to say more about RFRA at this stage, we would have to reach issues that go well beyond the narrow question of the attorney general’s authority to file a quo warranto counterclaim—and to do so without the benefit of a sufficiently developed record or even the refining that ordinarily comes through the usual litigation and appellate process.

Here are links to the pleadings and numerous amicus briefs filed in the case. Here is a link to video of oral arguments in the case. El Paso Times reports on the decision.

Washington Bishops Sue Challenging Expanded Child Abuse Reporting Law

Last week, the Catholic bishops in Washington state filed suit challenging the constitutionality of a recently adopted amendment to the state's mandatory child abuse reporting law. The amendment requires clergy to report child abuse or neglect when they have reasonable cause to believe that it has occurred, even when a priest learns of the abuse or neglect in a confessional. The complaint (full text) in Etienne v. Ferguson, (WD WA, filed 5/29/2025) alleges in part:

1. Consistent with the Roman Catholic Church’s efforts to eradicate the societal scourge of child abuse, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle and the Dioceses of Yakima and Spokane have each adopted and implemented within their respective dioceses policies that go further in the protection of children than the current requirements of Washington law on reporting child abuse and neglect....

3. Yet despite these self-imposed reporting policies—policies that go beyond what Washington law requires—Washington is targeting the Roman Catholic Church in a brazen act of religious discrimination. Without any basis in law or fact, Washington now puts Roman Catholic priests to an impossible choice: violate 2,000 years of Church teaching and incur automatic excommunication or refuse to comply with Washington law and be subject to imprisonment, fine, and civil liability.... Washington has done so at the same time that it expanded exemptions from mandatory reporting requirements for certain non-clergy. The object of this law is clear: subject Roman Catholic clergy to dictates of the state.

4. Putting clergy to the choice between temporal criminal punishment and eternal damnation, interfering with the internal governance and discipline of the Catholic Church, and targeting religion for the abrogation of all privileges, is a patent violation of both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and a violation of Article I, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution.

The Pillar reports on the lawsuit.

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

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

Wednesday, June 04, 2025

State Court Order to Cooperate in Religious Divorce Cannot Be Challenged in Federal Trial Court Proceeding

In Azimi v. Worrell, (WD VA, June 3, 2025), plaintiff appearing pro se, challenged on Free Exercise and Establishment Clause grounds an order by a Virginia state trial court judge in plaintiff's divorce proceeding. The state court had ordered that plaintiff "cooperate with any and all actions and procedures necessary to accomplish a religious divorce pursuant to the Islamic Religion with all due speed and dispatch." A Virginia federal district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court invoked the Rooker-Feldman doctrine that bars federal courts from hearing cases that amount to appellate review of a state court judgment when plaintiff instead should have appealed through the state court system.

Jury Must Decide Reason for Evangelists' Exclusion from Pride Event

In Cocchini v. City of Franklin, Tennessee, (MD TN, June 3, 2025), in an opinion covering three consolidated cases, a Tennessee federal district court held that because disputed questions of fact remain, the cases must go to trial rather than the court issuing summary judgment for either side. At issue are claims by five Christian evangelists that they were wrongly removed, asked to leave or denied entrance to the 2023 Franklin Pride Festival in violation of their 1st Amendment free speech rights. Those who entered the Festival particularly spoke with representatives of churches that supported LGBTQ+ rights. The court concluded that plaintiffs were engaged in protected speech that did not constitute "fighting words" and that they were not attempting to make their views part of the Festival's message. The court also concluded that the city park remained a quintessential public forum even though the city had issued it a permit to use the park for the Pride Festival. The court then concluded:

... [T]here is a genuine dispute of fact on the rationale for the City and Officer Spry restricting Plaintiffs’ speech that precludes a finding of summary judgment in any party’s favor.... [A]lthough there is evidence in the record suggesting that the City and Officer Spry restricted Plaintiffs’ speech on account of the Franklin Pride staffers’ disagreement with their religious messages, Defendants present conflicting evidence that they restricted Plaintiffs’ speech based on Franklin Pride’s request that they do so to maintain their use of their permit, prevent Plaintiffs’ disruptive behavior, and enforce Franklin Pride’s ban on distributing outside materials. Any one of these content-neutral reasons for curbing Plaintiffs’ speech ... would satisfy the applicable standard.... Given this critical material dispute of fact in the record, the Court finds that the question of what motivated Plaintiffs’ exclusion from the Park must be decided by a jury. Accordingly, both Plaintiffs’ and the City’s motions for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims must be denied on this ground.

Tuesday, June 03, 2025

HHS Rescinds Prior Administration's Interpretation of Emergency Room Abortion Practices Under EMTALA

In January 2025, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction issued by a Texas federal district court barring enforcement of a 2022 Guidance Document and related Letter on emergency abortion care issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS had taken the position that under the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act, emergency rooms must sometimes perform abortions as a method of stabilizing pregnant women who have pregnancy complications. HHS also took the position that this federal requirement pre-empts Texas laws barring abortions. The 5th Circuit concluded that EMTALA requires hospitals to stabilize both the pregnant woman and her unborn child and that doctors must comply with state law in balancing those obligations. (See prior posting.) On May 29, 2025, HHS placed a statement on the 2022 Guidance Document that it was being rescinded. However, it went on to apparently limit the rescission to plaintiffs in the 5th Circuit case, saying:

HHS may not enforce the Guidance and Letter’s interpretation of EMTALA—both as to when an abortion is required and EMTALA’s effect on state laws governing abortion—within the State of Texas or against the members of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) and the Christian Medical and Dental Association (CMDA).

Then today (June 3, 2025), HHS issued a Statement (full text) saying that it is rescinding the prior policy for all hospitals, not just for parties to the prior litigation. The Statement said in part that the 2022 Guidance Document and Letter (which has also been stamped "Rescinded"):

do not reflect the policy of this Administration. CMS will continue to enforce EMTALA, which protects all individuals who present to a hospital emergency department seeking examination or treatment, including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy. CMS will work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration’s actions.

Meanwhile, ADF today issued a press release saying that in light of the rescission of this policy it has filed a voluntary dismissal of another lawsuit it had filed challenging the Guidance Document.

Sunday, June 01, 2025

Suit Challenges Exclusion of Religious Training from Virginia Tuition Grant Programs

Suit was filed last week in a Viginia federal district court challenging the exclusion from Virginia's Tuition Assistance Grant Program and its National Guard Grants of educational programs that provide religious training or theological education. The complaint (full text) in Johnson v. Fleming, (ED VA, filed 5/28/2025), alleges that the exclusions violate the Free Exercise, Establishment and Equal Protection clauses. The complaint reads in part:

297. Defendants’ religious exclusions violate the Free Exercise Clause several ways....

298. The government violates the Free Exercise Clause when it disqualifies otherwise eligible persons or organizations from receiving otherwise available government benefits “solely because of their religious character,”....

327. Because the VTAG and National Guard religious exclusions are not neutral or generally applicable, they trigger strict scrutiny....

335. So the State Council [of Higher Education] considers CIP Code 39 programs as too religious and excludes them from participation in the Tuition Assistance Grant Program. This requires the State Council to entangle itself in religious matters.

336. The [Virginnia] Department [of Military Affairs] likewise does not deem religious majors at secular private schools and public schools to be for “religious training or theological education” and students who pursue those programs at those schools can receive a National Guard Grant.

337. The Department favors students who pursue religious programs at secular private schools and public schools to the detriment of students who pursue religious programs at religious schools....

347. Defendants’ religious exclusions create arbitrary and irrational distinctions based on nothing more than government officials’ discretion about whether a certain program is too religious.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

3rd Circuit: Fireman's Free Exercise and Title VII Challenge to Grooming Rules Should Move Forward

In Smith v. City of Atlantic City, (3d Cir., May 30, 2025), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a New Jersey federal district court's grant of summary judgment for Atlantic City in a suit by a fireman claiming violation of his free exercise rights and his right to reasonable religious accommodation under Title VII. However, the court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff's equal protection and retaliation claims. In the case, plaintiff who is a Christian challenged the city's requirements that prohibit him from growing a beard of any length, contending that the requirement violates his religious beliefs. Finding free exercise and Title VII reasonable accommodation violations, the court said in part:

Firefighters engaged in fire suppression face danger from smoke and fume inhalation. The City protects its firefighters by requiring them to don air masks in “hazardous” and “confined” spaces.... These “self-contained breathing apparatuses,” or “SCBAs,” form a seal on the firefighter’s face to keep out hazardous air and pump in clean air....

... [T]wo exceptions—one practical exception and one discretionary regime—render the City’s policy not generally applicable. First, the City has long permitted administrative staff, all of whom are firefighters subject to the SCBA rule, to forgo fit testing...

Second, the City’s grooming regime has built-in discretion. Captains may “deviate” from the SCBA policy and permit any sort of conduct as long as they “bear[] full responsibility for the results of any deviation.” ...

Strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard in all free-exercise cases failing either Smith’s neutrality requirement or its general-applicability requirement....

But the City fails narrow tailoring. “[N]arrow tailoring requires the government to show that measures less restrictive of the First Amendment activity could not address its interest.”... The City could remove Smith from fire suppression duty as it did before 2020 or reclassify him as a civilian who is not subject to the SCBA and grooming policies. It could, as a simple fix, at least try and fit test Smith with facial hair to see if his facial hair, at any length, would interfere with the SCBA to a point that creates the risk of air leakage that the City fears.

Judge Chung dissented in part, saying she would affirm the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's free exercise claim, because "the Grooming Standards are facially neutral and were applied equally to both religiously-motivated and secularly-motivated requests for accommodation...."

Judge Porter dissented in part, saying he would have upheld plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the decision.

Friday, May 30, 2025

Texas Passes 3 Bills Promoting Religion in Public Schools

In addition to the much-publicized Ten Commandments bill (see prior posting), the Texas legislature this week gave final passage to three other bills relating to religion in public schools:

S.B. 11 (full text) (legislative history) creates an elaborate structure that school districts may adopt to provide for a daily period of prayer and reading of the Bible or other religious text in each school. The daily ceremony is to be open to both students and employees but must be outside the hearing of those who are not participants. Also, it may not be a substitute for instructional time. To participate, a student's parent must sign a consent form that includes a waiver of a right to bring an Establishment Clause claim to challenge the prayer/ Bible reading policy. For an employee to participate in the daily sessions, they must sign a similar consent and waiver. Districts may not broadcast the prayer or Bible reading over the school's public address system.

SB 965 (full text) (legislative history) provides:

The right of an employee of a school district ... to engage in religious speech or prayer while on duty may not be infringed on by the district or school or another state governmental entity, unless the infringement is: (1) necessary to further a compelling state interest; and (2) narrowly tailored using the least restrictive means to achieve that compelling state interest.

SB 1049 (full text) (legislative history) requires all public schools to adopt policies that provide for students, at their parents' request, to attend for 1 to 5 hours per week off-premises released time programs operated by private entities and which offer religious instruction. Under the mandated policy, students remain responsible for any schoolwork issued during the student's absence.

Texas Legislature Passes Bill to Require Ten Commandments in Every Classroom

The Texas legislature this week gave final approval to SB10 (full text) which requires public schools to post a copy of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The bill sets out the language of the version of the Ten Commandments that must be used. Schools must accept privately donated posters or framed copies that meet the requirements of the Act and may also use school district funds to buy posters or copies. Three civil liberties groups yesterday announced that they will sue Texas to challenge the new law once it is signed by Governor Gregg Abbott.

Missouri Supreme Court Orders Re-evaluation of Injunction Barring Enforcement of Abortion Clinic Licensing

In State ex rel. Kehoe v. Zhang, (MO Sup. Ct., May 27, 2025) the Missouri Supreme Court held that a state trial court judge who enjoined enforcement of licensing requirements imposed on abortion clinics applied the wrong standard in determining whether preliminary injunctions should be granted. The Court ordered the trial court judge to vacate her orders granting preliminary relief and re-evaluate the requests under the new stricter standard two abortion clinics' requests for preliminary injunctions. St. Louis Public Radio reports on the Court's decision.

Suit Challenges Refusal to Recognize Ministers Ordained Online

Suit was filed last week in a Virginia federal district court challenging Augusta County and the City of Staunton's refusal to recognize ministers of the Universal Life Church who obtained ordination online as ministers authorized to perform marriage ceremonies under Virginia Code §20-23. Instead, they are required to register under §20-25 as a civil officiant which includes posting a $500 bond. The complaint (full text) in Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. Landes, (WD VA, filed 5/22/2025) alleges that this violates the 1st and 14th Amendment, saying in part:

69. The Clerk defendants violate the Establishment Clause by interpreting and applying Va. Code Ann. §§20-23 and 20-26 to categorically deny ULC Monastery ministers the authority to solemnized marriages as religious officiants, solely because they were ordained by and are in regular communion with the ULC Monastery and not another approved religious society. This conduct impermissibly prefers certain denominations over others.....

77. Many of plaintiff ULC ministers ... choose to exercise their religion by officiating marriage ceremonies.... The Clerk Defendants' interpretation an application of Va. Code Ann. §§20-23 and 20-26 ... accordingly places an impermissible burden on Plaintiffs' religious practice in violation of the Free Exercise Clause....

84. ... The Equal Protection Clause prohibits intentional discrimination against similarly situated individuals and prohibits state action that burdens fundamental rights, including religious freedom. Discrimination based on religious affiliation must survive strict scrutiny....

91. Defendants' actual and threatened enforcement of Va. Code Ann. §§20-23, 20-26 and 20-28 against ULC Monastery and its ministers burdens speech based on its content and viewpoint, and is accordingly subject to strict scrutiny....

Augusta Free Press reports on the lawsuit.

[Thanks to Dusty Hoesly for the lead.]

Thursday, May 29, 2025

Teacher's Refusal to Use Student's Preferred Pronouns Justified Her Being Fired

In Ramirez v. Oakland Unified School District, (ND CA, May 27, 2025), a California federal district court dismissed claims by a former kindergarten teacher that her free speech and free exercise rights were violated by her termination for refusing to refer to a student using male pronouns when the student appeared to be biologically female. Both school officials and the student's parents requested that male pronouns be used. Plaintiff contended that her Catholic faith does not allow her to refer to a person using pronouns that differ from the person’s “divinely-intended gender.” The court held that the school district itself was protected by sovereign immunity and that the individual plaintiffs have qualified immunity as to any action for damages. The court went on to hold that plaintiff also failed to adequately allege either a speech or religious exercise claim, saying in part:

The complaint fails to state a claim because the alleged speech was not protected. Ms. Ramirez agreed to serve as an elementary school teacher at a public school. To do the job, a teacher must address and interact with their students. As other courts have observed, while addressing students is not part of the curriculum itself, “it is difficult to imagine how a teacher could perform [their] teaching duties on any subject without a method by which to address individual students.”,,,

The plaintiff’s main argument in opposition — that the above analysis does not apply because this case concerns compelled speech — fails both legally and factually. While the Supreme Court has suggested that compelled speech outside of an employee’s official duties warrants heightened protection, the government may insist that the employee deliver any lawful message when the speech is part of the employee’s official duties....

Here, the plaintiff does not contest that the district’s anti-discrimination policy is facially neutral. Instead, she contends that school officials were impermissibly hostile towards her religious beliefs when enforcing the policy. The argument fails because, even accepted as true, the well-pleaded facts do not plausibly allege hostility.

Sports Apparel Company Challenges Colorado's Public Accommodation Law Protection of Transgender Athletes

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court by an online athletic apparel company, "XX-YY Athletics," that promotes banning of transgender women from women's sports through logos on its apparel and through advertisements. The company claims that Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act violates the 1st and 14th Amendments when its public accommodation provisions declare that Coloradans have a right to access advertising that is free from discrimination on the basis of gender expression and chosen name. The complaint (full text) in Committee of Five, Inc. v. Sullivan, (D CO, filed 5/27/2025), alleges in part:

191. The most common way that XX-XY Athletics demonstrates why male competition in women’s sports is unfair or unsafe is by reference to specific transgender-identifying male athletes....

206. Although CADA prohibits XX-XY Athletics from speaking consistently with its view that sex is immutable, the law allows other businesses that also qualify as public accommodations to speak according to their view that sex can be changed.

207. This distinction in treatment is based on a particular view that the business holds about human sexuality and gender identity....

222. The First Amendment’s Free Speech, Press, and Assembly Clauses protect XX-XY Athletics’ ability to speak, create, publish, sell, and distribute speech; to associate with others and with their messages for expressive purposes; to adopt and act on certain speech-related policies; to decline to associate with others and their message for expressive purposes; to decline to create, publish, sell, and distribute speech; to be free from content-based and viewpoint-based discrimination; and to be free from overbroad and vague restrictions on speech that give enforcement officials unbridled discretion....

225. As applied to XX-XY Athletics, CADA impermissibly discriminates against the company’s speech based on content and viewpoint by prohibiting it from referring to individuals by their given name and with pronouns and terminology consistent with their biological sex.

226. As applied to XX-XY Athletics, CADA impermissibly inhibits the company’s ability to form expressive associations it desires to form and to avoid expressive associations it desires to avoid by requiring the company to refer to individuals by their preferred name, pronouns, and other terminology and prohibiting the company from referring to individuals by their given name and with pronouns and terminology consistent with their biological sex....

The complaint also alleges that the Colorado law is void for vagueness and violates the Equal Protection clause. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Wednesday, May 28, 2025

Suit Challenges Display of Statues of Saints on Public Safety Building

Suit was filed yesterday in a Massachusetts state trial court seeking to enjoin the city of Quincy and its mayor from installing statues of two Catholic saints, St. Michael and St. Florian, on the facade of its new public safety building. The city has already spent over $760,000 for creation of the statues. The suit also seeks to bar additional expenditures. The complaint (full text) in Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy, (MA Super., filed 5/27/2025), alleges that the decision to acquire the statues was made by the city's mayor without notice to the public. Only some members of City Council knew of the plan before it was disclosed in a February 2025 news article. The complaint alleges that installation and display of the statues will violate Art. III of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Vacates EEOC Rule Requiring Accommodation of Employees' Abortions

In State of Louisiana v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (WD LA, May 21, 2025), a Louisiana federal district court set aside an EEOC rule that interprets the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to require employers to provide reasonable accommodation for abortions. The court had previously issued a preliminary injunction ("PI") in the case. In setting the rule aside, the court said in part:

Given the political, social, and religious significance of the abortion issue in this country, the PI Ruling explained that EEOC must point to “clear congressional authorization” for the power it claims in the Final Rule.... And as the PI Ruling emphasized, “[n]ot only is the EEOC unable to point to any language in the PWFA empowering it to mandate the accommodation of elective abortions, but there can be little doubt in today’s political environment that any version of the PWFA that included an abortion accommodation requirement would have failed to pass Congress.”... That finding remains true today, and the Court concludes that the EEOC has failed to point to clear congressional authorization for the inclusion of abortion protection in a statute intended only to accommodate and protect female employees during pregnancy.

The case was consolidated with U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops v. EEOC.

AP reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In School's Ban on Anti-Transgender T-Shirt

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts, (Sup. Ct., certiorari denied May 27, 2025). In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld middle school officials' decision that a student was in violation of school rules by wearing a T-shirt that proclaims: "There Are Only Two Genders." Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari, saying in part:

The First Circuit held that the school did not violate L. M.’s free-speech rights. It held that the general prohibition against viewpoint-based censorship does not apply to public schools. And it employed a vague, permissive, and jargon-laden rule that departed from the standard this Court adopted in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503 (1969).

The First Circuit’s decision calls out for our review....

I would grant the petition for two reasons. First, we should reaffirm the bedrock principle that a school may not engage in viewpoint discrimination when it regulates student speech. Tinker itself made that clear.... Curiously, however, the First Circuit declined to follow Tinker in this regard, instead cherry-picking which First Amendment principles it thought worthy of allowing through the schoolhouse gates. By limiting the application of our viewpoint-discrimination cases, the decision below robs a great many students of that core First Amendment protection.

Second, we should also grant review to determine whether the First Circuit properly understood the rule adopted in Tinker regarding the suppression of student speech on the ground that it presents a risk of material disruption.

Justice Thomas also filed a separate brief dissenting opinion. NBC News reports on the Court's action.

Tuesday, May 27, 2025

Supreme Court Denies Review of Apache's Loss of Sacred Land

By a vote of 6-2, the U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Apache Stronghold v. United States, (Sup.Ct., certiorari denied May 27, 2025). In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, by a vote of 6-5, refused to enjoin the government from transferring to a copper mining company federally-owned forest land that is of significant spiritual value to the Western Apache Indians. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, today filed a lengthy dissent to the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari, saying in part:

Exactly nothing in the phrase “substantial burden”—or anything else in RFRA’s text—hints that a different and more demanding standard applies when (and only when) the “disposition” of the government’s property is at issue....

... [A]t bottom, it seems the Ninth Circuit was concerned that a ruling for Apache Stronghold would effectively afford tribal members a “‘religious servitude’” on federal land at Oak Flat.... And, the argument goes, those who adopted RFRA could not have intended to afford Tribes or others that kind of power over the disposition of federal property.... But unexpressed legislative intentions are not the law. And even if we were to abandon the statutory text in favor of guesswork about unenacted congressional purposes, it is far from clear why we should make the guess the Ninth Circuit did....

While this Court enjoys the power to choose which cases it will hear, its decision to shuffle this case off our docket without a full airing is a grievous mistake—one with consequences that threaten to reverberate for generations. Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a chain of legal reasoning. I have no doubt that we would find that case worth our time. Faced with the government’s plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less. They may live far from Washington, D. C., and their history and religious practices may be unfamiliar to many. But that should make no difference. “Popular religious views are easy enough to defend. It is in protecting unpopular religious beliefs that we prove this country’s commitment to . . . religious freedom.”

AP reports on the Court's action.

Evidence of Religious Differences Between Accused and Victim Did Not Require Reversal of Murder Conviction

In State of Washington v. Darraji, (WA App., May 22, 2025), a Washington state appellate court by a 2-1 vote affirmed a second-degree felony murder conviction of defendant, an Iraqi immigrant. Defendant, Yasir, was charged with murdering his former wife, Ibthal. The court explained:

At trial, the State’s theory was that Ibtihal’s rejection of traditional Iraqi culture and Islamic beliefs, and her embrace of American culture and Christianity, was the source of conflict between the former spouses. Their fighting and insults escalated until Yasir strangled Ibtihal to death in her car, drove the vehicle to a different location, and lit the car on fire with Ibtihal’s body inside.

On appeal, Yasir argues that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by introducing irrelevant and inflammatory evidence of Islamic beliefs to invoke anti-Muslim bias with jurors.

The majority rejected defendant's arguments, saying in part:

The comments and questions by the prosecutor were based on evidence and introduced to show motive. The State maintained that Yasir believed Ibtihal’s changing behaviors failed to conform to Iraqi culture and Islamic beliefs and were disrespectful, insulting, and reflected poorly on him.... The non-conforming behavior included drinking, smoking, going to bars, dating, driving, working, not covering her hair, and attending a Christian church. While Yasir’s appeal focuses primarily on evidence of the couples’ religious differences, the State maintained that Ibtihal’s conversion to Christianity and decision to wear her hair uncovered was part of the larger picture....

The foregoing questions and comments were based on relevant evidence and reasonable inferences ... and were introduced to show motive. An objective observer could not view these questions and comments as an appeal to bias or prejudice against Muslims or persons from Iraq.

Judge Fearing dissented, saying in part:

... [B]ecause of the divisive subject of Islam and stereotypes of Middle Eastern men, the State needed to selectively, thoughtfully, and carefully present its evidence rather than turn the trial into a contest between American culture and Christianity, on the one hand, and Iraqi culture and Islam, on the other hand....

The State gratuitously painted victim Ibtihal Darraji as Christian and American and defendant Yasir Darraji as Muslim and un-American. The State even went as far as suggesting Ibtihal was a martyr to Christianity. With its testimony and arguments to the jury, the State employed the ancient, but common, practice of portraying the victim as “us” and the accused as “them” in order to assure a conviction. I would reverse and remand for a new trial because Yasir Darraji did not receive a fair trial....

Monday, May 26, 2025

Memorial Day Proclamation

Today is Memorial Day. President Trump's Proclamation Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day 2025 (full text) reads in part:

Memorial Day is a sacred day of remembrance, reverence, and gratitude for the brave patriots who have laid down their lives in service to our great Nation....

We are eternally indebted to our Nation’s fallen heroes. On this solemn day, as we honor their sacrifice, the First Lady and I ask all citizens to join us in prayer that Almighty God may comfort those who mourn, grant protection to all who serve, and bring blessed peace to the world.

In honor of all of our fallen heroes, the Congress, by a joint resolution approved May 11, 1950, as amended (36 U.S.C. 116), has requested the President issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe each Memorial Day as a day of prayer for permanent peace and designating a period on that day when the people might unite in prayer. The Congress, by Public Law 106-579, has also designated 3:00 p.m. local time on that day as a time for all Americans to observe, in their own way, the National Moment of Remembrance....