Muslim Group Sues Over Denial of Zoning Permit for Mosque

Suit was filed last week in a Tennessee federal district court challenging the denial of a special use permit to a Muslim religious organization that wished to build a mosque on land that it owns. The complaint (full text) in Bartlett Muslim Society v. City of Bartlett, Tennessee, (W TN, filed 7/25/2025),

3. After the Plaintiff complied with these extensive, expensive procedural requirements—and despite City staff’s recommendation of approval—the City denied the Plaintiff’s Special Use Permit application based on arbitrary, predetermined reasons and religious animus. 

4. The City has approved similarly situated churches ... for a Special Use Permit under comparable or less favorable circumstances. 

5. In denying the Plaintiff’s Special Use Permit application, the City has imposed a substantial burden on the Plaintiff’s religious exercise, treated it unequally, and discriminated against it based on religion.... 

7. Accordingly, the Plaintiff files this civil-rights action under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., and Tennessee’s Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-1-407.

Tennessee ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Cutoff of Funding to All Planned Parenthood Clinics Enjoined

In Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy, (D MA, July 28, 2025), a Massachusetts federal district court in a 58-page opinion extended a preliminary injunction it had issued a week earlier barring Congress' defunding of Planned Parenthood clinics that do not offer abortions to preliminarily enjoin Congress's cutoff of funds for non-abortion services even to Planned Parenthood clinics that do offer abortions. the court said in part:

To the extent that Section 71113 may be applied to Planned Parenthood Members who do not provide abortion, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that the law impermissibly conditions the receipt of Medicaid reimbursements on these Members foregoing their right to associate with Planned Parenthood Federation and other Members...

... Instead of merely prohibiting Planned Parenthood Members that receive Medicaid funds from providing abortions, the statute prohibits them from affiliating with entities that do.... [R]estricting funds based on affiliation with an abortion provider operates only to restrict the associational right of Members that do not provide abortion. ...

... [I]n light of the disconnect between the law and its purported ends on the one hand, and the severe burdens it imposes on Planned Parenthood Federation and its Members on the other, Plaintiffs are likely to establish that Congress singled them out with punitive intent. The legislative context bolsters that conclusion. Plaintiffs have thus demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that Section 71113 is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. ...

... Where Defendants have not shown the law is precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their equal protection claim.  

Moreover, Plaintiffs are likely to show that there is no rational relationship between the class burdened by Section 71113—comprised of 47 Planned Parenthood Members and two additional entities—and the goal of reducing abortion. As explained above, Section 71113 affects only a small number of abortion providers and leaves every other conceivable category unaffected.

ABC News reports on the decision.

Office of Personnel Management Says Federal Employee Religious Speech In Workplace Is Protected

Yesterday, the federal Office of Personnel Management issued a Memo (full text) to heads of federal departments and agencies on Protecting Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace. The cover letter transmitting the Memo says in part:

The memo provides clear guidance to ensure federal employees may express their religious beliefs through prayer, personal items, group gatherings, and conversations without fear of discrimination or retaliation....

The memo builds on OPMʼs July 16 guidance on reasonable accommodations for religious purposes....

The Memo itself defines kind of religious speech that should be protected in the federal workplace, saying in part:

... Employees should be permitted to display and use items used for religious purposes or icons of a religiously significant nature ... on their desks, on their person, and in their assigned workspaces. 

... Agencies should allow ... employees to engage in individual or communal religious expressions in both formal and informal settings alone or with fellow employees, so long as such expressions do not occur during on-duty time...

... Employees may engage in conversations regarding religious topics with fellow employees, including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views, provided that such efforts are not harassing in nature. Employees may also encourage their coworkers to participate in religious expressions of faith, such as prayer, to the same extent that they would be permitted to encourage coworkers participate in other personal activities. The constitutional rights of supervisors ...should not be distinguished from non-supervisory employees.... However, unwillingness to engage in such conversations may not be the basis of workplace discipline.   

...  [W]hen public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.....

Among the specific examples of protected employee speech set out in an Appendix to the Memo are:

• An employee may invite another to worship at her church despite being belonging to a different faith. 
• On a bulletin board meant for personal announcements, a supervisor may post a handwritten note inviting each of his employees to attend an Easter service at his church....
• A park ranger leading a tour through a national park may join her tour group in prayer.
• A doctor at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital may pray over his patient for her recovery.....

The Hill reports on the Memo. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Blair Major, The Dignity of Religious Freedom (September 01, 2024).
• Pradeep Kumar Deepak, Slavery in Tripura: A Historical Overview (January 01, 2023).
• Richard W. Garnett & Alicia Cummins, Gerard V. Bradley and the American Law of Church and State, (Yes, ___ American Journal of Jurisprudence ___ (2025)).
• Luciano Meneguetti, The Imago Dei in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Toward a Theology of Human Dignity in Technological Times, (July 20, 2025).
• Gregor Puppinck, Conscientious Objection and Human Rights, a Systematic Analysis, (June 01, 2025).
• A.B.M. Asrafuzaman, Gender, Law, and Succession: A Comparative Examination of Women's Inheritance Rights in Bangladesh and the United States of America (USA) (July 25, 2025).
• Andrew M. Koppelman & Michael Judah, The New Establishment Clause Hallmarks Test: Sources and Distortions, (Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 25-41 (2025)).
• Emmanuel Ladji Inga, Safeguarding Muslim Women’s Religious Rights Through State Liability?, (July 15, 2025).
• Or Bassok, The Gods of the Constitution, From Kant to Kelsen: Democracy, Education, Peace (Francesco Di Donato, Sara Lagi, Flavio Silvestrini eds., Napoli, E.S., forthcoming)).
• Cekli Setya Pratiwi, Structural Violence and Unresolved Conflict: A Transcendence Approach to the Shia-Sunni Divide in Sampang, Indonesia (January 03, 2024).

From SSRN (Islamic law):

• George Henry, Cyber Law and the Insanity Defence: A Comparative Study of Medical and Islamic Legal Responses within the Framework of International Law, (July 14, 2025).
• Ayumiati, Heru Fahlevi, Muhammad Yasir Yusuf, & Syukriy Abdullah, Budget Management of the Aceh Government: An Analysis of the Maqāṣid al-sharī'ah Approach, (Samarah: Jurnal Hukum Keluarga dan Hukum Islam, volume 8, issue 1, 2024).
• Gustiani Herli, Challenges and Opportunities of Sharia Business in the Global Economy, (July 09, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Mary Marston, Diversity and Inclusion Trainings as a Public Relations Imperative: Addressing the Faragher–Ellerth Test via Interest-Convergence and Targeted Universalism, 32 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 317-348 (2024).
• John G. Culhane, Treacherous Rocks and Safe Harbors: Finding a Workable Compromise Between Constitutional Rights and Anti-Discrimination Laws, 31 Widener Law Review 23-44 (2025).

Cert. Petition Seeks Overturning of Obergefell Decision

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the Supreme Court last week in Davis v. Ermold, (Sup. Ct., cert filed 7/24/2025). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $100,000 damage award to a same-sex couple who were refused a marriage license by Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis who had religious objections to same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) The petition for review asks the Court to decide whether she, as a public official, has a First Amendment free exercise defense to a claim for damages for emotional distress stemming from her refusal. More broadly, it asks the Court to overrule Obergefell v. Hodges which gave constitutional protection to same-sex marriage. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition.

RFRA and Free Exercise Clause Apply to Corporate Entities Exercising Religion

In United States v. Safehouse, (3d Cir., July 24, 2025), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise clause apply to corporate entities, and to non-religious entities exercising religion. The United States contended that defendant's offering of supervised illegal drug use violates federal law. Defendant argued that its overdose prevention services reflect its Board members' religious belief in the value of human life. The court said in part:

RFRA’s plain text and Free Exercise doctrine are clear that those statutory and constitutional protections extend to non-natural persons, including so-called non-religious entities. In so holding, we express no view about whether threatened prosecution of Safehouse substantially burdens its exercise of religion. We likewise decline Safehouse’s invitation to determine in the first instance whether it has plausibly stated RFRA and Free Exercise claims. We only address the proper object of RFRA’s and the First Amendment’s protections: that object includes a non-natural entity allegedly exercising religion, even if the entity itself is not religious. 

Adoptive Parent Rule on Transgender Children Violates Plaintiff's Free Speech and Free Exercise Rights

 In Bates v. Pakseresht, (9th Cir., July 24, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff Oregon's requirement that to be certified as an adoptive parent, a person must agree to respect and support an adopted child's gender identity and gender expression and use the child's preferred pronouns. Plaintiff contended that it violated her Seventh Day Adventist religious beliefs to use a child's preferred pronouns or take the child for gender transition medical appointments. In a 2-1 decision, the court agreed that the requirement violated plaintiff's free speech and free exercise rights. The majority, in a 50-page opinion, said in part:

We deal here with two vital such rights: the First Amendment’s protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion.  These rights work together, with “the Free Exercise Clause protect[ing] religious exercises, whether communicative or not,” and “the Free Speech Clause provid[ing] overlapping protection for expressive religious activities.”...  Fundamental as basic freedoms, these rights spring from a common constitutional principle: that the government may not insist upon our adherence to state favored orthodoxies, whether of a religious or political variety....

We hold that Oregon’s application of § 413-200-0308(2)(k) to Bates, in denying her certification to be an adoptive parent, triggers strict scrutiny for both her free speech and free exercise claims.  In Part A below, we explain why strict scrutiny applies to Bates’s free speech claim.  In Part B, we do the same for Bates’s Free Exercise Clause claim.  And in Part C, we explain why applying Oregon’s policy to Bates does not survive strict scrutiny.  Bates has therefore shown a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim that denying her certification under § 413-200-0308(2)(k) violates the First Amendment.

Judge Clifton dissented, saying in part in a 40-page opinion:

The only limitation imposed by the state in declining to approve her application to foster a child concerns her treatment of the child, not what she personally believes, how she speaks to the world, or how she practices her faith. Oregon should be permitted to put the best interests of the child for which it is responsible paramount in making the decision to place one of its children in the custody of a foster applicant. Parents would not be expected to entrust their children to caregivers who volunteer that they will not respect the child’s self-determined gender identity, if that is something the parents have decided is important. Oregon should not be powerless to protect children for whom it has parental responsibility and for whom it has decided respect should be given. 

Cutoff of Medicaid Funds to Planned Parenthood Clinics That Do Not Offer Abortions Is Unconstitutional

In Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy, (D MA, July 21, 2025), a Massachusetts federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring the federal government from cutting off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood members that do not offer abortion services, but whose Medicaid funding was cut off by recent Congressional legislation.  The court concluded that this cutoff likely violated the expressive association and equal protection rights of these Planned Parenthood clinics. The court said in part:

To the extent that Section 71113 may be applied to Planned Parenthood Members who do not provide abortion, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that the law impermissibly conditions the receipt of Medicaid funding on these Members foregoing their right to associate with Planned Parenthood Federation and other Members. Members who do not provide abortions cannot escape the law’s burden except by disassociating from Members that do. And because Section 71113 may be applied to Members who are affiliates of each other via the structure, governance, and membership requirements of Planned Parenthood Federation, disassociating with other Members requires disassociating from Planned Parenthood Federation itself.  

While Defendants contend that Section 71113 does not regulate speech, the record demonstrates that Members’ affiliation via their membership in Planned Parenthood Federation is expressive. Planned Parenthood Federation advocates before Congress, provides education and information about sexual and reproductive health, and through Planned Parenthood Action Fund, communicates with the public regarding lawmakers’ voting records, supports campaigns for ballot initiatives, and supports candidates for federal, state, and local officials who will support reproductive freedom in furtherance of its mission....

Congress may set conditions “that define the limits” of a spending program by “specify[ing] the activities Congress wants to subsidize,” but Congress may not set “conditions that seek to leverage funding to regulate speech outside the contours of the program itself.”...

... Instead of merely prohibiting Planned Parenthood Members that receive Medicaid funds from providing abortions, the statute prohibits them from affiliating with entities that do.... Therefore, restricting funds based on affiliation with an abortion provider operates only to restrict the associational right of Members that do not provide abortion....

... Section 71113 ... declines Medicaid funding on the basis of affiliation, and thus draws a classification that burdens a fundamental First Amendment right. Where Defendants have not shown the law is precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their equal protection claim....

Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts posted an update explaining the court's holding. Fox News reports on the decision.

Russian Supreme Court Bans Satanist Organization

As reported by Mediazona:

Russian Supreme Court Judge Oleg Nefedov has granted a request from the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice to designate the “international Satanist movement” as “extremist”. In November 2023, the same judge made a similar ruling against the non-existent “international LGBT movement”.

On the morning of July 23, Russia’s Supreme Court designated Satanism as “extremist” and banned its activities with immediate effect. The case was heard behind closed doors, with neither the public nor journalists present....

Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, first mentioned the “International Satanist movement” in January 2025, when he called for a legislative ban on Satanism in Russia....

In early July, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice filed a suit with the Supreme Court to have the “international Satanist movement” declared extremist.

According to Politico:

Despite the official-sounding name, the “International Movement of Satanists” does not appear to exist, at least not under that moniker.

Russia's Prosecutor General's Office said in a statement (full text) yesterday:

Today, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation satisfied the claim of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation Igor Krasnov to recognize the International Movement of Satanists as extremist and ban its activities in Russia.

As established, the movement is based on extremist ideology, hatred and enmity towards traditional religious confessions.

Its participants publicly call for extremism, as well as for the destruction, damage and desecration of Orthodox churches, chapels, worship crosses, etc.

The followers of the movement adhere to the general principles of Satanism, use the same symbols and attributes, and perform occult rites. The conceptual basis is made up of publications recognized as extremist materials.

The movement is closely associated with manifestations of radical nationalism and neo-Nazism.

Along with ritual murders, participants also commit other crimes, including against minors.

Challenge To California's Investigation of Caste Discrimination Dismissed on Procedural Grounds

In Hindu American Foundation, Inc. v. Kish, (ED CA, July 18, 2025), a California federal district court dismissed on various procedural grounds a suit contending that the California Civil Rights Department is violating the constitutional rights of Hindu Americans by "conflat[ing] a discriminatory caste system with the Hindu religion" in an investigation of Cisco Systems, Inc. Individual plaintiffs in the case include employees of Cisco.

The court first concluded that the Younger abstention doctrine requires it to dismiss the case because it would pose "a serious risk of direct interference with state court proceedings...." The court went on to find a lack of standing to pursue plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim, saying in part:

In the present case, the Individual Plaintiffs do not allege that they were direct targets of the Department's enforcement action but instead allege that they learned of it through, among other things, conversation or reading about the State Action.... Plaintiffs contend in conclusory fashion that the Department's conduct has chilled their participation in "the political community," but do not identify what political community they refer to in this regard.... Instead, plaintiffs vaguely allege that the Department's conduct has led to conversations at discrete, unidentified social events.... In this way, plaintiffs' allegations merely state an abstract stigmatic injury, rather than an injury caused by direct contact with the Department's actions and are therefore insufficient to establish plaintiffs' standing to assert their claim under the Establishment Clause....

The court also found a lack of standing as to plaintiffs' Free Exercise claims, saying in part: 

Plaintiffs cannot persuasively maintain that there "exists some conflict between one of [their] religious convictions and a challenged governmental action[]" precisely because they contend that caste discrimination is not one of their religious convictions....

Because plaintiffs have not alleged that they plan to engage in religious conduct which could arguably be the target of an enforcement action brought by the Department, the court concludes that they have not shown standing to bring a pre-enforcement action pursuant to the Free Exercise Clause....

The SAC now includes allegations from the Individual Plaintiffs regarding how they feel stigmatized, however, it includes no allegations that the Department has pursued any discriminatory action against the Individual Plaintiffs....

The court similarly found a lack of standing as to plaintiffs' due process and equal protection claims. It also concluded that the Hindu American Foundation lacks organizational or associational standing, saying in part:

Plaintiffs’ theory appears to be that the Foundation was forced to respond to the Department’s actions insofar as it spent any resources responding to those actions rather than on other initiatives.  The Supreme Court has explicitly rejected such a theory of standing.

The Mooknayak reports on the decision.

Cert. Filed In Challenge to Denial of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Kane v. City of New York. (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 7/21/2025). In the case, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of petitioners' applications for religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate imposed by the City of New York on public school teachers and staff. (See prior posting.) The certiorari petition seeking Supreme Court review of the decision describes the question presented in part as follows:

After the pandemic, Respondents issued a vaccine mandate for public-education employees. It exempted “Christian Scientists” and others affiliated with “recognized” religions that “publicly” opposed vaccination. But it refused accommodation for anyone with “personal” religious beliefs or anyone whose faith leader—like Pope Francis— had publicly endorsed the vaccine. 

... In sum, the Second Circuit approved a discretionary religious-accommodation scheme that disfavors personal religion.

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

Tennessee Law Barring Recruitment of Minor to Obtain an Abortion Is Unconstitutional

In Welty v. Dunaway, (MD TN, July 18, 2025), a Tennessee federal district court enjoined enforcement of a Tennessee statute that prohibits "recruiting" an unemancipated minor to obtain an out-of-state abortion that is legal where performed. The court said in part:

... [P]laintiffs have established that §39-15-201(a) unconstitutionally regulates speech based on content and is facially overbroad.

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

Supreme Court Review Sought on Parents' Rights to Know of School's Social Transitioning of Their Child

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed last week with the U.S. Supreme Court in Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, (Sup.Ct., cert. filed 7/18/2025). In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals held (full text of opinion) that petitioners' parental right protected by the 14th Amendment were not infringed by a school Protocol requiring staff to use a student's requested name and gender pronouns in school without notifying parents of the request unless the student consents. The petition for review of the 1st Circuit opinion says in part:

Petitioners do not have a religious objection to their school district’s indoctrination and transition of their children without their knowledge. Theirs is a moral belief, backed by well-supported scientific opinion, that a so-called gender transition harms their children. But their constitutional rights to direct the upbringing of their children remain just as fundamental. The Court should grant the petition and make clear that parents’ fundamental rights do not depend on whether they are religious.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Lewis S. Davis, Religion, Differential Trust and the Rule of Law: Evidence from Rainfall Data. (2025).
• Libin Zhang, Papal-American Tax Problems and a Solution, (June 16, 2025).
• A.B.M. Asrafuzaman, Shirin Sultana, Rubiaat Hasan Sawon & Sadman Rizwan Apurbo, Muslim and Hindu Women's Inheritance Rights in Bangladesh: An Empirical Study, (July 16, 2024).
• L. Ali Khan, The Prophets of Punjab: Guru Nanak and Ghulam Ahmad. (July 07, 2025).
• A.B.M. Asrafuzaman, Comparing Women's Inheritance Rights in Hindu and Buddhist Communities: Insights from Bangladesh, India, and Nepal, (January 16, 2025).
• Luke W. Goodrich, Religious Hiring Beyond the Ministerial Exception, (101 Notre Dame L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2026)).
• Sheikh Inam Ul Mansoor, Islamic Law in the Age of Blockchain: Exploring Shari’ah Compliant Cryptocurrencies and Digital Assets, (May 19, 2025).
• Jonathan M. Leganza, The Effects of Tax Incentives to Donate Wealth to Charity: Evidence from Qualified Charitable Distributions, (July 07, 2025).
• David S. Cohen, Greer Donley & Rachel Rebouche, Abortion Shield Laws in Action, (JAMA Internal Medicine, (June 39, 2025)).

Recent Books:

• Peter S. Wenz, Abortion Rights as the Free Exercise of Religion: The Constitutional Case for Choice, (McFarland, 2025).
• John Witte Jr and Andrea Pin, The Legal Foundations of Religious Freedom, (Notre Dame Press, (forthcoming April 2026).
• Matthew Tapie, The Mortara Case and Thomas Aquinas’s Defense of Jewish Parental Authority, (Catholic University of America Press, May 2025).

Court Enjoins Newly Mandated Child Abuse Reporting By Priests

In Etienne v. Ferguson, (WD WA, July 18, 2025), a Washington federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Washington's new law requiring priests to report suspected child abuse learned in the Sacrament of Confession. The injunction applies to all priests supervised by the archbishop and bishops who are plaintiffs in the suit. The court said in part:

There is no question that SB 5375 burdens Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion.  In situations where Plaintiffs hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, SB 5375 places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law....

SB 5375 modifies existing law solely to make members of the clergy mandatory reporters with respect to child abuse or neglect....  However, other groups of adults who may learn about child abuse are not required to report.  Parents and caregivers, for example, are not mandatory reporters.  Moreover, the Washington legislature passed Substitute House Bill 1171... exempting attorney higher education employees from mandated reporting of child abuse and neglect as it relates to information gained in the course of providing legal representation to a client”....

Thus, SB 5375 is neither neutral nor generally applicable because it treats religious activity less favorably than comparable secular activity....

The state, in removing the privileged communication exception for clergy but expanding it for other professionals, cannot demonstrate the narrow tailoring strict scrutiny requires....

Becket Law issued a press release announcing the decision.

One Plaintiff Has Standing to Challenge Kentucky Abortion Ban on Religious Grounds

In Sobel v. Coleman, (KY App., July 11, 2025), a Kentucky state appeals court partially reversed a trial court's decision and held that one of the plaintiffs challenging Kentucky's abortion ban has standing to pursue her claim that the law violates her rights under Kentucky's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court said in part:

The primary argument of this case revolves around the embryos created with IVF.  During IVF, multiple eggs of a woman are fertilized.  This can lead to excess embryos that are not implanted in the woman.  These extra embryos are either frozen and stored, disposed of, or donated.  Appellants claim that the destruction of any unviable or unused embryos could lead to criminal charges relating to the death of an unborn child....

Appellants ... claim that their Jewish faith requires them to increase their family and multiply.  They argue that restricting their access to IVF due to the unclear notion of unborn child and unborn human being violates their religion.  They also claim that their faith prioritizes the life of a mother over the life of a fetus; therefore, restrictions on abortion violate their faith.  Further, they claim that their faith does not support the idea that life begins at conception, rather that a fetus becomes a child only once it exits the mother’s body.  They claim that the laws in Kentucky surrounding abortion are Christian in nature and do not take into consideration their faith....

Ms. Kalb has taken active steps to get pregnant.  She has nine embryos in frozen storage ready for her use and she scheduled, but ultimately canceled, an embryo implantation in 2022.  Ms. Kalb’s actions show imminence in a potential injury sufficient to satisfy standing for her religious-based claims.

The Forward reports on the decision.

Ban On Pride Flag on City Poles Does Not Violate Establishment Clause

 In Gordon v. City of Hamtramck, (ED MI, July 14, 2025), a Michigan federal district court held that a ban on religious, ethnic, racial, political, or sexual orientation group flags on city flag poles does not violate the plaintiffs' free speech rights or the Establishment Clause, saying in part:

The plaintiffs also bring a claim under another part of the First Amendment, positing that the enactment of Resolution 2023-82 that effectively banned display of the Pride flag violated the Establishment Clause because it was promulgated “to accommodate a segment of the Hamtramck community which was hostile to the rights of the gay community based on their personal religious views.”  The plaintiffs cite several statements in this record by city councilpersons condemning homosexuality and expressing hostility to the sentiments that the Gay Pride flag may symbolize.   

However, the plaintiffs’ “evidence” of subjective motivation to advance a religious viewpoint is irrelevant to the analysis of alleged Establishment Clause violations....

The justifications advanced here — foreclosing public controversy and avoiding contentious litigation over displays of competing viewpoints — have been found to be constitutionally valid by courts that upheld regulations with indistinguishable limitations on flagpole displays.

Christian Bookstore Challenges Colorado Anti-Discrimination Law

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court by a Christian bookstore challenging on free speech, free exercise, equal protection and due process grounds recent amendments to Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act. The complaint (full text) in Doxa Enterprise, Ltd. v. Sullivan, (D CO, filed 7/16/2025), alleges in part:

2. Colorado recently passed HB25-1312 (the “Act”) and amended the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) to define “gender expression” to include “chosen name” and “how an individual chooses to be addressed.” The Act then declares that Coloradans have a right to access “public accommodations[] and advertising” free of discrimination on that basis— except if the requested language is “offensive” or made for “frivolous purposes.”  Under this revised CADA language, it is now illegal for public accommodations like independent bookstores to refer to transgender-identifying individuals with biologically accurate language in their publications and customer interactions. 

3. This puts CADA on a collision course with the First Amendment rights of Plaintiff Doxa Enterprise, Ltd (“Born Again Used Books” or the “Bookstore”), a Christian bookstore in Colorado Springs that sells Christian literature, homeschool curricula, and classics. The Bookstore also publishes a website and social media accounts to promote its Christian faith and products.

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

Christian Evangelist Challenges Town's Permit Requirement for Carrying Sign

Suit was filed this week in a South Carolina federal district court challenging the application of Chapin, South Carolina's "Parades, Demonstrating, Picketing" Ordinance to plaintiff's carrying of a religious sign on public rights of way. The complaint (full text) in Giardino v. Town of Chapin, South Carolina, (D SC, filed 7/15/2025), alleges in part:

2. Chapin interprets and applies the Ordinance regulating “demonstrations” to engulf Giardino’s use of religious signs while standing on public rights-of-way in town limits, requiring him to (i) apply for a permit to hold a sign on a public way, (ii) supply fourteen-day advance notice of his use of a sign, (iii) divulge identity and content of his sign, (iv) conditioned on standardless approval of the Mayor, and, if approved, (v) limit his time holding a sign to thirty minutes, and (vi) to move to a different spot after fifteen minutes...

12. Giardino is an evangelical Christian driven by his faith to share the good news of Jesus Christ (gospel) with others. 

13. He wants to inform others of the salvation they can find by believing in Jesus Christ and accepting Him as their savior.   

14. To convey this evangelistic message, Giardino holds a 20-inch by 24-inch sign attached to a short handle containing a short, pithy statement about the gospel while standing on a public sidewalk or public right-of-way in the town limits of Chapin, South Carolina.

The complaint alleges that enforcement of the Ordinance violates plaintiff's free speech, free exercise and due process rights, as well as South Carolina's Religious Freedom Act. Plaintiff also filed a Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Office of Personnel Management Issues Memo On Religious Accommodations

Yesterday, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management released a Memorandum on Reasonable Accommodations for Religious Purposes (full text) instructing executive branch agencies and departments to "adopt a generous approach to approving religious accommodations." The Memorandum in particular discusses Telework, compensatory time off and Maxiflex work schedules as methods of accommodating religious practices. The Memorandum reads in part:

Upon receiving a request for a religious accommodation, agencies must engage in a good-faith interactive process with the employee to explore reasonable accommodations. Agencies should further assess whether an accommodation imposes a substantial burden on operations. Agencies should document their analyses to ensure compliance with Title VII and applicable law. Agencies are also reminded that religious accommodations may involve multiple, complementary or hybrid approaches to fully address an employee’s religious needs. For example, combining telework and a maxiflex work schedule could be particularly effective for practices such as Sabbath observance, where religious obligations may span only part of a workday. Agencies should consider tailored solutions in ensuring compliance with Title VII.

Fox News reports on the Memorandum.

Court In India Says Elephant's Welfare Takes Precedence Over Its Use in Religious Rites

In  Bhattarak v. Union of India, (Bombay High Ct., July 16, 2025), a 3-judge panel of the High Court of Bombay in India upheld an order issued by Indian officials to a Trust operated by a Jain religious organization requiring the transfer of an elephant owned by the Trust to the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust, an elephant care center. Petitioner contended, among other things, that the elephant was used for Jain religious ceremonies. The court said in part:

Before we part, we deem it appropriate to record that we have considered and chosen the survival of the elephant and its right to quality life, over and above the rights of men to use the elephant for religious rites.  We have no doubt that the Petitioner-Math may have had no deliberate intent to cause injury to the elephant however, in the given circumstances of conflict between the rights of an elephant and the rights of Petitioner-Math to use the elephant in the discharge of its religious activities, priority must be given to the elephant’s welfare. The Court has duty under the doctrine parens patriae to secure the rights of the voiceless and hapless Mahadevi.  We cannot but reminisce the words of Lawrence Anthony in his book ‘The Elephant Whisperer’, 

“But perhaps the most important lesson I learned is that there are no walls between humans and the elephants except those that we put up ourselves, and that until we allow not only elephants, but all living creatures their place in the sun, we can never be whole ourselves.” 

Live Law reports on the decision.

4th Circuit: FDA Regulation of Mifepristone Does Not Pre-Empt West Virginia's Abortion Ban

In GenBioPro, Inc. v. Raynes, (4th Cir., July 15, 2025), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of appeals in a 2-1 decision, held that federal law regulating the abortion drug mifepristone does not pre-empt West Virginia's Unborn Child Protection Act which bans almost all abortions. The suit was brought by a manufacturer of generic mifepristone. The majority said in part:

We begin by addressing GenBioPro’s field preemption theory. GenBioPro argues that the FDAAA “occupied the field of regulating access to REMS drugs with safe-use elements.”... In its view, West Virginia’s abortion law intrudes into this field by restricting access to mifepristone.  

We disagree. West Virginia’s abortion law and the FDAAA operate in different fields. West Virginia’s law regulates the incidence of abortion. It determines whether an abortion may be performed at all, prohibiting the procedure in all but a few specific circumstances. In contrast, the FDAAA permits the FDA to regulate how mifepristone must be prescribed and dispensed if and when a medication abortion is performed....

And even were we to assume the state and federal laws regulate the same field, that field is not one that Congress has occupied....

We last address GenBioPro’s contention that the West Virginia law conflicts with the FDAAA....

The company claims that it cannot comply with both federal and state law because the FDA has authorized the sale of mifepristone while the state has banned its use. It likewise argues that the West Virginia law poses an obstacle to the FDAAA’s goal of ensuring drug access. In its view, Congress struck a careful balance between drug safety and access, and West Virginia’s abortion law disrupts this balance by burdening access to mifepristone. 

Both of these theories rely on the same flawed premise: that Congress intended to guarantee nationwide access to mifepristone when it enacted the FDAAA. We see no indication that it did....

Judge Benjamin dissented, saying in part:

By criminalizing medical providers and prohibiting medication abortions, then, West Virginia has exceeded the ability to regulate abortion as established in Dobbs and has trespassed on the FDA’s authority to regulate the safe use of and unburdened access to mifepristone.  

Stated simply, the majority’s conclusion on this point focuses on regulation of abortion generally, despite the issue here being the state regulation of an otherwise federally approved drug—a much narrower focus.  The federal government has clearly occupied the drugs with REMS and elements to assure safe use field, and West Virginia overreaches by seeking to add additional regulations to the same.  Accordingly, field preemption applies....

Because the UCPA burdens patients and healthcare systems and imposes inconsistent regulation of mifepristone in ways not intended by Congress, conflict preemption also precludes the state law.

Metro News reports on the decision.

Israel's High Court: Women Must Be Allowed to Take Exams Offered By Chief Rabbinate

In a lengthy article, the Jerusalem Post reports that on Monday a 3-judge panel of Israel's High Court of Justice ruled that women must be allowed to take certification exams on Jewish religious law (halacha) administered by Israel's Chief Rabbinate.  Plaintiffs contended that barring them from taking the exams is discriminatory. According to the Post's reporting:

Passing the exams and holding such a certificate often grants communal legitimacy, as they indicate widespread halachic knowledge.

These certificates are not only symbolic and carry soft power; they have real financial implications. Any regional job openings consider the first-tier certification – along with at least six years of yeshiva study after the age of 18 – to be equivalent to an academic degree. This is applicable to nearly all public clergy positions, said the ruling, authored by [Justice] Sohlberg.

It also includes financial benefits. For example, public-school teachers who teach “religious studies” are eligible for higher salaries because of the equivalency to academic degrees in their training....

As a publicly funded body, the Rabbinate is bound by the distinction the law makes between authorities that are halachicly driven and those that are not. Given legal precedent that notes the sensitivity of the often-ingrained discrimination against women in halachicly based authorities, the legal tradition is to approach such issues with extra sensitivity.

The Rabbinate’s position that its authority to ordain rabbis necessarily extends to dictating who can take the exam “is not an acceptable one,” Sohlberg wrote. Its authority does not extend that far, he said....

The Rabbinate said the claim of discrimination was not accurate, as its exams are intended for rabbinical positions, and being that women cannot serve as rabbis, it is not really discrimination.

This was not a stated purpose of the petitioners, Sohlberg wrote.

2025 Report on Religious Liberty Protections by Each State Is Released

Yesterday, First Liberty Institute released its report Religious Liberty in the States 2025 (full text) (Report website). According to the 16-page report:

Now in its fourth annual edition, RLS considers forty-seven distinct legal protections that states have adopted to protect religious liberty. These legal protections, which we refer to as “items,” are aggregated into twenty “safeguards,” which we average to produce one index score per state. The index allows us to rank states and to track changes in religious liberty protections over time.... Source data, including hyperlinked citations to state statutes, are published online at religiouslibertyinthestates.com.... 

Florida is an exemplar for how state legislators can improve their state’s protection of religious liberty. When we began the project, Florida protected a respectable 58 percent of the eleven safeguards we considered in 2022 and was ranked sixth in the nation. Today, it protects 75 percent of the twenty safeguards we consider and ranks first. Most of its improvement derived from legislation strengthening its medical conscience protections in 2023 and legislation protecting houses of worship from discriminatory treatment during pandemics and other emergencies in 2022....

Ministerial Exception Applies to Most Claims by Unitarian Minister

In Rohde v. Unitarian Universalist Association, (ED PA, July 11, 2025), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed on ministerial exception grounds a retired Unitarian minister's claims of defamation, false light, tortious interference with contract claims as well as her claim that her contract was breached by defendant's decision to remove her from Fellowship and revoke her ministerial credentials. According to the court:

In April 2021, three other Unitarian Universalist ministers filed a complaint against Rev. Rohde with the Association and claimed that she had committed “ministerial misconduct” based on social media interactions the three ministers had with her.... The ministers’ complaint alleged that Rev. Rohde “engaged in ‘defamation’ of colleagues, breaking of ‘confidentiality,’ and other unspecified ‘professional conduct’ violations.”... 

The Committee’s “Executive Committee” determined that Rev. Rohde had committed “ministerial misconduct” and recommended that the full Committee remove her from Fellowship and revoke her ministerial credentials.... After a hearing on October 2, 2022, the Committee voted to remove Rev. Rohde from Fellowship and to revoke her ministerial credentials....

The question of whether Rev. Rohde in fact committed ministerial misconduct and violated ministerial ethics would involve the Court in measuring Rev. Rohde’s conduct against church doctrine and second-guessing the Association’s disciplinary processes for ministers.   The First Amendment prohibits the Court from weighing in on such issues....

However, the court held that the ministerial exception doctrine did not bar plaintiff's claim for payment of her retirement benefits, saying in part:

... [T]he Court can resolve both Rev. Rohde’s breach of contract claim and promissory estoppel claim without analyzing doctrine or impacting the Association’s ability to choose its ministers.  Rev. Rohde does not allege—and the Association’s bylaws and the Committee’s rules and policies do not show—that she was required to remain in Fellowship after retiring to continue receiving her “past earned” benefits.... Therefore, the ministerial exception does not bar Rev. Rohde’s breach of contract or promissory estoppel claims against the Pension Society at this stage.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Isaac Ephraim, The Israel-Iran-USA Conflict: Legal, Theocratic, and Strategic Dimensions of a Modern Proxy War, (June 26, 2025).
• Jack Kieffaber, Kimo Gandall, Steven Foster, Jr. & Kenny McLaren, LLMs are Bad Judges. So use Our Classifier Instead. (June 30, 2025).
• Steven Douglas Smith, The Collapse of Consent, (Lisbon Law Review 2025.2 (forthcoming)).
• Penelope Andrews, Human Rights And Foreign Policy: South Africa's Genocide Complaint Against Israel At The International Court Of Justice, (May 01, 2025).
• Scott Howe, Suicide's Shadow: The Evolution of a Ghost Crime, (90 Mo. L. Rev. 325 (2025)).
• David D. Cole, "Beyond the Ivy League: Stopping the Spread of Antisemitism on American Campuses": A Hearing Before the House Committee on Education and Workforce , 119th Cong., May 7, 2025, (Georgetown University Law Center Research Paper Forthcoming).
• Nadia Naim & Noor suhaida Kasri, Intellectual Property and Islamic Finance: Opportunities and Challenges for a New Islamic Intellectual Property Finance Framework, (Thunderbird International Business Review, volume 67, issue 3, 2025).
• James Toomey, Personhood as Participation, (in Legal Personhood in Private Law (Cambridge University Press, Christopher Essert, Eva Micheler & Paul B. Miller, eds. (2025)).
• Scott Skinner-Thompson, Gender Therapy False Equivalency, (103 Denver Law Review (forthcoming)).
• Samantha Barbas, How American Civil Rights Groups Defeated Hate Speech Laws, (Journal of Free Speech Law, Vol. 6, Issue 1 (2025)).
• Robert Diab, Intrinsic Human Equality: A Critical Overview of Recent and Historical Theory, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, Vol. 39 (2025)).
• Marc Edelman & Amanda Siegrist, Exploring the Transgender Question in U.S. Sex-Segregated Sports and the Future of Title IX, (February 02, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Mark Corad, Stopping the Spread of the World's Oldest Hatred—What U.S. Sports Stakeholders Can Do to Combat Antisemitism, 35 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal 392-443 (2025).
• Keith R. Eakins, Sex, Drugs, and Rottin' Souls: Confrontational Campus Preachers and the Fighting Words Doctrine, 49 Vermont Law Review 47-87 (2024).
• Vania Blaiklock, Race without Racism: Religious School Curricula and the Race-Neutral Legacy of Brown, 66 William & Mary Law Review 883-915 (2025).

Justice Department Sues California Over Its Gender Identity Policy in School Sports

Last week, the Department of Justice sued California, alleging that it violates Title IX by permitting transgender girls to compete in girls' interscholastic athletics. The complaint (full text) in United States v. California Interscholastic Federation, (CD CA, filed 7/9/2025), alleges in part:

1. Across the State of California, girls must compete against boys in various sports pursuant to policies enforced by the California Department of Education (“CDE”) and the California Interscholastic Federation (“CIF”).  These discriminatory policies and practices ignore undeniable biological differences between boys and girls, in favor of an amorphous “gender identity.”  The results of these illegal policies are stark: girls are displaced from podiums, denied awards, and miss out on critical visibility for college scholarships and recognition.  In the words of the Governor of California, it is “deeply unfair” for girls to compete against boys. 

2. This discrimination is not only illegal and unfair but also demeaning, signaling to girls that their opportunities and achievements are secondary to accommodating boys.  It erodes the integrity of girls’ sports, diminishes their competitive experience, and undermines the very purpose of Title IX: to provide equal access to educational benefits, including interscholastic athletics.  Despite warnings from the United States Department of Education, Defendants continue to require California schools to allow boys to compete against girls.  The United States accordingly files this action to stop Defendants’ illegal sex discrimination against female student athletes....

26. Title IX and the Implementing Regulations use the term “sex” to mean biological sex; the term “sex” thus does not mean “gender identity.”...

47. The California Sex Equity in Education Act, Cal. Educ. Code § 221.5(f), referenced in the CDE’s “Gender Equity/Title IX” guidance, states in part:  “A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”  Cal. Educ. Code § 221.5....

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

Bishops Excuse Those Who Fear ICE Raids from Attending Mass

This week, the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of San Bernadino issued a Decree (full text) formally dispensing from the obligation to attend Sunday Mass "all members of the faithful in the Diocese of San Bernadino who, due to genuine fear of immigration enforcement actions, are unable to attend...." The Decree encourages those excused from attending Mass to engage in other spiritual practices to maintain their spiritual connection to Christ and His Church. It also suggests that individuals participate in televised or online Masses.

In May, the Diocese of Nashville issued a similar lifting of the obligation to attend Mass by those who are concerned about possibly being confronted or detained.

Axios reports on these developments.

Arresting Person for Praying with Others Violates European Convention on Human Rights

In Rafiyev v. Azerbaijan, (ECHR, July 8, 2025), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that it violates Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights to hold a person in violation of law for praying together with others. The court said in part:

1.  The case concerns the arrest and subsequent conviction of the applicant, a follower of the Nurism teachings of Islam, for the administrative offence of holding an unauthorised religious meeting on private premises....

6.  On 4 March 2017 the applicant went to Guba to attend a funeral ceremony. Afterwards, the applicant, together with others, visited their friend, T.A., at his private house. At around 1 p.m. several police officers raided the premises and took the applicant and twenty-one other individuals to the Guba District Police Office.

7.  ... An administrative-offence report ... stated that ... the applicant had violated the rules on holding religious meetings ... and that he had committed an administrative offence under Article 515.0.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences ("the CAO")....

59.  Moreover, as is clear from the meaning of Article 515.0.2 of the CAO, in order to fall under its scope, an administrative offence had to be committed by an individual who either established a religious organisation or operated one. Given that the applicant was not the owner of the private residence at which he was arrested and was merely in attendance there with his friends, it is unclear how he could have been regarded as having committed an administrative offence under Article 515.0.2 of the CAO....

60.  In any event, even assuming that the private residence where the applicant assembled with others was used as a place of religious worship as argued by the Government, the Court finds it necessary to reiterate that, while States can put in place a requirement that religious denominations be registered in a manner compatible with Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention, it does not follow that sanctioning an individual member of an unregistered religious organisation for praying or otherwise manifesting his or her religious belief is compatible with the Convention.... To accept the contrary would amount to the exclusion of minority religious beliefs which are not formally registered with the State, and consequently would amount to admitting that a State can dictate what a person can or cannot believe....

Law & Religion UK reports on the decision.

New Missouri Laws Require Recognition of Religious Student Groups by Colleges; Allow Public Schools to Employ Chaplains

On July 9, Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe signed S.B. 160. The new law (full text) (legislative history) provides in part:

173.1556.  1.  (1)  No public institution of higher learning shall take any adverse action against a belief- based student association or an applicant to be recognized as such:

(a)  Because such association is political, ideological, or religious;

(b)  On the basis of such association's viewpoint or expression of the viewpoint by the association or the association's members; or

(c)  Based on such association's requirement that the association's leaders be committed to furthering the association's mission or that the association's leaders adhere to the association's sincerely held beliefs, sincere practice requirements, or sincere standards of conduct....

3. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a belief-based student association if there is substantial evidence that such association's viewpoint or expression of the viewpoint by the association or the association's members would cause a material and substantial disruption to the educational environment or interfere with the rights of others on campus, in accordance with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972).

St Louis Public Radio reports on the bill. 

The Governor also signed SB 49 (full text) (legislative history) which allows school districts and charter schools to employ chaplains or accept chaplains as screened volunteers to provide support, services, or programs for students. Missouri Independent reports on the new law.

6th Circuit: Ministerial Exception Requires Dismissal of Employment Discrimination Suit by Christian School's Principal

In Pulsifer v. Westshore Christian Academy, (6th Cir., July 9, 2025), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ministerial exception doctrine required dismissal of an employment discrimination suit brought by the Dean of Students/ Assistant Principal of a Christian elementary school in Muskegon Heights, Michigan. The court said in part:

No one disputes that the Academy is the type of religious entity that can avail itself of the exception.... The Academy sees its role in inculcating the Christian faith as essential to its students’ salvation, and its “mission of Christian ministry and teaching” marks the school with “clear [and] obvious religious characteristics.”...

The question, then, is whether Pulsifer was the type of employee covered by the exception.  We hold that he was.  Pulsifer played an important role in furthering the school’s mission to provide for the religious education and formation of students.  Judicial review of the way in which the Academy chooses who should fill that type of role “would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.”,,,

... Pulsifer played a role in teaching the faith.  He was tasked with leading the staff in religious devotions each morning and also led devotions at each meeting of the school’s board.  Pulsifer also played an important role in conducting communal prayer with staff and board members....  And by implementing and leading two religious youth programs, he played a public-facing “role in conveying” the school’s religious “message,”,,,  

... Put simply, an employee can fall within the ministerial exception even when “[m]ost” of their “work [is] secular in nature,” ...  so long as the employee, like Pulsifer, also performs the types of religious duties we outline above.  Accordingly, the district court properly granted the Academy’s motion for summary judgment.

Planned Parenthood Fights New Medicaid Funding Cutoff

Planned Parenthood filed suit this week in a Massachusetts federal district court challenging Section 71113 of H.R. 1, One Big Beautiful Bill Act which denies federal Medicaid funds for non-abortion services for one year to any non-profit that provides abortions, and which received in 2023 Medicaid funds exceeding $800,000. (Use of Medicaid funds for abortions is already prohibited under other laws.) The complaint (full text) in Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy, (D MA, filed 7/7/2025), alleges that the provision was drafted to target and retaliate against Planned Parenthood. The complaint reads in part:

10. There is no legitimate justification for the statute; rather, the true design of the Defund Provision is simply to express disapproval of, attack, and punish Planned Parenthood, which plays a particularly prominent role in the public debate over abortion and (if Planned Parenthood’s Members are treated collectively) is the only nationwide abortion provider. Supporters of the Defund Provision, including President Trump and members of Congress, have made this point unmistakably clear. 

11. For these reasons, the Defund Provision’s exclusion of Planned Parenthood Members from a program designed to provide high-quality medical care to the Nation’s neediest patients—care that Planned Parenthood Members have delivered for decades—is unconstitutional as to all Planned Parenthood Members as a Bill of Attainder and it also violates Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection and First Amendment rights.

On the day the complaint was filed, the court issued a 14-day Temporary Restraining Order (full text) requiring that Medicaid funding continue to be furnished to plaintiffs. After the government responds, the court will decide whether to issue a temporary injunction in the case. Jurist and The Hill report on these developments.

UPDATE: On July 11, the court extended the Temporary Restraining Order through July 21 in a 9-page opinion and Order.  Daily Caller reports on this development.

Barnard College Settles Lawsuit Charging Antisemitism

As previously reported, in March 2024 Jewish and Israeli students sued both Columbia University and Barnard College (which is affiliated with Columbia but is a separate institution) alleging pervasive antisemitism that violates Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as well as state and local civil rights laws. On Monday, plaintiffs in the case and Barnard College announced a settlement agreement that will resolve plaintiffs' claims against Barnard College. The settlement apparently does not resolve claims against Columbia University. According to the announcement, Barnard will appoint a Title VI Coordinator who will assure compliance with the antidiscrimination provisions of Title VI. According to the announcement:

When enforcing Title VI, the Title VI Coordinator will review and implement all applicable regulations consistent with guidance from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”), including OCR’s 2021 and 2024 guidance which directs schools to “consider” the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism and its accompanying examples “to the extent that” any such “examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent.”...

Barnard will also require all students, faculty, and staff to complete training on the Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment, which will address recognizing, combating, and reporting antisemitism.  Beginning in the 2025 fall semester, the Office of the President will communicate to Barnard students, faculty, and staff an annual message conveying the College’s “zero tolerance” for discrimination and harassment based on all protected traits, including Jewish and Israeli identity.... Barnard will also expand its existing relationship with the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), so that beginning in the 2025 fall semester, courses at the JTS will be available to all Barnard students at no cost....

...  Barnard will maintain policies limiting the time, place, and manner of demonstrations and prohibiting the use of face masks and other personal disguises to intimidate or interfere with the enforcement of the College’s policies.... [T]he College and its senior leaders ... will not recognize, meet, or negotiate with Columbia University Apartheid Divest, any of its successor or spin-off organizations.... Finally, the College reaffirms that its endowment is intended to maintain intergenerational equity and to ensure the stability of Barnard’s financial position; it is not a vehicle for expressing political positions, which includes taking actions for the purpose of penalizing the government of a country or the commercial/financial activity within that country.... 

IRS Says Houses of Worship Can Endorse Political Candidates

In a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Judgment (full text) filed on Monday with a Texas federal district court in National Religious Broadcasters v. Long, (ED TX, 7/7/2025), the Internal Revenue Service agreed that houses of worship can endorse political candidates without violating Internal Revenue Code §501(c)(3). (See prior related posting.)

Section 501(c)(3) bars tax exempt non-profits from "participat[ing] in or interven[ing] in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." The Motion from both parties seeking entry of a Consent Judgment reads in part as follows:

7. When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither “participate[s]” nor “intervene[s]” in a “political campaign,” within the ordinary meaning of those words. To “participate” in a political campaign is “to take part” in the political campaign, and to “intervene” in a political campaign is “to interfere with the outcome or course” of the political campaign.... Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates. Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted. 

8. This interpretation of the Johnson Amendment is in keeping with the IRS’s treatment of the Johnson Amendment in practice. As recounted in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, the IRS generally has not enforced the Johnson Amendment against houses of worship for speech concerning electoral politics in the context of worship services....

11. Accordingly, the Parties request this Court enter the attached proposed order enjoining Defendants ... from enforcing the Johnson Amendment against Plaintiff Churches based on speech by a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith.

New York Times reports on the IRS's action.

Virginia Enters Consent Decree Permitting Religiously Motivated Talk Therapy to Change Minors' Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity

In a press release last week, Founding Freedoms Law Center announced that the Virginia Department of Health Professions and the Virginia Board of Counseling last month entered into a consent decree (full text) in Raymond v. Virgnia Department of Health Professions, (Cir. Ct., June 4, 2025). The decree enjoins defendants from enforcing Virginia's ban on conversion therapy for minors against plaintiffs and all similarly situated counselors insofar as they are engaging only in religiously motivated "talk therapy" aimed at aligning a minor's gender identity or romantic attractions with the client's biological sex. The decree provides in part:

11. Plaintiffs are Christians and integrate their religious faith in their counseling of clients through talk therapy, which consists of voluntary conversations, prayer, and sharing of written materials such as Scripture, between an individual counselor and an individual client....

22, ...[T]he parties consider that enforcing the Challenged Provisions with respect to talk therapy between a licensed professional and a client that is motivated or informed by religious beliefs and desired by the client would violate Article I, §§ 11 and 16 of the Virginia Constitution, as well as the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Virginia Mercury reports on the consent decree. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Suit Between Unification Church Factions

In Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International v. Hyun Jin Moon, (DC Ct. App., July 3, 2025), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's final dismissal of a lawsuit surrounding a schism and succession dispute in the Unification Church.  The dispute has been in litigation for 14 years and has been before the Court of Appeals three times previously. (See prior posting.) Among the numerous issues dealt with in the Court's 59-page opinion was whether the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies to the dispute. The Court said in part:

... [A]ppellants argue that the trial court erred by (1) finding that resolution of the contract claims required determining questions of disputed religious doctrine; and (2) after making that finding, failing to apply the fraud or collusion exception to nonetheless permit review of the contract claims....

At bottom, appellants have yet to provide a clear, spelled-out answer as to how a court or jury might parse their contract and quasi-contract claims through neutral principles of law.  Pointing us to any and all potential contract conditions in the record does not cure the underlying problem we identified in Moon III—which was reiterated by the trial court on remand—that any path of decision-making analysis would require deciding actual, disputed questions of religious doctrine or leadership.  This necessarily results from the combination of (1) the use of extraordinarily broad, religious language in the purported contract terms and (2) an intrachurch dispute about the meaning of that language.  The contract-related claims therefore must fail under the baseline religious abstention doctrine....

Preston has only fraudulently donated UCI’s assets if he is not the true leader of the Unification Church and he knows it.  We cannot say the first thing without running afoul of the abstention doctrine, as we made clear in Moon III, and if bare allegations of fraud or collusion could get us around that, then the courts would be thrust right back into resolving core theological disputes about religious doctrine, hierarchy, and succession.  “No thanks” to that—that runs afoul of the abstention doctrine’s central animating principles.  And it is well established that we cannot apply any fraud or collusion exception in a way that violates the existing Supreme Court precedent on religious abstention....

The trial court acted well within its discretion to put an end to this decade-old case rather than breathing new life into it on its deathbed years after appellants could have gone after the discovery they now belatedly seek.

Section 1981 Suit Can Move Ahead Against Defendants Who Disrupted Jewish Religious Celebration

Congregation Hazon Ovadya, Inc. v. Rabbinical Council of California, (CD CA, July 1, 2025), is a suit by a Sephardic Jewish synagogue against several individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish origin as well as a group of Ashkenazi rabbis. The court describes the dispute:

On or about July 13, 2022, CHO organized a procession and solemn, religious ceremony centered around the dedication of a Torah.... In preparation for the Ceremony, CHO contracted with various rabbis and vendors, including musicians, a disc jockey, and equipment providers....

Plaintiffs allege that the Rabbinical Defendants contacted hundreds of people, including the Individuals Defendants, to organize a riot and frustrate the Ceremony.... Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants were motivated by their bias and animosity towards people of Sephardic origin.... In addition to playing sirens and other noises, some of the Individual Defendants shouted racial slurs at Plaintiff Vanounou, including but not limited to calling him "Arab."....

Due to the riot, the musicians and other vendors were unable to perform their contractual duties during the Ceremony....

Plaintiffs sued under 42 USC §1981 which prohibits discrimination on account of race in the making and enforcement of contracts. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the case under California's anti-SLAPP law, saying that the suit does not seek to hold defendants liable for their speech. The court refused to dismiss the suit against three individual defendants, saying in part:

The Court acknowledges that § 1981 is not "meant to provide an omnibus remedy for all racial injustice."... And the facts at issue in this action certainly do not fall within the typical kinds of claims raised under § 1981. However, having been presented with no authority expressly precluding claims of this nature, the Court does not view dismissal on this ground appropriate at this stage. At bottom, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that their contractual rights were impaired...

However the court dismissed charges against the Rabbinical organization, saying in part:

Even if the Rabbinical Defendants organized the riot and some of the participants engaged in racial chants, Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts supporting the idea that the Rabbinical Defendants engaged in this conduct themselves or otherwise ordered or condoned it....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Brandon L. Paradise, Agape and Law in Byzantium, (November 09, 2015).
• Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Comparative Study of Quranic Perspective on Counter Measures with the Principles of Public International Law, (June 20, 2025).
• Grace Watkins, Piety Police, (Yale Law Journal, Volume 134, No. 8, Pp. 2984-3072 (2025)).
• L. Joe Dunman, What Hath Obergefell Wrought, (52 Northern Ky. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming)).
• Eric Heinze, Criminalising Hate Speech: A Comparative Study, (December 02, 2024).
• Tracy L. Turner, Gender-Affirming Healthcare Bans as a Hybrid Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process Problem, (May 24, 2025).

From SSRN (Abortion rights):

• Lois A. Weithorn, Dobbs, State Policies, and Minors' Interests in an Open Future, (UC Law SF Gender and Justice Law Journal, Volume 36, Pp. 99-250, 2025).
• Stephen G. Gilles, Why Fourteenth Amendment Personhood Requires Live Birth, (39 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y (forthcoming 2025)).
• Dov Fox, The Personhood Double Standard, (UC Davis Law Review Online (forthcoming 2025)).
• Katherine Shaw, Hidden Harms: Abortion and the Shadow Docket, (Supreme Court Review (forthcoming 2025).

From SSRN (Non-profit organizations):

• David Gilchrist & Ben Perks, Value of the Not-for-profit Sector 2025: The Fourth Examination of the Economic Contribution of the Not-for-profit Human Services Sector in the Northern Territory (June 17, 2025).
• Elaine Wilson, The Fallacies Behind The Excise Tax On "Excessive" Charity Compensation, (Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, Vol. 56, p. 17 (2024)).
• Matthew S. Johnson, Hospitals and Local Taxation:  The Troubled Tale of Property Tax, (October 19, 2023).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 39, Issue 2 (2024).
• Berta Esperanza Hernandez-Truyol, Hemispheric Justice: Awakening to 303 Creative's Troubles—A Glocalized LatCrit Analysis, 22 Seattle Journal of Social Justice 705-746 (2024).
• Steven H. Sholk, A Guide to Election Year Activities of Section 501(c)(3) Organizations, (2025 edition).

New Federal Law Allows Tax Deduction for Contributions to Tuition Assistance Organizations

H.R. 1, One Big Beautiful Bill Act (full text), signed into law by the President on July 4, provides federal tax credits up to $1700 for contributions to private-school scholarship granting organizations in states that do not provide a state tax credit for such contributions. States must elect in to participate in this program. Sec. 70411 of the new law provides in part::

(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ... there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the aggregate amount of qualified contributions made by the taxpayer during the taxable year.

 (b) Limitations.--   ``(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection (a) to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed $1,700.  ``(2) ...The amount allowed as a credit ... shall be reduced by the amount allowed as a credit on any State tax return of the taxpayer for qualified contributions made by the taxpayer during the taxable year.

 (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--  ``(1) ...The term `covered State' means one of the States ... that ...voluntarily elects to participate under this section and to identify scholarship granting organizations in the State.... `

(2) ... The term `eligible student' means an individual who-- (A) is a member of a household with an income which, for the calendar year ...is not greater than 300 percent of the area median gross income.... and (B) is eligible to enroll in a public elementary or secondary school.

(3) ... The term `qualified contribution' means a charitable contribution of cash to a scholarship granting organization that uses the contribution to fund scholarships for eligible students solely within the State in which the organization is listed pursuant to subsection (g).

News media describe the provision as a national school voucher plan. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Secular Officiants Lack Standing to Bring Pre-Enforcement Challenge to Texas Law Barring Them from Performing Weddings

McCutchan v. Nicholson, (ND TX, July 2, 2025), involves a challenge to the Texas statute that sets out who may conduct marriage ceremonies in the state.  The statute limits officiants to judges, Christian clergy, Jewish rabbis or "a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony." The Center for Inquiry that certifies secular marriage celebrants along with one of its certified celebrants brings the challenge, seeking to have secular officiants recognized.  However, the state Attorney General intervened in the case and took the position that the Center for Inquiry qualifies as a "religious" organization as that term is used in the Texas statutes and that its officiants are therefore already permitted to officiate at marriages. The Attorney General argued:

CFI is not secular because it adopts clear, specific, and overt religious beliefs, namely that it “denies that a supernatural source is required for life to have and for people to be guided by values and ethics.” The rejection of God and the supernatural is a religious belief; a truly secular organization would take no stance on the issue....

However, the Court disagreed, concluding that CFI is neither a religious organization nor a religion, saying in part:

At oral argument, the Attorney General discarded the history and tradition of the Texas law, stating that Satanism and Atheism were “religion[s]” and “religious organization[s]” under the Texas Family Code. Interpreting the terms “religion” and “religious organization” to cover Satanism and Atheism not only ignores history and tradition but distorts their plain meaning and risks setting a dangerous precedent.

The court went on, though, to hold that plaintiffs lack standing to bring a pre-enforcement action against the District Attorney (one of the defendants in the case), saying in part:

Individual Plaintiff provides no examples of past enforcement, no public statements regarding enforcement of the statute, and no facts about how the District Attorney could know a secular celebrant violated the law.

This led to the court's final conclusion:

Even if the Court rules on behalf of Individual Plaintiff against Defendant Nicholson, thereby enjoining the County Clerk, his injuries would not be redressed without a favorable judgment against the District Attorney. A ruling in Individual Plaintiff’s favor, thus, would not amount to “relief that directly redresses the injury suffered.”... Accordingly, the Court rules that Individual Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Because individual members of CFI lack standing, so does the organization.