California Legislature Passes Law Aimed at Combatting Antisemitism and Other Bias in Schools

On September 12, the California legislature gave final passage to AB 715 (full text) which amends the state Education Code to create a state office of Civil Rights. The new Office is to work directly with local educational agencies to address discrimination and bias. It is to provide educational resources to identify and prevent antisemitism and other forms bias. The bill also requires the Office to employ an Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator who is to provide antisemitism education to school personnel and make recommendations to the legislature on legislation that is needed to prevent antisemitism in educational settings. The bill provides in part:

The United States National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, published by the Biden Administration on May 25, 2023, shall be a basis to inform the Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator on how to identify, respond to, prevent, and counter antisemitism.

The bill also provides in part:

51500. (a) (1) A teacher shall not give instruction and a school district shall not sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, or sexual orientation or because of a characteristic listed in section 220....

(2) Discriminatory bias in instruction and school-sponsored activities does not require a showing of direct harm to members of a protected group. Members of a protected group do not need to be present while the discriminatory bias is occurring for the act to be considered discriminatory bias.

(3) If the governing board or body of a local educational agency finds that instruction or school-sponsored activities are discriminatory pursuant to this section, corrective action shall be taken.

(b) Teacher instruction shall be factually accurate and align with the adopted curriculum and standards ..., and be consistent with accepted standards of professional responsibility, rather than advocacy, personal opinion, bias, or partisanship.

The bill now goes to Governor Gavin Newsom for his signature. JNS reports on the passage of the legislation. KQED reports on the controversy that surrounded the bill.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Roshan Biju, Between Myth and History: A Critical Examination of the Bible's Origins, (August 23, 2025).
• Richard Osborne, What's History without Tradition?, (Volume 75 of Catholic University Law Review (2026).
• Osama S. Qatrani, A Response To: "An Islamic Tale of Cartoons, Cartoonacy, And Cartoonatics, (Atheism Under the Microscope Responses to Zindler Response Vol 2 – 2025).
• Dimitris Christopoulos, & Dimitri Dimoulis, Art Can Legitimately Offend. Artistic Freedom Versus Religiousness, (August 29, 2025).
• Pranoto Iskandar, Negara Kesatuan, A Different Kind of Unitary State: Theorizing a Folk Theory of the State, (August 24, 2025).
• Evan D. Bernick, Text, Violence, and the Implausibility of Antiabortion Constitutionalism, (UC Davis Law Review Online, 2025).

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

• Asmita Mallick, LGBTQ: Marriage, Divorce and Child Custody & Laws Worldwide (September 04, 2025).
• Amreen Ayaz, Modernity, Mimicry, and Moksha: A Postcolonial Study of R. K. Narayan's The Guide and V. S. Naipaul's A House for Mr Biswas, (August 22, 2025).
• Yang Cai, Shuo Chen & Dongxu Li, Tambora Eruption and Peasant Revolts in Ancient China: An Apocalypse (August 30, 2025).
• Madhav Khosla & Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Caste Formalism: The Law and Politics of Equality in India, (Columbia Public Law Research Paper Forthcoming).
• Mohd Mudassir M.Ae.S.I, A Study on the Interconnection Between Sound Vibrations and the Softening of Iron: Quranic Insights and Scientific Principles, (August 28, 2025).
• Abdulmaleek Kadiri, An Examination of the Concept of Burden of Proof in Adultery Cases under Islamic Law, (July 20, 2024).
• Filzah Assi, "Short Communication on Dignity in the Digital Age", (August 20, 2025).
• Syed AbuMusab, The Virtue of Artificiality: Islamic Ethics and the Reconceptualization of AI Caregivers, (July 04, 2024).

9th Circuit Upholds Requirement to Use Only Secular Curricular Materials in Charter School Home Instruction Programs

In Woodlard v. Thurmond, (9th Cir., Sept. 11, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected First Amendment challenges to California's refusal to purchase and permit the use of religious curricular materials in home-based independent study programs of two charter schools. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs ... argue that the defendant charter schools’ independent study programs are really homeschooling and that the schools’ provision of curricular materials should be treated as a generally available public benefit in aid of homeschooling, access to which cannot be denied based on Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. The argument is premised on three recent Supreme Court decisions holding that when a state creates a generally available public benefit, it cannot exclude a potential recipient from the benefit because of religious status or religious use....

... [N]ot all government decisions that engender religious objections impose burdens on religion that fall afoul of the Free Exercise Clause. As the Supreme Court made clear in Carson, a state’s decision to provide a “strictly secular” public education does not do so....

... [I]n contrast to private homeschooling, parents in independent study programs can teach only under the supervision of state employees. The extensive legal requirements applicable to the defendant charter schools’ independent study programs make the programs sufficiently public to defeat Plaintiffs’ free exercise claim....

Plaintiffs’ compelled speech claim fares no better. It is premised on the argument that “[w]hen parents in the Blue Ridge and Visions programs select a diverse array of curricula for their children’s diverse needs,” the parents are speaking, not the government. However, we have held that a public school’s curriculum is an “expression of its policy,” ... and that “information and speech ... present[ed] to school children may be deemed to be part of the school’s curriculum and thus School District speech,” 

11th Circuit En Banc: Exclusion of Sex-Change Surgeries from Health Care Coverage Is Not Facially Discriminatory Under Title VII

In Lange v. Houston County, Georgia, (11 Cir., Sept. 9, 2025), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, in an 8-5 decision, held that a county's employee health insurance plan is not facially discriminatory under Title VII by reason of its exclusion of coverage for "sex change surgery." The case generated 8 opinions spanning 108 pages. The majority opinion relied in large part on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Skrmetti. The majority said in part:

The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Skrmetti applies equally here. The County’s policy does not pay for a sex change operation for anyone regardless of their biological sex....

Neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has held that transgender status is separately protected under Title VII apart from sex. And Bostock did not add transgender status, as a category, to the list of classes protected by Title VII. To the contrary, the Court expressly denied that it was answering any question other than “whether an employer who fires someone simply for being . . . transgender has discharged or otherwise discriminated against that individual ‘because of such individual’s sex’” within the meaning of Title VII’s plain terms....

Although the plaintiffs’ claim in Skrmetti arose under the Equal Protection Clause, the Court expressly held that the state statute at issue did not discriminate based on transgender status under the same Title VII precedents that we must apply here....

In short, the County’s plan does not facially violate Title VII. The County’s plan draws a line between certain treatments, which it covers, and other treatments, which it does not. That line may or may not be appropriate as a matter of health care policy, but it is not facial discrimination based on protected status.

Judge Newsome filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I write separately simply to emphasize that I don’t take either Skrmetti or today’s en banc opinion to collapse the separate analyses that apply to claims under Title VII and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause....

Judge Rosenbaum filed an opinion concurring in the judgment

... I haven’t found a meaningful way to distinguish Houston County’s healthcare plan—which excludes from coverage certain surgeries, but only if they involve (in the words of the plan) a “sex change” (a procedure one would have only to address gender dysphoria)—from the law at issue in Skrmetti.  So Skrmetti requires me to conclude that the plan doesn’t classify by sex.   

I say this with deep regret for three reasons.  First, ...  the record compellingly reveals that Houston County precludes sex-affirming surgeries for discriminatory reasons..... Second, most respectfully, Skrmetti’s conclusion that the law there didn’t discriminate by sex or transgender status ... conflicts with decades of Title VII jurisprudence....  And third, Skrmetti’s determination that the law there didn’t discriminate by sex or transgender status ... effectively imports the reasoning of Geduldig v. Aiello ... into Title VII jurisprudence.  But Congress expressly amended Title VII to reject the holding and reasoning of Geduldig....

Judge Jill Pryor, joined by Judges Jordan, Abudu, Kidd and Wilson, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The majority opinion concludes that the County health plan’s exclusion of medical care related to a “sex change” does not discriminate based on sex or transgender status because it merely “draws a line between certain treatments, which it covers, and other treatments, which it does not.” ... This is the exact same reasoning that both Congress and the Supreme Court rejected for Title VII claims....

The Skrmetti majority’s discussion of Bostock does not bind us. No Title VII claim was before the Supreme Court. Skrmetti therefore did not and could not decide whether an employer’s insurance plan that bases coverage of medical treatments on sex or transgender status violates Title VII. Nor did Skrmetti address the use of equal protection precedent in the Title VII context in commenting on Bostock.... Although we do not take lightly Supreme Court dicta, we simply are not free to follow it in the face of binding Supreme Court authority to the contrary. After all, “[t]he Supreme Court has told us, over and over again, to follow any of its decisions that directly applies in a case, even if the reasoning of that decision appears to have been rejected in later decisions and leave to that Court ‘the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.’”...

Judge Abudu filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

I write separately to acknowledge the ongoing cultural war in which this Court, like courts before us, has had to participate.  Our role is to ensure that, regardless of religious, political, or other ideologies, the law applies equally to all.  The majority’s decision, unfortunately, undermines that goal and sets us up for yet another episode in our Circuit’s legal history where the majority just gets the outcome wrong, and the short- and long-term implications of its flawed decision cannot be ignored....

The majority reaches its conclusion without acknowledging the elephant in the room—transgender rights have come to the forefront of debate in recent years, shining a necessary light on areas of society still rife with discrimination....

... [L]ike the early work of eliminating explicit sex- and gender based distinctions in the law, we only are tasked with reading Houston County’s healthcare exclusions to decide whether they, on their face, treat Deputy Lange worse because she is transgender, i.e., that her sex was the “but-for cause” of Houston County’s decision to deny her medical coverage.  The healthcare exclusions do just that.... 

Judge Wilson, joined by Judges Abudu and Kidd, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

... Because the majority manipulates Bostock’s but-for test to obfuscate the discrimination apparent on the face of the plan, I dissent.... 

Georgia Recorder reports on the decision.

5th Circuit: Baptist Mission Board Can Claim Church Autonomy Defense

In McRaney v. North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Inc., (5th Cir., Sept. 9, 2025), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that the church autonomy doctrine bars civil courts from adjudicating tortious interference, defamation and infliction of emotional distress claims by a Baptist minister who was fired from his position as Executive Director of the Baptist Convention of Maryland/ Delaware (BCMD). In that position he was to implement a strategic partnership between the North American Mission Board (NAMB) and BCMD. NAMB became dissatisfied with the way that plaintiff was carrying out the evangelical mission of the strategic partnership agreement, and plaintiff claims that NAMB was behind his firing by BCMD.

The court said in part:

... [T]he church autonomy doctrine prohibits far more than civil judges telling religious institutions what to believe or how to worship. To help clarify the wide-ranging scope of the doctrine, we identify some areas where church autonomy has barred judicial interference. These include (a) the selection and dismissal of clergy and faith leaders (the so-called “ministerial exception”); (b) the meaning of religious beliefs and doctrines; (c) the determination of religious polity, such as membership, matters of discipline and good standing, and the identification of the “true church” amidst internecine disputes; and (d) internal church communications regarding any of the aforementioned activities....

... [T]he church autonomy doctrine has numerous features of a jurisdictional bar. It limits the powers of federal courts. It immunizes ecclesiastical organizations from suit, not just liability. And, when it is denied, it gives rise to an immediate appeal. But ... the fact that some religious questions are beyond our judicial power does not mean that all church-autonomy disputes are properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1). Nor does it preclude federal courts from rendering judgment on the merits in cases like this one. ...

On the merits, the church autonomy doctrine bars all of McRaney’s claims against NAMB. Although his claims are facially secular, their resolution would require secular courts to opine on “matters of faith and doctrine” and intrude on NAMB’s “internal management decisions that are essential to [its] central mission.”... 

At the outset, McRaney argues that the church autonomy doctrine cannot apply in this case because “NAMB is not a church,” “BCMD is not a church,” and “[t]here is no Baptist church; only Baptist churches.” ... He argues his case “does not involve an intra-church dispute in any respect, nor is it about church governance.”... Our dissenting colleague agrees..... On the dissent’s view, the church autonomy doctrine only protects religious entities “in which there are superior ecclesiastical tribunals”....  Having branded Baptists ecclesial anarchists, the dissent subjects the NAMB and BCMD’s actions to searching judicial scrutiny—as if this were just an ordinary employment dispute. 

We respectfully disagree....

The church autonomy doctrine is triggered by the subject matter of the dispute, not the organizational structure of the disputants. The subject matter of this dispute is an evangelism project. Its stakes are eternal not judicial. And it matters not one bit that the particular evangelicals before us happen to be Baptists from different non-hierarchical congregations instead of soul-saving Presbyterians from a singular hierarchical one.   ...

Judge Ramiriz filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

William McRaney sued a board of an organization for which he did not work, alleging interference with contract, interference with prospective business relations, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because his secular claims against a third-party organization do not implicate matters of church government or of faith and doctrine, I respectfully dissent....

Because they do not implicate matters of faith and doctrine, McRaney is entitled to continue pursuing his secular claims regarding NAMB’s pre- and post-termination conduct....

Baptist News Global reports on the decision.

UPDATE: On October 28. 2025, the court on its own motion filed a revised opinion. The link in the post above leads to the revised opinion, while the quotes in the post are from the original opinion.

2nd Circuit: Christian School Wrongly Disqualified for Refusing to Play Against Team That Had Trans Athlete

In Mid Vermont Christian School v. Saunders, (2d Cir., Sept. 9, 2025), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Christian school was entitled to a preliminary injunction reinstating its membership in the Vermont Principal's Association. The court summarized its decision:

Mid Vermont Christian School forfeited a girls’ playoff basketball game to avoid playing a team with a transgender athlete.  The school believes that forcing girls to compete against biological males would affirm that those males are females, in violation of its religious beliefs.  In response to the forfeit, the Vermont Principals’ Association (“VPA”) expelled the school from all state-sponsored extracurricular activities.  

Plaintiffs Mid Vermont and several students and parents sued, bringing a Free Exercise claim and seeking a preliminary injunction to reinstate the school’s VPA membership and for other relief.  The district court ... denied the motion.  We conclude that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the VPA’s expulsion of Mid Vermont was not neutral because it displayed hostility toward the school’s religious beliefs; Plaintiffs are therefore likely to prevail on their Free Exercise claim.

MyNBC5 reports on the decision.

School Rules on Non-gendered Pronouns Do Not Violate Free Exercise or Free Speech Rights

In Hyland v. State Board of Education, (NJ App., Sept. 9, 2025), a New Jersey state appellate court rejected a 1st and 14th Amendment challenge to amended Board of Education rules that, among other things, eliminated gendered pronouns in the rules. The court said in part:

Hyland argues the State Board may not establish a "religion of secularism" by adopting amendments that define gender as "indeterminate," which can be decided based on the student's feelings, resulting in the treatment of comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise.  He further argues the amendments force students who adhere to a "Biblical worldview," to act and operate under a law that directly contradicts those beliefs, and the students or parents are not allowed to opt out of the imposition of those beliefs....

A fair reading of the amended chapter demonstrates the State Board does not seek to promote a "religion of secularism," nor does it create a constitutionally prohibited entanglement.  The students and parents retain the right to opt-out of any instruction related to health, family life education, or sex education or educational activity that violates their religious beliefs.... Thus, the amendments do not violate either the Free Exercise or Establishment Clauses, as they apply uniformly to all students and do not seek to regulate religious conduct or belief.,,,

We are satisfied that the record establishes there is no violation of the First Amendment free speech rights.  Here, the amendments to Chapter 7 do not regulate or target the speech of students or parents.  While the amendments define gender identity, they neither compel nor coerce students or parents to endorse this definition.  Nor do they prevent students or parents from publicly expressing a different view....

Religious Liberty Commission Hearing Features Remarks by President Trump

Yesterday, the Religious Liberty Commission that was created in May by an Executive Order of Donald Trump held its second hearing (Video of full hearing). The hearing was held at The Museum of the Bible. President Trump was a featured speaker (video of Trump's remarks) (transcript of Trump's remarks). His wide-ranging speech began with the President saying, in part:

... America was founded on faith, as we know and I've been saying it for a long time. And when faith gets weaker, our country seems to get weaker. When faith gets stronger, as it is right now, we're having a very good period of time after some rough years, good things happen for our country. It's amazing the way it seems to work that way. And under the Trump administration, we're defending our rights and restoring our identity as a nation under God. We are one nation under God, and we always will be....

... I'm pleased to announce this morning that the Department of Education will soon issue new guidance protecting the right to prayer in our public schools and its total protection....

During his remarks, the President invited Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner to speak about developments. Turner said in part:

How many know we have a godly, faithful cabinet? And a cabinet that prioritizes prayer. On July 3rd, Mr. President, of this year, you kicked off the year-long celebration of America's 250th birthday in Iowa. You invited America's faith communities to come together to pray for our country. Well, Mr. President, America's faith communities are responding with overwhelming enthusiasm.... Today, more than 70 major faith organizations and churches have joined together to participate in what we're calling America Prays....

... What if 1 million people prayed for our country every single week between now and next July 4th? ... What if believers all across this great nation got together with 10 people, friends, family members, colleagues, work associates, ten people each week to pray for our country and for our fellow citizens.... Think about the transformation that you and I could witness in communities all across the land. Sons returning to their fathers. Daughters returning to their mothers. Families coming back together. Health being restored. Financial needs being met. Mountains being moved.... We're a nation that has always believed in the power of prayer....

... Lord, not just Democrat, not just Republican, but all American people will come together under the banner of Yahweh of God Almighty. And Lord God, we praise you. And we thank you. And we love you. In Jesus name, Amen. [Audience members respond "Amen"]

The White House posted a press release summarizing the main points of Trump's speech. USA Today reports on the hearing. The White House yesterday also issued a press release titled "President Trump’s Top 100 Victories for People of Faith."

11th Circuit: Government Can Insist on Secular Presenters in Intervention Program for Domestic Abusers

In Nussbaumer v. Secretary, Florida Department of Children and Families, (11th Cir., Sept. 4, 2025), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech and free exercise challenges to Florida's requirements for becoming certified as a provider in the state's batterers' intervention program. Anyone convicted of domestic violence is required to complete the intervention program offered by a certified provider.  Nussbaumer is a Florida minister and licensed clinical Christian psychologist. He was denied certification because state rules require that the program's curriculum not include any faith-based ideology associated with a particular curriculum and not identify poor impulse control as a cause of domestic violence or suggest anger management techniques to prevent domestic violence. The court held that plaintiff's free speech rights were not violated because the curriculum and its presentation are government speech. Similarly, it held that his free exercise rights were not infringed, saying in part:

“the government’s own speech cannot support a claim that the government has interfered with a private individual’s free exercise rights.”... “The Free Exercise Clause simply cannot be understood to require the Government to conduct its own internal affairs in ways that comport with the religious beliefs of particular citizens.”

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Muhammad Hasan Naqvi, Contemplating the Jirga System: Between Tradition and Justice, (August 04, 2025).
• Jorge Barrera-Rojas, From Mahmoud v. Taylor to Strasbourg: The Substantial-Interference Test in Public Education, (September 01, 2025).
• Christopher D. Hampson, The Ten Commandments, Stripped of Slavery, Exodus & Jubilee, (83 Washington and Lee Law Review Online (forthcoming 2026)).
• Neil Weinstock Netanel, Wrongful Competition, Product Design, and Trade Secrets: Comparing Jewish and Secular Law, (forthcoming in Intellectual Property and Religion, (Nicola Lucchi, Enrico Bonadio, and Bryan Khan eds., Hart Publishing 2026)).
• Mathew Pelham, A Clash Between RFRA and the Department of Homeland Security: Does a Rescission of the Sensitive Locations Policy Substantially Burden the Free Exercise of Religion?, (Volume 47, No. 1, Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice, forthcoming).
• Robert C. Blitt, From Zero to Holy War: The International Community's Failure to Confront the Russian Orthodox Church's Escalating Support for War Against Ukraine, (15(3) Wake Forest Journal of Law and Policy (2025) 1).
• Helen Alvare, Religious Freedom as Freedom, (Brigham Young University Law Review, Vol. 50, pp. 1191–1216 (2025)).
• Aziz Z. Huq & Tom Ginsburg, Family, Faith and Nation: The Roberts Court and the Global Pivot Against Legal Liberalism, (forthcoming, Boston College Law Review).
• Zachary D. Fasman & Samuel Estreicher, Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism and Title VI: A Less From Perplexing Guide, (U of Michigan Public Law Research Paper Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Brett G. Roberts, Native Americans in the Clutches of Catholicism: How Catholicism and Native Rights Connect via Natural Law in a World That Wants You to Believe Otherwise, 22 Ave Maria Law Review 44-93 (2024).
•  D. Brian Scarnecchia, Are Prenatal Children like Child Soldiers Who May Be Killed in Self-Defense? Should Abortion to Save the Mother's Life Be Legal after Dobbs v. Jackson?, 22 Ave Maria Law Review 94-111 (2024).
• Samantha Barbas, How American Civil Rights Groups Defeated Hate Speech Laws, 6 Journal of Free Speech Law 94-111 (2024).

6th Circuit: Transgender Bathroom Rule Did Not Violate Objecting Parents' or Students' Free Exercise Rights

In Jane and John Doe No. 1 v. Bethel Local School District Board of Education, (6th Cir., Aug. 26, 2025), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims that a school's policy on use of communal bathrooms by transgender students violated the free exercise rights of Muslim and Christian students and their parents. The court dismissed as moot plaintiffs' request for a declaratory and injunctive relief because while the case was pending, the school changed its policy pursuant to a new Ohio law that mandated bathroom access based on biological sex. However, plaintiffs' claim for damages from past violations was not moot. Nevertheless, the court found no 1st Amendment violation, focusing on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor. The court said in part:

The Supreme Court acknowledged that “the government is generally free to place incidental burdens on religious exercise so long as it does so pursuant to a neutral policy that is generally applicable.” ... But the Court situated Mahmoud in line with Wisconsin v. Yoder, ...  as an exception to the general rule because “[a] government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.” ...

This exception does not apply here.  The bathroom policy does not impose a burden “of the [] same character as the burden in Yoder.”...  Unlike the challenged state law in Yoder, which compelled Amish families to send their children to public or private schools, and the curricular requirement in Mahmoud, which required elementary school students to attend classes where certain LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks that “unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender” were taught, the bathroom policy was not an educational requirement or curricular feature, and the policy did not require students to use the communal restrooms.... [Single occupancy bathrooms were available to students.]

Because the policy was neutral and generally applicable, it is subject to rational basis review, which it survives....

On appeal, the parent plaintiffs specifically argue that the School District infringed on their right to direct the upbringing of their children by (1) modifying the School District’s bathroom operations, (2) increasing their children’s risk of physical danger, and (3) choosing not to answer questions about implementing the bathroom policy.  We are unpersuaded by their arguments, and thus, we affirm the grant of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim....

Judge Larsen filed an opinion concurring in the judgment but saying that the majority had read the Mahmoud case too narrowly. He said in part:

... [T]he ultimate question Mahmoud poses is whether a school policy “substantially interfere[s] with the religious development of the child or pose[s] a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices the parent wishes to instill in the child.”...  All sorts of non-curricular school rules—which aren’t clearly “educational”—can interfere with parents’ religious upbringing of their children.  Imagine, for example, a school that provides free school lunch to all students, regardless of income, to remove the stigma associated with accepting free or reduced-price meals.  If the school neither provided Kosher meals nor permitted parents to pack brown-bag lunches, that might well impose a Yoder-like burden on Jewish parents and students, even though the policy would neither be obviously “educational” nor involve the curriculum.  If the school cannot require Jewish students to read books “designed to” undermine their commitment to keeping Kosher, why would the school be able to more directly compel them to eat a grilled ham and cheese?...

... In this case, Bethel’s policy allowed religious students to “opt out” by using single-stall restrooms instead of the communal ones to which they objected.  That important fact distinguishes this case from both Yoder and Mahmoud....

Buckeye Flame reports on the decision.

Texas AG Urges Introducing the Lord's Prayer in Classrooms

As previously reported, in May 2025 the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 11. The bill took effect on September 1. The new law 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, with parental consent for students to participate. On Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a press release recommending that schools adopt a policy that calls for recitation of the Lord's Prayer.  The press release said in part:

“In Texas classrooms, we want the Word of God opened, the Ten Commandments displayed, and prayers lifted up,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Twisted, radical liberals want to erase Truth, dismantle the solid foundation that America’s success and strength were built upon, and erode the moral fabric of our society. Our nation was founded on the rock of Biblical Truth, and I will not stand by while the far-left attempts to push our country into the sinking sand.”...

... [Senate Bill 11] directs the Office of the Attorney General to defend any school district or charter school that adopts such a policy. In addition, the Attorney General is empowered to recommend best practices for implementation.

For Texas students considering how to best utilize this time, Attorney General Paxton encourages children to begin with the Lord’s Prayer, as taught by Jesus Christ.

The press release then sets out the text of the Lord's Prayer as it appears in the King James Version of Matthew 6:9-13.  Texas Tribune reports on Paxton's action. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Christian Families Challenge Foster Care Rules on Support of Transgender Children

Two families, asserting Christian religious beliefs, filed suit yesterday in a Massachusetts federal district court challenging on 1st and 14th Amendment grounds a policy of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families that requires foster parents to agree that they will "[s]upport, respect, and affirm the foster child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression." The complaint (full text) in Jones v. Mahaniah, (D MA, filed 9/3/2025), alleges in part:

3. Both families will provide a loving and respectful home for any child, including transgender, gay, or lesbian foster children. But that is insufficient for Massachusetts....

4. ... [T]he State requires the Joneses and the Schrocks to promise to use a child’s chosen pronouns, verbally affirm a child’s gender identity contrary to biological sex, and even encourage a child to medically transition, forcing these families to speak against their core religious beliefs. 

5. Second, DCF infringes on Plaintiffs’ free-exercise rights through a policy that is not neutral or generally applicable,,,,  A foster parent must promise in advance to use opposite-sex pronouns and encourage a hypothetical child’s gender transition, even if they never have and never will host a child who struggles to accept their natural body....

120. Because DCF compels applicants to speak and express the DCF’s preferred views on human sexuality while prohibiting speech expressing other views it regulates speech based on content and viewpoint, it engages in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination....

134. 110 C.M.R. 7.104(1)(d) is not neutral nor generally applicable because it imposes special disabilities based on religious beliefs, categorically excludes people from foster-care licenses based on religious beliefs, prefers certain religious and secular beliefs over the Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, and provides for categorical and individualized exemptions without extending an exemption to religious persons like Plaintiffs.

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

Members of Healthcare Sharing Ministry Have Standing to Challenge Insurance Regulator

In Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance, (D NM, Aug. 25, 2025), a New Mexico federal district court held that two members of a healthcare sharing ministry that was barred from operating in New Mexico by insurance regulatory authorities have standing to challenge on free exercise grounds the regulator's order that ended the ministry's operation in the state. The ministry itself was originally also a party to the lawsuit, but it was dismissed because it was challenging the action in state court.

In refusing to dismiss at this stage for lack of standing, the court said in part:

... OSI acknowledges that Plaintiffs believe “they have a biblical obligation to help their fellow man when in need which is accomplished by sharing each other’s medical expenses.”...  Further, Plaintiffs present evidence—unrebutted by OSI— showing that OSI’s final order directing Gospel Light’s to cease operations tangibly interfered with their religious beliefs and practices. While Smith and Renteria admitted that they continue to pay into Gospel Light’s sharing ministry, they also testified that OSI’s final order prevented them from participating in other aspects of the program, including the ability to share in organized prayer networks which connected them to other Gospel Light members.... Importantly, Renteria stated that OSI’s actions caused her to switch her family to a different healthcare sharing ministry....

... OSI’s final order impacted Plaintiffs’ ability to fully participate in Gospel Light’s sharing ministry. That participation is a distinct part of Plaintiffs’ religious belief structure....

Plaintiffs’ statements raise a plausible inference that they share a concrete and particularized injury: the inability to utilize Gospel Light’s health sharing ministry to its full extent due to OSI’s final order. Because the scope of those injuries remains in dispute, summary judgment is inappropriate at this stage....

9th Circuit Upholds Fire Department's Denial of Religious Exemptions from Covid Vaccine Mandate

In Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue, (9th Cir., Sept. 2, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by eight firefighters that the Snohomish fire department violated Title VII and Washington state law by refusing to accommodate their requests for religious exemptions from the state's Covid vaccine mandate for all healthcare providers. The court said in part:

SRFR has pointed to several substantial costs of accommodating Plaintiff’s requested vaccine exemption— the health and safety of its own firefighters and the public, the large number of firefighters seeking accommodations, the risk to its operations and the cost of widespread absences, the potential loss of a lucrative contract with DOC, and the risk of additional liability.  SRFR also provided unrebutted medical evidence that showed the inadequacy of Plaintiffs’ proposed accommodation.  All of this amounts to a showing that SRFR could not reasonably have accommodated Plaintiffs without undue hardship in October 2021....

We cannot judge SRFR by the responses taken by other fire departments....  Nor can we judge SRFR with the clarity of hindsight or the benefit of post-pandemic debates over what measured responses frontline employers should have taken.  We must consider the costs faced by SRFR in October 2021, not today.... [A]t the time the Governor issued the Proclamation, “COVID-19 cases were spiking....  The pandemic forced the State of Washington to make decisions quickly and with limited information.  In so doing, SRFR relied on the scientific evidence and COVID data then available and acted in the best interests of the community....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Russell Bell, Jurisdictional Archaeology and the Adaptive Strategies of Insurgent Knowledge: A Methodological Framework Demonstrated Through Ancient Flood Narratives, (August 18, 2025).
• Carl H. Esbeck, Louisiana's Ten Commandments Statute: With Litigation Updates from Arkansas and Texas, (University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2025-40 (2025)).
• Jessica Clarke, Skrmetti's Shell Game, (August 16, 2025).
• Ahmed Awwad & Imad Bejeawi, Legality Extent of Therapeutic Cloning in Islamic Fiqh and Comparative Laws—A Comparative Analytical Study, (November 11, 2024).
• Scott Skinner-Thompson, Law's Gender Ideology, (U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper Forthcoming).
• Hüsamettin Yıldırımnd & Esra Gülengül, Grounding The Idea of Renewal in Islamic Thought, And Collective Iḥyā': A Study from the Perspectives of the Philosophy of Religion and Fiqh, (Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, volume 12, issue 1, 2025).
• Liaqat Ali Khoso, The Abode of Peace in Peril: Concept, Development, Legislation, and Reform of Dar-Ul-Aman ( )نٓاملاا راد in Pakistan, (August 13, 2025).
• Erfanul Alam Siddiquee, A Historical Analysis of Banking System Development in Islamic Countries (August 17, 2025).
• Anibal Rosario Lebrón, The Comorbidities of SSOGIE Equality: A Crisis Lens to Understanding its Future, (Northern Kentucky Law Review | Vol. 52:2 | 2025).
• Marc O. DeGirolami, Person, Religion, and the Problem of Legal Essences, (in Legal Personhood in Private Law, Christopher Essert, Eva Micheler, and Paul Miller, eds., Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).

State Office Violated Title VII by Refusing to Allow Jehovah's Witness to Attach Addendum to Required Employment Oath

In Bolden-Hardge v. Office of the California State Controller, (ED CA, Aug. 29, 2025), a California federal district court, in a case on remand from the 9th Circuit (see prior posting), granted summary judgment to plaintiff on her Title VII failure to accommodate claim.  Plaintiff, a Jehovah's Witness, insisted on attaching an Addendum to the oath she was required to take as an employee of the State Controller's Office.  She contended that the required Oath violated her religious beliefs in four ways, one of which was the Oath’s language that she "will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California."  She contended that this conflicted with her religious belief that "her allegiance is first and foremost to God."

The court said in part:

The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute that Plaintiff’s religious beliefs conflict with the “true faith and allegiance” provision.  Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Schmalz opined that “the requirement to ‘bear true faith and allegiance’ presents a conflict with a typical Jehovah’s Witness’ most basic loyalty to Jehovah God — a fundamental precept guiding Watchtower belief and practice.” 

Plaintiff's proposed Addendum read:

I, [Plaintiff], vow to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and that of the State of California while working in my role as an employee of the [SCO].  I will be honest and fair in my dealings and neither dishonor the Office by word nor deed.  By signing this oath, I understand that I shall not be required to bear arms, engage in violence, nor participate in political or military affairs.  Additionally, I understand that I am not giving up my right to freely exercise my religion, nor am I denouncing my religion by accepting this position.

The court concluded:

... [T]he undisputed evidence shows that Defendants would not have experienced an undue hardship if Plaintiff had been allowed to attach the Proposed Addendum and sign the Oath, as she requested.

The court dismissed several of plaintiff's other claims.

Pharmacists Sue for Religious Accommodation to Avoid Dispensing Gender-Affirming Drugs

Two Walgreens pharmacists filed suit last week in a Minnesota federal district court challenging the drug chain's refusal to accommodate their religious objections to dispensing drugs that facilitate gender transitions. Walgreens took the position that plaintiffs' long-standing arrangement to refer such prescriptions to other pharmacists to fill was now illegal under Minnesota law as administered by the state Board of Pharmacy.

The complaint (full text) (exhibits to complaint) in Scott v. Minnesota Board of Pharmacy, (D MN, filed 8/22/2025), alleges in part:

3. Walgreens was wrong about the law. Minnesota administrative rules require pharmacists to dispense or compound only those drugs that “may reasonably be expected to be compounded or dispensed in pharmacies by pharmacists.” Reasonable people understand that not every pharmacist or pharmacy sells every drug, for various reasons including supply shortages, insurance reimbursement rates, lack of demand in the community—or a pharmacist’s conscientious objections. 

4. Plaintiffs asked the State Board of Pharmacy to clarify that this is the correct interpretation of the Board’s rules. The Board refused, leaving Plaintiffs and other pharmacists like them in legal limbo and subject to adverse actions from employers like Walgreens. 

5. To any extent that Minnesota law does purport to require Plaintiffs to violate their religious convictions by dispensing or compounding certain drugs, it violates the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the free exercise protections of Minnesota’s Constitution. Forcing individual pharmacists to violate their religious beliefs by dispensing drugs that are readily available from many other pharmacists is not narrowly tailored to advance any compelling government interest. Moreover, Minnesota permits many non-religious exceptions to any “must dispense” requirement, including for economic reasons and based on a pharmacist’s professional judgment about the risks and efficacy of a prescription. Refusing to allow religious accommodations therefore is neither neutral nor generally applicable.

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

Supreme Court Review Sought by California Baker

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed this week in Miller v. Civil Rights Division, (Sup. Ct., certiorari filed 8/26/2025). In the case, a California state appellate court held that a bakery, Cathy's Creations, and its owner violated the anti-discrimination provisions of California law when they refused to sell a predesigned cake to a customer because the cake would be used at a same-sex wedding reception. The California court rejected defendant's free exercise and free speech defenses. (See prior posting.) The California Supreme Court denied review. Washington Times reports on the petition seeking U.S. Supreme Court review.

Leaders of Purported Church Indicted for Violating Forced Labor Ban

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that a federal grand jury in Michigan has handed down a 10-count, 21-page, indictment (full text) charging the leader and the executive director of the Kingdom of God Global Church (KOGGC) with violations of statutes outlawing forced labor, as well as with money laundering. The indictment charges that defendant David Taylor has established call centers around the country to raise funds purportedly to support the operations of KOGGC. He recruits individuals to work as unpaid phone solicitors. They have raised millions of dollars which have been used by Taylor to support his extravagant lifestyle. He also recruits individuals to work as his unpaid "armor bearers". They function as his personal servants. Executive director Michelle Brannon enforces Taylor's rules. Victims were required to cut off family or friends that questioned the arrangements. According to the indictment:

13. If a call center worker or armor bearer does not fulfill TAYLOR's goals, or disobeys an order, that person is punished.

14. Punishment includes humiliation, sleep deprivation, forced "repentance," additional work, food restrictions, physical assaults, and threats of divine judgment in the form of sickness, accidents, death, and eternal damnation.

15. TAYLOR regularly claims that if an individual fails to obey his orders and commands, they are defying God and will suffer in Hell.

HHS Pressures West Virginia To Implement Religious Exemptions from Compulsory School Vaccination Law

 As reported by Med Page Today, the Department of Health and Human Services is pressuring the state of West Virginia to recognize religious exemptions from the state's compulsory public school vaccination requirements. In January of this year, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey issued an Executive Order (full text) instructing state officials to create a procedure for parents to obtain religious or conscience exemptions, taking the position that this is required by West Virginia's Equal Protection for Religion Act. The compulsory immunization law only provides for medical exemptions, and legislative attempts to amend it have failed. Last week, the federal Health and Human Services Department took steps to support the Governor's position. In a letter dated Aug. 21, 2025 (full text) directed to West Virginia Health Departments participating in the federal Vaccines for Children Program (VCP), the HHS Office of Civil Rights said in part:

Providers participating in the VCP must comply “with applicable State law, including any such law relating to any religious or other exemption.” By specifically mandating that a State’s plan for administering Medicaid must respect State laws regarding religious exemptions, Congress recognized the importance of Americans’ religious convictions regarding vaccines and laws protecting such....

On January 14, 2025, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey issued Executive Order 7-25.... The Governor’s interpretation of EPRA was recently affirmed by Judge Froble of the Circuit Court of Raleigh County...

West Virginia is a participant in the VCP6 and receives $1.37 billion from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services each year as the federal Medicaid contribution. Therefore, West Virginia is obligated to ensure that its VCP providers comply with applicable state laws like EPRA, which requires recognition of religious exemptions from West Virginia’s Compulsory Vaccination Law. 

On Aug. 25, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. posted a message on X urging the state legislature to support the Governor's position, and saying in part:

...  At @HHSgov, we will enforce conscience protections and defend every family’s right to make informed health decisions.

10th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Fraud Claims Against LDS Church

In Gaddy v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (10th Cir., Aug. 26, 2025), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a RICO suit against the Latter-Day Saints Church. Plaintiffs, who for many years had made tithing payments to the Church, contended that the Church had made misrepresentations about the Church's history and origins. The court said in part:

On their fraudulent misrepresentations RICO theory, Plaintiffs make several attacks on the factual accuracy of what the Church teaches its members.  Plaintiffs claim that key historical events for the religion occurred differently than how the Church describes them canonically.  Allegedly, by preaching false statements about its own history, the Church engaged in a “pattern of racketeering.”  ... Had Plaintiffs known of these alleged misrepresentations, they say, they would not have committed to the Church....

We conclude that the church autonomy doctrine applies to Plaintiffs’ allegations about the Church’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions about its history, because the dispute about the accuracy of the Church’s representations is ecclesiastical, not “purely secular.” ... Plaintiffs’ allegations require a court to dive into deeply religious waters to assess whether foundational events for a religion occurred the way the religion teaches....

Plaintiffs’ second RICO theory [is] ... fraudulent misuse of tithing funds....  We conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference of causation between any of the challenged misrepresentations or omissions by the Church about how it would use tithing payments and the alleged harm Plaintiffs suffered....  As a result, we need not decide whether the church autonomy doctrine precludes the adjudication of this theory....

Judge Phillips filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I write separately because I would also decide that the church autonomy doctrine does not apply to Plaintiffs’ second civil RICO theory—that the Church fraudulently used tithing payments for commercial purposes....  [I]t “does not apply to purely secular decisions, even when made by churches.”

Deseret News reports on the decision.

LA Sued Over Its handling of Permit Application for Christian Revival Event

Suit was filed last week in a California federal district court by leaders of May Day USA, a nationwide Christian revival event, contending that the manner in which Los Angeles officials handed their application for a permit to hold a revival on Hollywood Boulevard violated their 1st and 14th Amendment rights. The 54-page complaint (full text) in Donnelly v. City of Los Angeles, California, (CD CA, filed 8/21/2025), alleges in part:

15. LAPD wielded the unconstitutionally unbridled discretion afforded it under the City’s permitting scheme to subject MayDay to lengthy and pretextual administrative hurdles....

16. Among the LAPD’s many demands was a requirement that MayDay conduct a petition of Hollywood Boulevard’s business owners and vendors to ensure at least 51% approved of MayDay’s expressive activity and speech....

19. The City’s permitting scheme thus enshrined an unconstitutional heckler’s veto upon MayDay and its expressive activities....

21. The City refused to provide MayDay with any concrete answer on its permit application until the last minute, prohibiting MayDay from finalizing their planned event, advertising it, or otherwise adequately preparing to engage in the event....

23. Three days prior to its requested event, the City denied the permit actually requested by MayDay ...and “granted” the application to host the event at a location ... it never requested and out of the site of the hecklers who Defendants believed would veto MayDay’s speech. In essence, the City tried to put MayDay unconstitutionally out of sight, and out of mind....

25. Simply put, the City said MayDay could speak, but only if it did it quietly, quickly, and where no one who might object would be forced to hear it. Defendants denied MayDay’s permit application on the basis of the views it planned to espouse and out of concern that Hollywood Boulevard was not an appropriate place for their religious speech, exercise, and expression.

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

Texas AG Tells School Districts That Were Not Enjoined to Comply with Statute Ordering Posting of 10 Commandments In Classrooms

As previously reported, on August 20 a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring 11 Texas school districts from complying with Texas SB 10 that requires posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Yesterday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a press release (full text) directed the school districts that were not defendants in the litigation to comply with SB 10. He said in part:

From the beginning, the Ten Commandments have been irrevocably intertwined with America’s legal, moral, and historical heritage. Schools not enjoined by ongoing litigation must abide by S.B. 10 and display the Ten Commandments. The woke radicals seeking to erase our nation’s history will be defeated. I will not back down from defending the virtues and values that built this country.

As reported by the Houston Chronicle, there is some confusion as to whether the Attorney General's instructions to comply include two major school districts-- Houston and Austin. On Aug. 19, the Austin District was dismissed as a defendant on the condition that it would be bound by any injunction issued in the case against the remaining defendants. (Full text of Order.) The Houston District, on its motion, was excused from participating in the hearing on the preliminary injunction. In a version of the Attorney General's press release posted on X and on Facebook, neither Austin nor Houston was listed among the districts that Paxton said were excused from complying with SB 10. However, in the version posted on the Attorney General's website, both Austin and Houston were listed as districts affected by the injunction and thus excused from compliance.

The Attorney General's instructions follow an Aug. 21 letter (full text) from the ACLU, Americans United and FFRF sent to superintendents in Texas districts that were not defendants in the lawsuit, saying in part:

Even though your district is not a party to the ongoing lawsuit, all school districts have an independent obligation to respect students’ and families’ constitutional rights. Because the U.S. Constitution supersedes state law, public-school officials may not comply with S.B. 10. 

The organizations threaten possible litigation against districts that comply with S.B. 10.

Ban on Faith Statements by Colleges Participating in Program for High Schoolers Violates Free Exercise Clause

Loe v. Jett, (D MN, Aug. 22, 2025), is a challenge to a 2023 Amendment to Minnesota's Post Secondary Education Option (PSEO) statute. The statute allows high school students to enroll in nonsectarian college courses in colleges in the state. The state reimburses colleges for the credits earned by high schoolers. The challenged amendment disqualifies colleges that require faith statements from PSEO students, or which discriminate in admission of PSEO students on the basis of race, creed, ethnicity, disability, gender, or sexual orientation or religious beliefs or affiliations. The court held that the Faith Statement ban violates the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, saying in part:

[University of] Northwestern requires PSEO applicants to agree to a Declaration of Christian Community, by which applicants attest to “honor Christ,” “seek Christ‐centered community,” and “stand together against all that the Bible clearly condemns.”... Such an admissions requirement is facially proscribed by the Faith Statement Ban. Now, consider a hypothetical secular private college that participates in the PSEO program. If that secular school required that all PSEO applicants attest to “honor reason,” “seek reason‐centered community,” and “stand together against all that rationalism clearly condemns,” such an admissions requirement would seemingly not be proscribed by the Faith Statement Ban.  

The only difference between the two statement requirements is that Northwestern’s is of a religious—and not a secular—nature. Such a distinction on the face of the Faith Statement Ban is not neutral to religion, and thus triggers strict scrutiny....

In sum, the Faith Statement Ban is unconstitutional on its face under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because it burdens religious exercise, is not neutral and generally applicable, and is not narrowly tailored to achieve MDE’s compelling interest. Necessarily, this means that the Faith Statement Ban is also unconstitutional under the Freedom of Conscience Clause of Article One, Section Sixteen of the Minnesota Constitution. ...

The court also held that the Amendment's nondiscrimination provision is inseparable from the Statement Ban, so that it too must be struck down. It also rejected the Department of Education's counterclaims against the religious schools that were among the plaintiffs.

MPR News reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Amy L. Sepinwall, A Private Right To Public Accommodations, (August 18, 2025).
• Dennis Wieboldt, American Providentialism: A Reappraisal, (40 Notre Dame J. L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y __ (2025)).
• Dhiman Deb Chowdhury, From Rwanda to Bangladesh: A Comparative Examination of Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, and the Dynamics of Prolonged Persecution, (August 13, 2025).
• Zahra Takhshid, ChatGPT and the Marjaʿ,  (April 10, 2025).
• Modh Mudassir, The Impact of Food on Worship and Spirituality: A holistic Approach, (August 14, 2025).
• Grishma Pokharel, Constitutional Secularism and Religious Conversion Laws: A Comparative Study of India and Nepal, (September 15, 2024).
• Mohd Mudassir, The Harmful Effects of Music: An Islamic, Scientific, and Historical Perspective, (August 14, 2025).
• Anas Khalid, et. al., Dowry On Trial: Between Ritual, Right, and the Rule of Law, (August 14, 2025).
• Gaurav Mukherjee, Private Disestablishment, (51 B.Y.U. Law Rev. ___ (2026)).

Recent and Forthcoming Books:

• Jeffrey M. Trissell, Unlocking the Churches: The Legal Victory Against California’s Pandemic-Era Religious Discrimination, (Sophia Institute Press, May 2025).
• Ivan G. Marcus, How the West Became Antisemitic: Jews and the Formation of Europe 800-1500, (Princeton University Press, Aug. 2025).
• Charles J. Russo, State Funding for Teaching about Religion: International Perspectives on State Aid for Schools with a Religious Character, (Routledge, forthcoming 2026).
• Barnabas Aspray & David Elcott, On the Significance of Religion in Immigration Policy, (Routledge, forthcoming 2026).

Pastor's Suit for Reinstatement Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

 In Kyles v. Church of God in Christ, (TX App, Aug. 21, 2025), a Texas state appellate court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that plaintiff, Rufus Kyles, should be reinstated as pastor of the Evangelist Temple Church of God in Christ in Houston, Texas. The court explained in part:

Kyles alleged wrongdoings by multiple bodies of the church during investigations into complaints against him and the resolution of those investigations. The CGC filed an answer, alleging that Kyles was charged in the church with sexual misconduct in 2014, that the church conducted an internal investigation and internal judicial processes in which Kyles participated, and that the internal judicial processes resulted in Kyles being removed from the offices of bishop and pastor....

Here, Kyles’s lawsuit would require the review of the ecclesiastical judicial process, analysis of the CGC’s internal church governance and procedure, and a determination regarding the appropriateness of the CGC’s disciplinary actions against Kyles. In other words, Kyles’s lawsuit cannot be resolved by only applying neutral principles of law; instead, it would require the application of principles of church governance, procedure, and discipline... To prevent courts from impermissibly influencing church governance, courts may not second-guess the decisions reached by a church judicatory body in the application of its own rule, custom, or law....

School Counselor's Office Display of Anti-Trans Books Is Permissible Only When No Students Are in His Office

In Theis v. Intermountain Education Service Board of Directors, (D ORA, Aug. 20, 2025), a social worker employed by the district to administer standardized tests individually to students sued claiming his constitutional rights were violated when the district found that his display of two particular books in his office violated the district's bias policy. The district found that the display of the books-- titled He is He and She is She--constituted a hostile expression toward a person because of their gender identity. Plaintiff was ordered to stop displaying the books. 

The court concluded that the district's policy did not violate plaintiff's free exercise rights, saying in part:

... Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendant’s Speech Policy is not neutral. There is no indication that the ESB Policy restricts any religious practices because of their religious motivations. Indeed, the policy explicitly seeks to prevent discrimination or harassment based on religion. And even if the ESB Policy adversely impacted religious practices, it is addressing the legitimate concern of ensuring an open and welcoming school environment for all students and employees.

Plaintiff also has not shown that Defendants were “hostile” towards his religious beliefs....

The court however agreed in part with plaintiff's free speech claim, saying that "only his display when no students are present is protected under the First Amendment." It explained: 

When no students were present in Plaintiff’s office, the message of the books would not be reasonably attributable to IMESD, and the display could not press Plaintiff’s views on impressionable or captive students.

Court Enjoins Compliance with Texas Law Requiring Posting of 10 Commandments in Classrooms

In Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, (WD TX, Aug. 20, 2025), a Texas federal district court in an unusual 55-page opinion that defies brief summarization issued a preliminary injunction barring 11 Texas school districts from complying with Texas SB 10 that requires posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The court said in part:

... [T]o succeed on the merits under Kennedy, Plaintiffs must show that the practice at issue–permanently displaying the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms–does not “fit within” and is not “consistent with” a broader tradition existing at the time of the founding....

The Court heard from and is very appreciative of the testimony of Dr. Steven Green and Dr. Mark Hall, which was an extensive augmentation of the Court’s 20 years of Methodist Sunday School and theology, political philosophy and constitutional history courses at Texas Lutheran University.  The Court finds Dr. Green’s opinions concerning the intent of the Founders regarding the First Amendment to be more persuasive than Dr. Hall’s testimony....

The court's conclusionary section provides a flavor of the opinion:

Ultimately, in matters of conscience, faith, beliefs and the soul, most people are Garbo-esque. They just want to be left alone, neither proselytized nor ostracized, including what occurs to their children in government run schools.      

Even though the Ten Commandments would not be affirmatively taught, the captive audience of students likely would have questions, which teachers would feel compelled to answer.  That is what they do.  Teenage boys, being the curious hormonally driven creatures they are, might ask: “Mrs. Walker, I know about lying and I love my parents, but how do I do adultery?”  Truly an awkward moment for overworked and underpaid educators, who already have to deal with sex education issues, ... and a classic example of the law of unintended consequences in legislative edicts.

Notwithstanding the sausage making process of legislation, to avoid religious rancor and legal wrangling the Texas Legislature alternatively could require the posting of:

1. Multiple versions of lessons of behavior from many cultures melded into the American motto of “E pluribus unum,” a concept currently in decline.  For example, the Five Moral Precepts of Buddhism: abstain from killing, stealing, engaging in sexual misconduct, lying and intoxicants; or

2. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Be kind.  Be respectful.; or

3.  All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten: “Share everything.  Play Fair.Don’t hit people. . . . Clean up your own mess.  Don’t take things that aren’t yours.  Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody. . . . Live a balanced life. . . . When you go out into the world, . . . hold hands, and stick together.” 

CBS News reports on the decision.

8th Circuit: Evidence Did Not Support Dismissal of Jail Administrator's Title VII Religious Discrimination Case

In Naylor v. County of Muscatine, Iowa, (8th Cir., Aug. 19, 2025), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's dismissal of a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit brought by a county jail administrator who was fired because of his online postings.  The court said in part:

At the district court, Muscatine County argued it would suffer two types of undue hardship if it continued to employ Naylor as jail administrator. First, the County argued that keeping Naylor on would cause the jail undue hardship because the publicity surrounding his online commentary—which included disparaging views of Muslims and “the gay lifestyle”—had harmed its public image....

We assume, but need not decide, that public image effects can present issues for an organization sufficient to rise to the level of an undue hardship under Title VII. Here, the County has simply not provided sufficient evidence to warrant summary judgment on this ground....

As a second, related type of undue hardship, Muscatine County argued to the district court that retaining Naylor as the jail administrator would imperil its business relationships. The district court agreed, relying on evidence that two outside entities—USMS and Johnson County—considered ending their agreements to send their overflow detainees to the jail as a result of Naylor’s online commentary, and that the loss of these relationships would cause a significant financial burden to Muscatine County. While a reasonable jury could find this evidence sufficient to establish an undue hardship, the evidence is insufficient to support the grant of summary judgment. 

Austrian Court Approves Arbitration Award Rendered by Panel Applying Islamic Law

The European Conservative reported this week that the Regional Court for Civil Law Matters in Vienna, Austria has confirmed an arbitration decision reached by arbitrators who applied Islamic law (Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaah principles). Parties to a contract had agreed to submit their contract dispute to the Muslim law panel. According to the news report:

The court ... confirmed the arbitration decision without reviewing which specific Islamic rules were applied, stating that it only needed to ensure the outcome did not violate the ”fundamental principles” of Austrian law.

The court's decision is controversial in Austria.  According to another European Conservative report:

Although the court said its decision only applies to property disputes, opponents fear it will encourage the wider use of Sharia-based agreements in Austria.

Good News Clubs Must Have Equal Access to School Facilities

In Child Evangelism Fellowship NorCal, Inc. v. Oakland Unified School District Board of Education, (ND CA, Aug. 15, 2025), a California federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the Oakland School District from denying Christian Evangelism Fellowship and its Good News Clubs access to school facilities after school on an equal basis with the access provided similarly situated nonprofit organizations. Plaintiff had been denied use of school facilities, in part because all space was being used by two broad afterschool programs that choose subcontractors to provide content. The court said in part:

Even assuming that afterschool space is now controlled by the lead agencies, as OUSD seems to urge, Plaintiff has provided an example of a lead agency similarly denying CEF access as a subcontractor because of its religious affiliation....

In short, the Court finds that the law and facts clearly favor Plaintiff’s position that OUSD violated CEF’s free speech rights.

Catholic News Agency reports on the decision.

EEOC Highlights Its Actions to Protect Employees' Religious Freedom

The EEOC yesterday issued a lengthy press release titled 200 Days of EEOC Action to Protect Religious Freedom at Work. The Release says in part:

To date, the EEOC has recovered over $55 million for workers impacted by these [vaccine] mandates—most recently, this week’s $1 million settlement with Mercyhealth. During the Biden Administration, almost all of the agency’s important work enforcing Title VII in the wake of COVID-19 vaccine mandates happened both silently and too slowly. No longer. Under the Trump Administration, the EEOC is taking bold and aggressive steps to remedy the widespread civil rights harms during the pandemic—the first public fruits of which are reflected below....

It also highlighted initiatives involving religious accommodation for employees, antisemitism in colleges, protection of federal employees' religious rights and the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias.

9th Circuit: Oregon Religious Non-Discrimination Rule for Grantees Is Mostly Valid

 In Youth 71Five Ministries v. Willliams, (9th Cir., Aug. 18, 2025), a Christian youth program sued after the Oregon Department of Education's Youth Development Division withdrew the conditional award of a grant. Plaintiff requires that its board members, employees, and volunteers agree to a Christian Statement of Faith and be involved in a local church. The Division contended that this violates its religious non-discrimination policy.  Plaintiff contended that the withdrawal violated its free exercise, religious-autonomy, and expressive-association rights. 

 The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said in part:

... [T]he Rule does not deny funding based on a practice exclusive to religious organizations. Government agencies, secular corporations, and religious ministries alike might engage in religion-based employment discrimination....

Based on the evidence properly before the district court, it was not an abuse of discretion to conclude that the Division likely treats comparable secular and religious activity the same....

... 71Five argues that merely tailoring services to a target demographic is comparable to 71Five’s categorical exclusion of non-Christians. We disagree....

The Division adopted the Rule to, among other reasons, better reflect its “commitment to equitable access, equal opportunity, and inclusion.” That is a legitimate interest.... The Rule rationally furthers that interest by ensuring that Division-funded initiatives are equally open to employees, volunteers, and participants regardless of race, sex, religion, or any other protected characteristic. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in determining that 71Five is not likely to succeed on the merits of its free-exercise claim....

71Five claims that the Rule abridges its expressive association by requiring it to accept employees and volunteers “who disagree” with its message “or would express a contrary view.” ... We hold that 71Five has established that it is likely to succeed, at least in part. As to Division-funded initiatives, the Rule is likely permissible as a reasonable and viewpoint-neutral regulation of expressive association in a limited public forum—the Grant Program. But to the extent that it restricts 71Five’s selection of speakers to spread its Christian message through initiatives that receive no Division funding, the Rule likely imposes an unconstitutional condition....

71Five’s complaint does not allege a violation of any clearly established right under the First Amendment, so the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and the district court did not err in dismissing 71Five’s damages claims with prejudice.

Judge Rawlinson concurred only in the judgment and did not join the majority's opinion, saying in part:

I concur in the judgment because, and only because, of our truncated review of a district court's decision granting or denying injunctive relief, and our obligatory deference to a district court's discretionary decision to decline consideration of arguments and evidence presented in a Reply Brief. ...

I decline to join the majority opinion's analysis because it relies heavily on the premise (mistaken, in my view), that Youth Five's website evidenced discrimination, while websites from the secular organizations applying for grants did not evidence discrimination....

[Thanks to Steven Sholk for the lead.]

UPDATE: On Nov. 26, 2025, the court filed an amended opinion, withdrew Judge Rawlinson's concurring opinion and denied an en banc rehearing. (Full text of amended opinion).

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Erik Stanley, The Ministerial Exception and its Relationship to the First Amendment, (August 08, 2025).
• Ethan Caspian, The Eternal Present: How Biblical Hebrew's Aspectual Verbs Frame the Old Testament as Perpetual Future, (July 30, 2025).
• Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Prologue: The Boundaries of Religious Freedom in Democracies, (in Aleksandra Gliszczynska-Grabias and Aviad Hacohen (eds.), Freedom of Religion, Minority Rights and the Law (Abingdon: Routledge, 2025): xix-xxix).
• Ellen P. Aprill, Misunderstanding National Religious Broadcasters, (Tax Notes Volume 188 No. 4 (2025)).
• Melvin Otey, Christian Faith and Marijuana Use After Federal Rescheduling, (Indiana Health Law Review, Volume 22, No. 2, pp. 351–379 (2025)).
• Eric Heinze, How We Should—and Shouldn’t—Ban Extremist Speech, (UK Commission for Countering Extremism (2025)).
• Eric Heinze, Banning Hate Speech: Are Our Debates about Liberal Values or about Democratic Values?,  (forthcoming in Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol 21 (2025/26)).
• Pratham Kaushik, From Lemkin to Law: The Journey of Genocide and International Response, (August 05, 2024).
• Angela C. Carmella, Meyer, Pierce, and Substantive Free Exercise: The Role of the Parent-Child Bond in Religion Clause Jurisprudence, (35 Western Legal History 51-76 (2025)).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Rabiaal Aqillah Shazali, A Conceptual Comparative Study of Shariah Screening Methodologies and Their Implications for Risk-Adjusted Financial Performance Across 34 International Shariah Operators (2000-2024), (August 10, 2025).
• Rabiaal Aqillah Shazali, A Critical Review of “Corporate Governance in the Islamic Perspective” by Alam Choudhury, M., and Nurul Alam, M. (2013), (International Journal Of Islamic And Middle Eastern Finance And Management, 6(3), 180-199 (August 01, 2025)).
• Mahmoud Samawal, From Prophet-Aisha Marriage to Islamic Pedophilia: A Meta-Analysis Study To Disclose Aisha’s Sexual Maturity, (July 16, 2025).
• Aditi Sangwan, Beyond Religious Autonomy: Granting UMEED to Islamic Women and Marginalized Section, (August 05, 2025).
• Filzah Assi, A Short Communication on Balancing the Scales: Faith, Psychology, and the Law in Pursuit of Honesty, (July 23, 2025).
• Muhammad Munir, Gifting the Corpus or Usufruct of the Property to One's Wife: Exploring a Hidden Legal Circumvention to Benefit Helpless Women, (August 07, 2025).
• Dr. Kamshad Mohsin, Emerging Technologies and Islamic Laws: A Comparative Analysis of Prominent Islamic Jurisdictions, (August 10, 2025).

9th Circuit Rejects Christian Day Care's Challenge to Licensing Requirement

In Foothills Christian Ministries v. Johnson, (9th Cir., Aug. 14, 2025), Foothills, a Christian day care center, challenged a California licensing provision requiring that day care centers ensure that children are free to attend religious services or activities of their parents' choice. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the regulation on free exercise grounds because the state has repeatedly taken the position that the regulation does not prohibit operating a day care center with a mandatory religious curriculum, where parents are made aware of this in advance of enrollment. 

However, the court held that Foothills does have standing to challenge the general licensing requirement on the ground that some secular child day care centers are exempt from licensing. But the court rejected that claim on the merits, saying in part:

Foothills contends that the Act’s exemption of “recreation programs conducted for children by” the YMCA “or similar organizations,”...  But this provision only exempts recreation programs from the licensure requirement; it explicitly does not exempt “child day care programs conducted by” the same organizations and so creates no mechanism for granting individualized exemptions for such facilities....

Foothills points to the exception for any “child daycare program that operates only one day per week for no more than four hours on that one day.”... This exemption applies to, among other things, Sunday schools. But a program that oversees children for only four hours a week does not present a threat to children’s health and safety comparable to that of a facility that can operate up to 24 hours a day....

Foothills alleges that the Act’s exemption of certain sectarian organizations—such as the YMCA and Boy Scouts of America—from licensing gives preferential treatment to certain religions in violation of the Establishment Clause.... 

If Foothills sought to operate a recreation program, it would not be subject to the Act. And if the YMCA or the Boy Scouts sought to operate a child day care facility, they would. This exemption draws no lines based on religion....

The court also held that the required disclosure to parents of the right for their child to attend religious activities of their choice does not infringe Foothills' free speech rights, distinguishing the Supreme Court case of Nat’l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advocs. v. Becerra , saying in part:

 Because the Act merely requires Foothills to inform parents of their children’s rights and does not “convey a message fundamentally at odds with its mission,” the required disclosure is not controversial....

8th Circuit: Rejection of Prison Course on Manhood From Christian Biblical Lens Violated Volunteer's 1st Amendment Rights

In Schmitt v. Robertus, (8th Cir., Aug. 14, 2025), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Minnesota prison officials likely violated the 1st Amendment in  refusing to allow plaintiff, a volunteer, to teach a program titled The Quest for Authentic Manhood at the Minnesota Correctional Facility.  The program defines manhood through a Christian biblical lens. Officials rejected the program as violating the prison's diversity, equity and inclusivity values, saying in part:

Throughout all sessions reviewed, men were only identified as heterosexual, seeking ideal relationships and marriage with women. It is evident that throughout this curriculum, manhood can only be achieved through heterosexual relationships.

Additionally, throughout many of the sessions, women are also identified as the problem for creating “soft males[,”] described as indecisive and weak....

The 8th Circuit focused on the test in prison cases announced by the Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley. Under that test prison regulations must have a valid rational connection to a legitimate governmental interest. The 8th Circuit said in part:

The first Turner factor, however, requires more than a legitimate penological interest. “[T]he governmental objective must be a legitimate and neutral one.”... “This means that the proffered mechanism by which the regulation promotes the legitimate government interest must be ‘unrelated to the suppression of expression.’” ...

Here, although the MDOC set forth a legitimate government interest, its termination of Quest was not “in a neutral fashion, without regard to the content of the expression.”...

Judge Kelly dissented, saying in part:

As I see it, it is common sense that a prison, like a school, can curate the programming it provides. ...

It thus seems natural to me to conclude that MDOC’s rehabilitative programming constitutes government speech, casting doubt on Schmitt’s free-speech and free-exercise claims....