CAIR Sues Florida Over Terrorism Designation

As previously reported, earlier this month Florida Governor Ron DeSantis issued an Executive Order designating CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations), as well as the Muslim Brotherhood, as terrorist organizations under state law. Now CAIR has filed suit in a Florida federal district court challenging the consitutionality of the Governor's action. The complaint (full text) in CAIR-Foundation, Inc. v. DeSantis, (ND FL, filed 12/15/2025), alleges in part:

By issuing this order, Defendant DeSantis has violated the U.S. and Florida Constitutions, as well as federal and state laws. He has usurped the exclusive authority of the federal government to identify and designate terrorist organizations by baselessly declaring CAIR a terrorist organization. He has violated the Constitution’s guarantee of due process by unilaterally declaring CAIR a terrorist organization and then ordering immediate punitive, discriminatory action against CAIR and its supporters....

The designation in the Executive Order imposes burdens on Plaintiffs’ speech and expressive activities by attaching an unauthorized terrorism designation, directing law enforcement agencies to “undertake all lawful measures” pursuant to that designation, and altering Plaintiffs’ legal status with respect to the State in a manner that chills and burdens protected expression. Such burdens are unconstitutional viewpoint-based penalties.....

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

2nd Circuit Upholds Prison's Restriction of Inmate's Access to Smudging Ritual

In Baltas v Jones, (2d Cir., Dec. 15, 2025), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a prisoner's free exercise claim. The court said in part:

Baltas argues that Defendant Jones (a Garner Deputy Warden) violated Baltas’s First Amendment right to free exercise of his religion by forbidding him from engaging in the Native American “smudging” ritual while in Garner’s restricted housing unit (“RHU”). ... [T]his claim also fails for want of clearly established law....

We “judge prisoners’ free exercise claims under a ‘reasonableness’ test less restrictive than that ordinarily applied to alleged infringements of fundamental constitutional rights.”... 

... [I]t was not clearly established that prison officials wou ld be “unreasonable” if they prevented prisoners who had “been deemed to present various safety and security concerns” from having “access to a lighter” in a religious ceremony.  Baltas cites no cases involving similarly risky practices. Summary judgment was properly granted as to this claim.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Whittney Barth, Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Diminishing Protections for Teachers at Religious Schools, (100 Notre Dame Law Review ___ (forthcoming)).
• Marc O. DeGirolami, The Traditional University and the Free Speech University. (Notre Dame L. Rev. (forthcoming 2026)).
• Kevin C. Walsh, Foreword for Petar Popović, Exploring the Nature of Law: Thomistic Juridical Realism and the Elements of Law's Ontology (CUA Press 2025) (June 01, 2025).
• Jeffrey M. Lipshaw, Interstices, Infinities, Religiosity, And Lawyering, (Journal of Law & Religion, forthcoming).
• Iqra Naz, Criminal Law Perspective on the Capacity of Lunatics and Insane Persons, (December 01, 2025).
• Marcus Castillo, The Christian Influence on Religious Exemption Policy, (February 10, 2025).
• Rasham Armab Saikhu, Author (s): Differences Related to Zakat Between the Islamic System and The Pakistani Legal System, (December 04, 2023).
• Mark Greenberg & Lawrence Sager, Defending Religious Freedom as Equality, (Journal of Law and Religion (in press)).
• Mohammed Billah, Do the NestQuestROI Models Align with Islamic Principles?,  (November 07, 2025).
• Gagas Tri Anggoro, The Maqasid Education Model: Restoring Purpose to Global Learning, (November 02, 2025).

Ministerial Exception Bars Former Priest's Title VII Claims

In Obienu v. Archdiocese of New Orleans, (ED LA, Dec. 11, 2025), a Louisiana federal district court held that a former priest's Title VII claims against his archdiocese are barred by the ministerial exception doctrine. Plaintiff, a United States citizen of Nigerian origin, claimed that clergy in the New Orleans archdiocese mistreated him in a number of ways. Plaintiff filed this Title VII action alleging wrongful termination, failure to promote, failure to allow him to complete the training necessary for promotion, unequal terms and conditions of employment, and retaliation. The court said in part:

Defendants argue that Obienu’s employment discrimination claims are barred because “this lawsuit arises out of a disgruntled former priest’s dissatisfaction with how [the ANO] managed his role as a minister within its system of religious governance.” ...

... [Obienu] contends that summary judgment is not warranted because there are factual disputes whether “the adverse employment actions at issue stemmed not from religious doctrine but from national-origin discrimination, disparate treatment, and retaliation after reporting mistreatment.”...

With the Fifth Circuit’s broad pronouncement in McRaney [v. North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention] ... that the ministerial exception bars secular courts from considering Title VII and related state-law employment claims brought by a minister against a religious organization, this Court is bound to conclude that Obienu’s remaining employment discrimination claims against Defendants must be dismissed.  It is undisputed that Obienu was, at all relevant times, either a Roman Catholic priest or training to be one.  All the incidents he alleges constitute “employment discrimination” arose while he was training or working under the auspices of the ANO either as a seminarian or as an ordained priest. Further, the persons who he says acted unlawfully were themselves ordained priests or the archbishop.

Religious Liberty Commission Hears Testimony on Religious Liberty in the Military

Yesterday, the federal Religious Liberty Commission held a hearing on Religious Liberty in the Military. The Announcement of the hearing said in part:

The hearing’s objective will be to understand the historic landscape of religious liberty in military, recognize present threats to religious liberty in military contexts, and identify opportunities to strengthen religious liberty for all servicemembers for the future.

 A video recording of the full 2 1/2 hour hearing is available at this link.

7th Circuit: Plaintiff Must Allege More Than Conclusory Statements of Religious Belief to Get Religious Exemption

In Troogstad v. City of Chicago, (7th Cir., Dec. 9, 2025), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of free exercise claims by a Chicago Fire Department employee who was denied a religious exemption from the city's Covid-19 vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Troogstad alleges “the gene-altering aspect of mRNA vaccinations violates his beliefs as a Christian.” But he failed to allege facts about how taking the vaccine violated his religious beliefs. He misses that step....

.... While the pleading of a violation of the Free Exercise Clause need not be overly exacting, in numerous rounds of pleading ... Troogstad did not move beyond conclusory statements. A complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations; mere conclusions generally will not suffice.... Troogstad’s failure to allege facts about how his religious beliefs as a Christian conflict with the vaccine requirement—after numerous opportunities to satisfy this pleading standard—dooms his Free Exercise claim.

For the same reason, the court upheld the dismissal of plaintiff's claim under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Vice President's Hanukkah Reception Invite Includes Christmas Theme

Vice President JD Vance will host a Hanukkah Reception at the Vice President's Residence on December 15. The Invitation features a rendition of the Vice President's Residence in gold with the caption "The Golden Noel. Celebrating 50 Years of Christmas at the Vice President's Residence".

Suit Challenges High School's Ban on Religious and Political Messages on Its Spirit Rock

A suit was filed this week in a North Carolina federal district court by a high school student whose patriotic and religious tribute to the late Charlie Kirk painted on her high school's Spirit Rock led to controversy and revision of school rules. The 66-page complaint (full text) in G.S. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, (WD NC, filed 12/8/2025), reads in part:

3. In a desire to emulate Charlie Kirk’s boldness for his faith, G.S. wanted to remind her classmates, friends, and others in the Ardrey Kell High School community that Charlie Kirk had received and was enjoying eternal life with his Savior, Jesus Christ, and to create a space where students could memorialize him. 

4. After receiving permission from school officials to paint the Ardrey Kell High School spirit rock with a patriotic message related to Charlie Kirk, that’s exactly what G.S. and two friends did. They painted the spirit rock with a heart, a United States flag, the message “Freedom 1776,” and a tribute to Charlie Kirk: “Live Like Kirk—John 11:25.” Then they placed flowers in a vase at the base of the spirit rock....

John 11:25 reads: "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die'."

School authorities quickly painted over the tribute and promulgated a Revised Spirit Rock Speech Code which barred students from expressing “political” or “religious messages” on the spirit rock. According to the complaint, authorities also investigated her for a few days for vandalism. 

The complaint, among other things seeks:

A declaratory judgment that Defendant’s Unwritten Spirit Rock Speech Code, Vandalism Policy, and Revised Spirit Rock Speech Code, and the unconstitutional actions against G.S. pursuant to it—including censoring her speech, publicly accusing her of misconduct, searching her cell phone, refusing to clear her name, and adopting a new viewpoint-based policy—violated her rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments....

In detailing her claims, plaintiff alleged in part:

458. G.S.’s views and expression on the Ardrey Kell High School spirit rock were motivated by her sincerely held religious beliefs, are avenues through which she expressed her religious faith, and constitute a central component of her sincerely held religious beliefs.

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

DOJ Seeks to Intervene in Suit Over Christian Males' Reaction to Transgender Use of Boy's Locker Room

The Justice Department this week filed a Motion to Intervene and a Memorandum In Support of its motion in S.W. v. Loudoun County School Board, (ED VA, filed 12/8/2025). DOJ alleges that a Loudoun County high school discriminated against two male Christian students in disciplining them for their reaction to the presence of a transgender male in the boy's locker room.

In an Announcement of its action, DOJ said in part:

Policy 8040 requires all students, regardless of their religious beliefs, to adopt the Loudoun County School Board’s understanding of “gender identity” — including its practical application that affects all students’ use of intimate spaces, such as bathrooms and changing facilities. At Stone Bridge High School, a female student took advantage of this policy, entered the boys’ locker room, and recorded audio and video of the boys in that locker room. Several boys spoke out about this incident, including two Christian, male students whose religious beliefs require them to use biologically accurate pronouns and use sex-segregated facilities.

Loudoun County determined that these Christian, male students’ religious practice violated school policy, recasting constitutionally protected activity as “sex-based discrimination” and “sexual harassment.” ...

(See prior related posting.) Northern Virginia reports on DOJ's action.

Florida Declares CAIR To Be Terrorist Organization

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on December 8 issued Executive Order Number 25-244 titled Protecting Floridians from Radical Islamic Terrorist Organizations (full text). The Order designates CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations), the Muslim Brotherhood, and organizations designated under federal law as foreign terrorist organizations to be terrorist organizations covered by the Executive Order. The Executive Order goes on to provide in part:

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Florida Highway Patrol are directed to undertake: all lawful measures to prevent unlawful activities in Florida by the terrorist organizations designated in Section 1. Unless prohibited by federal or state law, all other Executive arid Cabinet Agencies shall further undertake all lawful action to prevent any terrorist organization designated in Section 1, or any person known to have provided material support or resources to such organization as defined in section 775.33(1)(c), Florida Statutes, from receiving any contract, employment, funds, or other benefit or privilege from such Executive or Cabinet Agency or any entity regulated by such Executive or Cabinet Agency or from any County or Municipality of the State.

CAIR quickly announced that it plans to file a lawsuit challenging the Governor's action.

Florida's action follows similar action taken by Texas last month. (See prior posting.) The Guardian reports on Florida's action.

11th Circuit: Pedestrian Buffer Zone at Abortion Clinic's Parking Lot Entrance Violates Leafleters Free Speech Rights

In Florida Preborn Rescue, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, Florida, (11th Cir., Dec. 4. 2025), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that a preliminary injunction should issue barring enforcement of a ban on pedestrians in the sidewalk crossing the 28 foot wide entrance to a local abortion clinic's parking lot, and for 5 feet of sidewalk on either side of the driveway. The majority said in part:

Florida Preborn has provided “uncontradicted testimony” that the buffer zone has effectively stifled sidewalk counselors’ ability to distribute literature to patients entering and exiting the clinic.  ...

Separately, it remains the case that, by its terms, the Ordinance forbids a clinic patient who has parked her car to approach sidewalk counselors to receive a leaflet....

We think it clear that the Ordinance burdens substantially more speech—namely, the sidewalk counselors’ leafletting activities—than is necessary to achieve the government’s asserted interest in promoting vehicular safety....  

Dispositively here, the city failed to adequately consider alternative measures....

Judge Abudu dissented, saying in part:

The record shows that counselors wait in brightly colored vests at the edge of the driveway, offering materials to patients driving into the clinic.  If the patients desire, they can stop, roll down their window, and engage with the leafleteers.  However, many choose not to do so. Thus, when balancing FPR’s right to communicate its message against the rights of patients and others not to engage, it is clear that there is no substantial burden on FPR’s ability to leaflet.    

Moreover, the fact that FPR has alternative channels of communication available further demonstrates why the Ordinance is constitutional.  As the district court found, the remaining portions of the driveway and adjacent sidewalk area are still available....

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision. 

Supreme Court Remands Amish Parents' Challenge to Ending of Religious Exemptions from Vaccinations

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. McDonald, (Docket No. 25-133, Dec. 8, 2025) (Order List), granted certiorari, vacated the 2nd Circuit's judgment, and remanded the case to the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor. In Miller, the 2nd Circuit held that New York state's removal of a religious belief exemption that would allow parents to opt their children out from the state's school immunization law did not violate the 1st Amendment free exercise rights of Amish parents or Amish schools. (See prior posting.) In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court upheld the granting of a preliminary injunction to parents who objected to a Maryland school district's removal of parents' right to opt their children out of class discussions involving LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks. (See prior posting.) Christian Post reports on the Supreme Court's remand.

President Issues Message on Feast of the Immaculate Conception

Today, President Trump issued a "Presidential Message on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception" (full text). The Message reads in part:

Today, I recognize every American celebrating December 8 as a Holy Day honoring the faith, humility, and love of Mary, mother of Jesus and one of the greatest figures in the Bible....

For nearly 250 years, Mary has played a distinct role in our great American story.  In 1792, less than a decade after the end of the Revolutionary War, Bishop John Carroll—the first Catholic bishop in the United States and cousin of signer of the Declaration of Independence Charles Carroll—consecrated our young Nation to the mother of Christ.  Less than a quarter-century later, Catholics attributed General Andrew Jackson’s stunning victory over the British in the climactic Battle of New Orleans to Mary.  Every year, Catholics celebrate a Mass of Thanksgiving in New Orleans on January 8 in memory of Mary’s assistance in saving the city....

More than a century ago, in the midst of World War I, Pope Benedict XV, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, commissioned and dedicated a majestic statue of Mary, Queen of Peace, bearing the infant Christ with an olive branch so that the Christian faithful would be encouraged to look to her example of peace by praying for a stop to the horrific slaughter.  Just a few months later, World War I ended.  Today, we look to Mary once again for inspiration and encouragement as we pray for an end to war and for a new and lasting era of peace, prosperity, and harmony in Europe and throughout the world....

No Religious Discrimination Shown in Enforcement of Septic Tank Code

In Schoff v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, (IL App., Dec. 4, 2025), an Illinois state appellate court affirmed the decision of the state Human Rights Commission to dismiss religious discrimination claims brought by property owners who were cited by the Village of South Barrington for violating its septic tank code. The court concluded that the property owners had failed to produce substantial evidence to sustain any of their claims. According to the court:

In 1985, the property at issue, a single-family residence, was built with 5 bedrooms and two 1,500-gallon septic tanks in the Village, resulting in a 3,000-gallon septic capacity. At some point prior to 2014, the property owner added two unpermitted bedrooms to the residence, bringing the total number of bedrooms to seven. In 2014, the Schoffs, who are Episcopalian Christians, bought the property. Due to their faith, the Schoffs believed they were called to provide short-term housing to people in need, specifically asylum seekers, missionaries and refugees. The Schoffs’ beliefs led them to house, at various times, predominantly Black individuals from Africa, but also occasionally Chinese, Japanese, Colombian and white individuals. 

The Schoffs were granted a religious accommodation from a municipal ban on short term rentals but were cited for violation of the septic tank code that required a minimum tank capacity of 3,500 gallons for a 7-bedroom home. The court said in part:

The Schoffs alleged that the Village’s prosecution of the septic code violations against them amounted to harassment, interfered with their religious beliefs, and interfered with their association with Black and African asylum seekers and missionaries. The Schoffs asserted that the Village’s interpretation of its septic code was unreasonable and the Village engaged in selective enforcement of it....

... [T]he Schoffs posit that, when an ordinance contains a variance procedure and the government refuses to grant a variance based upon an applicant’s need to use a property for religious observance and practice, an inference of religious practice discrimination exists....

All the Schoffs can do with the fact that the Village denied them a variance is speculate that the denial had a discriminatory intent. But speculation cannot create substantial evidence....  Consequently, the Commission properly found that the Schoffs failed to make a prima facie showing on Count F, and therefore, it did not abuse its discretion by sustaining the Department’s dismissal on Count F for lack of substantial evidence....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Candice Mason Kulbeth, Speech Is Only Free for the Privileged: The Moral Mechanics of Neutrality, (October 25, 2025).
• Osama S. Qatrani, From “America First” to the MAGA Mindset: The Cognitive-Political Roots of Mike Ferguson’s Interpretive Lens, (November 26, 2025).
• Mark Storslee & Michael A. Helfand, Government Religious Speech and the Establishment Clause, (Vanderbilt Law Review, forthcoming 2026).
• Kathleen Brady, History, Tradition, and Finding Common Ground: The Establishment Clause and Religious Expression by the State, (Chicago-Kent Law Review, Volume 100, No. 2 (forthcoming 2025)).
• Dennis Wieboldt, Ken Kersch and the New Legal History: Beyond the Internalist/Externalist Divide, (4 J. Am. Const. Hist. __ (2026)).
• Gregory Brazeal, South Dakota’s Constitution: “Under God the People Rule”—But All the People?, (December 02, 2025).
• Csongor István Nagy, Federal Liberties and Diversity Among the States, (Suffolk University Law Review, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 257 (2025)).
• Steven Arrigg Koh, Communicative Legitimacy: The Supreme Court's Hidden Cultural Binaries in the U.S. Civil Sphere, (Boston Univ. School of Law Research Paper Forthcoming).
• Joanna L. Grossman, Who Decides? The Role of Parental Rights in Abortion and Gender-Affirming-Care Decisions for Minors, (135 Yale L.J. F. 237 (2025)).

From SSRN (Religious Law):

• Hershey H. Friedman, Breaking the Tablets: The Wisdom of Uncertainty and the Destructive Power of Dogmatism, (November 27, 2025).
• Muliadi & Marlinda Herman, Murâbahah Li Al-Âmir Bi Al-Syirâ' in the Perspective of Scholars: An Analysis of Contemporary World Fatwa Studies, (September 01, 2025).

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

• Faiza Aafrin, Between State and Society - Honour, Law, and the Limits of Female Autonomy, (July 22, 2025).
• Lindelani Mpungose, Sithembiso Mthembu & Sduduzo Nkosi, The influence of Christianity and British Western Culture on the Development of Children in Zulu Traditional Societies, with Particular Emphasis on the Showe area of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, (OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 18 (12), 631-650, 2025).
• Joel Harrison, Maximising or Determining Rights? On Using (and Discarding) Statutory Exceptions, (Australian Journal of Law and Religion, volume 6, 2025).
• Bennet Ramasedi, The Cost of Silence: The Criminalization of Abortion in Botswana — Between Public Morality and Reproductive Rights, (November 26, 2025).

Texas Sues Promoters of Development Aimed at Muslim Home Buyers

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced last week that he has filed suit in a Texas state trial court against the East Plano Islamic Center alleging violations of Texas securities law in the Center's attempt to finance and develop a planned community of over 1000 homes. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Community Capital Partners, LP, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 12/5/2025), alleges violation of state registration requirements and misstatements regarding the location of the project and the compensation flowing to the individual promoting the project. The complaint reads in part:

20. The “EPIC Launches EPIC City” video describes the community as “a project that’s going to change ... the Dawah scene for the Muslim community in the US.” In the “Imam Zaid Shakir invites you to Epic City Community” video, Imam Zaid Shakir states that EPIC City will be “exponentially beneficial … to the believers ... a greater sign that [the Muslim] community has arrived,” and that EPIC City will serve as the “epicenter of Islam in North America.” Moreover, although no longer publicly accessible, the video... bore the title “Welcome to Epic City Muslim Community.... 

21. Furthermore, while a subsequent version of EPIC City’s website stated that the project is “committed to building a vibrant, multigenerational and inclusive master planned community,” the website’s language from 11 days after CCP’s initial announcement was significantly different: a screenshot of the website from May 26, 2024, shows that the mission statement originally stated that EPIC City was “committed to building a vibrant and inclusive community that serves the evolving needs of the Muslim community.” This language was still active on EPIC City’s homepage until at least February 14, 2025, long after the offering was announced and after hundreds of subscription agreements had become effective.

22. These videos, and the overall marketing campaign more broadly, give the clear impression that EPIC City is a community targeted at and reserved for those of the Muslim faith.

Texas Tribune reporting on the lawsuit said in part:

The legal action is the latest development to bring attention to the community, which has been the recipient of Islamaphic vitriol for months. 

This summer, the U.S. Department of Justice quietly closed a probe into the housing project — saying that the developers had agreed to follow federal fair housing laws.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.] 

HHS Replaces Label on Portrait of Former Official to Reflect Administration's Refusal to Recognize Changes in Gender Identity

NPR reports that the U.S. Public Health Service has altered the official portrait of Admiral Rachel Levine who served for four years as deputy assistant secretary for health policy in the Biden administration. Her portrait is one in the photo display of individuals who have led the Public Health Corps at the Department of Health and Human Services. Levine was the first transgender person to serve in a position that required Senate confirmation. According to NPR, during the recent federal government shut down, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health removed Levine's legal name (under which she served in office) from her portrait and substituted her prior name. In response to an NPR inquiry, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon wrote:

Our priority is ensuring that the information presented internally and externally by HHS reflects gold standard science. We remain committed to reversing harmful policies enacted by Levine and ensuring that biological reality guides our approach to public health.

As previously reported, President Trump on his first day in office issued an Executive Order providing in part:

It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.  These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality....

Agencies shall remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages....

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.] 

[CORRECTION: A prior version of this post inaccurately referred to an archived version of the HHS website as its current version.]

Camping Ordinance Does Not Violate Free Exercise Rights of Homeless Resident

In Hebbe v. City of Folsom, (ED CA, Dec. 3, 2025), plaintiff who is an unhoused resident of Folsom, California, challenges on numerous grounds a Folsom Ordinance that prohibits public camping between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.  One of his claims-- rejected by the decision of a California federal magistrate judge-- is that the public camping ban violates his 1st Amendment free exercise rights. The court said in part:

To state a claim under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, a plaintiff must allege that the government action substantially burdens the plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs.... A substantial burden exists when the government puts significant pressure on a person to modify their behavior and violate their religious beliefs....

Here, Plaintiff alleges that the Ordinance, which prohibits camping between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., forces him to sleep during the day, which prevents him from attending church service....  These allegations, even liberally construed, fail to state a cognizable Free Exercise Clause claim.  Plaintiff does not allege facts showing the Ordinance targets religion or is applied in a discriminatory manner.  Neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious exercise do not violate the Free Exercise Clause.... Plaintiff has not pleaded facts showing the Ordinance places a substantial burden on his ability to practice his faith.  Conclusory statements that he cannot go to church service are insufficient....

7th Circuit: Chicago's Reporting Requirement for Employees During Covid Pandemic Were Constitutional

In Kondilis v. City of Chicago, (7th Cir., Dec. 2, 2025), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by City of Chicago employees who had been granted religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate that, nevertheless, the reporting requirements imposed on them violated their free exercise and equal protection rights. All employees were required to enter their vaccination status and unvaccinated employees were required to enter their Covid test results into the employee portal. The court said in part:

Section VII, which addresses the COVID-19 testing reporting requirements for the portal, ... draws no distinction based on religion: it applies to all “[e]mployees … who are covered by this policy” and are “not fully vaccinated by October 15, 2021,” without further distinction. And neither section reflects any religious animus at all. Both sections “are neutral: They do not target religion or religious institutions.” ... 

That said, Plaintiffs contend that the sections were not generally applicable because the City applied the Policy inconsistently. They allege that not all employees had to comply with the portal reporting requirements, making them “selectively burdened” for being forced to do so....

But this argument fails. It is not enough for Plaintiffs—all of whom profess sincere religious beliefs—to show that the Policy was inconsistently applied across their own personal circumstances; they must plausibly show that this inconsistency bore upon religion in some way.... Yet the complaint does not do so.... [A chart they introduced into evidence] does not identify any trend singling out a particular religion or set of religions for differential treatment within the plaintiff group....

We need not spill much ink in holding that the City had a rational basis for its Policy’s reporting requirements and disciplinary procedures during a global pandemic. ...

European Union Court of Justice: EU Countries Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriages Performed in Other Member States

In Cupriak-Trojan v. Mazowiecki, (CJEU, Nov. 25, 2025), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requires EU member states (even if they do not permit same-sex marriages domestically) to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other EU countries. The Court said in part:

75. While it is true ... that Member States enjoy a margin of discretion as regards the procedures for recognising marriages concluded by Union citizens when exercising their freedom of movement and residence within another Member State, the lack of a procedure for recognition equivalent to that granted to heterosexual couples constitutes discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation prohibited by Article 21(1) of the Charter. It follows that where a Member State chooses ... to provide, in its national law, for a single procedure for recognising marriages concluded by Union citizens in the exercise of their freedom to move and reside within another Member State, ...that Member State is required to apply that procedure without distinction to marriages between persons of the same sex and to those between persons of the opposite sex....

77.  ...  Article 20 and Article 21(1) TFEU, read in the light of Article 7 and Article 21(1) of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, on the ground that the law of that Member State does not allow marriage between persons of the same sex, does not permit the recognition of a marriage between two same-sex nationals of that Member State concluded lawfully in the exercise of their freedom to move and reside within another Member State, in which they have created or strengthened a family life, or the transcription for that purpose of the marriage certificate in the civil register of the first Member State, where that transcription is the only means provided for by that Member State for such recognition.

The Court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.

West Virginia Supreme Court, Pending Appeal, Reinstates No-Religious-Exemption to School Vaccine Mandate

As previously reported, last month a West Virginia trial court held that the state's Equal Protection of Religion Law requires schools to allow children with religious objections to vaccinations to attend school even though the state's Compulsory Vaccination Law provides only for medical exemptions. This week, in State of West Virginia ex rel. West Virginia Board of Education v. Froble, (WV Sup. Ct., Dec. 2, 2025), the West Virginia Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the trial court's Order pending resolution of a petition for a writ of prohibition that has been filed with the Supreme Court. Immediately following the Supreme Court's Order, the state Board of Education issued a Statement (full text) reinstating its directive to county school boards advising them not to grant religious exemptions to the state's compulsory vaccination laws.

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

Supreme Court Hears Street Preacher's Appeal Today

The Supreme Court will hear arguments this morning in Olivier v. City of Brandon. In the case, at issue is whether a street preacher who was previously convicted of violating an ordinance barring protests outside a public amphitheater can sue to declare the ordinance unconstitutional, or whether allowing that would improperly undermine his prior conviction.

Oral arguments, beginning at 10:00 AM, can be heard live at this link. Later today, a transcript and a recording of the oral arguments will be available from the Supreme Court's website here. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the filings in the case as well as to commentary.

UPDATE: Links to the transcript and audio of today's oral arguments are available from the Supreme Court's website here.  The Hill reports on the oral arguments.

Class Action Filed Challenging Texas Law Requiring 10 Commandments in All Classrooms

 A class action lawsuit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court challenging the recently enacted Texas statute that requires the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom.  Two decisions, together impacting 25 specific school districts, have held the law unconstitutional. (See prior postings 1, 2 )  However, Texas has over 1000 school districts. The class action seeks to bar enforcement of statute in all Texas schools that are not parties to other cases already in the courts.  The complaint (full text) in Ashby v. Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City Independent School District, (WD TX, filed 12/2/2025), alleges in part:

6.  The state’s main interest in displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools under S.B. 10 is to impose specific religious beliefs on public-school children, ignoring the numerous objections from Texas families and faith leaders from across the religious spectrum....

7. For these reasons, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated parents and minor children, seek a declaratory judgment that S.B. 10 is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as permanent injunctive relief, to prevent Defendants and other independent school districts similarly situated from complying with the Act. 

ACLU Texas along with several other civil rights organizations issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Church Autonomy Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Catholic School Employee's Discrimination Claim

In MoChridhe v. Academy of Holy Angels, (MN App. Dec. 1, 2025), a Minnesota state appellate court rejected an employment discrimination claim by a former media specialist/librarian at a Catholic school. The school refused to renew her contract when she disclosed that she was undergoing gender transition to present as a female. The school based its decision on MoChridhe's refusal to abide by the "Guiding Principles for Catholic Schools and Religious Education Concerning Human Sexuality and Sexual Identity." The court said in part:

Does the First Amendment protect a religious employer from discrimination claims by a terminated non-minister employee if the termination was based on a religious reason?  Given the facts alleged in MoChridhe’s complaint and the absence of any binding precedent suggesting otherwise, we discern no basis to conclude that the broader religious protections of the First Amendment church autonomy doctrine are not available to the religious employer in that situation....

... [C]onsideration of MoChridhe’s claims would require consideration of the Archdiocese’s religious reason for the employment decision, would interfere with the Archdiocese’s internal decision to require compliance with the Guiding Principles in the school setting—which relates to the church’s mission to educate young people in its faith— and would foster excessive governmental entanglement with religion.  The potential inapplicability of the ministerial exception does not change that conclusion, and there is no precedent indicating that it must...

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today in Appeal from Faith-Based Pregnancy Center Over Subpoena for Identity of Donors

The Supreme Court today hears oral arguments in First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin. At issue in the case is an investigatory subpoena issued by the New Jersey Attorney General seeking the names of donors to First Choice, a faith-based pregnancy center. First Choice contends that the subpoena violates its First Amendment rights and the associational rights of its donors who are concerned about disclosure of their identities. The issue before the Supreme Court is one of whether the First Amendment question should be initially fought out in state or federal court. First Choice challenged the subpoena in federal district court. The Attorney General then filed a subsequent suit to enforce the subpoena in state court. The district court held that First Choice’s constitutional claims are not ripe in federal court because they can be litigated in the subsequently filed state court action. That holding was affirmed by the Third Circuit and is now before the Supreme Court.

Oral arguments, beginning at 10:00 Am, can be heard live at this link. Later today, a transcript and a recording of the oral arguments will be available from the Supreme Court's website here. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the filings in the case as well as to commentary.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of the full oral arguments. SCOTUSblog reports on the oral arguments.

2nd Circuit: Information About Abortion Pill Reversal Is Protected Speech

In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. James, (2d Cir., Dec. 1, 2025), the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court's preliminary injunction barring New York's attorney general from taking enforcement action to prevent the plaintiff religious organizations from disseminating information regarding abortion pill reversal. Finding, on the record before it, that plaintiffs' speech is fully protected by the 1st Amendment, the court said in part:

... [W]e conclude that the speech at issue is noncommercial based on the uncontroverted evidence in the current record demonstrating that the speech is religiously and morally motivated, the NIFLA plaintiffs receive no remuneration or financial benefit for engaging in it, and the NIFLA plaintiffs do not provide APR themselves, but rather provide the public with information about APR and access to third-party providers who can offer APR.  Put simply, in this context, these combined elements of the speech at issue here do not transform it into commercial speech for First Amendment purposes. 

To hold otherwise could potentially subject a sweeping range of non-profits to regulation of their speech for providing the public with information and resources concerning critical services.  This could include, depending, of course, on the particular facts and context of each situation, a reproductive rights group in a state with abortion restrictions that provides information about out-of-state organizations that will help women obtain the procedure for free; an LGBT rights group in a state with gender-affirming care restrictions that provides free information about out-of-state organizations that will help individuals seeking hormone therapy to obtain it; or a group that matches immigrants with organizations providing access to employment, English language classes, or immigration legal services.

Reuters reports on the decision.

Prison Chaplain Sues for Wrongful Termination

Suit was filed last week in a Florida federal district court by a Christian pastor who was terminated from his position as Senior Pastor at Madison Correctional Institution after he refused to proctor a newly-hired female pastor. The 75-page complaint (full text) in Horst v. Florida Department of Corrections, (ND FL, filed 11/26/2025), alleges in part:

13. On the basis of his sincerely held religious beliefs grounded in the above-referenced passages of Titus and Timothy, among other Scriptures, Senior Chaplain Horst was compelled to abstain from proctoring training that instructs a female to teach and preach to men. Female chaplains ministering to males is a practice that directly contradicts Scripture and Senior Chaplain Horst’s sincerely held religious beliefs.

14. On the basis of his sincerely held religious beliefs, Senior Chaplain Horst requested religious accommodation that would permit him to comply with his employments roles and requirements but also conform his conduct to his beliefs. 

15. Specifically, Senior Chaplain Horst’s religious accommodation request was that one of the DOC’s dozens of other competent and qualified chaplains proctor Chaplain Doe’s non-mandatory training.

Plaintiff alleges failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, wrongful termination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, violation of Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as violations of the First and 14th Amendments.

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

1st Amendment Protects Law Student's Antisemitic Posts

In Damsky v. Summerlin, (ND FL, Nov. 24, 2025), a Florida federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the University of Florida law school to reinstate a student it had expelled after complaints about racist language in his term papers and then a social media post on X that read:

My position on Jews is simple: whatever Harvard professor Noel Ignatiev meant by his call to “abolish the White race by any means necessary” is what I think must be done with Jews. Jews must be abolished by any means necessary.

He also engaged in a discussion with a professor online about his post. Students and faculty felt threatened, and the law school suspended him for creating a material and substantial disruption to the school's academic operation. After a disciplinary hearing he was expelled. In finding the student's statements protected by the First Amendment, the court said in part:

To be sure, those reading Damsky’s words may be justifiably fearful. Some may assume that anyone uttering such commentary is more likely to act violently than someone who does not.... But that is not the test. The test is whether Damsky’s posts constituted a “serious expression” that he meant “to commit an act of unlawful violence.”...

The bottom line is that the University has not shown that any of Damsky’s speech constituted a “true threat.”...

... Here, I cannot agree that an observer would reasonably interpret Damsky’s posts as threats of violence—much less school-directed threats. Damsky’s March 21 X post bears no connection with the school at all. He does not mention the University, its administrators, students, or professors....

Damsky expressly conditioned his use of “abolish” and “any means necessary” on “whatever Harvard professor Noel Ignatiev meant.” Those phrases in a vacuum may suggest violence, but such a reading “ignores” Damsky’s “undeniable reference to” Ignatiev. Morse.... Damsky’s reference to an academic further undermines any conclusion that he was threatening imminent violence....

On November 29, the court issued an Order (full text) staying the injunction until December 3 to allow the University to seek a stay pending appeal from the 11th Circuit.

Fox News reports on the court's decision.

Recent Articles of Inteterest

From SSRN:

• Anna Lukina, Evil Law in St. Thomas Aquinas's Philosophy (November 20, 2025).
• Rahmatulloh Ismoilov, Regulation of Islamic Knowledge and Empowering Individual Understanding: Historical Patterns and Modern Solutions, (October 18, 2025).
• Himangshu Ranjan Nath & Saksham Patiyar, State Intrusions Into Freedom of Conscience and Religion: Constitutional Challenges, (Indraprastha Law Review, Vol. V, Issue 1, Summer & Winter 2024, pp. 17-36).
• Monika Verma, Myanmar Junta’s Rohingya Return Initiative is Nothing More than a Strategic Pretense, (July 10, 2025).
• Monika Verma, The Politics of Repatriation: Analyzing Myanmar Military Junta's Rohingya Return Initiative in 2025, (November 02, 2025).
• Joel Harrison, & Lukas Opacic, Challenging the Unreal: The Future of Australian Law and Religion, (February 02, 2025).
• Freer Donley, A Non-Person Theory of the Fetus, (67 Boston College Law Review (forthcoming)).

From SmartCILP:

Swethaa S. Ballakrishnen, Blasé: Deviant Lawyers and the Denial of Discrimination, 59 Law & Society Review 324-355 (2025).

"In God We Trust" On Currency Does Not Burden Jewish Plaintiff's Religious Exercise

 In Clayman v. Bessant, (SD FL, Nov. 24, 2025), a Florida federal district court rejected plaintiff's RFRA, Free Exercise, Establishment Clause, Takings Clause and other challenges to the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency. Plaintiff alleged that unlike prior cases which have rejected similar claims, he raises "unique Jewish religious objections" and cites "Jewish Hasmonean and Maccabean religious traditions and obligations, which strongly oppose the casual or superfluous use of G-d’s sacred Name in secular contexts." According to the court:

Plaintiff alleges that he was incarcerated for 28 days due to his inability to pay cash-only bail;  that he continues to be vulnerable to pretrial detention due to the unavailability of cashless bail; that he is excluded from certain employment because he cannot handle cash; that he faces surcharges for not using cash; that he has difficulty with road trips in that he has to avoid cash-only tolls; that he cannot hold cash in contemplation of electronic systems failing due to natural disasters; that his future children’s lives will be disrupted because they cannot handle cash; that he has difficulty tipping and donating to the needy; that he cannot walk into public bathrooms with cash on his person; that he cannot park in cash-only lots; that he is unable to accept small-dollar political contributions; that he cannot operate a retail business; that he was unable to use $2,000 in cash he received as wedding gifts; that he suffers from a loss of privacy; and that he is excluded from cash-only services such as laundromats, bars, social events, and street food.  

In dismissing plaintiff's claims (with leave to amend), the court concluded that plaintiff had not established that the government has substantially burdened his exercise of religion.

West Virginia Court Says Schools Must Allow Religious Exemptions From Vaccination Requirements

In Guzman v. West Virginia Board of Education, (WV Cir. Ct., Nov. 26, 2025), a West Virginia state trial court, in a 75-page opinion, held that the state's Equal Protection of Religion Law enacted in 2023 requires schools to allow children with religious objections to vaccinations to attend school even though the state's Compulsory Vaccination Law (CVL) provides only for medical exemptions. In 2025, the Governor issued an Executive Order instructing the Health Department to create a religious exemption process. However, schools, pursuant to a policy adopted by the State Board of Education, refuse to recognize religious exemption certificates issued by the Health Department. The court said in part:

Collectively, the Court finds the aggregation of individual behaviors the government permits..., to include without limitation, medical exemptions; students who are permitted to attend school on a daily basis while willfully out of compliance with the CVL; teachers, coaches, and staff who are not subject to the CVL; the learning pod, homeschool, and microschool option for unvaccinated children; and members of the general public who have not received vaccines required under the law but who regularly intermingle on school campuses and mass gatherings throughout the State—pose a greater threat to West Virginia’s claimed goals than would permitting Plaintiffs ’children to attend school with a religious exemption. 

These other activities “produc[e] substantial harm” to the protection of the health and safety of the public, which Defendants assert is their compelling interest....

Considering these factors, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that “the protection of the health and safety of the public” will be undermined in any material way by granting religious exemptions, particularly given the bevy of comparable activity that the state permits. Thus, the Court determines that requiring these children to be vaccinated is not “essential”—within the meaning of W. Va. Code § 35-1A-1(a)(1)—“to further a compelling governmental interest,” with that interest here being the protection of the health and safety of the public....

Having considered the full record before it, the Court also concludes that Defendants have failed to satisfy the least restrictive means test....

Defendants cannot satisfy this standard given that forty-five states with a religious exemption process deploy a variety of alternative tactics, such as quarantine in the event of an outbreak, temporary exclusion from school, and other measures to effectively control vaccine preventable diseases while simultaneously respecting religious freedoms....

West Virginia Watch reports on the decision.

President Issues Thanksgiving Proclamation

President Trump this week issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring today a National Day of Thanksgiving. The Proclamation reads in part:

This year, God has bestowed abundant blessings all across our land and indeed the entire world.  As we give thanks to Him, we continue to advance our Nation through strong leadership and commonsense policy.  As a result, the American economy is roaring back, we are making progress on lowering the cost of living, a new era of peace is sweeping around the world, our sovereignty is being swiftly restored, and the American spirit is coming back greater and more powerful than ever before.

As we prepare to celebrate 250 glorious years of American independence, this Thanksgiving, we summon the faith, resolve, and unflinching fortitude of the giants of American history who came before us.  We vow to build a future that echoes their sacrifice.  Above all, we offer our endless gratitude to Almighty God for His love, grace, and infinite blessings....

10th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Colorado's Regulation of Health Care Sharing Ministries

On Nov. 20, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries v. Conway, (Audio of full arguments). In the case, a Colorado federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Colorado's reporting requirement for health care sharing plans, most of which are religiously affiliated. (See prior posting.)

Texas AG Sues State Agency for Excluding Sectarian Use of Homelessness Funds

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced on Monday he has filed suit against the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs challenging its requirements that funds disbursed in its Homelessness Programs and its Bootstrap Loan Program not be used for sectarian or explicitly religious activities such as worship, religious instruction or proselytization. The complaint (full text) in Paxton v. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 11/24/2025), alleged in part:

The Bootstrap Loan Program’s and Homelessness Program’s restrictions on sectarian use of program funds ... are unconstitutional because they condition participation in a government benefit on theological choices about worship, instruction, or proselytization, and they impermissibly compel governmental oversight into theological decisions....

To be sure, the Sectarian Exclusions are wholly unnecessary to avoid Establishment Clause concerns.... In other words, the programs would not run afoul of either the U.S. Constitution or Texas Constitution if the rules were silent on the issues upon which they speak or if the rules simply didn’t exist....

... [T]he Sectarian Exclusions are unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Sections 6-7 of the Texas Constitution and, therefore, the Rule interferes with and impairs or threatens to interfere with and impair Texas citizens’ rights or privileges under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Sections 6-7 of the Texas Constitution....

State Department Human Rights Reports Will Have Changed Focus

Yesterday the State Department announced a change in focus for future Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. The Daily Signal and the Washington Post report on new instructions and guidelines provided to U.S. embassies and consulates as they begin to prepare reports for their nations. As reported by The Daily Signal, the following will now be treated as human rights violations by foreign countries:

Sex-change procedures for minors, such as hormone replacement regimens or irreversible transgender surgeries.

Government funded abortions or abortifacient drugs, as well as the total estimated number of annual abortions.

Arrests, administrative penalties, and “official investigations or warnings” for speech or “hate speech.”

The enforcement of policies like affirmative action or diversity, equity, and inclusion that “provide preferential treatment” to workers on the basis of race, sex, or caste.

The facilitation of mass or illegal migration across a country’s territory into other countries.

Attempts to coerce individuals into engaging in euthanasia.

Violations of religious freedom, including antisemitic violence and harassment.

Medical abuses, including forced testing, forced organ harvesting, and eugenic gene-editing practices on human embryos.

According to the Washington Post:

In unveiling the dramatic shift, Trump administration officials offered an unapologetically U.S.-centric and religiously tinged view of human rights. “The United States remains committed to the Declaration of Independence’s recognition that all men are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights,” said a senior State Department official also involved with briefing the news media. The aim is to focus on rights “given to us by God, our creator, not by governments.”

New Test Case on State-Funded Religious Charter Schools Is Being Assembled

 As previously reported, earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court split 4-4 on the question of whether the 1st Amendment allows Oklahoma to authorize and fund a religiously-sponsored virtual charter school. The split was caused by Justice Amy Coney Barrett's recusing herself due to her connection to an early legal advisor to the school. The 4-4 split resulted in the affirmance of an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that the Catholic-sponsored publicly-funded charter school violated Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Now, according to JTA, a new test case is being put together. JTA reports in part:

The National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation has notified an Oklahoma state board that it intends to apply for a statewide virtual high school integrating Oklahoma academic standards with daily Jewish religious studies....

... [T]he group’s legal team — led by Becket, a prominent nonprofit religious-liberty law firm — is preparing for the state board to reject the application, setting the stage for a federal lawsuit and, potentially, a precedent-setting ruling at the Supreme Court....

The group will not sue in state court, bypassing the state Supreme Court ruling against St. Isidore, but in federal court, where they believe they will prevail.

By framing Oklahoma’s refusal as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause, Ben Gamla hopes to build on recent Supreme Court rulings holding that states may not exclude religious organizations from generally available public benefits solely because they are religious.

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Does Not Bar Wage-and-Hour Claim

In Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center, (CA App., Nov. 21, 2025), a California state appellate court held that neither the ministerial exception doctrine nor the church autonomy doctrine bars a wage-and-hour claim for past services by an employee who is a "minister" under the ministerial exception doctrine. The court held that the ministerial exception doctrine does not apply because plaintiff's wage claims do not raise an ecclesiastical concern. The court said in part:

 ... Lorenzo only challenges the Center’s failure to pay her a minimum wage and overtime wages for work that she has already performed as part of the Center’s commercial activities.  She does not challenge the Center’s decision to terminate her employment or seek reinstatement.  Despite this, the Center asserts that the enforcement of California’s wage-and-hour laws would inevitably result in excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the Religion Clauses solely because Lorenzo is a minister.  But the Center does not explain why, and its omission is telling. ...

“[T]he aspect of the church-minister employment relationship that warrants heightened constitutional protection—a church’s freedom to choose its representatives”—is not “present” in every employment claim....  For example, not every aspect of a minister’s compensation is “an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.”...  Indeed, “[t]he constitutional rationale for protecting some of a church’s [autonomy to choose its representatives] . . . does not apply . . . where what is at issue is not who the [church] will select to educate its youngest students, but only whether it will provide the people it has chosen with meal breaks, rest breaks, and overtime pay.”...

...[T]he Center has not pointed to and we have not come across anything in the history of the Religion Clauses to suggest that a minister’s compensation, much less the minimum compensation that a minister should receive to subsist, was a concern of the founders....

North Dakota Supreme Court Upholds State's Abortion Ban

In Access Independent Health Services, Inc. v. Wrigley, (ND Sup. Ct., Nov. 21, 2025), the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed a trial court's decision that had invalidated North Dakota's statute that bans most abortions. While 3 of the Supreme Court's 5 justices held that the abortion law is unconstitutionally vague, North Dakota's constitution provides that it takes 4 of the Court's 5 justices to invalidate a law passed by the legislature. The Court's vote thus upholds the constitutionality of the ban. Justice Crothers' opinion for 3 justices said in part:

To the extent an abortion implicates a legal defense justifying or excusing the use of force, N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 introduces an apparent conflict of law in North Dakota. A physician who acts with an honest but mistaken belief that an abortion was necessary to protect the life or health of a pregnant patient would be guilty of a crime under the objective reasonableness standard set out by N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1. Simultaneously, under the subjective reasonableness standard that applies to defenses under N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-05, the same physician would be innocent because his belief that the abortion was necessary, although mistaken, was honest. On their face, these conflicting standards make it unclear whether a physician who performs an abortion in good faith will nonetheless suffer criminal penalties....

We agree with the district court that, in the context of medical care the Plaintiff physicians perform with the intent of protecting the lives and health of their patients, N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1, does not give fair warning and allows for discriminatory and arbitrary enforcement....

Justice Tufte writing for two justices, said in part:

I depart from the majority opinion in two significant respects. First, the majority opinion extends to the natural rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 1, the more stringent vagueness standard we have previously reserved for First Amendment rights that receive the additional protection of the chilling effect doctrine. Second, the majority opinion extends our precedent to allow a pre-enforcement facial challenge in which the challengers present only hypothetical future conduct as the basis for the testifying experts’ disagreement about the legal application of the statute. The parties’ presentation of witnesses having expertise in medicine or history who disagree about lawyer-crafted hypotheticals is not a sufficient basis for a court to declare a statute unconstitutionally vague....

The rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 1, are those natural rights as they were known to the people of North Dakota at the time the constitution was adopted. These natural rights were fixed at that time, and our judicial duty is to ensure that they “shall not be infringed.” These rights are protected from legislative overreach because they are excluded from the state’s broad legislative power.

 ... [T]he natural rights that every North Dakota citizen has “by nature” include an individual right to seek medical care without risk of criminal prosecution, including but not limited to abortion, when reasonably necessary to preserve the individual’s life.... Section 1 does not imply a right to abortion as such, and evolving public opinion on abortion cannot create one—only a constitutional amendment can do that.... Section 1 limits state power to regulate abortion where it is a necessary means to the constitutionally protected end of "defending life."

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

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Adriano P. Díaz Cisneros, The Competitive Values of Christianity: An Antitrust Perspective on Western Civilization (November 07, 2025).
• Nicole Stelle Garnett & Cameron Grinnell, The Persistence of the Unconstitutional Status/Use Distinction in Federal Grants to Religious Nonprofits (October 17, 2025).
• Osama S. Qatrani, The End of an Excuse: A Scientific Reassessment of Frank Zindler’s Rejoinders (1984–2025), (November 11, 2025).
• Micah Schwartzman, Richard Schragger & Nelson Tebbe, The Structure of Religious Preference, (139 Harv. L. Rev. 211 (2025)).
• Jeffrey A. Brauch, Beauty, Justice, and the Lawyer's Calling: A Review of Mark Fowler's Beauty and the Law, (Journal of Christian Legal Thought, Volume 15, No. 2 (2025), pp. 72-75).
• Christian Edmonds, En Banc Amicus Brief Of The Roberston Center For Constitutional Law In Support Of Defendants-Appellants And Reversal in Roake v. Brumley, (November 14, 2025).
• Lynne Marie Kohm & Joseph Kohm, C. S. Lewis's Influence in American Case Law, (November 19, 2025).
• Cristian Edmonds, Chipping Away at Stone: Rethinking the Establishment Clause After Kennedy, (October 25, 2025).
• Katie R. Eyer, Institutional Challenges in an Authoritarian Age, (November 20, 2025).
• Linda C. McClain & James E. Fleming, "What Shall Be Orthodox" in Polarized Times: Overview and Response to Commentators, (90 Missouri Law Review (2025)).

From SSRN (Reproductive Rights, Abortion and Gender):

• Martin Katz, Skrmetti and the Problem of Incidental Intent, (67 Wm. & Mary L. Rev XXX (2026)).
• Joanna L. Grossman, The Tenth Anniversary of Marriage Equality: How Traditional Marriage Law Led to Constitutional Protection for Same-Sex Marriage, (3 Journal of American Constitutional History 899 (2025)).
• Teresa Stanton Collett, Was Dobbs Worth It? Protecting Life Three Years Later, (U of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper No. 25-15 (2025).
• Danielle Bell, The 1867 Peonage Act Offers a Statutory Solution for Revitalizing Reproductive Rights, (May 15, 2024).
• Naomi Schoenbaum, Sex Equality After Skrmetti, (August 05, 2025).
• Samia Jaman Karobi, Abortion Laws and Bangladesh in 2025: Developments and Challenges, (October 20, 2025).

From SSRN (Religious Law):

• Jeffrey R. Baker, The Church of Dissent in the Imperial Republic, (November 08, 2025).
• Mintae Cha, Representation vs. Democracy? Presbyterianism in the Age of the French Revolution. (Church History , First View , pp. 1 - 27 (Sept. 2025)).
• Samuel J. Levine, A Brief Look at Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism Through a Perspective of Jewish Law and Tradition, (Perspectives on Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism from Literature, Philosophy, Law, and History (Marko Trajkovic, ed., 2025)).
• Imam Sujono, Application of John Stuart Mill's Formal Equality Theory to Distribution of Inheritance for Adopted Children: A Comparative Study of Burgerlijk Wetboek and Compilation of Islamic Law, (November 06, 2025).
• Saparuddin, Optimizing Islamic Public Revenue Sources Through the Islamic Circular Fiscal System (ICFS) Model: A Sustainable Finance Perspective, (October 20, 2025).
• Lutforahman Saeed, Women's Right to Freedom of Movement in Islamic Law and Under Taliban-Ruled Afghanistan, (Fordham International Law Journal (forthcoming)).

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

• Novi Andriani, Policy Anomalies in the Government’s Approach to the Involvement of Religious Organizations in Mining Management in Indonesia, (October 25, 2025).
• Nicole Stelle Garnett & María Paz Madrid, Ecuador:  Funding and Regulation of Private and Faith-Based Schools, (June 01, 2025).
• Nicole Stelle Garnett & Maria Paz Madrid, Columbia:  Funding and Regulation of Private and Faith-Based Schools (June 01, 2025).
• Jane Thomson,  "And Two Cows to my Wife… so Long as she Remains my Widow." Public Policy and Testamentary Marriage Clauses in Canada, (Canadian Bar Review, Volume 103 (3). (Forthcoming)).
• David Antia, The Ramadan School Closure Conundrum: A Legal and Policy Analysis of Religious Freedom and the Right to Education in Nigeria, (March 10, 2025)).
• Bilyana Petkova, Natalie Alkiviadou, Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights  2025, (Human Rights Law Review, volume 25, issue 4 (2025)).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Nicole Stelle Garnett, Parental Rights, Parental Choice, and State Public Education Mandates, 26 The Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 73-98 (2025).
• Howard Slugh & Jason Bedrick, Yeshivas and the Legacy of Meyer and Pierce: Is Substantive Due Process Substantial Enough?, 26 The Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 241-280 (2025).
• Karina V. Korostelina, Marc Gopin, Jeffrey Helsing & Alpaslan Ozerdem, The Role of Identity and Religion in Peace Processes, 41 Negotiation Journal 195-227 (2025).
• Benjamin Mann, Immigration Enforcement and the Christian Conscience, CatholicVote, 2025).
• Steven H. Sholk, A Guide to Election Year Activities of Section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) Organizations, (November 2025 edition).

Church's Challenge to Fire Code Applicability Triggers Strict Scrutiny

 In Pool v. Dad's Place of Bryan, Ohio, (OH App., Nov. 21, 2025), an Ohio state appellate court remanded to the trial court a church's appeal of an injunction subjecting it to Ohio's fire code requirements for residential buildings. The city contends that the church's overnight ministry constitutes use of the building for "residential" as well as "assembly" purposes because the building is used in part for "sleeping purposes."  Categorizing the building as "residential" would require the church to install a sprinkler system whose cost is beyond the church's financial ability. 

The court said in part:

... [N]ot only has appellant presented undisputed evidence that it cannot afford to open a second location to provide sleeping accommodations, appellant maintains that its religious beliefs require it to welcome the stranger to live among the church, not to operate an offsite homeless shelter.  Moreover, appellant cannot simply relocate to somewhere else in the surrounding area with the appropriate use occupancy.  Because appellant’s ministry involves gatherings for religious worship, during which individuals are permitted to fall asleep, appellee maintains that appellant’s use occupancy is mixed....  Outside of a fire official exercising discretion in favor of appellant, appellant is left with only one option to comply with the fire code: cease permitting individuals to sleep in its premises, which would violate appellant’s religious beliefs....

The lack of objective criteria in the fire code to categorize appellant’s use as residential combined with appellee’s shifting interpretations throughout the matter’s pendency demonstrates that the fire code provisions at issue are not generally applicable....  

... [A]ppellant maintains that it has no intention of creating a homeless shelter, but instead its intention is to provide an overnight ministry in which individuals can pray, engage in fellowship, and listen to scripture, and it would violate its sincerely held religious beliefs to wake individuals who fall asleep during its ministry....  [A]ppellee had to consider the reasons for appellant’s conduct—including its religious reasons—when exercising his discretion to determine that appellant impermissibly changed its use occupancy, and therefore the fire code provisions at issue are not generally applicable.... Accordingly, appellee’s attempted enforcement of the fire code is subject to strict scrutiny under federal constitutional law, and the trial court erred in applying a rational basis review....

Here, appellant opposed the preliminary injunction under both the federal Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause and the Ohio Constitution’s Conscience Clause.... The trial court did not apply a strict scrutiny test as required by Ohio constitutional law, and therefore the trial court neglected to address appellant’s rights under the Ohio Conscience Clause. 

[CORRECTED: An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that the injunction being appealed was one granted to the church.]

Priest Brings Defamation Action Against Podcasters Who Questioned His Credentials as an Exorcist

Suit was filed this week in a Michigan federal district court in an unusual battle between a Catholic priest and rival podcasters. The complaint (full text) in Martins v. Romero, (ED MI, filed 11/17/2025), alleges in part:

1. This is a defamation and false light action stemming from false and misleading statements published on the Jesus 911 podcast on the November 20th, November 27th, and December 4th, 2024 episodes.   

2. The Defendants intentionally or recklessly invited public critique and scrutiny over Plaintiff’s title as an exorcist by repeatedly asserting that the Plaintiff is not an exorcist. The Defendants’ statements have perpetuated a narrative that undermines the Plaintiff’s credibility....

43. The Exorcist Files is a podcast co-created and co-hosted by Ryan Bethea and Fr. Martins....

44. The Exorcist Files podcast aired its first episode on January 25, 2023, and currently streams on large podcast platforms such as Spotify and Apple Music.  

45. Due to the popularity of the podcast, Fr. Martins published a book, also titled The Exorcist Files, where he provides a comprehensive view of the 2,000-year-old Catholic ministry of exorcism, examining spiritual dangers lurking in modern society, to help readers understand how to remain free from their influence and control. The Exorcist Files book was published on November 19, 2024, and its release was widely anticipated.   

46. Upon information and belief, the Defendants had identified Fr. Martins as a competitor in the popular niche of exorcism themed television, radio, podcast, and books. They timed the release of their podcasts to destroy Fr. Martin’s reputation and to diminish the sales of Fr. Martins’ book....

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead] 

CAIR Sues Texas Governor

As previously reported, earlier this week Texas governor Greg Abbott issued a Proclamation designating CAIR as a Foreign Terrorist and Transnational Criminal Organizations under Texas law. CAIR has now responded by filing suit against the governor and the Texas attorney general in a Texas federal district court. The complaint (full text) in Council on American-Islamic Relations Texas Dallas Fort Worth v. Abbott, (WD TX, filed 11/20/2025), alleges in part:

57. Wrongfully and unilaterally designating Plaintiffs as “foreign terrorist organizations,” and declaring them unable to purchase land in the state of Texas harms Plaintiffs’ advocacy work, fundraising initiatives, and reputation as organizations. 

58. Given that state law is preempted by federal law, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant Paxton from enforcing the Proclamation against them....

65.  Governor Abbott’s Proclamation deprives Plaintiffs of their procedural due process rights by designating them as “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” under Texas Penal Code 71.01, “Transnational Criminal Organizations” under Texas Property Code § 5.251, and proscribed entities via designation by the governor under Texas Property Code § 5.254 without providing Plaintiffs the right to respond to and challenge the designations....

77. Governor Abbott’s Proclamation identifies no criminal conduct by Plaintiffs. Instead, it relies almost entirely on political speech and advocacy – particularly remarks by CAIR’s Executive Director encouraging civic engagement, political participation, and representation by American Muslims. 

78. These statements are quintessential political and religious expressions. Yet Governor Abbott invoked them to claim Plaintiffs seek to “advance Sharia law in America,” a characterization rooted in stereotype and hostility rather than evidence.

79. A state official may not wield governmental power to punish an organization or silence its advocacy because of disagreement with its speech, its religious identity, or the communities it represents....

96. ... [T]he Proclamation substantially infringes Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to expressive association by deterring individuals and organizations from joining, supporting, partnering with, or participating in Plaintiffs’ lawful advocacy....

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

Catholic Clergy Sue for Access to ICE Detention Facility

 A religious advocacy organization, its director, 3 priests, and a sister filed suit this week against immigration officials alleging that their free exercise rights were infringed by ICE agents who barred them from entering an Illinois ICE detention center to pray and give holy Communion to detainees. The complaint (full text) in Coalition for Spiritual and Public Leadership v. Noem, (ND IL, filed 11/19/2025), alleges in part:

60. The intimidation of the religious persons, Catholic, Protestant, and of other faith traditions, has denied them their religious right to practice their faith. Until the intimidation began, Catholic clergy had been “allowed” to pray and administer Holy Communion to detainees. The refusal of ICE officials to allow clergy and laypersons to bring the Most Blessed Sacrament to fellow Catholics housed in the facility is an arbitrary decision by ICE. Heretofore, ICE has allowed religious services, including the distribution of Holy Communion. A non-specific reference to safety and security is not sufficient to deny the rights of Catholic clergy and laypersons, or persons of any other denomination or religion, to practice their faith, especially as others have been allowed to do so at the ICE facility in Broadview since it became an immigration-related facility in 2006....

66. Defendants’ policies and practices have unreasonably burdened the Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion in violation of the First Amendment and the broad protections under the RFRA, without any showing that those policies and practices advance a compelling government interest, or that if such a compelling interest even exists, it would be the least restrictive means available for doing so....

81. Defendants’ policies and practices have burdened the Detainee’s free exercise of religion under the First Amendment and in violation of the RLUIPA....

The Coalition issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.