Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• David Eliot Bernstein, Title VI Hostile Environment Law in the Shadow of Antisemitic Violence, (Journal of Free Speech Law, Forthcoming).
• Geoffrey Swenson, Symbolic Rule of Law Promotion, (December 12, 2025). Law & Social Inquiry, First View pp. 1-32 (2025).
• Zachary D. Fasman & Samuel Estreicher, Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism and Title VI: College and University Responsibility for Campus Harassment of Jewish Students, (January 09, 2026).
• Peter K. Yu, Monastic Scribes, Disruptive Technology, Proto-Copyright Regimes, and Their Twenty-First Century Lessons, (Intellectual Property and Religion: Cross-Cultural Intersections of Faith and the Law, Enrico Bonadio, Bryan Khan, and Nicola Lucchi, eds., Hart Publishing, 2026, Forthcoming).
• Ofer Raban, The First Amendment and the Suspension of an Extremist Anti-Zionist Law Professor, (January 05, 2026).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Seyyed Abdol Hojjat Moghadas Nian, Ebrahim Qasemi, Seyyed Mohammad Ali Moghadas Nian, & SeyedMehdi AlizadehMousavi, Pioneering Jurisprudential Convergence: A KPI-Based Framework for Shia-Hanafi Rapprochement in Islamic Law, (April 19, 2025).
• Olivia Abu Danyal, Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Waqf Administration: Policy Options for Nigeria, (November 30, 2025).
• Marroun Bader & Amuda Ghazali, Legal and Regulatory Challenges in Waqf Administration in Nigeria, (November 28, 2025).
• Marroun Bader & Aliyu Islam, The Role of Waqf Institutions in Socio-Economic Development in Nigeria, (November 28, 2025).
• Shahid Mahmood, The Islamic Governance and Secular State (Philosophical Tensions and Practical Possibilities), (November 15, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Sarah Ghabrial, Emergency by Design: The "Native Repressive Tribunals" and the Normalization of Exception in Colonial Algeria, 1858–1904. 42 Law & History Review 665-690 (2024).
• Yar Furstenberg, Rabbinic Evidence for the Spread of Roman Legal Education in the Provinces, 42 Law & History Review 713-734 (2024).
• Chagai Schlesinger, Weber in Jerusalem: The Rabbinical Debate over the Establishment of the Rabbinical Court of Appeals, 1918–1921,42 Law & History Review 869-892 (2024).

Supreme Court Grants Review of Falun Gong Members' Suit Against U.S. Company for Aiding Chinese Surveillance

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, (Sup. Ct., Docket No. 24-856. cert. granted 1/9/2026) (Order List.). In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, held that Falun Gong victims of human rights abuses carried out by China can move ahead with claims against Cisco Systems and its executives for their assistance that enabled China to carry out monitoring of Internet activity of Falun Gong members. (See prior posting.) The Supreme Court's grant of review was limited to the questions of whether the Alien Tort Statute and/or the Torture Victim Protection Act allow a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.

The SCOTUblog case page contains links to all the pleadings filed in the case. Reuters reports on the Court's action.

7th Circuit: Satanic Temple Lacks Standing to Challenge Indiana's Ban on Telehealth Abortion [CORRECTED]

 In Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Rokita, (7th Cir., Jan. 6, 2026), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that The Satanic Temple lacks standing to bring suit claiming that Indiana's ban on telehealth prescribing of abortion medications violates Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Satanic Temple's beliefs are described by the court:

Members of the Satanic Temple adhere to Seven Tenets.... Tenet III establishes the belief that one’s body is inviolable and subject to one’s own will alone.  Another, Tenet V, establishes that individual beliefs should conform to an individual’s “best scientific understanding of the world” and that each person “should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s own belief.” The Satanic Temple says these Tenets support what it calls the “Satanic Abortion Ritual,” a meditative ritual intended to “cast off notions of guilt, shame, and mental discomfort that a patient may be experiencing due to choosing to have a medically safe and legal abortion.”...

The court concluded that The Satanic Temple had not show any injury in fact to it or any of its members, saying in part: 

Instead of identifying an individual member who has suffered an injury, the Satanic Temple relies on statistical probability to show it has some unnamed members who might be injured....

... [W]e are left with a simple estimate of women who may be involuntarily pregnant, and there is no evidence that any one of them would want to obtain an abortion. Simply put, missing here is evidence that any member of the Satanic Temple has “personally … suffered some actual or threatened injury.”...

As a backstop argument, the Satanic Temple claims “Indiana[’s] Abortion Ban” has caused all of its members to “suffer the stigma of being evil people because they do not believe a human being comes into existence at conception nor do they believe abortion is homicide.” ...  But, other than merely saying so, the Satanic Temple provides no evidence that its members have actually suffered stigmatic injury. ...

The Satanic Temple argues the threat of prosecution ... “if” it prescribes abortifacients via telehealth appointments in Indiana is enough to show an injury to support its pre-enforcement challenge. There is no evidence, however, that the Satanic Temple will knowingly or intentionally prescribe abortifacients in violation of § 16-34-2-1 to face the prospect of prosecution. Indeed, it has not provided affidavits, declarations, or other evidence describing any specific, concrete plans of doing so.

Catholic Vote reports on the decision.

[Post was corrected to indicate that the decision was from the 7th Circuit, not the 6th Circuit.]

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Church's Standing to Challenge Health Insurance Mandate

Yesterday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland v. Kuderer (video of full oral arguments). In March 2025, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that the Assembly of God Church which opposes abortion and some forms of contraception lacked standing to challenge Washington's Reproductive Parity Act which requires health insurance carriers to provide coverage for contraceptives and abortions. A second state statute allows insurance companies to offer employee plans that accommodate a church's religious objections, so long as employees can separately access coverage for such services from the insurer. However, plaintiff church had been unable to find a plan that accommodates its objections. (See prior posting.) Plaintiff filed a petition for an en banc rehearing by the 9th Circuit (full text). In July 2025, the 9th Circuit withdrew its earlier opinion and ordered the new oral argument which took place yesterday. ADF issued a press release containing further background on the case and links to some of the pleadings in the case.

Ukrainian Catholic Church Sues Over Zoning Restrictions

Suit was filed this week in a Pennsylvania federal district court by a Ukrainian Catholic Church alleging that a Pennsylvania Township violated the church's rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment through zoning ordinances that prevent the church from constructing a chapel and related facilities on a 41-acre site that it owns. Part of the land is currently used by the Church for a cemetery.  The complaint (full text) in Holy Trinity Ukrainian Catholic Church v. Collier Township, (WD PA, filed 1/7/2026) alleges in part:

To begin, the Township’s zoning ordinances deny any church the right to construct a church building anywhere without obtaining a conditional use approval. Yet, the Township permits numerous other property uses as of right, including kennels, motels, business or professional offices, horticulture, pet services, and car washes. So the Church applied for rezoning and a conditional use approval; the Township refused to approve anything but a shadow of the Church’s plans for its own Property. In fact, the Township attached to its “approval” a list of bizarre and unlawful restrictions on the Church’s worship, including how long and when the Church could ring bells and for whom the Church could hold memorial services. The Township made no effort to identify any compelling governmental interests motivating its micromanagement of the Church’s liturgical life, nor do any exist....

The Township has blatantly violated RLUIPA and the U.S. Constitution here. First, the Township’s zoning ordinances facially discriminate against religious land use by denying the Church the right to construct a church building anywhere within the Township as of right. Next, in rejecting the Church’s proposals and attaching strict conditions to the Church’s use of its Property, the Township has used zoning ordinances to impose a substantial burden on the Church’s religious exercise.... The Township failed to identify any compelling governmental interest—or any interest at all—in denying the Chruch’s plans for use of its own Property. And it failed to calibrate the use restrictions it did impose in any way, much less ensure they were the least restrictive means available.....

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

Supreme Court Review Sought In Church Autonomy Case

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court this week in McRaney v. North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Inc., (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 1/6/2026). In the case, 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. The certiorari petition frames the Question Presented as follows:

In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit held that the “church autonomy doctrine” provides a defendant “immunity” from claims by a plaintiff who never worked for the defendant, never served as a minister for the defendant, and never submitted to the authority of the defendant with respect to any ecclesiastical or secular matter.   

The Question Presented is:  Does the church autonomy doctrine apply to, and foreclose, civil law claims which are not disputes about the internal affairs or self-governance of a religious institution?

[Thanks to Scott Gant for the lead.]

Divorce Action Should Be Dismissed Because Couple Were Never Validly Married in the Coptic Church

In Funti v. Andrews, (NY App., Jan. 6, 2026), a New York state appellate court held that a divorce action should be dismissed because the parties, who had not taken out a marriage license, were never validly married in the first place. New York Domestic Relations Law provides parties are validly married even when they did not take out a marriage license if the marriage has been "solemnized in the manner heretofore used and practiced in their respective societies or denominations...." The trial court had concluded that the parties were married after analyzing the Coptic ceremony they were part of on the day their child was baptized. (See prior posting.) The appeals court held, however, that the court instead should have relied upon the undisputed testimony of a Coptic bishop that detailed the requirements for a valid Coptic wedding. The appellate court said in part:

We find that this case falls squarely in the ... category of cases where the court can make a determination about what is required for a ceremony to be solemnized in the manner used and practiced in a given religious denomination without becoming entangled in a religious dispute. There is no dispute in this case about what the requirements are for a marriage to be solemnized in the Coptic Church. Bishop David laid out what the requirements are for solemnization, which were affirmed by defendant’s expert....

Since the record in the present case contains undisputed evidence of what the Coptic Church requires for a valid marriage, a determination of whether the ceremony was properly solemnized does not require inquiry into religious doctrine, but only into the requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 12.... 

... [W]e now apply the facts to the neutral standard provided by the Bishop’s undisputed testimony about what is required for a ceremony to be properly solemnized in the Coptic Church. 

Based on the neutral standard provided by the Bishop’s undisputed testimony, we find as a matter of law that the parties’ ceremony was not solemnized under the Domestic Relations Law....

Finally, even assuming that the parties’ alleged marriage could not be evaluated using neutral principles of secular law because plaintiff disputed what is required for a marriage to be properly solemnized in the Coptic Church, defendant’s motion should still have been granted. In this alternative scenario ...  a determination as to whether the parties were married in a religious ceremony could only be made by “analyzing the various and customary rites, customs, and practices of the [Coptic] religion,” and thus would improperly involve the court in a religious matter.... Any finding as to whether there was a solemnized marriage sufficient to meet the requirements of Domestic Relations Law §§ 12 and 25 could thus offend the First Amendment, which ... prevents civil courts from engaging in an analysis of religious doctrine...

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Magistrate Says Claims Against School for Ignoring Antisemitism Should Not Be Dismissed

In In re Claims of Avi Polischuk as Parent of D.P. v. Massapequa Union Free School District, (ED NY, Jan. 5, 2026), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended that the parent of a Jewish middle school student be allowed to move ahead with claims that the school ignored antisemitic actions directed at his son by other students.  The court described the antisemitic incidents:

... D.P. was being harassed by another student, Defendant S.W. on the basis of his religion. Specifically, in the school lunchroom S.W. asked D.P. if he was Jewish and then yelled "Heil Hitler" at him.... This treatment escalated to a physical attack on November 9, 2023, during which S.W. stabbed D.P. multiple times with a pencil causing physical injuries and resulting in S.W.'s suspension for a "short" and "insufficient" period. ...

This assault, however, is not the only example of antisemitism within the District. As far back as 2017 a swastika and the word "Hitler" were spray painted on a public school.... On a separate occasion ...Plaintiff was told by another family that District students "hurled antisemitic statements" at their son, and despite the parents' complaints, the District did nothing.... Still another set of parents reported that when their daughter passed around her yearbook for signatures, it came back with a swastika on it.... A complaint was made by the parents and again nothing was done....

The magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to give rise to an Equal Protection claim under Section 1983 as well as to a claim under Title VI, under the New York State Human Rights Law, and a claim for negligence, but that municipalities are not liable for punitive damages for violations of these provisions.

Street Preachers' Challenges to Noise Ordinance Fail

 In Cabral v. City of Fort Myers, Florida, (MD FL, Jan. 6,2026), a Florida federal district court dismissed a First Amendment challenge to Fort Myers' Noise Ordinance brought by three Christian street preachers. The challengers were cited for violating the Ordinance's ban on drivers, passengers or pedestrians producing amplified sound that can be heard over 25 feet away. The court rejected plaintiffs' facial and their as-applied challenge to the Ordinance, saying in part:

You don’t get to strike down a city’s noise-control policy just because it might catch a few conversational speakers in its net; you have to show that the net is designed so poorly that it catches a substantial amount of protected speech....

An as-applied challenge against the City ... requires a showing that the City itself—not just an officer with a badge and a misunderstanding of the word “pedestrian”—has a policy of targeting speech it doesn’t like. But Plaintiffs don’t seem to make such a claim. Instead, they allege the Ordinance was inapplicable to them. Even if true, such facts don’t alone trigger the First Amendment....

Though styled as an as-applied challenge under the First Amendment, Plaintiffs’ free exercise claim reads as a Fourteenth Amendment selective enforcement claim....

Plaintiffs claim that the Ordinance was enforced against them while other individuals were making amplified noise audible from 25 feet away.... But Plaintiffs don’t allege that these other individuals weren’t also cited for violating the Ordinance. Nor are these other individuals alleged to have been producing sound on public property. Without those specific facts, the allegation of targeting is just a hunch, not a plausible legal claim.

9th Circuit: Church Autonomy Doctrine Allows Churches to Hire Only Co-Religionists Even for Non-Ministerial Positions

In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Washington v. Brown, (9th Cir., Jan. 6, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Washington's Law Against Discrimination against a Christian ministry that gives hiring preference to co-religionists for non-ministerial positions. The court said in part:

The freedom of religious institutions to establish their own doctrine and faith is so fundamental that they may categorically hire and fire their ministers without regard to anti-discrimination laws—even if the termination is for non-religious reasons.  Simply, the government has no business in policing who spreads the word on behalf of churches, synagogues, mosques, religious organizations, and other similar institutions.  

But the church autonomy doctrine is not so narrowly drawn.  The First Amendment may also shield religious institutions’ hiring of non-ministerial employees when it involves matters of faith and doctrine.  For example, a religious institution may decide that its religious mission is best served by hiring only employees who adhere to and follow its religious beliefs—even for those not acting in ministerial roles. The religious institution may also believe that it can more effectively promote its view of moral and spiritual well-being if its own employees do not lead lives contrary to the institution’s teachings....

But unlike with the ministerial exception, the church autonomy doctrine only protects Union Gospel’s non-ministerial hiring decisions based on religious beliefs.  So Union Gospel cannot discriminate on any other ground.  And our decision is limited to religious organizations like Union Gospel.  We do not consider the scope of the doctrine on other types of entities run by religious institutions, such as businesses or hospitals....

Yakima Herald Republic reports on the decision. 

Wyoming Supreme Court Strikes Down State's Abortion Bans

In State of Wyoming v. Johnson, (WY Sup. Ct., Jan 6, 2026), the Wyoming Supreme Court by a vote of 4-1 held that Wyoming's nearly total abortion ban and its medication abortion ban violate Art. I, §38, of the Wyoming Constitution which provides that every competent adult has the right to make his or her health care decision, subject to reasonable and necessary restrictions imposed by the legislature. The majority opinion for 3 justices held that the decision whether to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a woman's own health care decision, and the right to make health care decisions protected by Art. I, §38 is a fundamental right. The majority rejected the state's argument that abortion is not health care and is not the woman's own health care decision since a fetus is involved.

The majority went on to hold that restricting a fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny and the state had not shown that the state's abortion laws are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The majority rejected the state's argument that the statutory exceptions to the abortion ban make the law narrowly tailored to protect unborn life without unduly infringing on a woman’s fundamental right to make the health care decision to have an abortion.

Justice Fenn filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I agree with the majority the decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a woman’s own health care decision....  However, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that strict scrutiny applies to the right recognized in Article 1, § 38 of the Wyoming Constitution.  I would find Article 1, § 38 allows the legislature to enact reasonable and necessary restrictions that do not unduly infringe on the right to make one’s own health care decisions.  Because the State failed to meet its burden of proving the Abortion Statutes meet this standard, I would find the statutes are unconstitutional and affirm the district court’s decision.

Justice Gray filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

I ... do not dispute that article 1, section 38 creates a fundamental right to make one’s own health care decisions.  I disagree, however, that strict scrutiny applies.  Under the plain terms of article 1, section 38(c), a restriction on a competent adult’s right to make his or her own health care decisions will pass constitutional muster if the legislature could “determine” such restriction was “reasonable and necessary . . . to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.”  When properly construed, the abortion statutes constitute a “reasonable and necessary” restriction by the legislature on the right of a pregnant woman to make her own health care decisions for the purpose of preserving prenatal life at all stages of development.  The abortion statutes do not violate article 1, section 38. 

Wyoming Public Media reports on the decision.

Cert. Filed In Case Challenging Religious Non-Discrimination Rule for State Grant Program

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the Supreme Court in Youth 71FiveMinistries v. Williams, (Sup. Ct., certiorari filed 1/5/2026). In the case (full text of appeals court opinion), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a rule of the Oregon Department of Education barring religious discrimination by grantees in selecting employees insofar as it applies to grant-funded programs, but not as it applies to petitioner's selection of speakers to spread its Christian message through programs that are not funded by state grants. The certiorari petition defines the questions presented by the appeal as:

1. Whether a religious organization can raise the First Amendment right to religious autonomy as an affirmative claim challenging legislative or executive action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, like other constitutional right, or whether the doctrine may only be asserted as an affirmative defense after a suit has been filed, as the Ninth Circuit held here. 

2. Whether a state violates the First Amendment by conditioning access to a public grant program on a religious organization waiving its right to employ coreligionists, including for ministerial positions.

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

Indiana Asks Court to Vacate 2002 Injunction Barring 10 Commandments Monument at Statehouse

Last week, Indiana's Attorney General filed a motion in an Indiana federal district court asking the court to vacate an injunction it issued in 2002 enjoining the governor from erecting a proposed Ten Commandments monument on the Indiana statehouse grounds.  The motion (full text) in Indiana Civil Liberties Union v. Braun, (SD IN, filed 12/29/25), reads in part:

In 2002, this Court permanently enjoined the Governor of Indiana from “taking any steps to erect, on the grounds of the Indiana Statehouse,” a proposed monument that depicts the Ten Commandments, Bill of Rights, and preamble to the Indiana Constitution.... The Court entered the injunction only after the Seventh Circuit held that similarly situated plaintiffs had standing to challenge the placement of such monuments and this monument’s placement would violate the Establishment Clause principles laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman.....   

Not long ago, however, the Supreme Court announced that Lemon has been “abrogated” and that Establishment Clause claims instead must be evaluated based on history and tradition.... Viewed through the lens of this Nation’s history and traditions, erecting the monument raises no Establishment Clause concerns.... That substantial change in law renders it improper to maintain the injunction.  

Substantial changes in standing doctrine provide a second, independent reason for vacating the injunction.... Now that Lemon is no longer good law, there is no longer any basis for holding that an offended observer has standing to bring an Establishment Clause claim. That, too, makes relief from the final judgment proper. 

The Attorney General also filed a 20-page Brief In Support of the Motion. In a press release announcing the court filing, the Attorney General said in part:

The monument—a gift from the Indiana Limestone Institute—displays the Ten Commandments on one large side, the Bill of Rights on the opposite side, and the Preamble to the Indiana Constitution on the smaller sides. A similar monument stood peacefully on the Statehouse lawn for over 30 years until it was vandalized in 1991....

The monument remains in Bedford, Indiana, and would be placed near its original intended location if the court grants the motion.

WTHI-TV News reports additional background information.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Blair Major, Between Freedom and Neutrality: Servatius v Alberni School District and the Problem of Judicial Gaslighting (December 19, 2025).
• Mustak Ahmed, The Weaponisation of Amnesty: Terrorism, Executive Decisions, and National Security in Bangladesh, (December 23, 2025).
• Shucheng Wang, The Varieties of Protestant House Churches Beyond Authoritarian Legality, (November 01, 2025).
• Matthew Cavedon, Eden America: John Locke and the School of Salamanca on Natural Property Rights, (Cambridge University, Press Elements in Law and Religion (under contract).
• Russell Bell, The Structural Necessity of Thought Control: Why Theocracy and Intellectual Freedom Are Logically Incompatible, (December 13, 2025).
• Russell Bell, Early Christian Authority Conflicts and Textual Preservation: The James-Paul Dispute and Its Impact on Alternative Christian Literature, (November 26, 2025).
• Russell Bell, Religious Reasoning in Nuclear Command Authority: Constitutional Crisis, Algorithmic Warfare, and Emergency Democratic Response During Real-Time Threshold War, (December 03, 2025).
• Advaith Sri Krishna Datta Mamidanna & Yug Gattani, Emergency Powers and Constitutional Morality: Re-examining Article 356 through S.R. Bommai, (December 17, 2025).
• Nicolin Decker, The Continuity vs. Conscience Doctrine (CVC): The Mappability Boundary in Artificial Systems and Human Rights, (December 26, 2025).
• Habiba Danjuma, & Abubakar Yusuf Mamud, Religious Freedom, Violence, and International Policy: Assessing Nigeria’s Designation as a Country of Particular Concern for Alleged Christian Persecution, (December 22, 2025).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Godfrey Lukindo J, Probate in Islamic Law Tanzania, Law and Practice Concern 1/3 Principle Properties to Wakf, (December 26, 2025).
• Ahmer Bilal Soofi, From Revelation to Legislation, (December 02, 2025).
• Ahmer Bilal Soofi, ‘Inna’: The Solemn Affirmation of Allah in the Quran, (December 20, 2025).
• Sonny Bhagat, The Raid on Somnath: Ghaznavid Ambitions and Divine Destiny in Futuh-us-Salatain (August 12, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Journal of Catholic Legal Studies, Vol. 63 (2025).
• Symposia, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, Vol 25, Issue 2 (2025).
• Kyle Reinhard, Myths and Magical Thinking: American Civil Religion, the Establishment Clause, and "Codified Irrationality" in Anti-CRT Measures, 37 Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development  287-376 (2025).
• Michael Zuckert, William J. Brennan Lecture. Brennan, Madison, and Freedom of Religion, 49 Oklahoma City University Law Review 305-318 (2025).

Corporate Governance in Sharia Compliant Banking Institutions Explored

A series of papers have been posted on SSRN from students at STEBank (Jakarta, Indonesia). The papers focus on corporate governance issues in Islamic banking:

• Ilham Pajar Berutu, Analysis of the Influence of Sharia Compliance and Good Corporate Governance on the Sustainability and Customer Trust of Sharia Banks: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Malaysia, and England (November 19, 2025).
• Shafaunnisa Mufidah, Good Corporate Governance and Sustainability Principle in Islamic Banking in Indonesia, (November 20, 2025).
• Saripudin Sarip, The Role of Good Corporate Governance in Maintaining Ethics and Compliance in Islamic Banking: Challenges and Solutions in the Digital Age, (November 19, 2025).
• Sella Sudrajat, Good Corporate Governance in Driving Corporate Performance and Sustainability in the Modern Era (November 17, 2025).
• Nia Kanialistiowati, Concepts and Principles of Good Corporate Governance in Islamic Banking and Its Differences from Conventional Banking, (November 19, 2025).
• Andy Rifqi Kurniawan & Sjafruddin Prawiranegara, Islamic Business Ethics as the Foundation of Sharia Good Corporate Governance for Sustainability, (November 20, 2025).
• Almira Azmi Sabila, Good Corporate Governance as a Pillar of Sustainability and Resilience in Islamic Banks in Modern Indonesia, (November 19, 2025).
• Lilis Ainul Yaqin, The Implementation of GCG for the Sustainability of Islamic Banks in Indonesia Post-COVID-19 Pandemic, (November 17, 2025).

California's Law Combatting Antisemitism In Public Schools Survives Constitutional Challenge

In Prichett v. Bonta, (ND CA, Dec. 31, 2026), a California federal district court refused to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of California AB 715 which is directed at preventing antisemitism in the curriculum of public schools. Among other things, the new law provides that the Biden Administration's National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism should be a basis to inform schools on how to identify, respond to, prevent, and counter antisemitism. Plaintiffs are California teachers and students who allege that AB 715 violates their free speech rights and is overbroad and void for vagueness. The court said in part:

Teacher Plaintiffs worry that AB 715 exposes them “to charges of unlawful discrimination and corresponding discipline if they convey ideas, information, and instructional materials to their students that may be considered critical of the State of Israel and the philosophy of Zionism—thus, creating a chilling effect and infringing on the First Amendment rights of both the teacher and student.” ...Student Plaintiffs allege ...that AB 715 undermines their “rights to receive information” related to “Palestinian and Arab culture” because teachers will be forced to self-censor to remain within the confines of AB 715....

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument that the uncertainty created by AB 715’s inexact definition of antisemitism casts an unconstitutional pall over the entire bill....

Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the California legislature’s references in AB 715 to the Biden National Strategy ... were unconstitutional. However, even if Plaintiffs had proved that those two references were unconstitutional, the Court could, and would, properly sever those two references from the remainder of AB 715....

While Teacher Plaintiffs’ claims pass the standing hurdle, those claims are not currently ripe for adjudication....

As public-school education belongs to the government, the government may regulate Teacher Plaintiffs’ speech to accord with the government’s educational goals. It is of no significance that the curricula and the attendant speech required to teach it may advance a single viewpoint to the exclusion of another....

The Court does not find the word antisemitism in AB 715 to be vague....  A reasonable person reading AB 715 would sufficiently understand what the legislature meant by the word “antisemitism.”...

The Forward reports on the decision.

Catholic Church Sues Over Historic Preservation Designation

 A Catholic church has filed suit in an Indiana federal district court charging that actions of the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission and Metropolitan Development Commission designating a former church building as a landmark and prohibiting its demolition violate the church's free exercise rights. The complaint (full text) in St. Philip Neri Catholic Church Indianapolis, Inc. v. Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission, (SD IN, filed 12/30/2025), alleges that the historic church building which is in substantial disrepair was deconsecrated in 2019. Catholic canon law imposes specific requirements regarding removal of religious symbols and limits the purposes for which the building can be reused after its deconsecration. The complaint alleges in part:

75. On its face, the Preservation Plan thus invokes the color of state law to unlawfully impose IHPC authority over religious features and aspects of this Catholic Church property, including the immovable religious symbols on the exterior of the Church Building....

95. The October 1, 2025 IHPC hearing was dominated by efforts by officials and commenters to critique and even to ridicule the religious determinations of Plaintiff and individuals associated with the Archdiocese and St. Philip Neri, to substitute their judgments about Roman Catholic religious doctrine for that of the Plaintiff, and to disrupt and intrude on the religious autonomy of the Plaintiff.

96. Multiple governmental officials provided their statements and opinions on what “the Church” is and what Roman Catholicism requires of Plaintiff, creating a decision-making environment for the Demolition Application that was entangled with religious opinions and distorted religious concepts....

168. The MDC’s adoption of 2024-HP-001 requires the Plaintiff to maintain a church that is closed, deconsecrated, and no longer usable as a church at considerable expense and prevents them from selling the property due to the concern that the church building could in the future be put to a forbidden use in violation of Roman Catholic canon law.

World reports on the lawsuit.

Happy New Year 2026! A Letter To Readers.

Dear Religion Clause Readers:

Happy New Year 2026! 

Thank you for your loyal readership. I hope that you continue to find Religion Clause a valuable source of information on the intersection of law, religion and public policy. If you do, please recommend it to your friends and colleagues.

In 2025, issues of religion often took center stage as the President created a federal Religious Liberty Commission, as the IRS concluded that clergy could endorse political candidates in their sermons, and as the President focused on oppression of Christians in countries such as South Africa and Nigeria. The federal government leveraged concerns about antisemitism on college campuses to disrupt research and battle admission procedures at leading universities in the country. The proper response to gender dysphoria in minors was often framed in religious rather than medical terms as Biblical passages were cited to reject the reality of gender transition.

In 2025, free exercise concerns continued to overwhelm anti-establishment objections as the Supreme Court endorsed parents' right to opt their children out of religiously objectionable public-school instruction. Meanwhile states continue to test the limits on religion in publicly funded schools.

Some commentators have suggested that developments at the federal level in 2025 can best be described as promotion of "Christian nationalism.". I continue to wonder whether that term should be seen as pejorative or merely descriptive of those who believe that the United States is or should be a "Christian nation."

Religion Clause has always been a niche blog which has particularly attracted lawyers, social scientists, advocacy organization personnel, law school faculty, journalists, clergy, legislative and executive branch staff, students and others working professionally or avocationally interested in church-state relations and religious liberty issues.  I invite your feedback on whether it continues to serve this purpose.

The Religion Clause website is the most effective way of accessing posts, ad-free.  However, Religion Clause posts are also available through e-mail subscriptions, through X (formerly known as Twitter) and through Facebook, though the format, accompanying advertising, and availability of posts through these channels are handled by third parties over whom I have little or no control.

As always, I have attempted to retain Religion Clause's objectivity and its policy of linking to extensive primary source material. I hope that the blog continues to have a reputation for reliability at a time when the objectivity of social media is increasingly called into question.

I want to extend a special thanks to those of you who have sent me leads to developments of interest.  I have tried to acknowledge them in the posts that they generate. To all my readers, feel free to contact me by e-mail (religionclause@gmail.com) in response to this post or throughout the year with comments or suggestions. All of your emails are read, even though I apologize that I am often unable to respond to all of them.

It seems likely that religion will continue to animate much of the political, social and cultural conversation in 2026.  Religion Clause will try to keep you up to date on all of it.

Best wishes for a year of civil and respectful discussion,

Howard Friedman                 

Puerto Rico Recognizes Fetal Personhood

 As reported by the San Juan Daily Star, on Dec. 21 Puerto Rico's Governor Jenniffer González Colón signed into law Senate Bill 504 (full text in Spanish) (full text unofficial English translation) declaring fetal personhood.  The law provides in part:

 ... Every human being is a natural person, including the one conceived at any stage of gestation within the mother's womb."...

Every human being has personality and legal capacity from the moment of conception and is a subject of law for all purposes that are favorable to him. The hereditary rights that the law recognizes in favor of the unborn are subordinate to the event of birth....

The rights recognized to the unborn child do not impair the power of the pregnant woman to make decisions about her pregnancy in accordance with the law....

A National Right to Life press release applauding the Governor's action said in part:

... This historic legal recognition marks one of the strongest pro‑life affirmations within U.S. jurisdictions. By explicitly acknowledging the inherent dignity and personhood of the preborn, Puerto Rico has taken a principled and scientifically grounded step to align its civil law with the biological reality that human life begins at fertilization. 

SB 504 amends the Civil Code to recognize the preborn child as a natural person from the moment of conception. While the law does not alter Puerto Rico’s current abortion statutes, it establishes an important legal and moral precedent by embedding recognition of the unborn child within the territory’s legal framework....

Lower Court Applies Supreme Court's Classroom Religious Opt-Out Decision

In Alan L. v. Lexington Public Schools, (D MA, Dec. 30, 2025), a Massachusetts federal district court, relying on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, held that the father of a 5-year-old kindergartener has the right to opt his child out of classroom lessons and activities that deal with sexual orientation and gender identity and violate plaintiff's Christian religious beliefs. Plaintiff identified ten books of concern. The court's injunction (full text) provides in part:

3. Defendants shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.L. is not taught or otherwise exposed to the content of the Identified Books, whether in the classroom or any other school setting. 

4. By January 20, 2025, defendants shall provide plaintiff with copies of any Other LGBTQ+ Educational Materials in their possession. 

5. By January 27, 2025, plaintiff shall specifically identify in writing any Other LGBTQ+ Educational Materials that he contends would burden his free-exercise rights by “substantially interfer[ing] with” J.L.’s “religious development” or posing a “very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices” he wishes to instill in J.L.   

6. After receipt of plaintiff’s written response, defendants shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.L. is not taught or otherwise exposed to all Other LGBTQ+ Educational Materials identified by plaintiff, whether in the classroom or any other school setting....

9. Defendants shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.L. is able to receive reasonable and age-appropriate alternative instruction during any time he is removed from his classroom or any school assembly or activity in order to comply with this order.....

Senate Confirms Antisemitism Envoy; Other Religious Freedom Spots Remain Unfilled

As part of a single Senate vote confirming 97 pending nominations for various federal offices, the U.S. Senate on  December 18, by a vote of  53-43, confirmed the nomination of Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun to be the State Department's Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism. In a December 23 press release, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom welcomed the Senate's action, and added:

USCIRF has recommended filling other key positions to advance freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) abroad. These include the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, Special Advisor for International Religious Freedom at the National Security Council, Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues, and Special Coordinator on Tibetan Issues. Nominations made in 2025 expire on December 31, requiring reappointments in 2026 should the positions not be filled at that time. In addition to the key IRF related positions, placing ambassadors or special envoys in countries that USCIRF recommends for Country of Particular Concern or Special Watch List designations further facilitates advancing religious freedom.

In April, President Trump nominated Mark Walker, a former Baptist minister and former congressman, to be Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom (see prior posting), but the Senate has failed so far to hold a hearing on his nomination. According to a December 15 report by NBC News, Walker's confirmation is being blocked by North Carolina Senator Tedd Budd who defeated Walker in the 2022 Republican primary for U.S. Senate.

RFRA Challenge to Connecticut Removal of Religious Exemption from School Vaccines Survives

In We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. State of Connecticut Department of Education, (CT Super, Dec. 16, 2025), a Connecticut state trial court dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds a number of state constitutional and statutory challenges to Connecticut's removal of religious exemptions from its school vaccination requirements. The court dismissed plaintiffs' free exercise, equal protection, right to education, substantive due process, and right to equal educational opportunity claims. However, the court held that the waiver of sovereign immunity in Connecticut's Religious Freedom Law allows a challenge under that statute to move forward.

Bishop Held Personally Liable for Failure of Catholic Hospital's Pension Plan

The Pillar this week reported on an interesting jury award in litigation over the failure of a Catholic hospital's pension plan.  The report says in part:

Albany’s retired Bishop Edward Scharfenberger filed for bankruptcy this month, shortly after a New York court assigned him personal liability for the failure of a shuttered Catholic hospital’s pension plan.

In a December 12 judgement, Scharfenberger, who led the Albany diocese from 2014 until October of this year, was assigned 10% personal liability in a $54 million judgement for compensatory damages against the former board of St. Clare’s Hospital, which closed in 2008.

The bishop immediately filed for bankruptcy protections, with his personal assets estimated to cover between 2 and 5 percent of his liability for the hospital pensions.

The ruling is unique in that it held personally liable the bishop, as well as his deceased predecessor Howard Hubbard and deceased former diocesan vicar general, but not the Diocese of Albany as a corporation.

The ruling could end up reshaping the landscape of Catholic institutions in America — and will almost certainly trigger a national rethink about bishops’ involvement with Catholic institutions.

[Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.] 

Top 10 Religious Liberty and Church-State Developments of 2025

Each year in December, I attempt to select the most important church-state and religious liberty developments of the past year.  My choices are based on the importance of the development to law or policy. With each pick, I link to one or a few of numerous postings on the topic. Appraising the likely lasting significance of developments in 2025 has been particularly difficult. The selection of top stories obviously involves a good deal of subjective judgment. Indeed, as religion, culture and politics increasingly overlap, there are even questions about whether certain developments should be seen as "religion" stories at all. I welcome e-mail comment at religionclause@gmail.com on my choices. Here are my Top Ten picks:

1. President Trump issues an Executive Order on Combatting Antisemitism. The Trump Administration reaches settlements with some universities, such as Columbia and UCLA, that were charged with antisemitism. The Administration continues to pursue other universities, such as Harvard, for Title VI violations charging antisemitic discrimination.

2. President Trump issues an Executive Order eliminating the recognition of transgender individuals by federal agencies in their policy statements and rules, requiring instead recognition only of immutable biological classifications. The Supreme Court upholds Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The 6th Circuit says Michigan's ban on conversion therapy for minors is unconstitutional. Battles continue over disclosure to parents of students' social transitioning in school. HHS proposes to bar hospitals receiving federal funds from performing gender-affirming care for minors.

3.The Supreme Court says parents have the right to opt children out of class discussions that undermine their family's religious beliefs.

4. Texas and Oklahoma attempt to introduce more religious content into public school classrooms.

5. The IRS says houses of worship can endorse political candidates.

6. Abortion access continues to be the subject of controversy after the reversal of Roe v. Wade.  The 4th Circuit says state abortion bans are not pre-empted by FDA regulation of mifepristone. Texas bans mail-order abortion drugs.  The 2nd Circuit says information about abortion pill reversal is protected speech.

7. President Trump issues an Executive Order creating the Religious Liberty Commission.

8. The Supreme Court splits 4-4 on the constitutionality of state-funded religious charter schools. A new test case is being assembled.

9. The Department of Homeland Security rescinds its "Sensitive Locations Policy" that severely limited the situations under which immigration enforcement actions could take place at churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship, as well as at various other locations. Suits challenge the DHS action with initial success.

10. The Defense Secretary says he will strengthen the military Chaplain Corps by requiring it to focus on religious faith rather than emotional support.

The Religion News Association has focused on a rather different list of developments for its Top 10 Religion Stories of 2025. Its picks are not limited to legal developments.

President Issues Christmas Message

The White House today posted a Presidential Message on Christmas (full text). It reads in part:

... The birth of Jesus revealed the perfect expression of God’s boundless love and His desire to be close to His people.  More than two centuries later, we continue to rejoice in the gift of God’s only begotten Son as the graces of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection continue to pour out upon all who believe.

This Christmas, we also give thanks for the many blessings that God has bestowed upon our great Nation.... As President, I will never waver in defending the fundamental values that make America the greatest country in the history of the world—and we will always remain one Nation under God.

Today, especially, we also remember the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who are unable to be with their families.....

... To every American, and to those celebrating around the globe, we wish you a very Merry Christmas!

Catholic Bishop Excuses Those Who Fear ICE Detention from Attending Christmas Mass

The Catholic Bishop of Columbus (Ohio) this week issued a Decree (full text) granting a dispensation from participating in Christmas Mass to parishioners who fear being detained by ICE on their way to or from Mass.  The Decree reads in part:

Recent days have seen an increase in immigration enforcement in the Diocese of Columbus, causing a rise in fear and feelings of anxiety among out immigrant communities....

The Christian faithful have an obligation, which is disciplinary law of the Church, to participate in Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation, including the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord.... The fear associated with this recent activity of immigration enforcement may deter some of the Christian faithful from fulfilling their obligation to assist at Mass, which would be detrimental to their spiritual welfare.

The diocesan bishop is able to dispense the faithful from disciplinary laws ... when it contributes to their spiritual welfare....

... I hereby dispense from the obligation to attend Holy Mass, all those persons who reasonably fear being detained, even those with proper legal documentation, who fear separation from the families, experience intimidation because of their status or ethnic background, or other actions of immigration enforcement. This dispensation will last through the Christmas Season, which ends with the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord on January 11, 2026.

The Christian faithful who make use of this dispensation are strongly encouraged to engage in spiritual practices during this time....

A video statement from Bishop Fernandes announcing and expanding on the dispensation is available on the Diocese's website.

Muslim Employee's Risk of Discipline for Taking Prayer Breaks Was Too Speculative to Create Title VII Violation

In Zienni v. Mercedes-Benz, (11th Cir., Dec. 22, 2025), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim by a Muslim employee of Mercedes-Benz that he had been denied a religious accommodation in violation of Title VII. The court said in part:

... Zienni worked on a moving assembly line ... where he was given a scheduled lunch break and two other scheduled breaks.  As a practicing Muslim, Zienni was required to pray five times a day at predetermined times, based on the sun’s position in the sky.   The times to pray changed daily and often fell outside the scheduled breaks.  When it was time to pray, without specific permission from a supervisor, Zienni would flag a team leader down who would either personally cover Zienni’s station or have a coworker do so.  A supervisor with MBUSI, not Zienni’s team leader, observed Zienni praying during an unscheduled break and said that he would not be allowed to take those breaks—an explicit denial of his religious accommodation.  Despite this conversation, Zienni kept taking unscheduled breaks, never missed a prayer, and was never disciplined....

Zienni argues that he experienced harm because he was exposed to the risk of discipline for taking additional breaks.  But MBUSI never disciplined or threatened to discipline Zienni.  Further,... his ability to take unscheduled breaks was not a term or condition of employment for Title VII purposes.  Zienni rests on a speculation about what would have happened if he was caught praying during an unscheduled break....  Thus, any risk of discipline that Zienni experienced was too speculative to show a change in a term or condition of his employment.    

The court also rejected Zienni's argument that the psychological harm he suffered constituted a Title VII violation.

California Policy Barring School's Disclosure of Student's Change in Gender Expression Is Unconstitutional

In Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, Dec. 22, 2025), a California federal district court held unconstitutional the policy of California school boards that bars public school teachers and staff from informing parents about changes in a child’s gender expression unless the child consents. The court concluded:

[The policies] harm the parents by depriving them of the long-recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children, and by substantially burdening many parents’ First Amendment right to train their children in their sincerely held religious beliefs.  And finally, they harm teachers who are compelled to violate the sincerely held beliefs and the parent’s rights by forcing them to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students.

Justifying its conclusion, the court said: 

The constitutional question is about when gender incongruence is observed, whether parents have a right to be informed and make the decision about whether further professional investigation or therapy is needed.  Put another way, the question is whether being involved in potentially serious medical or psychological decision-making for their school student is a parent’s constitutional right. It is. "Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state...."

The State Defendants argue... that a parent “does not possess a religious exercise right to dictate that a school reject their child’s gender identity.”...  Nevertheless, this Court disagrees....

Defendants concede that parents “may find notification that their child is expressing a transgender identity at school helpful in the general exercise of their right to direct a religious upbringing for that child.” ... So, the State Defendants are aware that notification would be helpful to religious parents, but provide no room for those parents to exercise those federal constitutional rights.... [T]he California state education parental exclusion policies provide no exceptions for religious parents....

The four teacher Plaintiffs and class representatives sincerely hold religious beliefs that that are being severely burdened by the imposition of the parental exclusion policies....

The teachers successfully make out a First Amendment freedom of speech claim when they are compelled to speak in violation of the law or to deliberately convey an illegal message....

Daily Wire reports on the decision.

Ministerial Exception Does Not Apply to Hostile Work Environment Claims Where Religious Doctrine Is Not Implicated

In Boliak v. Reilly, (NY App., Dec. 18, 2025), three employees of a Catholic high school brought hostile work environment claims alleging that the school's principal regularly subjected them to vulgar, sexist, ageist, racist and homophobic remarks and epithets. One of the employees also brought a defamation claim. A New York state appellate court held that the trial court improperly dismissed the hostile work environment claims under the ministerial exception doctrine, saying in part:

... [I]n the absence of controlling caselaw, we follow the 9th Circuit's approach and find that the ministerial exception should not be extended to apply to conduct such as unlawful harassment simply because such conduct is perpetrated by a religious employer.... [T]here is no First Amendment reason to permit the ministerial exception to shield a religious institution from its "obligation to protect its employees from harassment when extending such protection would not contravene the Church's doctrinal prerogatives or trench upon its protected ministerial decisions"....

Here, plaintiffs are correct that there is no religious justification for Father Reilly's appalling conduct, and analyzing their hostile work environment claims would not require the Court to improperly interfere with religious doctrine or defendants' personnel decisions. Accordingly, plaintiffs' hostile work environment claims should not have been dismissed on the basis of the ministerial exception....

The Court, however, held that the defamation claim was properly dismissed, saying in part:

The comments made by Father Reilly and defendant Gregory Manos about Boliak are not subject to the ministerial exception because they do not implicate matters of religious doctrine and practice.... However, the comments are nevertheless subject to a qualified privilege, as they were made by Father Reilly and Manos in furtherance of a common interest of a religious organization.... The record shows that the alleged defamatory statements were privileged because Manos and Father Reilly made them to each other and to others charged with supervision of Boliak....

HRD reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Restrictions on Off-Campus Christian Religious Instruction for Elementary Students

Suit was filed last week in a Washington federal district court challenging the restrictions that Everett, Washington school officials have placed on the operation of a parent-run program that offers elementary school students off-campus, non-denominational Christian instruction during lunch, recess and free periods. Plaintiffs contend that the school has violated their free speech and free exercise rights. The complaint (full text) in Inc. v. Everett Public School District, (WD WA, filed 12/19/2025), alleges in part:

First, the District evinced open hostility to LifeWise specifically (and religion generally) through District Board Directors’ numerous hateful public comments.  Then, the District coupled that vocal animus with action, and imposed policies on LifeWise that hinder its operations and violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights in three ways: 

a. First, Defendants have taken steps to prevent members of the school community from learning about the services LifeWise offers.  They did this by banning LifeWise from participating in the District’s community fair, prohibiting LifeWise from displaying flyers in school lobbies next to flyers for other organizations, and (in one instance) rejecting LifeWise’s electronic flyers from the school’s distribution system because of their religious content.  Each of these constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.  

b. Second, Defendants uniquely burden LifeWise, students who participate in LifeWise, and those students’ parents by requiring an onerous permission-slip policy to excuse them for off-campus religious instruction.... 

c. Third, when a student returns from off-campus religious instruction hosted by LifeWise, the District requires her to keep LifeWise educational religious materials sealed “in an envelope” in her “backpack,” so she cannot access them the rest of the school day....

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

Defense Secretary Says He Will Strengthen Chaplain Corps

Last week, in an announcement posted on X (formerly Twitter), Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he will take steps to strengthen the armed forces' Chaplain Corps. The Hill quotes portions of Hegseth's remarks:

In an atmosphere of political correctness and secular humanism, chaplains have been minimized, viewed by many as therapists instead of ministers. Faith and virtue were traded for self-help and self-care....

If you need proof, just look at the current Army Spiritual Fitness Guide. In well over 100 pages, it mentions God one time. That’s it. It mentions ‘feelings’ 11 times. It even mentions ‘playfulness,’ whatever that is, nine times. There’s zero mention of virtue. The guide relies on new age notions...

These types of training materials have no place in the War Department. Our chaplains are chaplains, not emotional support officers, and we’re going to treat them as such....

This follows a hearing earlier this month by the government's Religious Liberty Commission on Religious Liberty in the Military. (See prior posting.) Last week, the Justice Department's Office of Public Affairs issued a Statement on the Department of War's Strengthening of the Chaplain Corps saying in part:

“The Religious Liberty Commission applauds Secretary Hegseth and the Department of War’s quick action to restore the military chaplaincy to its full strength and influence in our armed forces,” stated Religious Liberty Commission Chairman, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. “As we were reminded at our Commission hearing last week, the chaplaincy is foundational to the American military—a source of spiritual strength so that our servicemembers continue to serve as a force for good in the face of evil and oppression. Tragically, past administrations sought to undermine the spiritual and strategic role of the military chaplaincy.”

Last week, the American Humanist Association issued a press release criticizing Hegseth's action, saying in part:

Hegseth’s broadside against the Army Spiritual Fitness Guide – including putting scare quotes around “faith” traditions he doesn’t recognize or value – is an attack against any member of the military who doesn’t practice his form of conservative Christianity.

Hegseth tries to hide this by attacking “secular humanism.” But the irony is that, despite the fact that certified humanist chaplains serve Americans every day in hospitals, prisons, and college campuses across the country, they are not allowed to serve in the military.

Every single member of our military, regardless of their religious beliefs – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, humanist, or anything else – deserves access to a chaplain who will support their well-being.

But it’s clear Hegseth doesn’t understand what this means – because his directive stands in direct contradiction to the Standards of Practice for Professional Chaplains agreed to by all credentialing bodies for chaplains. Those standards include a recognition that chaplaincy does involve emotional care – and emphasizes providing care for diverse beliefs, not mocking them....

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

5th Circuit 10-7 Denies En Banc Review in Case of Leafleting by Christian Vegetarian Advocate

By a 10-7 vote, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for an en banc rehearing in Hershey v. City of Bossier City, (5th Cir., Dec. 18, 2025). In the case, a 3-judge panel in a splintered decision reversed a Louisiana federal district court's dismissal of a suit against the city by plaintiff who was passing out booklets for the Christian Vegetarian Association outside a concert arena in which a Christian rock concert was taking place. (See prior posting.)  Judge Ho filed an opinion concurring in the denial of an en banc rehearing, saying in part:

... As I noted at the outset, the First Amendment violation presented here should be obvious.  Of course people have the right to spread the gospel in public spaces.  Yet our colleagues deny that this case presents a legitimate religious liberty issue. Richard Hershey claims the right to share religious materials in public spaces.  But our colleagues deny that his claim has anything to do with religious liberty....

Judge Oldham, joined by 6 other judges, filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of an en banc rehearing, saying in part:

Richard Hershey is a “vegetarian advocate whose ethical beliefs compel him to share his message with others.”... When security officers told Hershey to stop distributing his leaflets, he sued for “deprivation of his rights of speech.”... Hershey does not allege that the officers even knew of the content of his vegetarianism leaflets—let alone targeted him for his vegetarian views.... Nor does Hershey allege anything about his religion. You’ll look in vain for any mention in Hershey’s complaint about faith, religiosity, the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses, or evangelism.... 

But you would not know that from the opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc. In that opinion, this case about vegetarian ethics somehow transforms into a battle over street preaching, the Great Commission, hatred of Christians, and religious persecution dating back “thousands of years.”...This quixotic effort does nothing to justify the panel’s badly splintered, three-judge-four-opinion approach to this case. And while it tilts at windmills that appear nowhere in this case, it does nothing to justify our court’s refusal to reconsider the matter en banc....

Bagua Mirror on City Property Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Ngo v. City of Westminster, (CD CA, Nov. 26, 2025), a California federal district court held that display of a Bagua Mirror on city property did not violate the Establishment Clause. Plaintiff alleged that the Mirror was a religious symbol displayed outside the mayor's office on a city hall wall, and that as a devout Catholic, he was offended by the display of the Mirror.

The court said in part:

Neither party has briefed in any detail how the Bagua Mirror display fits in the historical understandings and practices of this nation regarding the Establishment Clause.  However, the Supreme Court has noted there “is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.”...

In Lynch v. Donnelly, the Supreme Court held that a city owned and displayed Christmas nativity scene including the Infant Jesus, Mary and Joseph did not violate the Establishment Clause....  In that opinion, the Supreme Court opined on the long history and tradition of government sponsored and displayed religious symbols.  For example, “[a]rt galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith.”...  

From the Supreme Court’s recounting, it is clear that government-sponsored and displayed religious symbols have long been part of this nation’s history and practices, without violating the Establishment Clause.  Therefore, the Court finds the allegation that a Bagua Mirror was displayed on City property insufficient to state a claim for violation of the Establishment Clause.  In addition, the SAC’s allegation that Plaintiff was offended at the sight of the Bagua Mirror does not amount to any degree of governmental coercion.  Offense does not equate to coercion....  The SAC’s Establishment Clause Claim is dismissed.

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

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Francis Beckwith, One and a Half Cheers for Integralism:  Liberalism's Broken Promises and the New Draw of the Confessional State, (November 11, 2025).
• Ruth Mbabazi & Natal Ayiga, The Interplay between Cultural Practice and Human Rights on  Female Genital Mutilation /Cutting Amongst the Pokot and Sabiny Tribes in North Eastern Uganda, (Social Science & Humanities Open, 2025).
• Kees Waaldijk, Compact Chronological Overview of the Legal Recognition of Homosexual Orientation in the Countries of the World — Providing the Provisional 1791–2025 Data for the Author’s Global Index on Legal Recognition of Homosexual Orientation (GILRHO), (November 30, 2025).
• Wayne Unger, The Special Solicitude of Stare Decisis in Civil Rights, (December 01, 2025).
• Emerson Wright, Gender Affirming Rhetoric, (August 01, 2025).
• Rafique Adi Putra Mohd Nasir, Crypto Asset Taxonomy and Classification: Foundation for Shari'ah Screening Framework, (July 28, 2025).
• Abdulsamod Toheeb & Sumayyah Lawal, Milk Siblings in Islamic Law: Implications for Marriage and Family Dynamics {Rad’aa,Milk Kinship}, (June 23, 2025).
• Iqra Naz, An Analytical Study of Guardians and Wards Act 1890, Pakistan, (November 06, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Kyle C. Velte, "Save Our Children" Redux: How History, Political Psychology, and a Shifting Media Landscape Help Explain Today's Bans on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors, 26 Georgetown Journal of Gender & Law 1135-1178 (2025).
• Tanya Washington, Catherine Smith & Robin Walker, Religious Exemptions to Anti-Discrimination Law: Children's Rights in the Constitutional Calculus, 26 Georgetown Journal of Gender & Law 1293-1296 (2025).
• Tanya Washington, Catherine Smith & Robin Walker, Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars for the Advancement of Children's Constitutional Rights in Support of Defendants-Appellees, 26 Georgetown Journal of Gender & Law 1297-1339 (2025).
• Charles J. Russo, Faith-Based Charter Schools and the Establishment Clause: Like the Pig with Wings, They Look Good on Paper, but Can or Should They Get off of the Ground?, 85 Louisiana Law Review 393-438 (2025).
• Siyi Lin, Justifying the Law of Unjust Enrichment: A Confucian Perspective, 34 Washington International Law Journal 75-107 (2025).
• Ryan Spencer, Welcome to the Circus: An Analysis of Kennedy v. Bremerton, 2024 BYU Education & Law Journal 113-148 (2024).

KY Supreme Court: Denial of Zoning Permit to Church Did Not Violate RLUIPA

In Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic, (KY Sup. Ct., Dec. 18,2025), the Kentucky Supreme Court held that RLUIPA was not violated by denying a conditional use permit to a church that wished to build a grotto to honor the Virgin Mary’s appearance at a grotto in Lourdes, France. The Court concluded that denial of a permit and variances did not impose a substantial burden on the church's religious exercise. The court said in part:

Here, St. John ... has presented no evidence of any expenses it incurred due to any mandate from the Board.  Indeed, it concedes that in 2021 it “voluntarily” submitted an application for a grotto that was smaller in size than it originally intended....  Additionally, there can be no serious contention that St. John was uncertain of the likelihood that its applications would be denied pursuant to the applicable zoning ordinance.  St. John’s own application letter to the Board acknowledged that “the creation of any type of accessory space to the existing church is not directly permitted by the current local zoning ordinance” because the ordinance required it to be located adjacent to an arterial street to obtain a conditional use permit.  (Emphasis added).  For the same reason, it cannot be said that St. John has not imposed a burden upon itself.... St.  John had every reason to know, and in fact explicitly acknowledged, that building the grotto was not permitted by the ordinance.

Justice Thompson filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

While I agree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that ... RLUIPA was not violated, this issue was the only issue presented by the motion for discretionary review filed by Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. (the Church) and the only matter which should have been considered by this Court. 

Since the singular issue to be determined by this Court was whether a RLUIPA violation had occurred, that is where all discussion should have been confined. I therefore must dissent with regard to the majority’s repetition of the Court of Appeals’ erroneous analysis of, and criticism of, the determinations made by the Park Hills Board of Adjustment ... to authorize a variance and issue a conditional use permit.

HHS Proposes Rules to Bar Hospitals from Performing Gender Affirming Care to Minors

The Department of Health and Human Services today published in the Federal Register two Releases proposing rule changes that would effectively ban almost all U.S. hospitals from providing pharmaceutical or surgical gender-affirming care to children and adolescents under 18 years of age. One Release is titled Prohibition on Federal Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program Funding for Sex-Rejecting Procedures Furnished to Children. The second Release is titled Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Hospital Condition of Participation: Prohibiting Sex-Rejecting Procedures for Children. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announced the Proposed Rules yesterday in a Press Release and in a "Declaration" titled Safety, Effectiveness, and Professional Standards of Care for Sex Rejecting Procedures on Children and Adolescents.  According to the Press Release:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today announced a series of proposed regulatory actions to carry out President Trump’s Executive Order directing HHS to end the practice of sex-rejecting procedures on children that expose young people to irreversible harm. These procedures include pharmaceutical or surgical interventions of specified types that attempt to align a child’s physical appearance or body with an asserted identity different from their sex.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will release a notice of proposed rulemaking to bar hospitals from performing sex-rejecting procedures on children under age 18 as a condition of participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs. Nearly all U.S. hospitals participate in Medicare and Medicaid and this action is designed to ensure that the U.S. government will not be in business with organizations that intentionally or unintentionally inflict permanent harm on children....

CMS will release an additional notice of proposed rulemaking to prohibit federal Medicaid funding for sex-rejecting procedures on children under age 18. The same prohibition would apply to federal Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding for these procedures on individuals under age 19. Currently, 27 states do not provide Medicaid coverage of sex-rejecting procedures on children....

6th Circuit: Michigan's Ban on Conversion Therapy for Minors Violates 1st Amendment

In Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee, and Hillsdale Counties v. Whitmer, (6th Cir., Dec. 17, 2025), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Michigan's ban on licensed therapists engaging in conversion therapy with minors violates the 1st Amendment's free speech protections.  The court said in part:

 “As a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”...  The law at issue here does that:  it bans counseling “that seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behavior or gender expression[,]” among other things.  M.C.L. § 330.1100a(20).

Worse, the Michigan law discriminates based on viewpoint... Specifically, the Michigan law forbids counseling that “seeks to change” a child’s “sexual orientation or gender identity” to align with the child’s religious beliefs or biological sex....  But the law expressly permits “counseling that provides assistance to an individual undergoing a gender transition”.... The law omits a similar carveout for sexual orientation.  Thus, ...the Michigan law codifies “a particular viewpoint—sexual orientation is immutable, but gender is not—and prohibit[s] the therapists from advancing any other perspective.” ...

So HB 4616 finds itself in a constitutional no-man’s land, absent some exception that liberates it from First Amendment scrutiny altogether.  The district court thought that exception came by way of “the broad power of States to regulate the practice of licensed professionals[.]” ...

But it takes more than a general tradition of regulation, in some domain of human activity, to validate content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech....

For HB 4616 to survive strict scrutiny, the defendants must show that its restrictions on speech are the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest....  The defendants have not come close to making that showing; indeed they have hardly tried....

Judge Bloomekatz filed a lengthy dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The majority opinion overrides Michigan’s judgment about the efficacy and harms of conversion therapy by declaring that regulations of medical treatments are subject to “the strictest of scrutiny” whenever the regulated treatment is delivered via words....  The majority opinion reaches that result by saying that psychotherapy consists of “spoken words and nothing more,” and then affords it the same protection as speech in the public square or a conversation between friends....  I disagree.  

Not all words receive the same First Amendment protection, as is evident from the law’s long tradition of subjecting speech that administers a medical treatment to lesser First Amendment scrutiny.  Far from being “words and nothing more,” psychotherapy is an evidence-based medical intervention provided by trained licensed professionals, and it falls within the state’s historic power to regulate medicine.  By affording the words therapists say while providing psychotherapy the highest constitutional protection possible, the majority opinion ties states’ hands as to medically-repudiated practices like conversion therapy, and its reasoning threatens to subject wide swaths of medical regulations to strict scrutiny. 

What’s more, the majority opinion reaches this result even though all agree that the Supreme Court is poised to resolve the same issue in Chiles v. Salazar.... 

AP reports on the decision.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Invalidates Religion-Based Social Study Standards

In Randall v. Fields, (OK Sup. Ct., Dec. 16, 2025), the Oklahoma Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision held that the Oklahoma State Board of Education violated the Open Meeting Act when it approved the 2025 Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies. Plaintiffs had objected to the new Standards because of their religious content. According to the Court:

¶4 Petitioners are Oklahoma taxpayers who object to their tax dollars being used to promote religion in a public school. They allege the 2025 Standards interfere with their ability to direct and control the upbringing of their children including moral religious training and education they teach their children. They allege the 2025 Standards favor Christianity over all other religions in violation of the religious freedoms guaranteed by statutes and the Oklahoma Constitution. Petitioners allege that promotion and favoritism of Christianity will cause their children to feel ostracized and harm their education. Petitioners raising their children in the Christian faith allege the 2025 Standards promote theological doctrines and ideas contrary to the parents' Christian beliefs and their children will also be similarly harmed.

¶5 Petitioners object to the 2025 Standards requiring teachers to teach and students to learn that events depicted in a Bible are historical facts. Petitioners allege historicity of these events is disputed. Petitioners object to 2025 Standards requiring teachers to teach and students to learn that the validity of results in the 2020 Presidential Election should be questioned, and that the COVID 19 virus was caused by a leak in a laboratory in China. Petitioners point to Superintendent Ryan Walters' public statements asserting that the 2025 Standards were created and adopted to promote Judeo-Christian values and to teach a Bible as a "foundational text, helping students understand its undeniable influence on our nation's history and values." Petitioners allege the 2025 Standards require teaching stories and events depicted in a Bible to first and second grade students, and the material is not appropriate for students who are usually 6-8 years of age.

Oklahoma Voice reports on the decision.  (See prior related posting.)

Firing of Synagogue Religious Teacher for Anti-Israel Blog Post Is Upheld By NY's Top Court

In Sander v. Westchester Reform Temple, (NY Ct. App., Dec. 16, 2025), the New York Court of Appeals (New York's highest court) affirmed the dismissal of a suit alleging that plaintiff was fired from her position with a synagogue in violation of §201-d of New York's employment discrimination law. That section prohibits, among other things, discharging an employee because of the person's legal recreational activities. Plaintiff was fired from her teaching position at a Reform synagogue less than three weeks after she began because of a blog post critical of Israel and Zionism that she co-authored. Plaintiff claimed that her firing was because of blogging which is a lawful recreational activity. The majority opinion by Judge Halligan, joined by 4 other judges, held that her suit should be dismissed under the ministerial exception doctrine. The opinion said it was unnecessary to decide whether of not blogging is a "recreational activity" under §201-d.

Judge Rivera filed a concurring opinion relying on the exclusion in §201-d for activities that create a material conflict of interest relating to the employer's business interest.

Judge Troutman concurred in the result for the reasons stated by the appellate court below, namely that plaintiff was not discharged for the activity of blogging, but for the content of the blog post.