Religion Clause

Wednesday, February 11, 2026

House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Supreme Court's Decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor

Yesterday, the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education held a hearing titled Defending Faith and Families Against Government Overreach: Mahmoud v. Taylor. A video of the entire hearing, written prepared statements of the subcommittee chairman and four witnesses, as well as the Committee's "Hearing Recap" are all available here on the Subcommittee's website. Three of the witnesses strongly supported the Supreme Court's Mahmoud decision, while one of the witnesses argued that Mahmoud went too far in permitting parental opt outs. UPI reported on the hearing, saying in part that "Republicans expressed concern ... about school districts ignoring the ruling, while Democrats voiced fears that the ruling condoned discrimination." [Thanks to Zalman Rothschild for the lead.]

RLUIPA Claim for Polluting Burial Sites of Enslaved Ancestors May Move Ahead

In Inclusive Louisiana v. St. James Parish, (ED LA, Feb. 9, 2026), a Louisiana federal district court refused to dismiss claims against St. James Parish contending that plaintiffs have been harmed by land use decisions that have concentrated polluting industrial sites in majority black areas between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. The affected area has a particularly high cancer rate. Plaintiffs are an advocacy organization, a Baptist church whose members claim descent from formerly enslaved people, and a faith-based organization advocating for an end to petrochemical industries in the area. The court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with claims under the 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment and the Louisiana Constitution. It also allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their claim that defendants' actions have violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, saying in part:

... Plaintiffs in the case allege that Defendants “have implemented land use regulations in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.” ... Plaintiffs specifically designate three of Defendants’ acts that “have burdened Plaintiffs’ members’ ability to pray upon the unmarked cemeteries of enslaved ancestors by permitting the construction of industrial facilities upon these cemeteries.”...

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs do not meet the definition of “claimants” under the statute because they have not alleged an ownership or other property interest in the land at issue in the case....

... Plaintiffs allege that “plantation owners were legally required to set aside land for burying the people they enslaved, . . . that graves were often marked by trees to identify them for loved ones and descendant communities, and preserved by laborers and farmers.”.... These allegations are more than sufficient to create a plausible claim that these pieces of land were “dedicated” as cemeteries for their ancestors, cemeteries which have since “been transformed into an industrial site, to be exploited for material gain.” However, even absent these specific and well-researched allegations, the fact that the plantation owners buried the bodies of the people whom they enslaved on these plots of land seems sufficient to constitute an intention to dedicate. Therefore, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs have a property interest in the plots of land at issue—the unmarked cemeteries of enslaved people on the Formosa and SLM plots—to assert a plausible claim under the RLUIPA’s Substantial Burden clause....

The second claim under RLUIPA has been brought against Defendants by only one Plaintiff, Mount Triumph Baptist Church. Specifically, Mount Triumph alleges that Defendants have implemented land use regulations that protect Catholic and majority-white churches from industrial development through required buffer zones, but that also permit such development in the immediate vicinity of majority-black churches with no such protection. Because Defendants have not specifically moved to dismiss this claim, the Court does not feel the need to discuss this claim, other than to say that Mount Triumph has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face....

Suit Challenges Michigan Ban on Discrimination Because of Pregnancy Termination

Last week, two pro-life organizations filed suit in federal district court against Michigan officials challenging on 1st and 14th Amendment grounds 2023 amendments to state anti-discrimination laws that prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of termination of pregnancy. The law already included a ban on discrimination on the basis of pregnancy or childbirth. The 82-page complaint (full text) in Right to Life of Michigan v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 2/6/2026) alleges in part:

Recent changes to Michigan’s employment law force religious and pro-life groups to employ and associate with persons who do not share or live by—and may even oppose—the organizations’ beliefs on human life. This violates the First Amendment. Plaintiffs Right to Life of Michigan (Right to Life) and Pregnancy Resource Center (PRC) recruit, hire, and retain only employees who adhere to, agree to abide by, and can effectively communicate their pro-life views. This employment policy puts them at odds with Michigan’s new law. Right to Life and PRC bring this suit to ensure they can continue to serve Michiganders without diluting their pro-life views through the lukewarm or hostile hires Michigan’s law demands....

The complaint alleges seven causes of action ranging from infringing free speech and free exercise rights to infringing the right to refrain from taking human life. Zeale reports on the lawsuit.

Tuesday, February 10, 2026

Court Rejects Free Exercise Defense Raised by Protesters Charged With Trespass

In Hubersberger v. State of Arizona, (AZ App., Feb. 9, 2026), an Arizona state appeals court, rejecting a free exercise defense, refused to dismiss complaints charging four protesters with criminal trespass. According to the court:

... Appellants, motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs, participated in a protest against Raytheon because of its role as a weapons supplier to Israel and the bombings occurring in Gaza. Appellants’ demonstration occurred on private property, and their stated purpose was to disrupt Raytheon’s daily operations by blocking Raytheon workers from entering the facility....

Appellants moved to dismiss the complaints against them pursuant to FERA [Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Act], arguing that because their protest was motivated by their religious faith, their arrest and prosecution substantially burdened their free exercise of religion....

Appellants do not dispute on appeal that the government had a compelling interest to protect the peace and Raytheon’s private property rights. We therefore only address the second prong of the FERA analysis: whether the arrest and prosecution of Appellants was the least restrictive means in which the government could have furthered its interests in this case....

We, like the superior court, find nothing on the record to indicate that Appellants would have left Raytheon’s private property without state intervention....

Appellants next assert ... that the arrest alone was sufficient to further the government’s interest, therefore their continued prosecution necessarily does not meet the least restrictive means test....

We also conclude that analyzing whether the prosecutor should or should not bring charges “would plunge courts far too deep into the business of reviewing the most basic exercises of prosecutorial discretion.”...

Religious Liberty Commission Holds Hearing On Antisemitism

The Religious Liberty Commission yesterday held a hearing on combating antisemitism and upholding religious freedom. A video of the full 5-hour hearing, held at the Museum of the Bible, is available here from C-Span. JNS reported on the hearing, saying in part:

A U.S. Religious Liberty Commission hearing on antisemitism in Washington, D.C., on Monday featured testimony about the challenges facing Jews in American society that digressed, at times, into questions about whether it is antisemitic to oppose Israel.

The commissioners, whom U.S. President Donald Trump appointed in May, questioned witnesses from religious organizations, college campuses and the administration about their experiences and possible legal and cultural remedies to Jewish bigotry during four hours of panels.

One of the commissioners, Carrie Prejean Boller, a former Miss California who is now a conservative activist and commentator, peppered witnesses about Israel’s conduct in Gaza and her interpretation of the Roman Catholic position on Zionism....

Lawsuit Challenges Makeup and Operation of Trump's Religious Liberty Commission

Yesterday, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and Interfaith organizations filed suit challenging the legality of the Religious Liberty Commission that President Trump created last May. The complaint (full text) in The Interfaith Alliance v. Trump, (SD NY, filed 2/9/2026), contends that the Commission violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, alleging in part:

3. This case challenges the composition and secrecy of the Religious Liberty Commission. While this body is ostensibly designed to defend “religious liberty for all Americans” and celebrate “religious pluralism” it actually represents only a single “Judeo-Christian” viewpoint. It held its first three meetings at the Museum of the Bible and has closed its meetings with a Christian prayer “in Jesus’ name.” Only one of its members is not Christian and the Christian members do not represent the full diversity of the Christian faith. The Commission’s meetings have repeatedly referenced the belief that the United States was founded as a “Judeo-Christian nation” and the membership reflects that viewpoint. All members of the Commission advocate for increased religiosity, and specifically their brand of “Judeo-Christian” religiosity, in public life....

8. The Commission has also disregarded basic transparency requirements, including by failing to disclose transcripts, agendas, and other materials that would allow Plaintiffs and the public to follow and understand the Commission’s work.....

The suit asks the court, among other relief, to:

Order Defendants to employ good faith efforts to appoint a properly qualified representative from the excluded viewpoints; ...

Enjoin Defendants to attach to any reports or recommendations produced by the Commission a disclaimer stating that the report was produced in violation of FACA’s requirement that the Commission’s membership be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented....

Interfaith Alliance issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

UPDATE: Here is Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Monday, February 09, 2026

Arizona Trial Court Strikes Down 3 Laws Restricting Abortions

In Isaacson v. State of Arizona, (AZ Super. Ct., Feb. 2, 2026), an Arizona trial court struck down three Arizona statutes that restrict a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. A 2024 Amendment to Arizona's state constitution prohibits the state from restricting pre-viability abortions unless the law is for the limited purpose of maintaining the health of the person seeking an abortion and does not infringe on that person's autonomous decision making. The court held that this provision invalidates (1) Arizona's ban on seeking an abortion because of a fetal abnormality; (2) Arizona's requirement a physician perform an ultrasound and deliver state-mandated information to a person seeking an abortion 24 hours before carrying out the procedure; and (3) Arizona's ban on use of telemedicine to provide abortion inducing drugs.

Arizona's Attorney General in a press release said in part:

Today's ruling is a major victory for Arizona women, families, and their doctors. The court has affirmed what we've known all along: the abortion restrictions challenged in this case are unconstitutional.

According to AP, Republican legislative leaders had intervened in the case to defend the restrictions. Senate President Warren Petersen's office said the decision will be appealed.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Ministerial Exception Bars Student Chaplain's Title IX and FLSA Claims

In Davenport v. Episcopal Health Services, Inc., (ED NY, Feb. 5, 2026), a New York federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine bars Title IX and Fair Labor Standards Act claims by a student chaplain in an Episcopal hospital. The court said in part:

Plaintiff Archbishop Russell Davenport served as a chaplain at St. John’s Episcopal Hospital South Shore [EHS]... as part of the hospital’s clinical pastoral education program. But he claims the hospital never paid him for spiritual and clinical counseling that he performed for patients after his shift ended. He separately claims that the hospital improperly rejected his sexual harassment complaint against a fellow chaplain but suspended him when another employee filed a complaint against him....

Plaintiff contends that EHS is not a religious group because the complaint “makes no allegations about the religious origins or continuing religious purpose of the hospital.” ...

Like the Department of Pastoral Care, the CPE program offers “pastoral services to patients and community members.” ... Its chaplains perform religious rituals and rites, worship with patients, and offer spiritual counsel.... The CPE’s work therefore also vests in Defendants a critical aspect of its religious entity—even if its services are not strictly Episcopalian. That indisputably religious service renders St. John’s and EHS religious groups....

Plaintiff insists that the ministerial exception does not apply to students. But he adduces no authority why the exception excludes those who administer religious services simply because they obtain “professional training and education for ministry” part-time....

The ministerial exception applies to Plaintiff’s wage-and-hour claims. Just “as the initial function of selecting a minister is a matter of church administration and government, so are the functions which accompany such a selection,” including “determination of a minister’s salary.”...

Sunday, February 08, 2026

Texas AG Sues to Close Down CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood in State

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed suit in a Texas state trial court against CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood asking for an injunction barring these organizations from engaging in any activities in the state of Texas. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Muslim Brotherhood, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 2/5/2026), alleges in part:

The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical terrorist organization that exists to usurp governmental power and establish dominion through Sharia law. For three decades, it has covertly operated in the United States under the name “CAIR”—the Council on American-Islamic Relations—as its American affiliate. The group is not peaceful. It is not tolerant. It does not respect the freedom to practice other religions or sects, including Christianity and Judaism. Instead, ... the Muslim Brotherhood ... has systematically engaged in political assassinations and terrorist attacks to accomplish its goal of a global Islamic caliphate....

Last November, the governor of Texas issued a Proclamation declaring CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood to be a Foreign Terrorist and Transnational Criminal Organizations under Texas law. (See prior posting.)

The Texas Attorney General has issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Friday, February 06, 2026

DOJ Settles RLUIPA Zoning Dispute with Pennsylvania Town

In June 2025, the Justice Department instituted an investigation of alleged RLUIPA violations by the Borough of Kingston, Pennsylvania. At issue has been the application of a 2023 Kingston zoning ordinance to attempts by the Orthodox Jewish Chabad organization to locate sites for places of worship and other religious facilities for its growing population. (See prior related posting.) On Wednesday, the Justice Department announced that it had reached a settlement agreement with Kingston. To implement the agreement, the government filed a lawsuit against Kingston and along with it filed a proposed consent order (full text). The complaint (full text) in United States v. Borough of Kingston, (MD PA, filed 2/4/2026), alleges in part:

107. Kingston acted in violation of RLUIPA by “impos[ing] or implement[ing] a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(l)....

110. Kingston’s enactment and application of the 2023 Zoning Ordinance, and Kingston’s conduct described in this Complaint, constitute the imposition or implementation of a land use regulation that unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction in violation of RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3)(B).

The consent order requires Kingston to make various amendments to its zoning ordinance.

Trump Announces May Event to "Rededicate America as One Nation Under God"

President Trump yesterday delivered lengthy remarks (full transcript) at the National Prayer Breakfast held at the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C. His remarks included the following announcement:

In the last 12 months, young Americans attended church at nearly twice the rate as they did four years ago.... Some churches are seeing a 30 percent, 50 percent, or even 70 percent increase in the number of converts, and also the number of people going to church every week.

To support this exciting renewal this morning, I’m pleased to announce that on May 17th — 26th — that we’re inviting Americans from all across the country to come together on our National Mall to pray, to give thanks, and to — We are going to do something that everyone said, like, that’s tough. We’re going to rededicate America as one nation under God.

Education Department Issues Guidance on School Prayer

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Education issued a 9-page "Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools" (full text). An accompanying Press Release included this summary:

Key Points of the Guidance:

Students, teachers, and other school officials have a right to pray in school as an expression of individual faith, as long as they’re not doing so on behalf of the school.
Public schools may not sponsor prayer nor coerce or pressure students to pray. For example, a school principal may not lead a prayer at a mandatory school assembly.
Public schools can regulate student speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.” For example, a student can’t pray out loud during math class in a way that prevents others from learning, provided such disruptions are handled consistently with other forms of speech.
Religious speech should be treated the same as secular speech. For example, an essay with religious content should be graded by the same academic standards as a secular essay of similar quality.
Religious student organizations should likewise be treated the same as secular student organizations. For example, if a school offers support or recognition to secular student clubs, it must provide the same support to religious student clubs.

Thursday, February 05, 2026

9th Circuit: Prison May Not Revoke Religious Diet Privilege Because Inmate Did Not Strictly Adhere to It

In Harris v. Muhammad, (9th Cir., Feb. 4, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a California federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to a Buddhist inmate who had been taken off of the prison's Religious Meat Alternative Program (RAMP) because he often purchased non-Halal food from the prison commissary. Plaintiff was a Nichiren Buddhist. On advice of the prison chaplain, Harris chose RAMP, a halal compliant diet, as the closest to his Nichiren Buddhist belief that he should eat natural foods that are not highly processed. His precise diet that was unavailable did not require halal certification. The district court held that taking Harris off of RAMP was not a substantial burden on his religious exercise since his religion did not require him to limit his intake to halal meat. The 9th Circuit said in part:

By conditioning his ability to receive the diet which most aligns with his beliefs on whether he keeps Islamic dietary laws, Harris has shown a substantial burden on his religious exercise. ...

Holding otherwise imposes a judicial assessment of what diet is required by Harris’s Nichiren Buddhist faith....

Judges ought not be Pharisees, decreeing from on high what practices are relevant to a prisoner’s understanding of his own faith. See Matthew 23:23. ... And if external forces cause Harris to fall short of the exact dictates of his religion, it is for him and his conscience, not us as courts, to decide what compromises are appropriate. Thus, it is sufficient that Harris asserts that he sincerely believes that the RMAP program “is closest to his spiritual needs.” In holding that an Islamic diet is not required by Harris’s Buddhist faith, the district court erred by discounting Harris’s own understanding of his faith....

... Harris’s departures from the Islamic diet—or even a Buddhist diet—do not demonstrate that his beliefs do not require him to adhere to that diet if possible. “[A] sincere religious believer doesn’t forfeit his religious rights merely because he is not scrupulous in his observance; for where would religion be without its backsliders, penitents, and prodigal sons?” ...

Each man’s faith is his own, and judges must avoid questioning whether a prisoner has strictly abided by the letter of his own sincere belief.

The district court erred by considering these backslides as part of a centrality inquiry (i.e., concluding that expulsion from RMAP would not affect Harris’s ability to practice his own religion)....

Although courts may not determine what actions are dictated by a plaintiff’s personal religious beliefs, a court may determine whether those beliefs are sincerely held..... RLUIPA does not entitle insincere believers in the “Church of Surf ‘n’ Turf” to luxury lobster and steak dinners. But it also protects the rights of sincere believers, who may not fully adhere to their stated beliefs.

Neither the district court nor the prison inquired into the sincerity of Harris’s beliefs, only their centrality to his religion. The district court should consider that issue in the first instance....

New York Mayor Selects Director of Liberal Jewish Advocacy Group as Antisemitism Office Head

Numerous media sources report that New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has chosen Phylisa Wisdom to head the New York Mayor's Office to Combat Antisemitism. Wisdom is currently executive director of the liberal Jewish advocacy group New York Jewish Agenda. The Forward reports:

Wisdom, 39, has aligned herself with some of the positions Mamdani has taken on countering antisemitism, including opposition to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which considers most forms of anti-Zionism as antisemitic. Mamdani has thus far declined to say how his administration will define antisemitism when determining which cases to investigate or pursue. While leading a Zionist organization, Wisdom has also called for more sympathy toward Palestinians, and in November 2023, Wisdom’s group, under her leadership, spearheaded a statement by liberal Jewish elected officials calling for a bilateral ceasefire in Gaza.

In her new role, Wisdom will serve as Mamdani’s point person to the Jewish community. Her appointment is another signal that Mamdani’s anti-Zionist posture will continue to factor importantly into his leadership of the city, which is home to the largest concentration of Jews outside Israel. Her challenge will be facilitating dialogue with people who hold widely diverging viewpoints, without overriding a mayor whose positions on Israel are deeply held and long-standing.

Fellowship of Christian Athletes Can Move Ahead Against School Officials on Two Counts

In Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. District of Columbia, (D DC, Feb. 3, 2026), the D.C. federal district court found that Fellowship of Christian Athletes' (FCA) claims against D.C. public schools and two school officials were not moot even though the school system revised its rules to allowed religious student organizations to give preference to members of the organization's religious affiliation. The school had originally revoked recognition of FCA because FCA required that students serving in a leadership capacity subscribe to a Statement of Faith and a policy of sexual purity. The court held that the individual defendants had qualified immunity as to FCA's various 1st Amendment claims, to their claims under RFRA, the Equal Access Act and the Equal Protection Clause. The court said, however:

Chancellor Ferebee and CIO Ruiz are not entitled to qualified immunity as to Counts VI and VII. FCA alleges that the defendants selectively enforced DCPS’s Anti-Discrimination Policy on the basis of viewpoint (Count VI) and that enforcement of the policy against FCA violated FCA’s First Amendment right to expressive association (Count VII)....

In light of this Supreme Court and circuit case law, the Court concludes that the law was “sufficiently clear” that a “reasonable official” would have known that the challenged actions violated FCA’s First Amendment free speech and expressive association rights....

Wednesday, February 04, 2026

RFRA Defense to Indictment of Church Leader for Distributing Ayahuasca Fails

In United States v. Codi, (ND AL, Feb. 2, 2026), an Alabama federal district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss a criminal indictment charging her with possession of a controlled substance with an intent to distribute and with conspiracy. Defendant operated a website on behalf of her church, the "Temple of Umi", which sponsored ayahuasca retreats. Defendant claimed that the indictment violated her rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Equal Protection clause. The court said in part:

... [T]he parties stipulated that the court could - for the purposes of the hearing - assume without deciding that Defendant is able to establish a prima facie case under RFRA. As such, the only issues left to be decided at this stage based on the hearing testimony were (1) whether the government had a compelling governmental interest in enforcing the Controlled Substances Act against Defendant and (2) whether the criminal prosecution of Defendant was the least restrictive means of achieving that interest....

... Defendant had been offered a plea agreement which would allow for pre-trial diversion and tolling of the Speedy Trial Act so long as she took the steps to obtain permission to legally handle DMT - either by filing a lawsuit or applying for a DEA exemption.... Defendant had been given that offer as recently as a week before the hearing and rejected the offer each time it was presented. The Government argues this shows that prosecution is the least restrictive means necessary because Defendant was provided with a reasonable, less restrictive alternative, but rejected it....

... The Government has shown there is a compelling interest in preventing the diversion of DMT to secular users because, based on the evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing, there is a realistic probability and historical evidence of such diversion....

The Government presented evidence ... that the Temple of Umi is a business open to the public, with a nominal sign-up process. There was also evidence that emphasizes the non-religious benefits of ayahuasca and ayahuasca ceremonies put on by the Temple. In addition, the Government presented evidence that participants in the ayahuasca consumption ceremonies are not screened for their religious beliefs and thus it is easy for secular participants to obtain DMT at these ceremonies....

Tuesday, February 03, 2026

Journalist Don Lemon Indicted Under FACE Act Because of Church Anti-ICE Protest

As announced by Attorney General Pam Bondi on X last Tuesday:

At my direction, early this morning federal agents arrested Don Lemon, Trahern Jeen Crews, Georgia Fort, and Jamael Lydell Lundy, in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Here is the full text of the January 29 grand jury indictment against journalist Don Lemon and the others. A federal magistrate judge had previously rejected a criminal complaint against Lemon saying that federal officials lacked probable cause to arrest the defendants. In the Grand Jury indictment, defendants are charged with violating the federal conspiracy statute, 18 USC §241 and with violating the FACE Act 18 USC §248(a)(2). The FACE Act provides for penalizing any person who

(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or

The indictment alleges in part:

3. After the service commenced, a group of approximately 20-40 agitators, including all of the defendants named in this Indictment, entered the Church in a coordinated takeover-style attack and engaged in acts of oppression, intimidation, threats, interference, and physical obstruction alleged herein.

4. As a result of defendants’ conduct, the pastor and congregation were forced to terminate the Church's worship service, congregants fled the Church building out of fear for their safety, other congregants took steps to implement an emergency plan, and young children were left to wonder, as one child put it, if their parents were going to die....

As reported by NBC News:

... Lemon ,,, said from inside the church, “We’re not part of the activists, but we’re here just reporting on them.”

Protesters say the church’s pastor, David Easterwood, is the acting director of an ICE field office in the city.,,,

Monday, February 02, 2026

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

Hakan Ibrahim Apaydin, Prophet and King Figures in Sacred Texts: Theological Inconsistencies and the Problem of Textual Construction, (January 02, 2026).
David M. Engel, Village Law in a Changing World: Justice and Alienation in Thailand, (January 15, 2026).
Russell Bell, Unfalsifiable Claims and Unaccountable Power: Why Theocracy Requires Thought Control, (January 21, 2026).
Mathew Akinlabi Onifade, Epistemic Injustice in Africa: A Philosophical Dialogue with the Science of Religion, (November 17, 2025).
Steven Collis, Public Employees as a Reflection of a Religiously Diverse Culture, (99 Notre Dame L. Rev. Reflection 229 (2024)).
Lawrence O. Gostin, The Supreme Court's 2026 Term-Public Health in Jeopardy, (JAMA Health Forum, volume 7, issue 1, 2026).
Samuel Singer & Gillian Smith, From Mistake to Malice: Misgendering in Canadian Legal Proceedings, (January 19, 2026).
Gokula Krishnan B, India’s Transgender Policy in Global Context: A Comparative Study with South Asia., (Social Science & Humanities Open, 2026).
Jeffrey A. Pojanowski, Natural Law and Reading Positive Law: Moments of Moral Judgment in Legal Interpretation, (American Journal of Jurisprudence, Volume 71 (forthcoming 2026)).
Julia Hunter, Transgender Rights Federalism: Protecting Gender-Affirming Care in State Court, (UC Law Journal, Volume 77 (Forthcoming April 2026)).
Jason Brownlee, Efforts to Weaponize Title VI against Pro-Palestine Speech on University Campuses, (December 31, 2024).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

Abu Hayyan Saeed,, Islamic History , Fact or Fiction, (January 02, 2026).
Sharat Fatema Angelic & Majdah Zawawi, Shurb Al-Khamr Under Islamic Criminal Law: Harm, Punishment, and Modern Legal Challenges, (January 04, 2026).
Samiul Hasan, Executives in the Muslim Majority Countries: Practices and Lessons for Harm Prevention, (January 16, 2026).
Ekaterina Ryzhkova, Religion As the Basis and Force of the Financial Policy of Muslim Countries, (November 25, 2025).
Haseeb Fatima Saikhu & Rasham Armab Saikhu, Systematic Analysis of Inheritance Rights of Khuntha (Simple Hermaphrodite) and Khuntha Mushkil (Problematic Hermaphrodite) under Islamic Law and Pakistani Legal System, (Manchester Journal of Transnational Islamic Law & Practice Volume 21, Issue 4: 148-164, 2025).
Sharat Fatema Angelic, Validity of Muslim Marriage Conducted via Video Call: An Islamic Jurisprudential Analysis, (January 16, 2026).
Timur Kuran & Fasih Zulfiqar, Uneven Modernization in the Muslim World, (Annual Review of Economics, volume 18 (2026)).
Arun Muralidhar, A Sharia-Compliant, Heterogeneous-Agent, Asset Pricing Model: With Asset Allocation and Risk-Adjusted Performance, (January 24, 2026).
Shahid Mahmood, Artificial Intelligence and Human Identity: (Islamic Ethical Challenges), (January 06, 2026).
Ming Sen Thong, Blockchain for Islamic Social Financing and Islamic Financial Institutions, (January 04, 2026).

From SmartCILP:

BYU Law Review, Volume 50 (2024-2025), Issue 5.

Saturday, January 31, 2026

Court Refuses to Enjoin Coinage Containing "In God We Trust" Motto

In Clayman v. Bessent, (SD FL, Jan. 8, 2026), a Florida federal district court denied plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the federal government from designing or producing any coins or currency containing the "Divine Name" of God. Plaintiff contends that the national motto on coins and currency violates the Establishment Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. His complaint focuses on a proposed new coin that would carry the likeness of Donald Trump and the motto In God We Trust. The court said in part:

The United States of America will celebrate its 250th anniversary this year on July 4, 2026. The Declaration of Independence refers to "Nature's God." The Pledge of Allegiance refers to "one Nation under God." 4 U.S.C. § 4. The use of the word God on coins began in 1864 on the two-cent coin. "In God We Trust" began to appear on U.S. paper currency in 1957, as required by Public Law 84-140. By statute, all coins must contain the "in God we trust" language. See 31 U.S.C. § 5112. In light of this history, statutory authority, and case law, there is simply no basis for this Court to grant the broad injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff.

Friday, January 30, 2026

Supreme Court Review Sought by High School Pro-Life Group Over Free Speech Rights

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in E.D. v. Noblesville School District, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 1/28/2026). At issue in the case is a high school's refusal to permit a student pro-life group to post flyers in the school because of the political content of the flyers. The dispute eventually led to the suspension of the pro-life group for several months. The 7th Circuit upheld the school's action. The petition for review filed with the Supreme Court sets out the Question Presented in part as follows:

The Seventh Circuit upheld the school’s censorship under Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, ... on the theory that a “reasonable observer could easily conclude that the flyers reflected the school’s endorsement.”... In so doing, it exacerbated a deep, longstanding circuit split over when Hazelwood’s reduced speech protection applies.

The question presented is:

Whether Hazelwood applies (1) whenever student speech might be erroneously attributed to the school, as the Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have held; (2) when student speech occurs in the context of an “organized and structured educational activity,” as the Third Circuit has held; or (3) only when student speech is part of the “curriculum,” as the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits have held.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

Thursday, January 29, 2026

4th Circuit: School Gender Identity Guidelines Do Not Violate Teacher's 1st Amendment Rights

In Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools, (4th Cir., Jan. 28, 2026), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed a Maryland federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a substitute teacher who objected on free speech and free exercise grounds to the school district's Guidelines for Student Gender Identity. The court rejected plaintiff's free exercise claim, concluding that the Guidelines are neutral and generally applicable and that they satisfy the rational basis standard. The majority said in part:

... Polk believes that gender is rigid, based on her understanding of Christianity. And referring to her students by a gender that is not consistent with the student’s gender assigned at birth places a requirement on Polk, that she says is at odds with her faith....

Distilled to its core, the thrust of Polk’s appellate position is that, because persons who hold religious views are those most impacted by the Guidelines, they cannot be deemed “neutral.” But that logic turns the well-established neutrality analysis on its head. As the court explained, the Complaint “alleges no facts from which the Court could infer religious animus.” ... That a certain religious practice is incidentally burdened by the Guidelines is not sufficient. Rather, the Guidelines must be motivated by religious hostility....

The majority also rejected plaintiff's free speech claim, saying in part:

... [W]e agree with the district court that the Guidelines’s mandate does not concern the speech of a private citizen, but establishes the official duties of a public-school teacher. More pointedly, how a teacher addresses a particular student in a particular classroom — and whether a teacher communicates with a student’s parent — is merely a part of that teacher’s job description....

... And “[w]hen an employee engages in speech that is part of the employee’s job duties, the employee’s words are really the words of the employer. The employee is effectively the employer’s spokesperson.” ...

Judge Wilkinson dissented, contending that the Guidelines violated plaintiff's free speech rights. He said in part:

In holding instead that the Free Speech Clause does not provide even qualified protection to Ms. Polk’s speech, the majority leaves teachers completely vulnerable to becoming the unwilling mouthpieces of government messaging. Although transgender rights advocates may now cheer the majority opinion, they will find today’s cure in truth a poison when states enact legally indistinguishable policies preventing teachers from using preferred pronouns in schools. And because nothing prevents school systems from pushing this newfound control much further than mere pronoun usage, I respectfully dissent....

This case is, without question, about compelled speech—a detail to which the majority gives short shrift....

... My qualm with the majority is simply that we cannot categorically write all in-class speech out of the First Amendment. Garcetti has its place, but chiefly with regard to core curricular functions. Speech at the noncurricular margins of a teacher’s job should remain subject to the same standards that we have always applied. This is no jurisprudential revolution....

Ms. Polk’s case is one of many plaguing our nation’s educational system. Across all levels of education—elementary to college—LGBT rights, DEI, antisemitism, systemic racism, and innumerable other issues have made our schools hotbeds of vehement sociopolitical debate. Silencing voices and compelling affirmations to government preferred messaging do nothing to temper the vitriol; on the contrary, such actions foster further hostility....

Wednesday, January 28, 2026

Texas AG Sues Out-of-State Mail Order Provider of Abortion Drugs

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton yesterday filed a civil lawsuit against a Delaware-based nurse practitioner whose telehealth service called "Her Safe Harbor" ships abortion inducing medication to women nation-wide. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Lynch, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 1/27/2026), alleges that defendant is violating the Texas Human Life Protection Act which prohibits most abortions. It also contends that defendant is practicing medicine in Texas without a license. The lawsuit seeks an injunction barring defendant from violating Texas law.

In a press release announcing the lawsuit, Paxton said in part:

This lawsuit follows two tragic cases in Texas in which radical abortion activists and organizations facilitated men illegally purchasing abortion-inducing drugs. According to one lawsuit, a man used the drugs to secretly poison his girlfriend, causing the death of their unborn child, and sending the mother to the hospital....

“No one, regardless of where they live, will be freely allowed to aid in the murder of unborn children in Texas.”

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Organization Releases 2026 Report on Christian Persecution Worldwide

Last week, the Christian advocacy organization Open Doors released its report World Watch List 2026 which assesses the persecution of Christians around the world. The report covers the period from October 1, 2024, to September 30, 2025 (methodology). The Report focuses on the 50 countries where persecution of Christians is highest. North Korea leads the list. Zeale reports on the data.

Tuesday, January 27, 2026

President Trump Issues Message on International Holocaust Remembrance Day

Today is International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the 81st anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. The White House today posted a Presidential Message on International Holocaust Remembrance Day (full text) which reads in part:

Today, we pay respect to the blessed memories of the millions of Jewish people, who were murdered at the hands of the Nazi Regime and its collaborators during the Holocaust— as well as the Slavs and the Roma, people with disabilities, religious leaders, persons targeted based on their sexual orientation, and political prisoners who were also targeted for systematic slaughter. We renew our resolve that freedom, justice, and the dignity of the human person will always conquer the forces of evil, tyranny, and oppression....

... After I took office as the 47th President of the United States, I proudly made it this administration’s priority directing the Federal Government to use all appropriate legal tools to combat the scourge of anti-Semitism. My Administration will remain a steadfast and unequivocal champion for Jewish Americans and the God-given right of every American to practice their faith freely, openly, and without fear....

Florida Church Seeks Stay of Trial Court's Injunction Barring Use of Its Strip Mall Unit for Religious Services

Yesterday, a Florida church filed an emergency motion with a Florida state trial court asking it to stay a temporary injunction that it issued on January 23 while the church files an appeal. The emergency motion and the memorandum in support of it in Flagler Square-JAX, Inc. v. Palmer, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 1/26/2026) (full text) says in part:

The Order constitutes a prior restraint in speech, assembly, and religious exercise, prohibiting Defendant and Coastal Family Church from holding religious services. The Order has already prevented Defendant form hosting in-person religious services on Sunday, January 25, 2026. Each additional Sunday that passes inflicts continuing irreparable harm upon Defendant, the Church, and its congregants.

An October press release from Liberty Counsel provides background:

In July 2025, Pastor Roderick Palmer purchased a unit in the Flagler Square strip mall to serve as the home for Coastal Family Church. However, after the church began holding services, Flagler Square – JAX, Inc, the condominium association that oversees the mall’s four units, sued Pastor Palmer for holding “public assemblies” that allegedly violate a “condominium declaration” which prohibits such assemblies. In the complaint, the association claims the church’s services “would overwhelm available parking at all times” despite Sunday services leaving more than 160 parking spots available....

A January 26 Liberty Counsel press release summarizes the Church's arguments on appeal.

3rd Circuit Hears Arguments in Yeshiva's Zoning Dispute

Last Thursday, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio and transcript of full oral arguments) in Anash, Inc. v. Borough of Kingston, (3d Cir., argued 1/22/2026). In the case, a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to an Orthodox Jewish Yeshiva whose property was condemned. The Borough of Kingston contended that the property was being used for a school and dormitory in violation of zoning ordinances. The district court concluded that plaintiff was not suffering irreparable harm, and that it was not likely that plaintiff would succeed on the merits of its challenge to the relevant zoning ordinance. (See prior posting.) On appeal, the Yeshiva claimed violations of RLUIPA and of the due process clause.

Monday, January 26, 2026

Saturday, January 24, 2026

NIH Ends Funding of Research Using Human Fetal Tissue from Elective Abortions

On Thursday, the National Institute of Health announced (press release) that it will no longer fund research involving human fetal tissue from elective abortions, saying in part:

“This decision is about advancing science by investing in breakthrough technologies more capable of modeling human health and disease. Under President Trump’s leadership, taxpayer-funded research must reflect the best science of today and the values of the American people.”

NIH-supported research using human fetal tissue has declined steadily since 2019, with only 77 projects funded in Fiscal Year 2024. At the same time, advances in organoids, tissue chips, computational biology, and other cutting-edge platforms have created robust alternatives that can drive discovery while reducing ethical concerns. The updated policy ensures that limited public resources are directed toward research approaches that offer the greatest potential to improve health outcomes for all Americans.

Catholic Vote reports on the NIH announcement.

Friday, January 23, 2026

HHS Says Illinois Right to Conscience Act Violates Federal Law

On January 21, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights sent a Notice of Violation (full text) to the state of Illinois. The Notice informs the state that HHS has found that the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act violates federal bans on discrimination against pro-life health care entities that do not refer patients elsewhere for abortions. The Illinois law generally provides a shield from liability to health care personnel that refuse on conscience grounds to perform abortions, but only if the objecting provider either refers or transfers the patient elsewhere or at least furnishes the patient written information about other health care providers who likely offer abortion services. In its Notice of Violation, HHS takes the position that discriminating against entities that do not "refer" out for abortions includes denying legal defenses to entities that do not either transfer patients to another provider or give patents written information about alternative providers. ADF issued a press release discussing HHS's action.

Anti-Abortion Sidewalk Counselor Loses Challenge to City's Sign Ordinance

In Hamann v. City of Carbondale, Illinois, (SD IL, Jan. 21, 2026), an Illinois federal district court refused to preliminarily enjoin the city of Carbondale's sign ordinance. The Ordinance prohibits plaintiff, a Christian minister, from temporarily placing his anti-abortion signs in the ground on public property near an abortion clinic while he is attempting to persuade women not to have an abortion. Under the Ordinance, he can carry or wear the signs but cannot place them into the ground. The court rejected plaintiff's claims that the Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and violates his free speech rights. It concluded that the Ordinance is a permissible time, place and manner regulation of speech in a public forum. The court went on in part:

Hamman’s final argument advances a theory of viewpoint discrimination based on the City’s “policy of inaction” towards signs that share messages other than his.... He submitted photos of three temporary signs he found throughout Carbondale which, he believes, were placed in the public right of way and not removed the way his were. From there, he contends that the City engaged in a “targeted campaign of enforcement” against his signs based on their anti-abortion messages....

Hamman acknowledges that he does not know how long these signs had been in the public right of way when he photographed them. This, then, leaves open the possibility that the City had not had time to remove them—something that, Lenzini explained, can happen from time to time. Surely, if these signs had been placed in the public right of way with the City’s permission, or been left there after the City became aware of them, such evidence would support Hamman’s claim of selective enforcement. But the record reveals no such evidence....

Pope Leo Is Invited to Join Trump's Board of Peace

Speaking to the press on Wednesday, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin confirmed that Pope Leo XIV has been invited by President Donald Trump to join the Board of Peace for Gaza. According to Vatican News:

Turning to the topic of the Board of Peace for Gaza, the Cardinal reflected on how President Trump is inviting a number of countries to participate.

“I believe I read in the newspaper this morning that Italy, too, is considering whether or not to join,” he continued, “We also received the invitation to the Board of Peace for Gaza; the Pope has received it, and we are considering what to do.”

He argued, “It is an issue that requires some time to be properly assessed and to provide a response.”

Speaking about the Board of Peace for Gaza, the Cardinal said that the Holy See would not take part financially, noting, “We are not even in a position to do so.”

However, he pointed out that the Vatican is in a different situation from other countries, and therefore the analysis will be different. But, the Cardinal said, “I believe the request will not be for economic participation.”

Thursday, January 22, 2026

Samoa's Prime Minister Suggests Restricting Religious Liberty for Non-Christians

Australian Broadcasting Corp. reported this week that in the Southern Pacific island nation of Samoa, with a population of 220,000, religious liberty is being threatened. According to ABC's report:

... [T]he country's prime minister has thrown the future of its religious minorities into doubt after flagging potential restrictions on non-Christian faiths last month.

Laaulialemalietoa Polataivao Fosi Schmidt said he wanted to stop Samoa encountering the same religious divisions as "neighbouring countries", and in the Middle East.

"It may not be happening now, but there will come a time when a large number could gather under a non-Christian religion in Samoa. Then we will face what we do not wish to see," he said....

Laaulialemalietoa has asked the nation's peak Christian body, the Samoa Council of Churches, to advise him on the country's religious freedom laws....

"I am prepared to take the necessary actions on what Samoa decides — perhaps through a referendum or national discussion — to consider amending the constitution regarding the freedom of religion," he said.

The prime minister, who has gained a loyal voting base with his devout Christian public persona, is moving quickly to stamp his religious agenda on other parts of Samoan society since his August election victory.

His government has made weekly fasting and prayer mandatory for public servants. ...

And as the prime minister raised the potential restrictions on non-Christian faiths last month, he announced a ban on construction work on Sundays....

Wednesday, January 21, 2026

5th Circuit En Banc Hears Challenges To 2 States' Laws Requiring Posting of 10 Commandments in Classrooms

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, sitting en banc, heard oral arguments in two cases raising the question of the constitutionality of state laws requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. (Audio of full oral arguments.) Roake v. Brumley challenges the Louisiana statute. In that case a 3-judge panel of the 5th Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, after which the 5th Circuit granted en banc review. In Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring 11 Texas school districts from complying with Texas SB 10 that requires posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. On appeal, the 5th Circuit consolidated it for argument with the previously granted en banc hearing on the Louisiana law without a prior 3-judge panel hearing the appeal. NOLA reports on the cases.

Tuesday, January 20, 2026

Certiorari Denied in Chabad's Suit Against the Russian Federation

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Agudas Chasidei Chabad v. Russian Federation, (Sup. Ct., Docket No. 24-909, certiorari denied 1/20/2026) (Order List). The case is part of the long-running attempt by Chasidei Chabad of the United States to force Russia to return two collections of valuable Jewish religious books and manuscripts which it expropriated decades ago. In 2010, Chabad obtained a default judgment against the Russian Federation. (See prior posting.) In 2013, the D.C. federal district court held the Russian Federation in contempt for failing to comply with the order to return the books and imposed $50,000 per day sanctions on the Russian Federation. (See prior posting.) Those sanctions have now accrued to over $175 million. Most recently, Chabad has attempted to collect these amounts by attaching the property of three companies it claims are owned and controlled by the Russian Federation. In a 2024 opinion (full text), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Russian Federation had sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act so that the default judgment entered in 2010 was invalid. Without a valid judgement, according to the D.C. Circuit "there is no predicate for Chabad to attach the property of companies the Federation allegedly owns and controls." It is this decision that the Supreme Court today refused to review.

This may not end the case, however, because the D.C. Circuit said that it was not reversing the district court's finding of jurisdiction over the Russian State Library and the Russian State Military Archive which currently hold the book collections. The D.C. Circuit also said that Chabad may be able to sue the Russian Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications.

Media Report U.S. Is Considering Offering Asylum to British Jews

Media in Britain, the U.S. and Israel are reporting that the U.S. State Department is considering offering asylum to British Jews because of antisemitism present in Britain. The reports are based on an interview by The Telegraph with Donald Trump's personal lawyer, British-born Robert Garson. As reported by The Guardian in part::

Discussions are reportedly under way within Donald Trump’s administration about the US possibly granting asylum to Jewish people from the UK, according to the Telegraph, citing the US president’s personal lawyer.

Trump lawyer Robert Garson told the newspaper that he has held conversations with the US state department about offering refuge to British Jews who are leaving the UK citing rising antisemitism....

Garson, 49, said he felt the UK was “no longer a safe place for Jews”. He added that recent events – namely an Islamist attack on a synagogue in Manchester and what he described as widespread antisemitism following the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 – had led him to believe that British Jews should be given the option of sanctuary in the US....

Garson said he raised the idea of the US acting as a refuge for British Jews with Trump’s special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, Yehuda Kaploun....

Monday, January 19, 2026

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

L. Joe Dunman, Religion in the Law: An Open Access Casebook (2d Ed.), (January 04, 2026).
Richard Yuan, Reverse-Hostage Strategies: Self-Subordination and Elite Politics in Premodern States, (December 01, 2025).
Caleb Bastian, Sociality in Tribes, (December 25, 2025).
Melissa Murray & Katherine Shaw, Skrmetti, Trump, and the Coming Sex Equality Realignment, (Supreme Court Review, forthcoming 2026).
Vaishnavi Shinde, Casteism and Reservation in Modern India: Rethinking Reservation and Equality (2025), (December 13, 2025).
Paul Benjamin Linton, Transporting Abortifacients Across State Lines: Prospects for Indictment and Extradition, (December 01, 2025).
The following are Forthcoming in Eric Heinze, Natalie Alkiviadou, Tom Herrenberg, Sejal Parmar and Ioanna Tourkochoriti (eds), The Oxford Handbook on Hate Speech (Oxford University Press, 2026)): Eric Heinze, The Multifaceted Regulation of Online Hate Speech; Eric Heinze & Ashutosh A. Bhaagwat, Do Hate Speech Bans Undermine Liberal Values?; Eric Heinze, Do Hate Speech Bans Undermine Democratic Values?.

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

Arafat Rahman Akram, Qisas and International Human Rights Law: An Issue of Justice and Human Dignity, (January 04, 2026).
Abdullah Muzammil, An Islamic Jurisprudential Inquiry into the Conditional Permissibility of Modern Sports Betting, (December 14, 2025).
Syed Muhammad Bilal Zaidi, When "Principal" Loses Meaning: Ribā, Fiat Money, and the Ethics of Obligation, (December 30, 2025).
Zulfa Latifah Hanum, Science (Ontology) in Islamic and Western Perspectives, (December 14, 2025).

From SmartCILP:

J. Steven Svoboda, Protection of Male and Female Sexed Children from Genital Cutting: Making Sense of Recent Legal Developments.31 Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice 307-358 (2025).
Mairead Enright, "Up with the Brave": Gender, Transgression and Judges' Use of Catholic Convents in England and Ireland, 1930–1959, 43 Law & History Review 149-174 (2025).
Jennifer M. Kinsley, Speak Now: A New Paradigm for Assessing Wedding Vendors' First Amendment Objections to Same-Sex Weddings, 52 Northern Kentucky Law Review 89-106 (2025).
Ryan Thoreson, Obergefell and the Domestication (Or Not) of LGBTQ Intimacy. 52 Northern Kentucky Law Review 107-174 (2025).
William E. Thro, Pierce and the American Proposition, 50 University of. Dayton Law Review 381-396 (2025).
Isaac Amon, "Forced Worship Stinks in God's Nostrils": The Inquisition, Sepharad, and the American Experiment, 40 Touro Law Review 71 (2025).
Paul Finkelman & Lance J. Sussman, Defeating Antisemitism in the World's First Democratic Republic: The American Revolution and Jewish Legal and Political Equality, 40 Touro Law Review 121 (2025).
Marc A. Greendorfer, Trading Places: The Intersection of LGBTQ Rights and Zionist Rights under Federal Civil Rights, 40 Touro Law Review 173 (2025).
Jonathan Hasson, Odod Mudrikm & Abraham Tennenbaum, Command and Consequence: Reassessing King David's Military Decisions in the Uriah Affair—A Legal and Ethical Analysis in the Context of Modern Legal Theory, 40 Touro Law Review 197 (2025).

Sunday, January 18, 2026

2025 Religious Freedom Index Released

Last Friday, Becket released the 7th edition of its Religious Freedom Index reflecting a poll of 1002 respondents surveyed between Sept. 29 and Oct. 7, 2025 (press release, summary, full report). The 121-page report is titled 2025 Religious Freedom Index: American Perspectives on the First Amendment. According to Becket's press release:

This year’s findings reveal three key trends: increased support for Americans’ freedom to bring their faith into the public square, continued backing for parents’ rights to guide their children’s education, and broad approval of Supreme Court decisions that protect religious freedom.

Friday, January 16, 2026

Today Is National Religious Freedom Day

Today is National Religious Freedom Day, the 240th anniversary of the adoption of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Generally, the Day is marked by a Proclamation from the President and sometimes from state Governors. So far this morning, the Proclamation by the Governor of Virginia has been posted online. Links to past Presidential Proclamations for the Day are at this link.

UPDATE: President Trump on January 16 issued the Religious Freedom Day 2026 Proclamation (full text). The Proclamation reads in part:

For 250 years, our Nation and our people have abided by a simple truth: Every person is born with the God-given right to practice their faith, follow their conscience, and worship their God freely and without fear. This Religious Freedom Day, we honor America’s distinct place in the halls of history as the only Republic ever founded upon this sacred principle — and we renew our commitment to upholding our proud legacy as one glorious Nation under God....

7th Circuit: Muslim Inmate Loses RLUIPA Challenge to Ramadan Meal Policy

In Smith v. Pugh, (7th Cir., Jan, 15, 2026), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Muslim inmate's rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act were not violated when prison authorities refused to provide him hot meal bags or a way to warm his meal bags during Ramadan. The court said in part:

According to Smith, the temperature of the meal bags provided to accommodate his Ramadan fasts aggravated his symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. He argued that the prison’s refusal to provide hot meal bags burdened his right to freely exercise his religion by pressuring him to break his fast....

... Smith attests that his IBS symptoms coincided with Ramadan fasting. And he contends that after the prison allowed him to warm his meal bags starting in 2019, his symptoms disappeared, suggesting that the meal bags’ temperature caused his symptoms.

As an initial matter, Smith’s medical records undermine his argument: even after he was permitted to warm his meal bags, Smith continued to report IBS symptoms during and after his fasts. Moreover, Smith, who lacks specialized medical or scientific knowledge, cannot rely solely on his own assertions. While his testimony may suggest a correlation between meal temperature and the onset of his symptoms, lay testimony alone cannot establish causation of a medical condition...

Thursday, January 15, 2026

Parents Seek Emergency Order from SCOTUS Reinstating Trial Court's Voiding of School Policy on Disclosure of Students' Gender Transition

As previously reported, last December in Mirabelli v. Bonta, 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. On January 5, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal of the district court's injunction. Now plaintiffs in the case have filed an Emergency Application with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to vacate the 9th Circuit's stay. (Mirabelli v. Bonta, (Sup.Ct., filed 1/8/2026). (Full text of 9th Circuit's stay order and Application to Supreme Court).

Education Week reports on these developments.

DHS Eases Requirements for Renewal of Foreign Religious Workers' Visas

The Department of Homeland Security yesterday issued a Release titled Improving Continuity for Religious Organizations and their Employees (full text). The Release announces the adoption of an Interim Final Rule in order to ease the shortage of foreign religious workers in the United States. The Rule, which will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register on January 16, eliminates the requirement that a holder of a 5-year R-1 Religious Worker visa remain outside the country for a full one year after the visa expires before applying for a new R-1 visa. Under the new rule, there is no minimum period of time that the religious worker must remain outside of the United States after his or her visa expires before seeking readmission as an R-1 non-immigrant.

According to a Release by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

This modification gives relief to religious workers and the communities they serve while the religious workers await legal permanent residency (commonly referred to as a “green card”). The wait time for a green card for religious workers has grown to several decades long.

The USCCB Release also urged Congress to pass the Religious Workforce Protection Act.

EWTN News reports on the new rule.

Wednesday, January 14, 2026

Trump Appoints State Department Global Religious Freedom Advisor

As previously reported, last April, President Trump nominated Mark Walker, a former Baptist minister and former congressman, to be Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. However, the Senate failed to hold a hearing on his nomination. Apparently, his confirmation was blocked by North Carolina Senator Tedd Budd who defeated Walker in the 2022 Republican primary for U.S. Senate. So now, according to a January 8 statement (full text) by Walker, he has withdrawn his name from consideration for the ambassadorship and instead has accepted an appointment by President Trump as Principal Advisor on Global Religious Freedom to the State Department. This appointment does not require Senate confirmation. In his statement, Walker said in part:

I look forward to working closely with Secretary Rubio, President Trump and the entire Administration to advance America's leadership in confronting religious persecution, exposing human rights violations, and advocating for people of faith around the globe.

Religious freedom remains under assault in far too many corners of the world, and I am committed to supporting the Trump Administration's bold efforts to defend this fundamental right. I thank President Trump, Secretary Rubio and the entire team for their trust and confidence.

JNS reports on these developments.

Tuesday, January 13, 2026

European Court Protects Journalist Who Wrote Article on Schools That Promote Islamist Teachings

In Tafzi El Hadri and El Idrissi Mouch v. Spain, (ECHR, Jan 8, 2026), the European Court of Human Rights rejected claims by two educators employed by the C.V. residential center for minors in Barcelona that Spanish courts had failed to protect their right to their reputation protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights when the courts ruled in favor of a journalist who published an article that criticized them. The article in question said in part:

"Many educators, who have been employed solely because they are able to speak a Moroccan dialect, preach non-integration to teenagers.

Some centres for minors that take in many Muslim boys have become hotbeds for training Islamists.... However, [these authorities] are powerless to tackle a problem that feeds into a failure of social integration....

The situation at the [C.V.] centre for minors in Barcelona is also of great concern, as recognised by the centre's management..... Of the 26 Maghrebi minors currently housed in this centre, 24 are from Tangier and many of them have known each other since their childhood because they lived in the same neighbourhood. They communicate with their educators in the Dariya dialect. One of [the educators is] Omar El Idrisi who, according to sources at the centre ..., indoctrinates the pupils in Islamist fundamentalism.... He takes his pupils to pray at the Tariq Ibu Ziyad Mosque, [which is] named after the Berber general who led the Muslim invasion of the Iberian Peninsula. Another educator at the centre is Khaliltafzi [sic.] El Hadri, a member of Justice and Charity ..., one of the most radical strands of Islam.... When [the minors turn] 18, they are recruited to work in establishments run by Islamists, where they continue their [radicalisation].

The Court said in part:

97. ... Although some of the statements in the ABC article could be seen as controversial and the journalist's choice of terms ... was strong, the Court observes that the publication concerned a specific and clearly defined issue: the methods allegedly used in some centres for minors in order to accommodate unaccompanied minor immigrants, particularly staff selection policies and, in the absence of sufficient administrative oversight, the employment of staff who allegedly preached radical Islamism. The article highlighted the vulnerability of the foreign minors concerned, which made them especially susceptible to manipulation and indoctrination. It further exposed the potential risks to the integration of those minors that might lead to their subsequently being recruited into radical Islamism. The Court therefore agrees with the domestic courts that the journalist and the newspaper could clearly rely on their right to freedom of expression....

109. In sum, the Court sees no reason to depart from the domestic courts' findings that the journalist displayed the required diligence in checking the information concerning the applicants before publishing it.... The Court reiterates that if the national courts apply an overly rigorous approach to the assessment of journalists' professional conduct, journalists could be unduly deterred from discharging their function of keeping the public informed....

114. In the light of the above, the Court finds that the domestic courts acted within their margin of appreciation when seeking to establish a balance between the applicants' rights under Article 8 and the newspaper's opposing right to freedom of expression under Article 10. The Court considers that the national courts conducted the required balancing exercise between the competing rights at stake.... By dismissing the applicants' claim, the domestic courts did not fail to comply with the positive obligation incumbent on the domestic authorities to protect the applicants' rights under Article 8 of the Convention.

Law & Religion UK reports on the decision.

Australian Prime Minister Creates Commission on Antisemitism

Last week (Jan. 8), Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that in response to the December terrorist attack in Bondi, he is establishing a Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. He said in part:

The Royal Commission will cover four key areas, as set out in the Letters Patent.

Tackling antisemitism by investigating the nature and prevalence of antisemitism in institutions and society, and its key drivers in Australia, including ideologically and religiously motivated extremism and radicalisation.

Making recommendations that will assist law enforcement, border control, immigration and security agencies to tackle antisemitism...

Examining the circumstances surrounding the antisemitic Bondi terrorist attack....

Making any other recommendations ... for strengthening social cohesion in Australia and countering the spread of ideologically and religiously motivated extremism in Australia....

When Parliament returns the Government will also introduce new laws to criminalise hate speech and hate preachers, as well as deliver tougher gun laws....

The president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement.

Monday, January 12, 2026

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments Tomorrow In Transgender Athlete Cases

Tomorrow (Tuesday), the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases involving alleged illegal discrimination against transgender women athletes. At issue in Little v. Hecox is whether Idaho's Fairness in Women's Sports Act violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Act prohibits transgender women and girls from participating on women's sports teams in public elementary schools, high schools and public colleges. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction that barred enforcement of Idaho's ban. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the pleadings and briefs, as well as to commentary on the case.

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the question is whether West Virginia's Save Women's Sports Act violates Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that it does. The law bans transgender girls and women from participating on girls'/ women's sports teams in public high schools or state colleges where team members are chosen on the basis of competitive skills or in contact sports. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the pleadings and briefs, as well as to commentary on the case.

Audio of the oral arguments in the cases will be streamed live by the Court beginning at 10:00 AM at this link. Transcript and recording of the oral arguments will become available later in the day at this link.

1st Circuit Upholds Denial of Religious Exemptions from Covid Vaccine

In Brox v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority, (1st Cir., Jan. 9, 2026), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals rejected First Amendment free exercise claims by 12 employees of a Massachusetts state government board. Th employees sought religious exemptions from the Authority's vaccination policy. The court agreed with the trial court that the vaccination policy was neutral and generally applicable, so that it is subject only to rational basis review. Appellants had argued that the policy was not generally applicable because it prohibits religious conduct while permitting comparable secular conduct. The court said in part:

The question is not whether the risks associated with one individual who for religious reasons is unvaccinated are comparable to those associated with an individual who remains unvaccinated due to health concerns.... Rather, the Supreme Court instructs that we consider and compare the risks presented by groups of different sizes in different settings..

... [T]he district court did not err in finding that the two exemptions were not comparable for Free Exercise purposes.

First, unlike the religious exemption, the medical exemption furthers the Authority's asserted interest in protecting the health and safety of its employees and customers. ...

Second, not only does the medical exemption further the Authority's asserted interests while the religious exemption does not, but also the risks associated with each exemption are not comparable to one another. We have previously observed that "medical exemptions are likely to be rarer, more time limited, or more geographically diffuse than religious exemptions, such that the two exemptions would not have comparable public health effects."...

Having not persuaded us that the Policy fails rational basis review, the appellants have not established that they are likely to succeed on the merits, and we need not address the remaining preliminary injunction factors....