Teacher Sues After Suspension for Hanging Crucifix in Her Classroom Workspace

Suit was filed last week in a Connecticut federal district court by a public-school teacher who was placed on administrative leave after she refused to remove a crucifix that she had hung among other personal items in personal workspace near her classroom desk. The complaint (full text) in Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper, (D CT, filed 1/30/2025) alleges in part:

Federal and state law prohibit government officials from using the Establishment Clause as an excuse to abridge the free speech and religious free exercise rights of their employees.... Other teachers, meanwhile, display in their classroom workspaces Wonder Woman action figures, images of Baby Yoda and Santa Claus, and other personal expressive items.  Yet only Ms. Castro has been suspended and threatened with termination.  The disparity of treatment here against religious expression makes this an easy case...: if Defendants permit teachers to display personal expressive items like family photos and inspirational quotes in their classrooms, they may not punish Ms. Castro for doing the same by hanging a crucifix in the personal workspace aside her desk.

National Review reports on the lawsuit.

Requirement for Church to Obtain Permit Before Hosting Homeless Encampment Is Upheld

In Miller v. City of Burien, (WD WA, Feb. 3, 2025), a Washington federal district court dismissed a suit brought by a Methodist church challenging the city's requirement that the church apply for and obtain a temporary use permit before it could host a homeless encampment on its property. The court rejected plaintiffs' claims that requiring a permit violated its rights under RLUIPA as well as its free speech and free exercise rights under the 1st Amendment. The court said in part:

The parties concede that caring for unhoused individuals is an “exercise of religion” for purposes of RLUIPA. However, the parties dispute whether requiring the Church to apply for a temporary use permit before it is allowed to host a homeless encampment constitutes “imposing a ‘substantial burden’ on religious exercise” under the statute. It is important to note that this is not a denial of application case; rather, the question here is whether the City can require the Church to submit a permit application.... 

Here, the Church did not apply for a permit, the City did not deny the permit application, and the City did not deny the Church’s the right to host a homeless encampment—indeed, the City supported the Church’s endeavor. However, the City did require that the Church fill out a simple two-page application so that the City could ensure that the health and safety of the neighborhood residents, as well as the encampment occupants, was accounted for. Such minimum inconvenience does not constitute a substantial burden on the Church for purposes of RLUIPA. ...

 ... [T]he Church has failed to plausibly allege that the challenged regulation impacts speech. As such, its prior restraint facial challenge fails as a matter of law and must be dismissed....

... [Z]oning laws that permit some individualized assessment for variances remain “generally applicable” so long as the laws are motivated by secular purposes and impact equally all landowners seeking the variances. That, of course, is the case here. No landowner—secular or religious—is permitted to host a homeless encampment within a multi-family zone without a permit.... Nor has the Church alleged that Burien’s regulatory scheme is religiously motivated.... Therefore, because the Church has failed to plausibly allege that the challenged regulatory scheme was not neutral and not generally applicable, it has failed to state a free exercise claim under the First Amendment.

Michigan's Ban on Conversion Therapy for Minors Is Upheld

In Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties v. Whitmer, (WD MI, Jan. 28, 2025), a Michigan federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement against counselors employed by Catholic Charities of Michigan's ban on conversion therapy for minors. The court concluded that plaintiffs were not likely to prove that the ban violates their free speech or free exercise rights, or that is void for vagueness.  The court said in part:

Here, Plaintiffs allege that they believe that “when a client comes to them and seeks to change her gender identity or gender expression to align with her biological sex, or seeks to change her behavior to refrain from acting on same-sex attraction, it is their ethical and religious duty to help that client live the life she desires to live” ...

The law is not subject to any form of heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment because the conduct regulated by the law is not merely “tied to a [medical] procedure,” ..., but consists solely of the administration of the procedure or treatment itself.... 

... In passing the new law, Michigan legislators found that treating children with conversion therapy fell below prevailing standards of care, and Michigan legislators targeted the specific and devastating harms to children that result from conversion therapy, including dramatically increased risks of depression and suicide....

Plaintiffs are not likely to establish the Free Speech violations alleged in Counts I through III....

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Plaintiffs have plausibly demonstrated that Michigan’s law burdens the free exercise of religion, a law that burdens religious exercise is presumptively unconstitutional unless it is both neutral and generally applicable....

Michigan’s new law readily passes this test of facial neutrality.... There is no reference to religion nor any use of words with religious connotations. Michigan’s law prohibits all conversion therapy on minors, regardless of whether the minor’s (or the minor’s parent’s) motivation for seeking such therapy is religious or secular, or some variation....

Here, Plaintiffs contend that Michigan’s law was enacted with “official expressions of hostility to this well-known religious practice” ....  However, ... the comments Plaintiffs highlight do not necessarily demonstrate hostility to religion, only criticisms of conversion therapy.

News from the States reports on the decision.

Military Ends Travel Reimbursements to Service Members and Dependents for Out-of-State Abortions

In a January 29 Memorandum (full text), the Department of Defense removed the section of the military's Joint Travel Regulations that permit travel and transportation allowances for service members and their dependents to obtain abortions and other reproductive health care when it is not lawfully available in the local area where they are stationed. The travel allowance policy was announced in 2023. (See prior posting.) The policy was removed in accordance with President Trump's Executive Order, Enforcing the Hyde Amendment. (See prior posting.) The Hill reports on these developments.

Justice Department Announces Multi-Agency Task Force to Combat Antisemitism

In a press release yesterday, the Department of Justice announced the formation of a multi-agency Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. According to the Release:

The Task Force’s first priority will be to root out anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on college campuses.

In addition to the Department of Justice, the Task Force will include representatives from the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and other agencies as it develops. The Task Force will be coordinated through the Department’s Civil Rights Division.

9th Circuit En Banc Affirms Dismissal of James Huntsman's Fraud Claims Against LDS Church

In Huntsman v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (9th Cir., Jan. 31, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a fraud claim brought by James Huntsman, a prominent former member of and large contributor to the LDS Church.  Huntsman charged the Church with fraudulently misrepresenting the manner in which funds from tithes would be used, saying that that the Church falsely represented that the funds would not be used for commercial projects. The en banc court said in part:

No reasonable juror could conclude that the Church misrepresented the source of funds for the City Creek project.  Although the Church stated that no tithing funds would be used to fund City Creek, it also clarified that earnings on invested reserve funds would be used....

Huntsman’s claim with respect to the $600 million allegedly transferred to Beneficial Life also fails.  Huntsman does not identify any specific statements made by the Church about the source of funds for Beneficial Life....

Because nothing in our analysis of Huntsman’s fraud claims delves into matters of Church doctrine or policy, our decision in this case does not run afoul of the church autonomy doctrine.

Judge Bress, joined by Judges Smith and Nguyen and in part by Judge Vandyke, concurred in the judgment saying in part:

... [W]e should not indulge in the illusion that this is merely a secular lawsuit about civil fraud.  Under the First Amendment, the plaintiff’s challenge to the Church’s understanding of tithing is not susceptible to resolution in a court of law, lest the judiciary wrest control from religious authorities over matters of theological concern.  

It would have been straightforward and preferable for the court to recognize that plaintiff’s unprecedented theory encounters overwhelming First Amendment impediments.  While every judge on this panel agrees that the plaintiff’s claims fail, I write separately to explain why a suit like this could never succeed under the First Amendment’s church autonomy doctrine. 

Judge Bumatay filed an opinion concurring in the judgement, saying in part:

In deciding religious matters, the Constitution strictly limits our authority.  Simply put, the church autonomy doctrine bars federal courts from resolving matters of faith, doctrine, and church governance.  So we can’t just sidestep the doctrine and jump straight to the merits.  Nor can the doctrine be assumed away, considered an afterthought, or serve as a convenient alternative ruling.  Rather, it’s a threshold structural bar that must be reckoned with.  Otherwise, we violate the restraints the Constitution places on our power.

North Carolina Supreme Court Upholds Window for Bringing Time-Barred Child Sex Abuse Claims That Were Not Previously Adjudicated

The North Carolina Supreme Court last week decided four cases raising the constitutionality and reach of the SAFE Child Act. In McKinney v. Goins, (NC Sup. Ct., Jan. 31, 2025), the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld against attacks under the state constitution a provision that created a two-year window during which victims of child sexual abuse could bring tort claims that were previously barred by existing statutes of limitation. The Court held that neither the "Law of the Land" Clause not the Ex Post Facto Clause of the North Carolina Constitution bar the challenged provision. The Court also rejected a substantive due process claim. Justice Earls filed an opinion concurring in the result but strongly disagreeing with the majority's method of constitutional interpretation which he labels "extreme originalism".

In Cohane v. Home Missioners of America, (NC Sup. Ct., Jan 31, 2025), the Court held that the SAFE Child Act revived suits against those who enabled the abuse, as well as against the abusers. The Court said in part:

The issue here is whether the General Assembly meant to distinguish between abusers who personally harmed the plaintiff and those organizations, institutions, and parties that employed or supervised the abuser or otherwise condoned, ratified, or facilitated the abuse (enablers). Defendants would have us hold not only that the revival provision distinguished between the two types of potential defendants but also that it authorized suits against abusers and not against enablers, in contravention of background tort law principles. We conclude that such a distinction does not follow from the plain text of the provision, nor does it find support in the SAFE Child Act or related statutory provisions read as a whole.

However, in two cases consolidated for decision, John Doe 1K v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte and John Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, (NC Sup. Ct., Jan. 31, 2025), the Court said in part:

Plaintiffs in this case are alleged victims of child sexual abuse in the 1970s and 1980s. The SAFE Child Act would have revived plaintiffs’ time-barred claims except for one glaring problem— plaintiffs already brought those claims over a decade ago and courts already entered final judgments dismissing those claims with prejudice because they were time barred. 

... [T]he General Assembly does not have the power to set aside a final judgment of the judicial branch.

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

Louisiana Grand Jury Indicts NY Doctor For Sending Abortion Medication to Purchaser in Lousiana

Louisiana Illuminator reports that last Friday a Baton Rouge, Louisiana grand jury indicted a New York doctor and her New York clinic for sending abortion pills into Louisiana in violation of a Louisiana statute enacted in 2022. This is the first criminal indictment of this kind since the overruling of Roe v. Wade. The abortion medication was ordered by a pregnant minor's mother who allegedly coerced her daughter into taking the pills. The mother has also been indicted in Louisiana. New York has a shield law designed to protect New York physicians from prosecution by other states for violation of their abortion laws.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Maria Javed & Varun Sharma, Courts Shaping Religion: Moving Beyond the Essential Religious Practices Test, (August 01, 2024).
• Ekaterina Ryzhkova, The Institute of Public Finance in the Legal Tradition of the Arab East, (November 06, 2024).
• Robert Watson, Applying Bostock: The Queer Case Against Public Single-Sex Schooling, (Journal of Law & Education, Vol. 51, No. 2, Fall 2022).
• Robert Watson, A New Sex Education: The Title IX Defense Against “Don’t Say Gay”, (Indiana Law Review, Vol. 57:403 (2023)).
• Robert Watson & Neha Srinivasan, Under (Conduct-Based) Attack: Rejecting the Trans Care Bans, (August 01, 2024).
• Scott Skinner-Thompson, Transgender Disenfranchisement, (102 Washington University Law Review (forthcoming 2025).

From SmartCILP:

• Mihir Khetarpal, Permissive Exemptions and Entrenchment. 85 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 27-80 (2023).

ED "Dear Colleague" Letter Says Agency Will Not Enforce 2024 Rule Protecting Transgender Rights

Yesterday, the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights issued a "Dear Colleague" letter (full text) to educators informing them that the Office of Civil Rights will enforce a 2020 version of Rules under Title IX governing responses to allegation of sexual harassment. Consistent with an Executive Order issued by President Trump mandating the removal of all rules and policies protecting transgender individuals, the letter rejects the version of Title IX rules adopted in 2024 by the Biden administration. Last month, a Kentucky federal district court invalidated the 2024 Title IX rules saying that they exceed the agency's authority, are vague and overbroad, and violate teachers' freedom of expression. (See prior posting.)

Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Township Over Sewage Restrictions on Amish Residents

 In a press release yesterday the Justice Department announced that it has reached a settlement agreement (full text of proposed Consent Order) with Sugar Grove, Pennsylvania Township and its Sewage Authority in a RLUIPA lawsuit. The suit claims that defendants have burdened the religious exercise of Old Order Amish residents by requiring that they connect to the municipal sewage system and by barring privies on private property intended for permanent residences. According to the press release:

As part of the consent order, the Township and SUGASA will exempt certain Old Order Amish households from mandatory connection to the municipal sewage system, permit Old Order Amish residents to use privies on their private properties, and forgive any outstanding liens, fines, or other monetary penalties against Old Order Amish households for prior noncompliance with the two ordinances. The consent order also requires the Township and SUGASA to train its officials and employees on RLUIPA’s provisions, establish a procedure for receiving and resolving RLUIPA complaints, and provide reports to the United States.

The consent order must still be approved by the court.

Court Refuses to Enjoin Colorado's Reporting Requirements for Health Care Sharing Ministries

In Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries v. Conway, (D CO, Jan. 13, 2025), a Colorado federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Colorado's reporting requirement for health care sharing plans, most of which are religiously affiliated. The court said in part:

The Alliance has not made a showing—strong or otherwise—that it is likely to succeed on the merits of any of its claims.  First, the Alliance has not demonstrated that the Reporting Law is not neutral or generally applicable, or that it is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.  Accordingly, the Alliance has not shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its free exercise claim.  Second, generally applicable administrative and recordkeeping regulations like the Reporting Law do not violate the Establishment Clause.  The Alliance is therefore unlikely to succeed on the merits of its Establishment Clause claim.  Third, the Alliance has not shown that the Reporting Law’s requirement that the Alliance’s members disclose certain third-party vendors poses any risk of chilling the Alliance’s members’ First Amendment associational rights.  Thus, the Alliance’s challenge to the Reporting Law on freedom-of-association grounds is unlikely to succeed.  Fourth and finally, the Alliance has not shown that the Reporting Law—in compelling the Alliance’s members divulge their marketing materials and to report factually accurate operations data—violates the Alliance’s members’ free speech rights.  The Alliance therefore has not shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its free speech claim.

In a motion filed Jan. 28 (full text), plaintiff seeks an injunction pending appeal.

Executive Order Encourages School Choice

Yesterday, President Trump issued an Executive Order (full text) titled Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families. The Executive Order focuses on methods for expanding the availability of school choice. It says in part:

When our public education system fails such a large segment of society, it hinders our national competitiveness and devastates families and communities.  For this reason, more than a dozen States have enacted universal K-12 scholarship programs, allowing families — rather than the government — to choose the best educational setting for their children.  These States have highlighted the most promising avenue for education reform:  educational choice for families and competition for residentially assigned, government-run public schools....

... It is the policy of my Administration to support parents in choosing and directing the upbringing and education of their children....

...  [T]he Secretary of Education shall issue guidance regarding how States can use Federal formula funds to support K-12 educational choice initiatives....

... [T]he Secretary of Defense shall review any available mechanisms under which military-connected families may use funds from the Department of Defense to attend schools of their choice, including private, faith-based, or public charter schools, and submit a plan to the President describing such mechanisms....

[T]he Secretary of the Interior shall review any available mechanisms under which families of students eligible to attend BIE [Bureau of Indian Education] schools may use their Federal funding for educational options of their choice, including private, faith-based, or public charter schools, and submit a plan to the President describing such mechanisms....

Maine Supreme Court Invalidates Retroactive Removal of Limitation Period for Child Sex Abuse Claims

In Dupuis v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, (ME Sup. Ct., Jan. 28, 2025), Maine's Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4-2 decision, held that Maine's Constitution bars legislative revival of a cause of action after it has been extinguished by a pre-existing statute of limitations. In the case, the Maine legislature removed any limitation period for sexual acts toward minors.  Numerous plaintiffs sued the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland for damages for sexual abuse by the Bishop's clergy that took place while plaintiffs were children. The claims were barred by the previous statute of limitations before the removal of limitation periods was enacted. The majority said in part:

... [A]s early as our founding and many times thereafter, we have interpreted our constitutional text to reject retrospective legislation impairing vested rights....

There can be no doubt that we as a society have gained a new understanding of the effect of trauma and the delays that it can cause in the ability of a victim to pursue a cause of action.  Such evolved knowledge provides support for the elimination of any statute of limitations for torts involving sexual assaults.  But the issue here is not the propriety of the elimination of a statute of limitations but rather the revival of a claim after the relevant existing statute of limitations has expired....

Justice Douglas, joined by Justice Lawrence, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The question here is not whether a duly enacted statute of limitations is constitutional.  Rather, the question is whether the Constitution bars the Legislature from reviving a claim after rebalancing competing policies in light of an evolved understanding of the dynamics of childhood sexual abuse that may have prevented victims from asserting their claims earlier.

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

President Issues New Executive Order on Combatting Antisemitism

President Trump yesterday issued a new Executive Order (full text) titled Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism. The Order reaffirms Executive Order 13899 issued by Trump during his prior term as President. That Order called for the use of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to combat antisemitism, and provided that federal agencies should use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism in their enforcement activities. The new Executive Order issued yesterday provides in part:

Sec. 2.  Policy.  It shall be the policy of the United States to combat anti-Semitism vigorously, using all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence.

Sec. 3.  Additional Measures to Combat Campus Anti-Semitism.  (a)  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the head of each executive department or agency (agency) shall submit a report to the President ... identifying all civil and criminal authorities or actions within the jurisdiction of that agency, beyond those already implemented under Executive Order 13899, that might be used to curb or combat anti-Semitism, and containing an inventory and analysis of all pending administrative complaints ... against or involving institutions of higher education alleging civil-rights violations related to or arising from post-October 7, 2023, campus anti-Semitism....

(c)  The Attorney General is encouraged to employ appropriate civil-rights enforcement authorities, such as 18 U.S.C. 241, to combat anti-Semitism.

The White House yesterday, ahead of releasing the text of the Executive Order, distributed a Fact Sheet (full text) titled: "President Donald J. Trump Takes Forceful and Unprecedented Steps to Combat Anti-Semitism." The Fact Sheet says in part that:

Immediate action will be taken by the Department of Justice to protect law and order, quell pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation, and investigate and punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities.

The Order demands the removal of resident aliens who violate our laws.

Trump Removes 2 EEOC Commissioners; New Acting Chair Says Agency Is Rolling Back Biden's "Gender Identity Agenda"

Federal News Network on Tuesday reported that President Donald Trump has removed two Democratic members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. One of those removed was Charlotte Burrows, formerly the Chair of the Commission until President Trump designated a new Acting Chair last week. The other Commissioner removed was Jocelyn Samuels who served as Vice Chair of the Commission until removed by President Trump from that position last week. These removals appear to leave the Commission without a quorum necessary to act.

Meanwhile, in a press release issued Tuesday, the EEOC's new Acting Chair Andrea Lucas said that the agency is "rolling back the Biden administration’s gender identity agenda," and announced the removal of various references to transgender and non-binary gender markers in forms and publications. She pointed out however that she is unable unilaterally to remove provisions in strategic plans and enforcement guidance documents that relate to protection of transgender individuals because those documents were adopted by votes of the full Commission. The press release added, in part:

... Acting Chair Lucas has been vocal in her opposition to portions of EEOC’s harassment guidance that took the enforcement position that harassing conduct under Title VII includes “denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with [an] individual’s gender identity;” and that harassing conduct includes “repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with [an] individual’s known gender identity.”

Although Acting Chair Lucas currently cannot rescind portions of the agency’s harassment guidance that are inconsistent with Executive Order 14166, Acting Chair Lucas remains opposed to those portions of the guidance.

“Biology is not bigotry. Biological sex is real, and it matters,” Lucas said. “Sex is binary (male and female) and immutable. It is not harassment to acknowledge these truths—or to use language like pronouns that flow from these realities, even repeatedly.”

Lifeguard Who Has Religious Objections to Pride Month Has Claim for Undermining of His Religious Accommodation

In Little v. Los Angeles County Fire Department, (CD CA, Jan. 25, 2025), a California federal district court allowed a Fire Department captain assigned to the Lifeguard Division to move ahead on certain of his Free Exercise, Title VII and state anti-discrimination law claims after the Department revoked his previous religious exemption from the County's directive to fly the Progress Pride Flag during LGBTQ+ Pride Month. The suspension of his accommodation was triggered by his removing Pride flags that had been put up in an area to which he was assigned. The court said in part:

Little is an "Evangelical Christian with traditional and orthodox beliefs on marriage, family, and sexual behavior and identity."...

[T]he Fire Department granted Little's accommodation request and agreed that, for the remainder of June, Little would be assigned to facilities that were incapable of flying the Progress Pride Flag due to insufficient flag clasps.... 

Little alleges that his request for a religious accommodation was protected activity, and that Defendants retaliated against Little for seeking that accommodation by suspending him from his role on the Background Investigation Unit....

... [T]he pleading here gives rise to a sufficient "suspicion" of religious animosity to warrant "pause" before dismissing Little's neutrality claim as implausible.... The FAC alleges that Chiefs Boiteux and Lester knew that Little had been granted a religious accommodation and conspired to undermine that accommodation by bringing additional flag poles to the Area 17 sites so that they would be required to fly Progress Pride Flags in time for ,,,Little's scheduled shift there....

However, the court rejected other claims by plaintiff, including his free speech claim, saying in part: 

Because Little has not shown that the speech at issue is anything other than government speech, he has failed to state a viable compelled-speech claim under the First Amendment....

DC Circuit Revives Contempt Proceedings in RFRA Suit Against Fire Department

In Calvert v. Potter, (DC Cir., Jan. 28, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded to the district court a suit by a group of D.C. firefighters who claim that the D.C. Fire Department violated an injunction issued in 2007 vindicating their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The injunction required the Department to allow firefighters who wore beards for religious reasons to work in field operations. However, 13 years later the situation became more complex, as the D.C. Circuit explained:

As COVID-19 spread in March 2020, the Department implemented a new facial hair policy and mandated the use of masks during patient contact. The Department transferred the four bearded firefighters it still employed to administrative roles “due to concerns about their ability to properly wear N95 respirators with facial hair.”...

The district court denied the motion for civil contempt.... The court declined to hold the Department in contempt because it “acted in a reasonably cautious way, under unprecedented and extraordinary circumstances, to keep plaintiffs and the public it served as safe as it could.”...

The Court of Appeals rejected the district court's conclusion: 

Good-faith compliance may be relevant to mitigation at the remedies stage, but the court lacks discretion to excuse civil contempt based on the contemnor’s good faith. ... 

The firefighters had a private right to enforcement of the original injunction, which protected their religious freedom and permanently forbade the Department from enforcing the 2005 facial hair policy against them. The district court had no general discretion to excuse civil contempt.... 

Instead, the court was required to determine whether the Department violated the firefighters’ rights under the 2007 injunction.... Even if the Department’s behavior was reasonable in light of the pandemic, good faith and lack of willfulness is not a defense to civil contempt....

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

Executive Orders Call for Military Reinstatement of Vaccine Objectors, Military Exclusion of Transgender Individuals

Yesterday, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled Reinstating Service Members Discharged Under the Military's Covid-19 Vaccination Mandate (full text). The Order reads in part:

The vaccine mandate was an unfair, overbroad, and completely unnecessary burden on our service members.  Further, the military unjustly discharged those who refused the vaccine, regardless of the years of service given to our Nation, after failing to grant many of them an exemption that they should have received.  Federal Government redress of any wrongful dismissals is overdue.

The Executive Order calls for reinstatement with back pay for those who left the service rather than be vaccinated.  Many service members who refused vaccination did so on religious grounds.

Yesterday, the President also issued an Executive Order titled Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness (full text) which ordered the military to revise its Medical Standards for Military Service to exclude transgender individuals from service in the military. The Executive Order reads in part:

Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false “gender identity” divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.  Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.  A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member....

It is the policy of the United States Government to establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.  This policy is inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria.  This policy is also inconsistent with shifting pronoun usage or use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex.

Quaker Organizations Sue Over New Immigration Enforcement Policy

Yesterday three organizations of Quaker congregations along with two individual congregations filed suit in a Maryland federal district court challenging the Department of Homeland Security's recent change in policy that allows immigration agents to conduct enforcement operations in houses of worship and at religious life-cycle ceremonies.  The complaint (full text) in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (D MD, filed 1/27/2025), alleges that the policy change violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the 1st Amendment's protection of expressive association and the Administrative Procedure Act.  The complaint alleges in part:

89. A diversity of worshippers is an essential component of the Quaker value of “experience[ing] God in a broader, more encompassing way,” as “one’s life experience affects how one hears the spirit and what conclusions one might draw.”... Deterring immigrants from worshipping in-person with a Quaker meeting would therefore directly interfere with Plaintiffs’ religious exercise by lessening their “ability to hear God and what God is trying to tell [them].” ...

90. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ Quaker beliefs make it essential that they “encourage others for whom [that] path is meaningful to join.”... But DHS’s new policy, by opening meeting houses to immigration-enforcement activities, inhibits Plaintiffs from doing just that.... Knowingly putting a person in harm’s way or subjecting them to the possibility of a violent encounter with an armed law-enforcement officer would violate Quaker beliefs in peace and nonviolence....

91. Quakers have held a religious commitment against violence for hundreds of years.... For many Quakers, “[t]he presence of a weapon in a Quaker meeting would be absolutely unacceptable.”... The presence of armed immigration officers at meeting houses—which the new policy allows—would thus significantly hamper Plaintiffs’ ability to exercise their faith.... Importantly, even the threat of armed government agents at meeting houses—which has existed since the moment DHS announced its new policy—does the same.

Axios reports on the lawsuit.