Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Melvin Otey, Toward a Broader Theocentric Environmentalism, (December 01, 2024).
• Robert C. Blitt, From Zero to Holy War: The International Community's Ongoing Silence in the Face of the Russian Orthodox Church's Escalating Support for War Against Ukraine, (February 03, 2025).
• Kerrel Murray, Discriminatory Effect(s), (78 Fla. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2026)).
• Helen Alvare, 46th Annual Donald A. Giannella Memorial Lecture: Religious Liberty and Nondiscrimination Law, (Villanova Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 5, pp. 881–920 (2024)).
• Zalman Rothschild, The Right to Exit Religion, (Georgetown Law Journal, forthcoming).
• James Gerard Dwyer, Mired in Meyer's Mischief A Century After Fabrication of Constitutional Parents' Rights, (26 Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 107 (2025)).
• S. Ernie Walton, Brief of Amicus Curiae Professor S. Ernie Walton in Support of Petitioners in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, (March 03, 2025).
• David Eliot Bernstein, The Supreme Court’s Mysterious 1920s Due Process Education Trilogy, (The Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, Vol. 26, pp. 41–54 (2025)).
• Kumar Bal Govind Singh, Hate Speech, (January 12, 2025).

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

• Stephen James Bogle, Spiritual Duties and Legal Debts in Seventeenth Century Scotland: A Preliminary Study, (January 25, 2025).
• Hesham Abdelgawad, The Impact of Islamic Law on Cryptocurrency Regulation in Egypt, (MJTILP, Vol 20, Issue 3, 2024).
• Roni M. Rosenberg, Moral and Practical Considerations in the Debate on Physician-Assisted Suicide: The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in England, (January 09, 2025).

From SSRN (Hindu law and rituals):

• Sanjay Koul this week posted 17 recent papers on Hindu law, beliefs and rituals: Liberation and Divine Union: A Study of Moksha in Hindu; The Foundations of Hindu Thought: An Examination of Key Scriptures Across Philosophy, Ethics, and Devotion; Fire Ritual in Sanatana Dharma; Meditation in Sanatana Dharma: An Exploration of Ancient Practices and Philosophical Insights; Exploring Kashmir Shaivism: Philosophy, Practices, and Contemporary Relevance; The Gurukul System Evolution, Impact, and Resurgence of India's Ancient Holistic Education Model; Sacred Texts and Spiritual Pathways: A Comprehensive Analysis of Shaiva, Vaishnava, and Shakta Agamas in Hindu Tradition; The Creation of the Universe and Core Principles of Sanatana Dharma: A Comprehensive Exploration of Hindu Philosophical Foundations; The Rig Veda: A Gateway to Understanding Ancient Indian Spirituality; The Atharvaveda: The Veda of Knowledge and Magic; Exploring the Puranas The Cultural and Spiritual Tapestry of Hinduism; The Upanishads: Foundations of Indian Thought and Their Global Philosophical Impact; The Yajurveda: The Veda of Ritual and Sacrifice; The Samaveda: A Melodic Expression of Ancient Indian Spirituality; The Vedas: Foundations of Ancient Knowledge and Philosophy in Hinduism; Namaste and Namaskar: The Spiritual and Cultural Essence of India's Sacred Greetings

From SmartCILP:

• Vincent J. Samar, Conceptual Schemes/Frameworks and Their Relation to Law: A New Argument for Separation of Church and State, 30 Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice 379-424 (2024).
• Weldon P. Sloan & Joseph M. Capobianco, Faith, Federal Courts, and Free Speech: Do Federal Courts Protect Religious Speech More than Non-Religious Speech?, 22 First Amendment Law Review 147-188 (2024).

Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Antisemitism in America

On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled Never To Be Silent: Stemming the Tide of Antisemitism in America. A video of the full hearing and transcripts of the prepared testimony by witnesses are available at the Committee's website.   Jewish News Syndicate reported on the hearing, describing it as a hearing "that addressed where to draw the line between free speech and Jew-hatred."

DOJ Dismisses Suit Claiming Idaho's Abortion Restrictions Conflict With EMTALA

On Wednesday, both parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal (full text) in United States v. State of Idaho, (D ID, filed 3/5/2025). According to the Stipulation, filing of this with the federal district court in which the suit was brought automatically dissolves the preliminary injunction which the court issued in August 2022.  In the case, the district court had enjoined the state of Idaho from enforcing its nearly total abortion ban to the extent it conflicts with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.  The case then worked its way to the U.S. Supreme Court which initially granted review and then instead returned the case to the 9th Circuit, finding that certiorari had been improvidently granted. (See prior posting.)  Most recently, the parties argued the case before the 9th Circuit. Idaho's Attorney General Raúl Labrador announced this week's dismissal of the case, saying in part that: "It has been our position from the beginning that there is no conflict between EMTALA and Idaho’s Defense of Life Act." Liberty Counsel issued a press release discussing these developments and pointing out:

Idaho’s abortion law continues to face a separate legal challenge. In January 2025, St. Luke’s Hospital System in Idaho brought a nearly identical lawsuit as to Biden’s claiming the state’s abortion ban prevents women from getting abortions as part of emergency medical care. In St. Luke’s Health System v. Labrador, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, who had previously levied the injunction in Biden’s lawsuit, issued a temporary restraining order against Idaho’s attorney general’s office blocking it from enforcing the “Defense of Life Act” pending the results of a later proceedings.

9th Circuit: Church Lacks Standing to Challenge Washington's Health Insurance Coverage Requirements

In Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler, (9th Cir., March 6, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a church which opposes abortion and some forms of contraception lacks standing to challenge Washington's Reproductive Parity Act which requires health insurance carriers to provide coverage for contraceptives and abortions. A second state statute allows insurance companies to offer employee plans that accommodate a church's religious objections, so long as employees can separately access coverage for such services from the insurer. However, plaintiff church has been unable to find a plan that accommodates its objections. The court said in part: 

Nothing in the challenged law prevents any insurance company ... from offering Plaintiff a health plan that excludes direct coverage for abortion services. Therefore, an insurance company’s independent business decision not to offer such a plan is not traceable to the Parity Act....

Nothing in the record suggests that Plaintiff’s alleged injury would be redressed if we struck down the Parity Act....

Plaintiff contends, in the alternative, that an employer purchasing a no-abortion plan in Washington still “indirectly facilitates” the provision of abortion services to its employees.  Plaintiff relies on but-for reasoning.  As noted above, under the conscientious-objection statute, employees can obtain coverage for abortion services through their insurance carrier, whether or not the employer has a religious objection....  So, Plaintiff’s argument goes, employees receive coverage that they would not have but for the existence of the health plan provided by their employer, even if the employer’s plan does not itself provide that coverage.... We reject this theory as well.  The general disapproval of the actions that others might decide to take does not create standing, even when some tenuous connection may exist between the disapproving plaintiff and the offense-causing action.

Judge Callahan filed a dissenting opinion.  She agreed with plaintiff's "facilitation" argument. She added in part:

Cedar Park also has standing because the Parity Act caused Kaiser Permanente to stop providing a health plan that excludes abortion coverage and the church cannot procure a comparable replacement.

DOJ Starts Title VII "Pattern or Practice" Investigation of Antisemitism at University of California

The Department of Justice has launched an employment discrimination investigation of the University of California. A DOJ press release this week says in part:

The Federal Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced that the Justice Department has opened a civil pattern or practice investigation into the University of California (UC) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The investigation will assess whether UC has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on race, religion and national origin against its professors, staff and other employees by allowing an Antisemitic hostile work environment to exist on its campuses....

Under Title VII, the Justice Department has the authority to initiate investigations against state and local government employers where it has reason to believe that a “pattern or practice” of employment discrimination exists....

CBS News reports on the investigation.

Wyoming Enacts Ban on Transgender Access to Multi-Occupancy Restrooms, Changing and Sleeping Areas

On March 3, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon signed HB0072, "Protecting Privacy in Public Spaces Act" (full text). The new law requires that multi-occupancy restrooms, changing areas and sleeping quarters in public buildings and educational institutions be designated for use either by males or females. The Act defines males and females by their biological reproductive organs and prohibits them from entering facilities designated for the opposite sex. The Act contains a number of elaborate exceptions.  It also requires educational facilities to provide reasonable accommodations to persons unwilling or unable to use the facility designated for that person's biological sex. The Act provides a cause of action against the government facility involved for a person who encounters a person of the opposite sex in a restroom, changing or sleeping area. Cowboy State Daily reports on the new law.

Refusal To Amend Birth Certificate Did Not Violate Plaintiff's 1st or 14th Amendment Rights

In Malone-Bey v. Mississippi State Board of Health, (MS App, March 4, 2025), a Mississippi state appellate court held that plaintiff's religious free exercise, equal protection and due process rights were not violated when the State Board of Health refused to amend his birth certificate to designate his race as “white: Asiatic/Moor.” The court said in part:

[Plaintiff] asserts that “[t]he inability to recognize this information on [his] birth certificate impedes his full expression of his identity.”  He further asserts that the Board is “discriminating against [him] or placing undue burdens on him due to his religious beliefs or status” and has “denied [him] the ability to fulfill religious obligations and affirm his identity.”

These arguments are without merit.  The Board is in no way “discriminating against” Malone-Bey.  To the contrary, the Board’s approved Certificate of Live Birth does not identify the race, nationality, or religion of any child.  The Board has not treated Malone-Bey different from anyone else.  The Board has treated him just like everyone else....

“Just as the [State] may not insist that [Malone-Bey] engage in any set form of religious observance, so [Malone-Bey] may not demand that the [State] join in [his] chosen religious practices by” adding new categories of information to the State’s records....

Trump Issues Ash Wednesday Greetings

Today the White House released an Ash Wednesday Message (full text) from President Trump and the First Lady. The Message reads in part:

This Ash Wednesday, we join in prayer with the tens of millions of American Catholics and other Christians beginning the holy season of Lent—a time of spiritual anticipation of the passion, death, and Resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ....

As we solemnly contemplate Jesus Christ’s suffering and death on the cross this Lent, let us prepare our souls for the coming glory of the Easter miracle.

We offer you our best wishes for a prayerful and enriching Lenten season....

Court Enjoins Cutoff of Funds to Institutions Offering Gender-Affirming Care to Minors

In PFLAG, Inc. v. Trump, (D MD, March 4, 2025), a Maryland federal district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of provisions in two Executive Orders that threaten to cut off federal funding to medical institutions that offer gender-affirming care to individuals under 19 years of age.  The court found that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on three claims, saying in part:

Because the Executive Orders direct agencies to withhold funding on a condition that Congress has not authorized, the President has exceeded his authority. The Plaintiffs have thus sufficiently shown likelihood of success on the merits of their ultra vires claim that the Executive Orders violate the separation of powers....

Plaintiffs accurately note that the Executive Orders foist upon hospitals receiving federal funds an impossible choice: (I) keep providing medical care to transgender patients under the age of nineteen in compliance with the anti-discrimination statutes and risk losing federal funding under the Executive Orders, or (2) stop providing care on the basis of trans gender identity in violation of the statutes, but in compliance with the EOs. Because the challenged portions of the Executive Orders are facially discriminatory on the basis of transgender identity, and therefore sex under Kadel and Bostock, in violation of Section 1557 of the ACA and Section 1908 of the PHSA, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their ultra vires statutory claim....

Guided and bound by Fourth Circuit's analysis in Kadel, and with a barer record than the one before the Fourth Circuit there, the Court is compelled to find that the Executive Orders' effective ban on all gender-affirming care for those under nineteen by federally funded institutions is not substantially related to the important government interest of protecting children. As such, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Equal Protection claim....

Last month, the court issued a nation-wide temporary restraining order in the case. (See prior posting.)  ACLU issued a press release announcing yesterday's decision.

Trump Issues Ramadan Greetings

On Monday, The White House posted President Trump's Message on Ramadan (full text), saying in part:

As millions of Muslim Americans begin their Ramadan observances, my Administration recommits to upholding religious liberty that is such an integral part of the American way of life.  Above all, we renew our resolve to building a future of peace, and to recognizing the dignity imprinted on every human soul.

This Ramadan, I offer my best wishes for a season of joyous reflection on God’s endless grace and infinite love.  May God bless you and your families during this wondrous season.

Missouri Regulation of Church-Run Child Care Homes Upheld

In CNS International Ministries, Inc. v. Bax, (ED MO, March 3, 2025), a Missouri federal district court rejected a series of challenges to Missouri's Residential Care Facility Notification Act. The Act requires disclosures, background checks, recordkeeping, and health and safety standards for residential care facilities housing children that are run by religious organizations. In particular CNS objected to background checks that disqualified two of its employees. Among other things, the court concluded that the statute did not infringe CNS's 1st Amendment right to expressive association, saying in part:

Under the statute and its regulations, members of CNSIMI have the potential to be excluded from HCYH, one of CNSIMI’s programs and not its entire ministry.  Plaintiff has not established partial exclusion from HCYH would amount to a significant burden on its right to freedom of association.  But even if partial exclusion were a significant burden, the Court finds the State has a compelling interest in protecting children who are residents of LERCFs, and the RCFNA’s disclosure and background check requirements are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest....

Rejecting plaintiff's parental rights argument, the court said in part:

Under Pierce, parents cannot be compelled to send their children to public schools; they have a fundamental right to choose a private school....  Parents, however, do not have a fundamental right to send their children to a private school free of state regulation, including reasonable background check requirements.  ...

Rejecting CNS's ministerial exception argument, the court said in part:

CNSIMI does not claim that any of its “ministers” have been deemed to be ineligible for employment or presence at HCYH.  It is undisputed that two CNSIMI employees did not meet RCFNA’s background check requirements, but Plaintiff does not argue that these two employees – one who was a janitor and the other who was a cafeteria worker – meet the functional requirements of a “minister.”... Furthermore, the Court declines to make a blanket determination that CNSIMI’s teachers, house parents, administrators, and board members qualify under the ministerial exception without evidence as to how specific individuals perform these jobs....

2nd Circuit Rejects Amish Challenge to Removal of Religious Exemption from School Vaccine Requirements

In Miller v. McDonald, (2d Cir., March 3, 2025), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that New York state's removal of a religious belief exemption from its school immunization law did not violate the 1st Amendment free exercise rights of Amish parents or Amish schools. The court held that the public health law is neutral on its face and its legislative history does not reveal an anti-religious bias. It also rejected plaintiffs' contention that the law is not generally applicable, saying in part:

Plaintiffs contend that exempting students for medical reasons treats comparable secular conduct more favorably than religious beliefs.....

Repealing the religious exemption decreases “to the greatest extent medically possible” the number of unvaccinated students and thus the risk of disease; maintaining the medical exemption allows “the small proportion of students” who medically “cannot be vaccinated” to avoid the health consequences that “taking a particular vaccine would inflict.” ...  Exempting religious objectors, however, detracts from that interest.  Religious exemptions increase “the risk of transmission of vaccine-preventable diseases among vaccinated and unvaccinated students alike.”...   

In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to allege that § 2164 is anything but neutral and generally applicable.  The district court therefore did not err in applying rational basis review. As noted, Plaintiffs have conceded that the law satisfies rational basis review....

[Plaintiffs] claim that the school immunization law mandates two impossible options: inject their children with vaccines, forcing conduct against their religious beliefs, or forego educating their children in a group setting, requiring them to sacrifice a central religious practice.  True, Plaintiffs have shown that § 2164 burdens their religious beliefs and practices; but those burdens are not equivalent to the existential threat the Amish faced in Yoder.  Unlike in Yoder, compliance with § 2164 would not forcibly remove Amish children from their community at the expense of the Amish faith or the Amish way of life. 

Moreover, Yoder’s holding is limited by the state’s interest in protecting public health....

Coffee House Sued Over Separate Antisemitic Incidents Involving Harassment of Customers

 A suit under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act alleging religious discrimination was filed yesterday in a California state trial court against an Oakland, California coffee house that (unknown to plaintiff) had a history of promoting menu items with names connected with Hamas. The complaint (full text) in Hirsch v. Native Grounds, Inc. (D/B/A Jerusalem Coffee House), (CA Super. Ct., filed 3/3/2025), alleges that plaintiff, a Jewish American who entered the coffee house with his 5-year-old son, was asked restaurant's owner (also a defendant) to leave because he was wearing a baseball cap that featured a Jewish star.  The complaint alleges in part:

26. Within minutes of sitting down, Mr. Hirsch was approached by Defendant Harara. Harara demanded to know whether Hirsch was a “Zionist.” ... When Hirsch refused to answer Harara’s question, Harara demanded that he leave the premises. 

27. Harara threatened to call the police and repeatedly demanded that Hirsch leave the premises, which he described as his private business.... When Hirsch pointed out that he was being asked to leave because his hat depicted a Jewish star, Harara stated that “this is a violent hat, and you need to leave.” 

28. An employee of the East Bay Community Space ... stated that it was the business’ right and that “they could ask you to leave for any reason.” Mr. Hirsch again pointed out that a business cannot refuse service to someone solely ... because of their religion. Raven [the employee] disagreed, claiming “they’re allowed to ask you to leave for any reason” and ... claiming that “the only reason they know you’re a protected class is that you’re putting on your hat. You’re choosing to be here in this situation.”

San Francisco Standard reports on the lawsuit.

This suit follows one filed in a California federal district court by another plaintiff several days earlier alleging antisemitic discrimination at the same coffee house.  The complaint (full text) in Radice v. Jerusalem Boxing Club, LLC, (ND CA, filed 2/27/2025), alleges in part:

2. Once in July 2024 and once in August 2024, Mr. Radice visited Oakland in connection with his work as the interim executive director for a nonprofit organization to secure the East Bay Community Space ... as a venue for a fundraiser event for that nonprofit organization. The Community Space’s building houses JBC and JCH [Jerusalem Coffee House]. 

3. On both occasions, Mr. Radice was harassed and excluded from JCH (a place of public accommodation), explicitly because he is Jewish. On the second occasion, Mr. Radice was refused service and followed out of JCH and down the block. Accordingly, JBC violated Mr. Radice’s civil rights under both federal and California law. 

ADL issued a press release announcing the filing of this lawsuit.

Recent Articles of Interest

NOTE to Readers: An unusually large number of articles of interest were posted online during the past week--

From SSRN:

• Matthew K. Minerd, The Influence of John of St. Thomas Upon the Thought of Jacques Maritain, (Studia Poinsotiana, No. 2. (2024)).
• Yuanlou Lin, Though Shut in Caves and Sealed in Jars, Qumran Scrolls Were Not Hidden to Not Be Found by Us, (February 27, 2025).
• Stephanie H. Barclay & Matthew Krauter, The Untold Story of the Proto-Smith Era: Justice O'Connor's Papers and the Court's Free Exercise Revolution, (174 U. Penn. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025)).
• Samuel J. Levine, Foreword "The Conference of Religiously Affiliated Law Schools", (Touro Law Review: Vol. 38: No. 4, Article 3 (2023).
• Samuel J. Levine, Interpreting Religious Doctrine: The Third Rail that Wags the Dog in Religion Clause Jurisprudence, (81 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1477, Fall 2024).
• Jennifer Lee Koh, Christian Lawyers in the Public Interest and Outside the Political Right, (BYU Law Review (forthcoming 2026)).
• Benjamin M. Leff, Getting Donor-Advised Funds Regulation Right: Closing the Public-Support Test Loophole, (February 21, 2025).
• Rosemary Teele Langford & Malcolm Anderson, Religious Charities in Australia: Implications for Governance Under Traditional Values and Outlooks, (March 25, 2024).
• Michael Bindas, Meyer, Pierce, and Everything After, (26 J. Contemp. Legal Issues 281 (2025) (forthcoming)).
• Aaron Tang & Ethan Hutt, "Original History" and the Free Exercise Case for Religious Charter Schools, (January 24, 2025).
• Naomi R. Cahn, Maxine Eichner & Mary E. Ziegler, "For Their Benefit": The Lost History of Parental Consent and Minors' Rights, (114 Calif. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2026)).
• Henry F. Fradella, How State Courts Apply Lawrence v. Texas in Civil Contexts: A Mixed-Methods Content Analysis of Two Decades of Cases, 32 Tulane Jour. of Law & Sexuality 1 (2023).

From SSRN (Marriage):

• Lee Anne Fennell, Owning Marriage in Robinson's Gilead Novels, (Connubial Fictions: The Evolution of American Marriage in Law and Literature (Richard H. McAdams, Jonathan S. Masur, and Martha C. Nussbaum eds.) (forthcoming Oxford UP)).
• Damir Banović, Normalizing Queer and the Loss of Critical Potential? Same-Sex Marriage: to Equality or Liberation?, (Fabio Macioce, Dragica Vujadinović and Zara Saeidzadeh (eds.) "Feminist Legal and Political Practices - The Contemporary Interplay of Gender, Intersectionality and Diversity", Springer Nature (forthcoming in 2025)).
• Anthony C. Infanti, Ten Years After Windsor and Obergefell: The Tax Inequalities of Marriage Equality, (Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (forthcoming)).

From SSRN (Abortion and Reproductive Rights):

• David S. Cohen & Carole Joffe, After Dobbs: How the Supreme Court Ended Roe but Not Abortion (Book Introduction and Epilogue), (January 25, 2025).
• Mridula Raman, Prosecutorial Discretion and the Crime of Abortion, (Yale Law and Policy Review Vol. 43, pp. 171-250 (2024)).
• Evan D. Bernick, Cthulhu and the Constitution, (February 22, 2025).
• Makayla Haussler, Confronting State-Sanctioned Reproductive Abuse: Reproductive Justice, Domestic Violence, and the Promise of State Constitutional Rights to Safety Post-Dobbs, (January 15, 2025).
• David S. Cohen & Rachel Rebouche, Repealing Comstock, (104 Boston University Law Review Online 267 (2024)).
• Scott DeVito, Dobbs Is, Historically, Right, (January 01, 2025).
• Brendan Mohan, Dobbs v. Employee Benefits: Major Questions Left After the Landmark Decision, (November 25, 2024).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Amr Ibn Munir, The Islamic Law of Treaty, (February 03, 2025).
• Imam Sujono, Yovita Arie Mangesti, Slamet Suhartono & Zaleha Kamaruddin, Islamic Legal Perspective on the Implementation of Online Marriage Contracts During the Covid-19 Pandemic, (Ulul Albab: Jurnal Studi dan Penelitian Hukum Islam | Vol. 6, No. 1, October 2022).
• Abdulkadir Abubakar Adam & Aina-Obe Shamsuddin Bolatito, Navigating Digital Morality and Hisba Board's Strategies: The Challenges of Online Immorality Induction Among Youth in Kano State, Nigeria, (February 16, 2025).
• Bolatito, Aina-Obe Shamsuddin Bolatito & Nazifi Dahiru Abdullahi, A Faith-Based Framework for Mitigating Corruption in Nigeria; An Islamo-Christian Perspective, (February 08, 2025).
• Rifqi Khairul Anam, The Meaning of The Madura Proverb "Bhuppa'-Bhâbhu'-Ghuru-Rato" in Hasan Hanafi's Social Theology Perspective and Its Relevance to Community Development, (October 24, 2024).
• Sophia Chima, Balancing Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression: Review of the Blasphemy Laws in Nigeria, (November 21, 2024).
• Shameer Modongal, Prophet's Teaching on Jar: Application of Islamic Ethics of Neighborhood in the New Globalized Society, (November 29, 2023).
• Md. Omar Farque, Muslim Wife’s Right to Maintenance in Bangladesh: Analysed Through the Lenses of Shari’ah and Judicial Decisions, (November 12, 2024).

From SSRN (Law of India):

• Prashant Kumar Chauhan & Vikas Singh Yadav, Impact of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 on Women’s Property Rights, (International Journal of Law, Management & Humanities, Volume 8 | Pp. 554-560, Issue 1 2025).
• Tapesh Meghwal, Faith and Safety: Legal Frameworks and Challenges of Managing Crowd Risks at Religious Gatherings in India, (December 20, 2024).
• Aayush Bhardwaj & Heena Parveen, The Nexus Between the Ramayana and State Administration, (in P. Salgar (Ed.), Ramayana: Instrument for Indianising Socio-Legal Approaches (pp. 189-203) (2024)).

From SmartCILP:

• Christopher J. Manettas, A License to Discriminate? 303 Creative v. Elenis and Where the Supreme Court May Go, 39 Touro Law Review 539-552 (2024).
• Allen Rostron, Saints, Satanists, and Religious Public Charter Schools, 59 Tulsa Law Review 451-486 (2024).
• Wayne Law Review Symposium “The Evolution of Religious Liberty”, 70 Wayne Law Review, Issue 1 (2024).

Iowa Governor Signs Law Ending Anti-Discrimination Protection for Transgender Individuals

On Feb. 28, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed Senate File 418 (full text) which removes "gender identity" as a protected class under the state's anti-discrimination laws. It also provides that in construing state statutes, a reference to "sex" means "the state of being either male or female as observed or clinically verified at birth." The law also bars issuance of a new birth certificate reflecting a sex change. In her signing statement (full text), Governor Reynolds said in part:

It is common sense to acknowledge the obvious biological differences between men and women. In fact, it is necessary to secure genuine equal protection for women and girls....

I know this is a sensitive issue for some, many of whom have heard misinformation about what this bill does. The truth is that it simply brings Iowa in line with the federal Civil Rights Code, as well as most states.

We all agree that every Iowan, without exception, deserves respect and dignity. We are all children of God, and no law changes that.

Iowa Public Radio reports on the bill.

Wyoming Passes Bill Barring State from Requiring Employees to Use Preferred Pronouns of Other Employees

The Wyoming legislature this week gave final approval to SF077 (full text) which provides in part:

The state and its political subdivisions shall not compel or require an employee to refer to another employee using that employee's preferred pronouns.

The Act allows  person aggrieved by a violation to seek injunctive or declaratory relief.

Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon allowed the bill to become law without his signature. In his No Signature Letter to Senate yesterday, Governor Gordon called the law "a solution in search of a problem."

Wyoming PBS has background on the bill.

10th Circuit Upholds State Insurance Regulator's Closure of Christian Health Care Sharing Ministry

In Renteria v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance, (10th Cir., Feb. 27, 2025), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a trial court's refusal to preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of a New Mexico cease and desist order issued by the Office of the Superintendent of Insurance against a Mennonite church's health care sharing ministry. The ministry claimed that the order violated its free exercise rights.  The court said in part:

OSI’s enforcement action here was not because of Gospel Light’s religious beliefs, it was because they operated outside of the bounds of the NMIC [New Mexico Insurance Code] that applied to their business activities. In other words, OSI’s asserted interests were to protect New Mexico consumers by regulating the insurance industry, not to burden or regulate religious conduct. That other organizations, not entirely secular and not comparable to Gospel Light, merit partial exemptions under the NMIC does not carry the water for Plaintiffs that the NMIC treats a secular activity more favorably than a comparable religious activity. Consequently, rational-basis review applies.....

OSI sought to enforce the NMIC to protect consumers. The “regulation and licensure of insurance producers” are “important state interests,”... and OSI’s final order, which enforces the NMIC against Gospel Light, is rationally related to the regulation of health insurance. As such, the government action here satisfies rational-basis review, and Plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits on their Free Exercise claims....

Judge Carson dissented, saying in part: 

State governments must enforce statutes in a neutral and generally applicable manner.  In this case, that means the New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance (“OSI”) cannot regulate Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan (“Gospel Light”), a religious organization, more stringently than it regulates similarly situated secular organizations like labor unions and fraternal organizations.  But the district court reached the opposite conclusion when it allowed the OSI to impose statutory restrictions upon Gospel Light while exempting similarly situated secular organizations.  The majority upholds the OSI’s impermissible action.  Because the district court’s and the majority’s conclusions run contrary to established Tenth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent precluding discrimination based on religious views, I respectfully dissent.

New Study of U.S. Religious Landscape Released

This week, the Pew Research Center released the findings from its 2023-24 Religious Landscape Study, a survey of 36,908 U.S. adults. (Full text). (Web version). The 392-page report covers data on the demographics and viewpoints of various Christian and non-Christian religious denominations in the U.S. Of particular interest to readers of Religion Clause may be the Report's section on Religion and Public Life which surveys attitudes on three questions. It reports in part:

Americans are about evenly divided on whether the federal government should declare the U.S. a Christian nation, with 47% either favoring or strongly favoring the idea and 50% either opposing or strongly opposing it.

Among religious groups, this idea is most widely supported by evangelical Protestants, 78% of whom say that they favor or strongly favor the federal government declaring the U.S. a Christian nation....

Interestingly, 16% of respondents who identify with non-Christian religions and 19% of religiously unaffiliated favor this.

The new Religious Landscape Study finds that about half of Americans, or a little more, support allowing teacher-led prayer in public schools, whether that be praying to Jesus explicitly (52%) or, alternatively, praying to God without mentioning any specific religion (57%). Seven-in-ten U.S. Christian adults say they favor permitting teacher-led prayers to Jesus in public schools and 73% say they favor teacher-led prayers to God that don’t mention any specific religion.

Compared with Christians, far lower shares of religiously unaffiliated Americans (28%) and adults who affiliate with other, non-Christian religions (39%) say they favor public school teachers leading classes in prayers that refer to God without mentioning any specific religion. There is even less support among non-Christian groups for allowing public school teachers to lead classes in prayers to Jesus....

 About half of Americans (53%) favor or strongly favor allowing cities and towns to display religious symbols on public property. Support for this stance is particularly strong among Christians, including 80% of evangelical Protestants and 73% of Latter-day Saints who favor or strongly favor allowing public displays of religious symbols.

Much lower shares of Buddhists (39%), Muslims (35%), Hindus (31%) and Jews (25%) say they favor allowing religious displays on public property....

8th Circuit: Damages Available Under RLUIPA When Defendant Received Federal Funds

In Barnett v. Short, (8th Cir., Feb. 28. 2025), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part the dismissal of a suit brought by a former inmate who alleges that while in administrative segregation in the Jefferson, Missouri County jail he was denied access to a Bible. The court held that damages are available in suits under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, at least where the defendant does not enjoy sovereign immunity, saying in part:

Though damages against a defendant that enjoys sovereign immunity may not be "suitable" or "proper," damages against those that don't are the norm....

We therefore conclude that the district court erred in dismissing Barnett's RLUIPA claim against the county.

The court however affirmed the dismissal of the suit against the jail administrator in her individual capacity, saying in part: 

RLUIPA permits claims against a "government," see 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc–2(a), and it defines "government" to include county officials and "any other person acting under color of State law." ... That language permits suits against individual defendants in both their official and individual capacities....

But we conclude that Congress's authorization of suits against non-recipients of federal money in their individual capacities exceeds its spending power. That's because "the legitimacy of Congress' power to enact Spending Clause legislation rests not on its sovereign authority to enact binding laws, but on whether the recipient voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of that 'contract.'"...

The court also reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's free exercise claim against the jail administrator, but affirmed dismissal of that claim against the county because " Short did not possess the authority needed to render the county liable for her decision."

Judge Loken dissented in part, saying that he would affirm the decision to dismiss the free exercise claim against the jail administrator, agreeing with the trial court that the deprivation of the Bible did not impose a substantial burden on plaintiff's religious exercise.

Utah RFRA Protects Psilocybin-Using Religious Sect

In Jensen v. Utah County, (D UT, Feb. 20, 2025), a Utah federal district court issued a preliminary injunction under Utah's Religious Freedom Restoration Act barring law enforcement personnel from interfering with the sincere religious use of psilocybin by members of a new religious group known as Singularism. The court also ordered return of items that had been seized from the group. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Utah Controlled Substances Act as applied to their psilocybin ceremonies....

Based on the evidence in this case, Plaintiffs have established that the government has substantially burdened their sincere religious exercise. Simply put, Plaintiffs offer a sacramental psilocybin tea to their voyagers, who then embark on a spiritual journey by which they write their own scripture. A law that categorically prohibits the possession and use of the psilocybin sacrament—thereby preventing Singularism’s adherents from pursuing their spiritual voyages and hindering them from producing their sacred scripture—substantially burdens the free exercise of Singularism and its adherents....

Defendants observe that Singularism “does not claim special access to divine truths,” instead encouraging its practitioners to more deeply “discover and define their own beliefs,” and explicitly states that “no organization, including [it], has all the answers to life’s most difficult questions.” In Defendants’ view, these features weaken Singularism’s claim to be a religion because they show that Singularism’s beliefs are not comprehensive....  As the court sees it, however, these features less so detract from Singularism’s religious nature than they illustrate Singularism’s commitment to existential humility...

From all the evidence in the record, the court is hard-pressed to find, as Defendants urge, that Singularism is essentially a drug-dealing business cloaked in a minister’s robe. To the contrary, the court is convinced that Singularism is a legitimate religion and that Plaintiffs are sincere practitioners of it. This is not a case where a group of people claim a religious right to do little more than use and distribute large quantities of drugs.... By establishing the sincerity of their religious beliefs, Plaintiffs have fulfilled their responsibility of establishing a prima facie case under the Utah RFRA, shifting the burden to the government to demonstrate that the Utah Controlled Substances Act accomplishes a compelling state interest using the least restrictive means....

Whatever legal regime a society chooses, however, it must apply its protections equally to unpopular or unfamiliar religious groups as to popular or familiar ones if that commitment to religious liberty is to mean anything. As sang Jonas Gwangwa, a South African jazz musician who was exiled by the apartheid government, “Freedom for some is freedom for none.” Indeed, the very founding of the State of Utah reflects the lived experience of that truth by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Perhaps it is ironic then that not long after enacting its RFRA to provide special protections for religious exercise, the State of Utah should so vigorously deploy its resources, particularly the coercive power of its criminal-justice system, to harass and shut down a new religion it finds offensive practically without any evidence that that religion’s practices have imposed any harms on its own practitioners or anyone else.