President Trump Issues Executive Order Creating a Religious Liberty Commission

Yesterday, President Trump issued an Executive Order (full text) establishing a Religious Liberty Commission. According to the Executive Order:

The Commission shall advise the White House Faith Office and the Domestic Policy Council on religious liberty policies of the United States.  Specific activities of the Commission shall include, to the extent permitted by law, recommending steps to secure domestic religious liberty by executive or legislative actions as well as identifying opportunities for the White House Faith Office to partner with the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom to further the cause of religious liberty around the world.

The Executive Order also calls for the President to appoint 3 Advisory Boards to advise members of the Commission-- an advisory board of religious leaders, an advisory board of lay leaders, and an advisory board of legal experts. The White House also issued a Fact Sheet (full text) summarizing the Commission's role, saying in part:

The Commission is tasked with producing a comprehensive report on the foundations of religious liberty in America, strategies to increase awareness of and celebrate America’s peaceful religious pluralism, current threats to religious liberty, and strategies to preserve and enhance protections for future generations.

Key focus areas include parental rights in religious education, school choice, conscience protections, attacks on houses of worship, free speech for religious entities, and institutional autonomy....

The Executive Order was signed at a White House National Day of Prayer Event (video of event).

Chairman of the Commission is Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick. Vice-Chair is Dr Ben Carson.  Other members of the Commission as announced in a press release by Lt. Gov. Patrick are:  Ryan Anderson, Bishop Robert Barron, Carrie Boller, Cardinal Timothy Dolan (Archbishop of New York), Rev. Franklin Graham, Allyson Ho, Dr. Phil McGraw, Eric Metaxas, Kelly Shackelford, Rabbi Meir Soloveichik and Pastor Paula White. In addition, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Scott Turner (Secretary of Housing and Urban Development), and Vince Haley (Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy) are ex officio members of the Commission.

Catholic News Agency reports on the creation of the Commission.

UPDATE: President Trump also issued a National Day of Prayer Proclamation, declaring May 1 as a National Day of Prayer.

Court Upholds School's Policy on Use of Students' Preferred Names and Pronouns

In Willey v. Sweetwater County School District #1 Board of Trustees, (D WY, April 28, 2025), a Wyoming federal district court upheld against due process and free exercise challenges a school district's policy requiring teachers to use students' preferred names and pronouns. A student's request to use a different name or pronoun was to be disclosed to the student's parent or guardian only if the parent or guardian affirmatively requested the information. Plaintiff challenged the policy both as a parent and as a teacher in the school system.  The court said in part:

Plaintiff asserts that she is not “alleging a right to receive generalized updates,” but rather a right to make “decisions about the children’s well-being.... However, according to Plaintiffs logic, if a parent is not already aware of their child’s use of preferred name or pronouns, then in order to make those decisions, the school would have an obligation to proactively inform the parent. Within this right as defined by Plaintiff, Plaintiff cannot prevent placing an affirmative obligation on the school to inform parents of any circumstance that occurs in school that might affect a child’s “well-being.” Such a finding would expand parental rights beyond their own decision-making rights to place affirmative obligations on other parties that care for their child. The Supreme Court has made clear that the Due Process Clause “cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.”...

Plaintiff asserts she has a right not to have information regarding her child’s gender identity withheld. The Court agrees. However, the Court does not think the information can properly be deemed “withheld” to infringe on parental rights unless a parent inquired into or sought the information and it was intentionally concealed or they were lied to....

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants significantly burdened her “sincerely held religious beliefs by preventing her from acting pursuant to her religious belief that it is the parents who have the duty to train their children regarding human sexual identity and the unchangeable natural created order of humans as male and female.”...

However, a person’s constitutional right to freely exercise their own religious beliefs does not require that the state also exercise those same religious beliefs....

Even if Plaintiff could show that her sincerely held religious beliefs were in fact burdened ..., the policy that existed while Plaintiff's child was in school in the District is a neutral policy of general applicability....

Plaintiff additionally alleges that her sincerely held religious beliefs related to gender identity, parental involvement in decision-making, and truth-telling prohibit her from complying with the District’s PNCPs as a teacher. ...

... Plaintiff sets forth no evidence that the 2023-24 [Policy] provided for anything other than exemptions “for any reason” rather than individualized exemptions that requires government consideration of the particular reasons. There is no devaluing of religious reasons because exemptions may be made “for any reason.”...

 A policy which provides exemptions “for any reason” without any subjective government assessment remains a neutral law of general applicability.

This decision follows on an earlier decision in the case that denied a preliminary injunction as to most of plaintiff's claims. (See prior posting.) Cowboy State Daily reports on the most recent decision.

Trump Administration Fires 5 Last-Minute Biden Appointees to U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council

The Trump Administration has dismissed five Biden appointees who were serving 5-year terms on the 68-member United States Holocaust Memorial Council. Those dismissed were among 12 individuals appointed to vacancies on the Council by President Biden just days before his term of office ended. The Council serves as the Board of Trustees of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. The highest profile dismissal was that of Doug Emhoff, former First Gentleman who took a prominent role in fighting antisemitism during the Biden Administration. CNN reports on additional firings:

Former White House chief of staff Ron Klain; Anthony Bernal, a senior adviser to former first lady Jill Biden; Jennifer Klein, a former director of the White House Gender Policy Council; and Susan Rice, who served as a domestic policy adviser to Joe Biden and helped develop his administration’s strategy to combat antisemitism, were among the other Biden appointees who were fired from the board, sources familiar with the matter said....

Not all Biden-era appointees have received emails notifying them of their dismissal, according to one Biden appointee who sits on the board.

Attorney General Outlines Strategy to Battle Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

In an April 22 Memorandum titled "Preventing the Mutilation of American Children" (full text), U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi directed Justice Department personnel to take a number of steps to end gender-affirming care for minors. The Memorandum says in part:

There is a radical ideological agenda being pushed throughout every aspect of American life-from TV programming and Hollywood film production to children's books and elementary school classrooms-that teaches children to deny biological reality. Gender ideology, masked as science, teaches that children should process adolescent stress and confusion as a case of mistaken identity and that the solution is not to root out and eliminate the underlying condition but to acquiesce in it permanently through life-altering chemical and surgical intervention....

Pursuant to the President's directive, I am issuing the following guidance to all Department of Justice employees to enforce rigorous protections and hold accountable those who prey on vulnerable children and their parents.

 I am directing all U.S. Attorneys to investigate all suspected cases of FGM [Female Genital Mutilation]-- under the banner of so-called "gender-affirming care" or otherwise-- and to prosecute all FGM offenses to the fullest extent possible....

I am directing the Civil Division's Consumer Protection Branch to undertake appropriate investigations of any violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by manufacturers and distributors engaged in misbranding by making false claims about the on- or off-label use of puberty blockers, sex hormones, or any other drug used to facilitate a child's so-called "gender transition." ...

I am also directing the Civil Division's Fraud Section to pursue investigations under the False Claims Act of false claims submitted to federal health care programs for any non-covered services related to radical gender experimentation....

I have instructed the Office of Legislative Affairs ("OLA") to draft legislation creating a private right of action for children and the parents of children whose healthy body parts have been damaged by medical professionals through chemical and surgical mutilation. The proposed legislation will establish a long statute of limitations and retroactive liability, so that no one providing such "treatment" will escape liability....

CNN reports on the Memo.

Harvard Releases Reports on Antisemitism and Anti-Muslim Bias

Yesterday, Harvard University released the 311-page Final Report of its Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias (full text) and also released the 222-page Final Report of its Presidential Task Force on Combating Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian Bias (full text). Harvard president Alan Garber issued a Statement (full text) accompanying the release of the reports, saying in part:

Separately and together, the task force reports reveal aspects of a charged period in our recent history, offering searing personal accounts as they hold up a mirror to our interactions with one another. During the listening sessions that took place last spring, Jewish, Israeli, and Zionist community members reported experiencing our campus climate as unwelcoming. In some cases, they hid overt markers of their identities to avoid confrontation. Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, and pro-Palestinian community members reported feeling judged, misrepresented, and silenced. Some found our existing policies and practices wanting when they needed support or sought action. Across our community, some questioned how issues concerning Israel and Palestine were addressed on our campus, noting that they found some seminars and lectures, panel discussions, and events open to the public to be one-sided, deepening feelings of exclusion and rejection, and calling into question our institutional commitment to excellence and rigor in our academic pursuits.

Especially disturbing is the reported willingness of some students to treat each other with disdain rather than sympathy, eager to criticize and ostracize, particularly when afforded the anonymity and distance that social media provides. Some students reported being pushed by their peers to the periphery of campus life because of who they are or what they believe, eroding our shared sense of community in the process.

Harvard cannot—and will not—abide bigotry. We will continue to provide for the safety and security of all members of our community and safeguard their freedom from harassment. We will redouble our efforts to ensure that the University is a place where ideas are welcomed, entertained, and contested in the spirit of seeking truth; where argument proceeds without sacrificing dignity; and where mutual respect is the norm....

Supreme Court Today Hears Arguments on Funding of Religious Charter Schools

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning in Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond, consolidated for oral argument with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond which stemmed from a separate petition for review filed by an intervenor in the same case. In the cases, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the state Charter School Board's authorization of a Catholic-sponsored publicly-funded charter school violates Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The petitions for review contend that exclusion of religious schools from the state's charter school program violates the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause despite Establishment Clause concerns, and that religious instruction by a state-funded charter school does not constitute state action. The SCOTUSblog case pages for the two cases, with links to the petitions, briefs, amicus briefs and commentary are here and here.

Oral arguments, which begin at 10:00 AM will be live-streamed at this page. A transcript and audio recording of the arguments will become available later today here.  NEA Today reports on the upcoming oral arguments.

UPDATE: A transcript and audio of today's oral arguments are now available here. The Hill has a lengthy report on the arguments.

Suit Challenges HHS's Rescission of Sensitive Locations Policy

Suit was filed yesterday in an Oregon federal district court by a group of churches, an interfaith council and a Latino organization challenging the Department of Homeland Security's reversal of its "sensitive locations" policy that had limited immigration enforcement activities in churches, health care clinics and social service agencies. The complaint (full text) in Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, (D OR, filed 4/28/2025), alleges in part:

112. Defendants’ rescission of sensitive locations protections enables immigration enforcement to target sensitive locations and events commonly associated with expression, directly and substantially interfering with the ability of Plaintiffs and their members to associate freely.

113. Following the rescission of protections for sensitive locations, Defendants have shown that immigration enforcement actions will be carried out to punish individuals at sensitive locations from engaging in expressive activity with which Defendants disagree. The rescission of sensitive locations protections has already led to fear and discouragement of participation in planned protests, events, and activities, as well as religious ceremonies....

121. Defendants’ rescission of protections for sensitive locations permits ICE and CBP agents to conduct immigration enforcement activity, including arrests, investigations, and surveillance, at and near houses of worship, locations where houses of worship provide community services, and during religious ceremonies.

122. Such conduct has deterred and will continue to deter membership, attendance, and participation in religious services and related events for all individuals, including lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens. ICE enforcement will also be likely to disrupt activities and events held by places of worship, including religious ceremonies. The conduct has impacted the free exercise rights of members of the Augustana Lutheran Church; Our Lady of Guadalupe Parish, San Francisco Interfaith Council, and Westminster Presbyterian Church. Plaintiffs’ core work of carrying out religious ceremonies and providing pastoral care to parishioners to further their faith has been disrupted by the need to now prioritize maintaining the safety of their sanctuaries....

Oregon Live reports on the decision.

Court Refuses to Dismiss Megachurch Pastor's Defamation Suit Against Sex Offender

In Jakes v. Youngblood, (WD PA, April 25, 2025), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to dismiss under Pennsylvania's anti-SLAPP law a defamation suit brought by megachurch pastor T.D. Jakes against convicted sex offender Duane Youngblood.  Jakes sued after Youngblood in a podcast accused Jakes of grooming and sexually abusing him some 40 years earlier when Youngblood was 18 to 19 years old. Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to allow rapid dismissal of suits filed to suppress protected speech. The court, applying the Erie doctrine, held that the Pennsylvania anti-SLAPP law is procedural and thus does not apply to diversity cases in federal court. Instead, dismissal is governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 12 and 56.  The court said in part:

The Court does not believe that a procedural rule protecting a substantive right is, by virtue of the right it is protecting, transformed into a substantive law. The statute exists to spare those who exercise their free speech rights from unwarranted and harassing litigation. However, §8340.15 pursues this policy goal through procedural means.

Christian Post reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Michael Conklin, Religious Law Schools, Rankings, and Bias: Measuring the Rankings Penalty at Religious Law Schools, (Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy (forthcoming, 2025)).
• Jeremy Ross, An Empirical Analysis of Tandon and Fulton, (February 20, 2025).
• Steven J. Heyman, Religious Liberty and the Constitution, (Chicago-Kent Law Review, Volume 100, No. 2 (forthcoming 2025)).
• Alan Edward Brownstein, Attempting to Protect the Liberty and Equality of Minority Faiths and Nonreligious Individuals When the Supreme Court Will Not Do So, (Forthcoming, 2025, Chicago-Kent Law Review, in Symposium: "In Search of Common Ground: Religion and Secularism in a Liberal Democratic Society").
• Dina Zingaro, "In the Image of God": Rereading Genesis 1-3 for LGBTQ+ Rights, (March 01, 2025).
• Amelia Miazad, Faith Investors, (November 01, 2024).
• Mark Movsesian, Status, Conduct, Belief, and Message, (Chicago-Kent Law Review (forthcoming 2025)).
• Abbe R. Gluck, The Mifepristone Case and the Legitimacy of the FDA, (Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper (2023).

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

• Dörthe Engelcke, Dominik Krell & Nadjma Yassari, Underage Marriage: Legal and Social Practice in Muslim Jurisdictions, (Arab Law Quarterly, Advance Articles, 2025).
• Darshan Datar, The Voice and Religious Freedom, (Australian Journal of Law and Religion. Volume 3, No. 1. Pp. 96-100 (2023)).
• Dashan Datar, Judicial Concept of Religion in India: An Analysis of the Relationship Between Religion and Culture in Indian Supreme Court Jurisprudence, (May 01, 2024).

From SmartCILP:

• Leah Calabro, A Decade of Impunity: Finding Justice for the Yazidi Women Victims of the Islamic State, 48 Fordham International Law Journal 1-52 (2024).

Tennessee Enacts Conscience Protections for Health Care Providers

On April 24, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed the Medical Ethics Defense Act, SB 955 (full text). The new law provides in part:

A healthcare provider must not be required to participate in or pay for a healthcare procedure, treatment, or service that violates the conscience of the healthcare provider....

[However, this] Does not permit a healthcare payer to decline payment for a healthcare procedure, treatment, or service it is contractually obligated to pay for under the terms of a contract with an insured party. 

 Any political subdivision ... shall not reprimand or sanction a healthcare provider, nor deny or revoke, or threaten to deny or revoke, a license, certification, or registration of a healthcare provider for engaging in speech, expression, or association that is protected from government interference by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, unless the political subdivision demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the healthcare provider's speech, expression, or association was the direct cause of physical harm to a person with whom the healthcare provider had a practitioner-patient relationship within the three (3) years immediately preceding the incident of physical harm.

WBIR News reports on the new law.

New Website Catalogues Laws That Exclude Religious Organizations from Government Funding Opportunities

Earlier this month, Notre Dame Law School announced that it, along with two other organizations, has launched a new website which identifies state laws that exclude religious organizations from participating in a wide variety of social service, educational and cultural funding opportunities. The announcement says in part:

The new website provides a database highlighting state statutes and regulations that prohibit religious organizations from participating in public programs on equal footing with their secular counterparts. Although the database does not express a view on the ultimate constitutionality of any particular law, its authors hope that the repository may be the first step towards identifying—and finally changing—those that do violate First Amendment rights.

The website is available at this link: Religious Equality – Protecting Religious Organizations from Discrimination. The website is also now listed in the Religion Clause sidebar under "Resources". City Journal reports on the new website.

Muslim Woman Sues Over Violation of Her Religious Rights in Jail

The New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations yesterday announced the filing of a federal lawsuit by a Muslim woman who alleges violation of her free exercise rights by Orange County, New York sheriff officers and jail officials.  The complaint (full text) in Green v. Orange County, (SD NY, filed 4/24/2025), alleges in part:

On February 2, 2024, a group of predominantly male officers at the Orange County Sheriff’s Office forced Ms. Green to remove her hijab twice: first, for post-arrest processing photographs and second, for her jail identification card. 

6. They also prohibited Ms. Green from wearing her hijab for more than 12 hours as she awaited arraignment....

9.  While incarcerated in the Orange County Jail, officials required Ms. Green to carry and present her identification card with a photo of her uncovered without her hijab for several months—which, for Ms. Green, was akin to being naked. 

10. Orange County Jail officers also confiscated Ms. Green’s hijab and purposefully broke her misbahah, or prayer beads, during a targeted cell sweep in late August 2024....Without her hijab, Ms. Green was unable to pray for herself or her family, including her six daughters, her mother (who passed away in November 2024), and her sister (who had been recently diagnosed with a brain tumor)...

13. In addition ... Defendants have failed to accommodate Ms. Green’s dietary requirements as a Muslim, often leaving her no choice but to go without food for extended periods of time.....

Convicted Cardinal Claims Eligibility to Vote for New Pope

In the Vatican, an unusual legal dispute has surfaced over the eligibility of the former deputy Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, to vote at the upcoming Conclave to select a new Pope.  Article 36 of Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis on the Vacancy of the Apostolic See and the Election of the Roman Pontiff provides:

A Cardinal of Holy Roman Church ... has the right to elect the Pope, in accordance with the norm of No. 33 of the present Constitution....On the other hand, Cardinals who have been canonically deposed or who with the consent of the Roman Pontiff have renounced the cardinalate do not have this right....

According to the National Catholic Register yesterday: 

[Becciu] lost all cardinal privileges in September 2020 after Vatican prosecutors presented Pope Francis with findings from an investigation into alleged financial crimes. 

As a consequence, Pope Francis required him to resign ... his position at that time, and “the rights connected to the cardinalate.” He duly agreed to comply, retaining the title of cardinal while being stripped of the rights and privileges associated with the office.

...  In 2021, he became the first cardinal to ever be tried by the Vatican’s criminal court.

In 2023, the court convicted the cardinal of embezzlement, aggravated fraud, and abuse of office.... He has always maintained his innocence and is currently appealing against the conviction through the Vatican’s Court of Appeal, which began hearings last October but has yet to give a ruling. 

Pope Francis invited Cardinal Becciu to attend a consistory in August 2022, an invitation that was described as a “private act of pastoral mercy” but not a step toward his rehabilitation or reinstatement of his cardinalatial rights. 

But speaking Tuesday, Cardinal Becciu gave that 2022 invitation as a reason for his eligibility to vote, saying that it showed “the Pope recognized that my cardinal prerogatives remain intact.”

Indiana Enacts Parental Rights Law

On April 22, Indiana Governor Mike Braun signed Senate Bill 143 protecting Parental Rights. The new law (full text) provides in part:

... A governmental entity may not substantially burden a parent's fundamental right to direct the: (1) upbringing; (2) religious instruction; (3) education; or (4) health care; of the parent's child, unless the burden, as applied to the parent and the child, is required to advance a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of advancing the governmental interest.

... A governmental entity may not: (1) advise, direct, or coerce a child to withhold information from the child's parent; or (2) deny a child's parent access to information that: (A) is in the control of the governmental entity (B) is requested by the child's parent; and (C) relates to the child's health care or social, emotional, and behavioral well-being.

ADF issued a press release supporting the enactment of the new law.

DOJ Hosts First Meeting of Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias

 A Department of Justice press release reports that yesterday the DOJ hosted the inaugural meeting of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias.  The Task Force was created by an Executive Order of President Trump. Yesterday's press release described the Task Force meeting, saying in part:

The witnesses included:

Michael Farris: First Amendment Litigator and Founding President of Patrick Henry College. Farris spoke on behalf of Senior Pastor Gary Hamrick to discuss how Cornerstone Church was under investigation and charged by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for so-called Johnson Amendment violations....

Dr. Scott Hicks: Provost and Chief Academic Officer, Liberty University. Hicks described how Liberty University and Grand Canyon University were singled out by the Biden Administration for fines due to the schools’ Christian worldview.

Phil Mendes: Navy Seal. Mendes was relieved of duty during Biden Administration for not taking the COVID-19 vaccine due to religious exemption requests that were denied by the Department of Defense.

 “As shown by our victims’ stories today, Biden’s Department of Justice abused and targeted peaceful Christians while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Thanks to President Trump, we have ended those abuses, and we will continue to work closely with every member of this Task Force to protect every American’s right to speak and worship freely.”

Additionally, members of the Task Force highlighted specific cases within their own agencies where the Biden Administration unfairly and harshly punished Christian Americans for their religious beliefs.

UPDATE: The DOJ has posted video of opening remarks at the meeting by Attorney General Bam Bondi and  Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Christian Foster Care Ministry Can Limit Hiring to Those of Its Own Faith

In Gracehaven, Inc. v. Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services, (SD OH, April 21, 2025), an Oho federal district court issued a preliminary injunction restoring contracting and funding by the county to a Christian ministry that provides foster care services to girls who are victims of sex trafficking and abuse. The county had refused to renew its contract with Gracehaven because of the ministry's policy of hiring only employees that shared its religious faith.  The court said in part:

Gracehaven will likely succeed on the merits of its claim that Montgomery County’s actions violated the Free Exercise Clause because it excluded Gracehaven from an otherwise available public benefit based on Gracehaven’s choice to employ those who share the same faith....

“When otherwise eligible recipients are disqualified from a public benefit ‘solely because of their religious character,’” the Court must apply strict scrutiny to the reason the benefit was denied.

President Responds to Death of Pope Francis

President Trump issued a Proclamation (full text) yesterday ordering flags to be flown at half-staff on the day of the late Pope Francis' funeral. The President announced yesterday on Truth Social that he and the First Lady will attend the Pope's funeral in Rome.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Permissive Opt-Out of Children from Exposure To LGBTQ-Friendly Books

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning will hear oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor. In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Maryland federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in a challenge to a school board's refusal to allow parents to opt their children out of exposure to a group of LGBTQ inclusive books. The parents contended that refusal to provide an opt out alternative violates their religious free exercise rights. (See prior posting). The SCOTUSblog case page has links to the numerous amicus briefs filed in the case as well as to other pleadings and relevant news coverage of the case.  Oral arguments will be streamed live here at 10:00 AM today. A transcript and audio recording of the arguments will be posted here by the Court later today. A SCOTUSblog article has further background on the case.

Religious Corporation Exemption to Maryland Anti-Discrimination Law Does Not Excuse LGBT Discrimination Against Data Analyst

In Doe v. Catholic Relief Services, (D MD, April 21, 2025), a Maryland federal district court held that the religious corporation exemption from the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act does not apply to the termination of spousal health care benefits of the same-sex spouse of a data analyst and advisor working for Catholic Relief Services. The Maryland Supreme Court had previously held that "in order for the exemption to apply, the employee’s duties must directly further the core mission(s) – religious or secular, or both – of the religious entity." Finding the exemption inapplicable here, the court said in part:

... [T]he evidence preponderantly demonstrates that Doe’s ... duties and responsibilities were sufficiently apart from effectuating CRS goals (and core mission) such that his ... job activities and responsibilities were far attenuated from, and not reasonably capable of bringing about (or preventing effectuation of), CRS goals or missions.  Doe did not directly serve the poor and vulnerable overseas, solicit or secure funding for projects, or possess authority to determine how CRS would pursue its mission through its programs.  Nor did Doe manage or supervise any employee with such responsibilities.... The evidence is that from time to time, he may have been called upon to assist those who were responsible for undertaking actions that effect CRS’s goals; yet he was always one or more steps removed from taking action that effect CRS goals or that bear such responsibility. ...

Because the court concludes that none of Doe’s five full-time positions with CRS directly furthered a CRS mission, and that each of his positions was one or more steps removed from taking the actions that effect CRS goals, the court similarly concludes that CRS has not met its burden to show that MFEPA’s religious entity exemption applies here. ...

Assuming without deciding that CRS has made the threshold showing of a burden on its free exercise rights by operation of MFEPA,.., the court concludes that CRS fails to demonstrate that MFEPA is not neutral and generally applicable in its application to CRS here.

Parents Lack Standing to Challenge Law Barring Schools from Disclosing Child's Change of Name or Pronoun

In Chino Valley Unified School District v. Newsom, (ED CA, April 18, 2025), a California federal district court held that plaintiffs, parents of school children, lack standing to challenge a California law that prohibits public schools from requiring disclosure to parents, without their child's consent, of their child's change of name or gender pronoun at school. Plaintiffs are "devout Christians and believe that God created man and woman as distinct, immutable genders." They contend that the law violates their free exercise rights and their right to control the upbringing and medical care of their children.  The court said in part:

While the Court has no doubt as to the concern that Plaintiff Parents have toward the implementation of AB 1955, Plaintiff Parents have not shown that they have suffered or will imminently suffer any form of harm as a result the Act.  For example, Plaintiff Parents do not allege that their own child has gone or goes by a different name at school, that their children’s school has deprived the parents of relevant information about their child, or that this is something that is likely to happen in the future....