3rd Circuit: Consular Decisions Cannot Be Challenged Under RFRA

 In Calvary Albuquerque Inc. v. Rubio, (10th Cir., May 6, 2025), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision upheld a consular officer's denial of an R-1 (non-immigrant religious worker) visa to a South African minister who wanted to serve as the worship leader at an Albuquerque, New Mexico church.  Plaintiff contended that the visa denial violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but the majority concluded that it could not reverse the decision of a consular officer under the consular nonreviewability doctrine. The majority said in part:

RFRA’s cause-of-action provision plainly does not expressly authorize judicial review of consular officers’ visa decisions.  Also, whether the provision stating RFRA applies to “all Federal law” expressly authorizes judicial review of consular officers’ visa decisions is ambiguous.  Applying statutory construction tools to that clause, we conclude that RFRA does not do so.....

Calvary argues the constitutional claim exception to the consular nonreviewability doctrine applies because it brought a free exercise claim under RFRA, and RFRA is analogous to a constitutional right.... Even if a RFRA claim could qualify for the exception, Calvary has not plausibly alleged that (a) the consular officer failed to provide a facially legitimate and bona fide reason to deny Mr. Green’s visa application or (b) the officer acted in bad faith....

Judge Bacharach dissented, contending that RFRA's language authorizes review of consular decisions.

Church's Removal of Congregant from Services Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

 In Devi v. Sacramento Bhartiya Sabha, (ED CA, May 2, 2025), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal of a suit against a church and the city by plaintiff who was removed from a church service by police serving her with a trespass notice at the request of church board members. The court said in part:

Plaintiff alleges that the Board of Trustees and the President of the Church defendant prohibited her from entering the Church and “exercising her rights to freely practice her religious beliefs and to her rights to free speech” under the First Amendment....  She alleges that she was removed from the Church because the Church defendant did not approve of plaintiff’s opinions and questions and was attempting to stop her from stating these opinions....  She alleges the Church defendant retaliated against her by preventing her from attending services because she expressed her opinions and concerns about the Church’s finances....

To state a claim for a violation of the First Amendment, plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show that defendants acted under the color of state law....

In order to successfully bring her claim, plaintiff has to show that there is significant state involvement in the private party’s actions.  Plaintiff has made no allegations that the Church defendant’s alleged decision to exclude her from the Church is a “traditionally and exclusively governmental” function.  She also still has not demonstrated that there was “significant” state involvement in the Church defendant’s decision to remove her from the Church.  Based on plaintiff’s allegations, the Church decided to call the police to remove plaintiff from the Church premises because she was trespassing.  To the extent plaintiff is alleging that the Church defendant was a state actor because it had plaintiff removed by the City of Sacramento Police Department, “merely complaining to the police does not convert a private party into a state actor.”

Supreme Court Allows Ban on Transgender Individuals Serving in Military to Remain in Effect While Appeals Move Forward

In United States v. Shilling, (Sup. Ct., May 6, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 6-3 granted a stay while appeals to the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court move forward of a preliminary injunction that, had it remained in effect, would have disqualified transgender individuals from serving in the military.  The Supreme Court's one-paragraph order stays the preliminary injunction granted in Shilling v. United States, (WD WA, March 27, 2025). The district court in granting the injunction had said:

The government’s unrelenting reliance on deference to military judgment is unjustified in the absence of any evidence supporting “the military’s” new judgment reflected in the Military Ban—in its equally considered and unquestionable judgment, that very same military had only the week before permitted active-duty plaintiffs (and some thousands of others) to serve openly. Any evidence that such service over the past four years harmed any of the military’s inarguably critical aims would be front and center. But there is none.

In its Application for a Stay of the Injunction, the military had argued in part:

Absent a stay, the district court’s universal injunction will remain in place for the duration of further review in the Ninth Circuit and in this Court—a period far too long for the military to be forced to maintain a policy that it has determined, in its professional judgment, to be contrary to military readiness and the Nation’s interests.

NBC News reports on the Supreme Court's order.

3rd Circuit: Class Videos on Islam Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Hilsenrath v. School District. of the Chathams, (3rd Cir., May 5, 2025), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that videos about Islam shown in a 7th grade World Cultures and Geography class did not violate the Establishment Clause.  The court focused on the Supreme Court's new "historical practices and understandings" test in Establishment Clause cases.  The court said in part:

This kind of historical inquiry “requires serious work. And that work is especially challenging here because “free public education was virtually nonexistent at the time the Constitution was adopted." But “[h]istorical tradition can be established by analogical reasoning,”...

... [The] videos were presented in an academic rather than devotional context, they do “not come close to crossing any line” separating permissible curricular materials from impermissible proselytization....

... [E]ven assuming the Establishment Clause requires equal treatment in primary and secondary school curricula, the record does not show favoritism here. Besides Islam, C.H. and his classmates were introduced to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. And the World Cultures and Geography course represented only a sampling of the expansive world religions curriculum offered at the School District of the Chathams....

...So assuming the Establishment Clause required the Board to treat religions equally, the record shows that it satisfied that requirement here....

Judge Phipps filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

This Establishment Clause challenge comes at a time when the “one-size-fits-all test” from Lemon v. Kurtzman ..., has been emphatically rejected, and there is no longer any lurking constitutional mandate of secularism in governmental affairs....

Thus, with the lifting of the constitutional mandate of secularism, teaching about religious matters in a public school does not violate the Establishment Clause. For that reason, the instructional materials about Islamic beliefs, practices, and modes of worship do not offend that constitutional provision....

Washington State Makes Clergy Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse With No Exceptions for Privileged Information

On May 2, Washington state Governor Bob Ferguson signed Senate Bill 5375 (full text) which amends previous law to now require clergy to report child abuse or neglect when they have reasonable cause to believe that it has occurred. The bill deletes the previous exemption for clergy, even when they obtain the information through a privileged communication such as in a confessional. The Catholic diocese of Spokane reacted to the Governor's signing of the bill with a message (full text) that reads in part:

This week, Washington State Governor Bob Ferguson signed into law Senate Bill 5375, which seeks to force priests to violate the Seal of Confession if child abuse is revealed within the celebration of the sacrament. In light of this, I again, wish to reiterate my previous statement regarding this matter: 

I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession – even to the point of going to jail. The Sacrament of Penance is sacred and will remain that way in the Diocese of Spokane....

The Diocese of Spokane maintains an entire department at the Chancery, the Office of Child and Youth protection, staffed by professional laypeople. We have a zero-tolerance policy regarding child sexual abuse.

OSV News reports on the new law.

UPDATE: In a statement (full text) issued May 4, the Archbishop of Seattle said that any priest who violates the seal of Confession in order to comply with the new law will be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Audra Savage, Slavery and the Forgotten History of Religious Liberty, (Forthcoming 2025-26 BYU Law Review)).
• Zachary Kayal, Church Autonomy and Collateral-Order Appeals, (125 Columbia Law Review Forum 50 (2025)).
• Walter E. Burke, The Establishment Clause and Progressive Ideology: Balancing Policy Goals and Constitutional Safeguards, (February 01, 2025).
• Brian Curtis, A Challenge To The Unavailability Of Damages Under RLUIPA, (Forthcoming in Volume 111 of the Virginia Law Review (2025)).
• Julia Fay, "Religious" Secularism and Legitimacy in American Democracy, (Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, Vol. 57.2, pp. 215-262 (2024)).
• Mary Graw Leary, Screaming Into The System: The Symbiotic Relationship Between Flannery O’Connor, Violence, And The Criminal Law, (April 08, 2025).
• Tracy L. Turner, Project 2025 and Due Process After Dobbs, (April 08, 2025).
• Jonathan L. Marshfield, Bringing Context To Legal Battles Over Trans Rights – A Reply To Professor Yeargain, (85 Ohio St. L.J. Online 1 (2024)).
• Bakht Munir, et. al., Exposing Islamophobia in Machine Learning: A Critical Analysis of the Existing Theories and Biases, (Center for Management Science Research, Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2025, Pp. 1-9).

From SmartCILP:

• M. Hamed Isar, Balancing Tradition and Inclusion: Framework Principles for an Afghan Accord, 33 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 97-168 (2024).

Catholic Leaders Criticize Trump Over AI Picture of Him as Pope

An unusual conflict between the President of the United States and Catholic leaders has surfaced.  It began last Wednesday with what, according to National Catholic Reporter, was seen as a humorous remark by President Trump to reporters:

"I'd like to be pope. That would be my number one choice," the president joked, before endorsing his friend, New York’s Cardinal Timothy Dolan for the Catholic Church's top job.

Then on Friday, Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social account and his X (formerly Twitter) account this AI generated photo of himself dressed as the Pope. It was also re-posted on the White House's X (formerly Twitter) account.

According to National Catholic Reporter in an article today:

U.S. President Donald Trump is facing a firestorm of criticism from leaders of the Roman Catholic Church after posting on social media a computer-generated image of himself as pope in full papal regalia as Catholics worldwide continue to mourn Pope Francis....

On social media, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois, said Trump owes an apology to Catholics.

"This is deeply offensive to Catholics especially during this sacred time that we are still mourning the death of Pope Francis and praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the election of our new Pope," Paprocki wrote.

Paprocki quoted a Bible verse from Galatians that admonishes, "God is not mocked." He said, "By publishing a picture of himself masquerading as the Pope, President Trump mocks God, the Catholic Church, and the Papacy."

The New York State Catholic Conference said on X there is "nothing clever or funny about this image, Mr. President. We just buried our beloved Pope Francis and the cardinals are about to enter a solemn conclave to elect a new successor of St. Peter. Do not mock us."

In Rome, Dolan, the archbishop of New York, was stopped by reporters and asked about it. "I hope he didn’t have anything to do with that," Dolan said in a video posted on social media by a multimedia journalist for the New York Archdiocese. 

"Are you offended by that?" a journalist asked. 

Dolan paused and replied, "It wasn’t good." He repeated that in Italian for Roman journalists and laughed nervously....

A Catholic News Service article quoting Cardinal Dolan was posted today on the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

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.”