In a message posted yesterday on Truth Social and X, President Trump congratulated newly elected Pope Leo XIV, saying:
Congratulations to Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, who was just named Pope. It is such an honor to realize that he is the first American Pope. What excitement, and what a Great Honor for our Country. I look forward to meeting Pope Leo XIV. It will be a very meaningful moment!
On Wednesday, the EEOC announced that it had filed a Title VII religious discrimination suit against two Marriott corporate entities that sell vacation timeshare programs for hotels and vacation clubs, saying in part:
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, management at Marriott Vacations Worldwide and Marriott Ownership Resorts initially allowed an employee, who is a Seventh-Day Adventist, a religious accommodation that allowed her to avoid Saturday shifts. After a change in management, the companies began scheduling her for Saturday shifts. After the employee made repeated complaints, they changed her schedule, negatively impacting her sales and commissions, and continued to schedule her for Saturdays, forcing her to choose between showing up to work and her religious practice. This led her to resign, the EEOC said.
As previously reported, in September 2023, the Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore filed for bankruptcy protection in advance of the Oct. 1, 2023 effective date of the Maryland Child Victims Act. That Act removed the statute of limitations for civil actions by victims of sexual abuse that occurred while the victim was a minor. However, in an amendment enacted this year (full text), the Maryland legislature reduced the amount of noneconomic damages that can be recovered in suits under the Act. The new limitation applies to actions filed on or after June 1, 2025. In In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore, (D MD Bkrptcy, May 2, 2025), a bankruptcy court judge issued an order allowing survivors of child sexual abuse to file and serve a complaint against the Archdiocese and its insurance companies in Maryland courts before June 1 so, if the bankruptcy reorganization is not completed, victims will not be bound by the new limitation on damages. Without this modification, the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the bankruptcy court's orders in the case would have prevented the filling of claims while the reorganization proceedings were pending. Baltimore Banner reports on the bankruptcy court's action.
In Gerwaski v. State of Nevada ex rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education, (D NV, May 5, 2025), a Jewish student at University of Nevada Las Vegas sued the university and its president over antisemitic treatment. The court dismissed all claims against the University on 11th Amendment grounds except those under Title VI and Title VII. Several claims, including plaintiff's free exercise claim, against University President Whitfield were dismissed, but without prejudice so that plaintiff could refile them alleging additional facts. According to the court:
Gerwaski is a Jewish student at UNLV who wears the Jewish skullcap, or kippah, at all times. Gerwaski serves in the UNLV student government and was hired as an employee at the UNLV Lied Library in June 2023. Gerwaski alleges that he was asked inappropriate questions about his Jewish heritage and sexual orientation during the library’s onboarding process and that he was “unjustly terminated” from that job in August 2023, “as a result of the blatant disparate treatment and antisemitism that was exhibited by supervisors.”... Gerwaski has also been exposed to verbal assaults by protesting members of [Nevadans for Palestinian Liberation] who made hateful antisemitic comments to him. Gerwaski has chosen to cover his kippah with a baseball cap or other head covering due to the antisemitic chants and chaos on the UNLV campus....
Whitfield argues that Gerwaski does not plausibly allege a free exercise claim because he alleges only that verbal harassment by non-parties caused him to choose to cover his kippah, not that Whitfield acted to burden his rights. Gerwaski responds that Whitfield fomented and encouraged antisemitic behavior on campus and ignored Gerwaski’s complaints, leading Gerwaski to begin covering his kippah....
... Gerwaski attempts to tie Whitfield’s toleration of protestors on campus to Gerwaski’s feeling that it was necessary to cover his kippah with a baseball cap to avoid conflict with those protestors. However, Gerwaski’s free exercise claim must be based on government action that substantially burdens his religion, not the actions of non-parties.... I grant Gerwaski leave to amend this claim against Whitfield if he can plausibly allege additional facts to support the claim and tie those facts to an ongoing constitutional violation for which he seeks injunctive relief.
In Doe v. Marion County, Arkansas, (WD AR, May 5, 2025), an Arkansas federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a suit brought under the Arkansas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. At issue in the case is the manner in which an Arkansas county coroner disposed of the body of plaintiff's father after the coroner was unable to locate any next of kin. The body was cremated. When plaintiff discovered this, she sued alleging in part that cremation violated her strongly held religious beliefs. In recommending judgment for defendants on this claim, the magistrate judge said in part:
Simply using the term "sincerely held religious beliefs" ... without stating any accompanying factual detail, is insufficient to state a plausible claim. See Stephens v. Legacy-GoHealth Urgent Care, ... (“[g]eneral references to Christianity.... fail to plausibly suggest that a plaintiff’s anti-vaccination beliefs are in fact religious”)... While it is not for the court to determine the reasonableness of Doe’s alleged religious beliefs, we are not required to take her conclusory assertions of violation at face value....
Even if Doe had pled facts sufficient to state an ARFRA claim, Defendants have sustained their burden of showing that their actions, in accordance with state law, were in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.... Burial is markedly more expensive, and there is no lesser restrictive means to further the government’s interest.... Requiring the state to bury all unclaimed bodies simply because an unknown family member might have a religious belief against cremation would certainly constitute an undue hardship....
[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]
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.
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.”
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.
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....
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....
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.
From SSRN:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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 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.
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.